CERTAIN TREATISES OF THE LATE REVEREND and Learned Divine, Mr john Downe Rector of the Church of Instow. in Devonshire, Bachelor of Divinity, and sometimes Fellow of Emanuel College in Cambridge. Published at the instance of his friends. Opera eorum sequentur cos. OXFORD, Printed by john Lichfield for Edward Forrest. A.D. 1633. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, the Lord Bishop of Exeter his worthy Diocesan; AS ALSO TO HIS FELLOW BRETHREN, THE REVEREND DIVINES of that Diocese, THE PUBLISHER OF THESE ENSUING WORKS makes bold to dedicate them in the name of his deceased Friend. The Contents of these treatises. 1 The funeral Sermon on behalf of the author of these ensuing works. 2 A letter of the Lord Bishop of Exeter concerning the Author of these works. 3 A treatise concerning the force and efficacy of reading. 4 Christ's prayer for his Church. 5 A Godly discourse of self-denial. 6 An apology of the justice of God. 7 An Amulet or preservative against the contempt of the Ministry. 8 The Dowe-like serpent. 9 Subjection to the Higher Powers. 10 A defence of the lawfulness of Lots in gaming against the arguments of N.N. 11 The real presence by Transubstantiation unknown to the ancient Fathers. 12 A defence of the former answer against the reply of N.N. THE FUNERAL SERMON ON BEHALF OF THE AUTHOR OF THESE ensuing works, PREACHED BY GEORGE HAKEWILL Dr OF Divinity and archdeacon of Surrey, a near neighbour and dear friend unto him. OXFORD Printed by I.L. for E. F. 1633. DAN. 12.3. They that be wise, or So much doth the original word bear and therefore our last translators have set it in the Margin. teachers shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many unto righteousness as the Stars for ever and ever. WORDS worthy to be drawn out in Capital letters of Gold, to be written with a beam of the Sun, or (as chrysostom speaks in another case) with a quill taken from the wing of a Seraphin: words which (as I am now informed) this dear and Reverend Brother of ours deceased, the occasion of this present meeting, above twenty years since made choice of, upon the like occasion, at the funeral of a worthy divine, M. Smith Preacher at Barstaple. well known to a great part here present; so that I cannot but herein observe the special favour of God pointing me as it were with the finger of his providence to the very same text, which himself made choice of upon the like occasion; but my doubt is, that neither the straits of time nor my slender abilities will permit me to handle it as I am assured he did, though I heard him not. They are the words of the Lord of hosts, the great jehovah, sent by an Angel to the Prophet Daniel highly favoured of his God, Ezech. 14.14. and 28 3. and as highly commended for his singular uprightness and great Wisdom, and by him as a principal Secretary of the holy Ghost left upon record to posterity for the Church's use, so that whether we regard the matter of them, or the Author from whom they are sent, or the Person to whom, we have every way great reason to afford them our best attention. Now that we may somewhat the better conceive the sense of them, it shall not perchance be amiss a little to reflect upon the words going before from the beginning of the chapter. Ver. 1. 1 At that time shall Michael stand up, the great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people, and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered every one that shall be found written in the book. V. 2. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Where by Michael (as I take it) mystically at least, if not historically Christ is meant, he being the great Prince both of his and daniel's people which is his Church; by his standing up, his coming to judgement, by the time of trouble, the day of the world's dissolution, which shall be indeed terrible and troublesome to the unbelievers and impenitent, but to the righteous a day of refreshing and deliverance, whose names are written in the book of life. Then many, that is all, of them that sleep that are dead and buried, and it may be rotten in the dust of the earth, shall be awaked or raised up by the power of God, some, that is, the godly to everlasting life, a life of joy and happiness, and some that is the wicked to everlasting shame and contempt, & not only so but to everlasting pain and torment; To which very words our Saviour seems to allude, joh. 5.28.29. The hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth, they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation. The day of judgement and the resurrection of the dead thus described, then follow the words of my text, resuming the former branch of the precedent division. They that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many unto righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. Which without straining kindly enough and of themselves fall asunder into two parts, the Persons to be rewarded, and the Reward; In the persons rewardable we have a gift required, and two acts issuing from this gift: The gift is wisdom, the first act issueing there from is teaching, the second turning of men unto righteousness by virtue of teaching: As our wisdom is from God, so it should be in part referred to the teaching of others, and our teaching be directed to the converting, or justifying of sinners as the Hebrew hath it. In the Reward we have the condition of it, shining, the different degrees of this shining resembled by the brightness of the firmament, and that of the stars, the latter far surpassing the former; and lastly the perpetual duration of both these degrees for ever and ever: I will begin with the gift to be rewarded, wisdom. Wisdom is of all virtues the most eminent and excellent, the most sovereign and divine, making us most like unto him who is the only wise God, she is the Mistress, the Lady, the Queen, the crown of them all, and where she is, none of them can be wanting, Nullum numen abest si sit prudentia, If they were all compacted into one body, one chain, one ring, the eye of this body, the medaile of this chain, the gem of this ring could be none other than wisdom. The kinds thereof are divers, being taken in the better sense, I will reduce them to four heads, Intellectual, Moral, Civil, and Spiritual; whereof the first consists in the activity of the rational powers of the mind, in the knowledge of the languages, and the liberal arts and sciences, the second in a graceful, a comely and discreet carriage of ourselves, the third in an orderly government of corporations and societies committed to our charge, and withal in a provident and honest care for those, who belong unto us, and depend upon us; The fourth and last, and chiefest in the knowledge of the true God, and in the serving of him in a true manner, with a perfect heart and a willing mind, which is the sum of David's Catechism composed for the use of his son Solomon. 1 Chron. 28.9. For intellectual wisdom, S. Paul himself was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel a famous Lawyer; that he had well studied the Greek Poets appears by his quotations of them upon several occasions, and had he been altogether ignorant of Philosophy, he could not at Athens (at that time the most renowned University of the world) have encountered the Philosophers both of the Epicureans and the Stoics, being sects of contrary opinions but bending and banding there forces both together against him. The first fruits of the Gentiles, who by the conduct of a star came from Persia to adore our Saviour, excelled no doubt in this kind of wisdom. Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and so we may presume was Daniel in that of the Caldaeans, once we are sure that Solomon even in this kind of wisdom outstripped all the Children of the East, he was perfectly skilled in all the properties of vegetables, of fowls, of fishes, of beasts and creeping things; whereas then the Apostle gives the Colossians a caveat and us in them that no man spoil us through Philosophy, his meaning is not to check true Philosophy (whereof singular use may no doubt be made in Divinity) but the errors of Philosophers, or their erroneous application of acknowledged truths; true Philosophy itself being indeed nothing else but a beam of the divine wisdom, the dictate of right reason subordinate to supernatural revelation: which I am confident he never intended to gain say or dissuade. Of Moral wisdom the same Apostle speaks Ephes. 5.15. Walk circumspectly not as fools but as wise; and again, walk in wisdom toward them which are without Col. 4.5 Of Civil our Saviour, Be wise as Serpents, but innocent as Doves; wise as Serpents for the just defence of yourselves, but innocent as Doves, that you do not justly offend others. Of spiritual the Prophet David, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, as good understanding have all they that do thereafter: And as wisdom excelleth among all other virtues so doth this kind of wisdom among all the other kinds. Velut inter ignes Luna minores. As doth the Moon to us when in a clear night she fills her circle, among the lesser stars; the rest if they serve as dutiful handmaids to her, may be very useful, but in case they should rebel against her, they may prove dangerous, hurts rather than helps, as a knife in the hand of a child, or a sword, of a madman. As then those other kinds of wisdom if rightly applied, are not to be excluded out of my text, so this kind is it, which without all doubt is chiefly understood, and which we are chiefly to labour for, and that we may so labour for it as we come to the end of our desires, the means to attain are these. Frequent and fervent prayer to which S. james directeth, us, If any lack wisdom let him ask it of God, without wavering and it shall be given him; A diligent and serious study of the holy scriptures whereby David professeth himself to have been made wiser than his enemies, his teachers, his ancients, A conversation comfortable to our knowledge, To him that ordereth his conversation aright, will I show the salvation of the Lord; A good use of afflictions schola crucis, schola lucis, the school of affliction is the school of wisdom: And lastly a daily meditation of our mortality, of the shortness of our lives, and the certain uncertainty of our deaths: Teach us O Lord to number our days that so we may apply our hearts unto wisdom. And as these are the means to attain it, so the fruits of it are good works, which our Saviour calleth oil in our lamps; and thereupon those Virgins who provided oil in their vessels for the supply of their lamps are by him termed wise; and S. james more particularly specifies those fruits; The wisdom saith he, which is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy & good fruits, without partiality, without hypocrisy: It is so pure as it is likewise peaceable, without partiality, and without hypocrisy: And as these be the precious fruits, so the end of this wisdom is salvation, from a Child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise to salvation. In reference both to the fruits and the end thereof, the wise Solomon hath given us in the third of the Proverbs, a singular description of this kind of wisdom, yet not single, but accompanied and attended on with the other kinds; Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, ver. 13. and the man that getteth understanding. V. 14. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof then the fine gold, She is more precious than rubies: V. 15. and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand: V. 16. and in her left hand riches and honour. V. 17. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her, V. 18. and happy is every one that retaineth her. Happy is the man that findeth her so he begins, and happy is the man that retaineth her so he ends; yea thrice happy shall he be, in his life, in his death & after death; in the course of his life she shall bring him true contentment, in the hour of death true comfort, and after death, true happiness. The first act issueing from wisdom is teaching, which though it be not expressed in the English text yet is it necessarily employed if not primarily intended in the original word, and in some translations we have it expressed in the very body of the text itself, as namely in that of junius and Tremellius, Erudientes teaching or teachers. Some there are who desire wisdom for their own private contentment only, this is vain curiosity; some that they may be known to be wise, this is vain glory; some that they may rise to honour by it, this is vain ambition; some that by it they may grow rich, this is vain covetousness; some that they may profit themselves in the way of godliness, this is Christian providence; and lastly some that they may do good not only to themselves, but to others by teaching, and this is Christian Charity. This the Angel foretells in the Chapter here going before, They that understand among the people shall instruct many; and again in the latter part of the verse immediately following my text, many shall run too and fro and knowledge shall be increased. This the Apostle exhorts unto, Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, what to do? teaching and admonishing one another; Nay this Solomon tells us his preacher practised, The wiser he was the more he taught the people knowledge. He that is wise only for himself is a candle his under a bushel, but he who is wise for others is a candle set in a candlestick, which giveth light to all who are in the house; he who is wise only for himself, is as a box of ointment shut and closed up, he who is wise for others, as precious spikenard poured out, which yields a sweet savour to all that are in the room; he who is wise only for himself, is a curtain or carpet rooled up, he who is wise for others, as a fair piece of Arras spread abroad and displayed to the view of all men. As God hath given us ears to learn from others, so likewise a tongue to teach others what we have learned: our ears being as the conduit pipes to convey it to the heart for our own good, and our tongue as the cock to convey it forth again from the cistern of the heart, for the good of others; And the tongue being thus employed is the Glory of a man; Whereas our wisdom being concealed is as a treasure that is hid; of which Siracides, what profit is there in either of them? Such wisdom is none other than the talon wrapped up in a napkin, which was not only taken from the owner of it, but himself cast into utter darkness. Neither let us fear that by drawing out our wisdom for the good of others we shall thereby draw it dry; one candle we see may serve for the lighting of a thousand and yet lose nothing of its own light; as the Widow of Sarepta at the Prophet's command, drew out of her cruse oil enough for the filling of many vessels, yet was not that in the cruse at all diminished; nay we are so far from diminishing the oil or light of our wisdom by this means, that it rather hereby increaseth, as the few loaves and fishes which were distributed among many thousands by God's blessing multiplied into twelve baskets full; or as vessels of gold or silver, of brass or pewter, the more they are used, the sweeter and brighter they are by teaching others we call to mind many things, which we had either altogether or almost forgotten, and not only so, but thereby we fix and imprint the deeper in our minds such things as we remember, and so are upon all occasions more ready to make use of them aswell for our own good, as the good of others. Now as this office or act of teaching is thus profitable both to ourselves and others: so is it to God most acceptable, as being in sundry places commanded by him, and commended unto us; Neither is it less honourable in itself then to him acceptable, whosoever to the doing shall add the teaching of his commandments, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Tell me I beseech you what were the Patriarches, the Prophets, the Priests, the Forerunner of Christ, the Apostles, the Evangelists, the Disciples but teachers? though David and Solomon were both of them great kings, yet is it doubtless no less honour to them to have been Teachers than kings; And for our blessed Saviour one special end as we know of his incarnation, why he was apparelled with our flesh, was, that he might teach; as he was a king to rule, and Priest by sacrifice to expiate, so likewise a Prophet to teach his Church; And surely he taught as never man taught, not as the pharisees faintly and formally, but as one having authority, all men wondering at the gracious words which as from an honeycomb dropped from his lips; in so much that a poor woman standing among the throng of the multitude, whom he taught could not hold, but cried out, Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck; When he left the world, the last legacy he bequeathed, was, Go teach all nations; and being ascended he sends down the Holy Ghost for the same purpose, not only to be a comforter but a teacher, according to that promise of his before his ascension, he shall teach you all things; And as both God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, the second and the third Person in Trinity are Teachers, so is God the Father to the first Person in the Trinity, They shall be all taught of God; joh. 6.45. Cathedram habet in coelo qui corda docet; He is Doctor of the chair in heaven, who toucheth and teacheth the heart Since then this office of teaching is so profitable both to ourselves and others, to God so acceptable, and in itself so honourable, Let him who hath this office wait upon his office, not fleecing but feeding the flock committed to his charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, And let men so esteem of us as of Teachers, dispensers of the mysteries of God; we desire not to be better accounted of, & so we desire to be accounted, we expect no more from you, neither can you in duty perform less to us. Philip King of Macedon held it a great part of his son Alexander's happiness, that he was borne in that age, in which Aristotle might be his teacher; Alexander again ascribed his being to his father Philip, but his well being to his master Aristotle; and Aristotle himself writes, that men can never yield sufficient thanks to the Gods, to their Parents, to their teachers: which if it be true of intellectual or moral or civil wisdom, then much more of spiritual. Let them who are taught know that they owe them, who teach them by labouring in the word and doctrine, a double honour; an honour of maintenance, and an honour of reverence: He who is taught, should make him who teacheth him partaker of all his goods; and not only so, but the very feet of them, who preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things, should be not only welcome but beautiful unto us▪ We should be ready if occasion so required with Cornelius to kiss the very ground they tread upon, nay with the Galatians to pluck out our very eyes to do them service; If they sow unto us spiritual things, let us not think it a great matter, if they reap our carnal things. 1. Cor. 9.12. The second act issuing from wisdom but by the interueining of teaching, is the turning of men unto righteousness; The principal part of our conversion standeth in faith, and faith cometh by hearing, now hearing there can not be without teaching, nor profitable teaching without wisdom; So that wisdom is as the root, teaching, as the stalk springing from this root, and this kind of turning as the flower shooting forth from this stalk I deny not but men may be and sometimes are turned unto righteousness by miracles, by extraordinary revelations, or the ministry of Angels, or that they who are not wise for themselves, by teaching may affect it in others, as Noah's carpenters built an Ark for the saving of others, being drowned themselves, and the brain imparts sense to the other members, being insensible in itself; I know that a key of iron may open a lock as well as of silver, and that water may be as commodiously conveyed through leaden as golden pipes; yet withal I believe, that Almighty God much rather and more frequently useth the ministry of those, who are truly wise and are turned themselves, for the making of others wise and the turning of them to righteousness, as water they say in its natural course cannot be brought to mount higher than the spring: so neither can a man well speak to the heart but from the heart. Our teaching then should not be for the winning of applause from men, or the gaining of credit to ourselves, but for the winning of glory to God, and the gaining of souls to him; The talents which he hath bestowed upon us and instructed us with, should be put forth upon interest not so much for our own worldly profit, as our master's best advantage. Generare sibi simile est perfectissimum opus naturae, saith the Prince of Philosophers, For a natural body to propagate another in the same kind like itself, is the most perfect work of nature, and so regenerare sibi similem est per fectissimum opus gratiae, for a regenerate man to be an instrument under God, or as God himself is content to speak, a fellow-workeman with him in the regeneration of another, is the most absolute work of grace; There cannot likely be a more apparent mark of a reprobate mind, than an endeavour to divert and turn men away from righteousness, a● the apostate Angels, which being fall'n from God, themselves labour by all means to plunge mankind in the same gulf of perdition with themselves; neither can there well be a surer pawn and pledge of a regenerate mind, than a study of drawing men to God, and of turning many unto righteousness. The fire hath in it an inclination of turning all things it toucheth into its own nature, and it cannot be, but an heart truly inflamed with holy zeal as with fire from heaven, should desire to make all it toucheth or comes near unto, like itself. The Alchemists they talk and brag much of turning iron into gold by virtue of the Philosopher's stone, as they call it, but sure it is, that the best Alchemy we can practise is the turning of men's iron hearts into the gold of righteousness and that by teaching, the true Philosopher's stone ordained by God himself for the transmutation of such metals; by it even whiles we walk in the flesh, but war not after the flesh, are we made partakers of the divine nature, we are transformed & metamorphized (as it were) from tares into wheat, from wolves into lambs, from kites into doves, from briars and thistles into fair and fruitful trees, to be transplanted into the Paradise of God, which all the teaching of the Gentiles could never effect; they might perchance turn men to a seeming kind of righteousness, but to true righteousness they did not, they could not. But this was it that the Prophet David in his teaching aimed at, and no doubt accomplished, Then shall I teach thy ways unto the wicked, and sinners shall be converted unto thee; the end of his teaching was the conversion of sinners, as they through the suggestion of Satan and wicked men (their own inbred corruption working therewith) had by sin turned themselves from the Creator to the Creature, so he by teaching endeavoureth their return back again from the Creature to the Creator. This was it which S. Paul proposeth to Timothy, and would have Timothy in his teaching propose to himself. 1. Tim. 4 16. Take heed to thyself and to Doctrine, continue therein, for in so doing thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee; Take heed to thyself, that so thou mayst save thyself; Take heed to thy Doctrine, to thy teaching, that thereby thou mayst save others. And this is it which S. james seems to commend unto us as a great work indeed; Let him know (saith he) that he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and hide a multitude of sins; Let him know that he hath done a great, a glorious, a noble & a worthy work, such a work as he hath great reason seriously to rejoice & triumph in, as no doubt S. Peter did in the conversion of those three thousand which by one Sermon of his were turned unto righteousness, more than if he had been put into possession of both the Indies or of all the Kingdoms of the world and the glory of them. It is worth our observation that in the message of the Angel touching the Baptist sent to his father Zachary, it is said▪ that he should have great joy and gladness and many should rejoice at his birth, and withal that he should be great in the sight of the Lord; now from whence should this joy arise to his parents; this comfort to his friends, this greatness to himself? It follows, many of the Children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God; that is, he shall by his teaching turn many unto righteousness, here than was matter indeed of true joy to his Parents, of true comfort to his friends, and of true greatness to himself; No marry ail then if our Saviour accounted this his meat; if the life of S. Paul was not dear unto him in respect of this, nay if he were willing to dye in this employment, Phil. 2.15. Though I be offered up upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I am glad; Finally he accounted this his hope, his joy, and the crown of his rejoicing at the coming and in the presence of the Lord jesus 1. Thess. 2.19. Then shall Andrew come in with Achaia by him converted to the saving knowledge of the truth, john with Asia, Thomas with India, Peter with the jews, and Paul with the Gentiles; and what shall we then plead for ourselves, if being called to yield an account of our stewardship we cannot bring forth so much as one soul converted by us in the whole course of our ministry? Surely it is either because we teach not at all, or our teaching is not grounded upon wisdom, or it is grounded upon carnal and not upon spiritual wisdom, revealed to us in the sacred oracles of God's word: Some there are who so are aloft in the clouds filling the people's ears with swelling words, and their heads with frothy speculations; Others, who feed them with the husks of unsavoury tales and jests: thus whiles the one sort seek to be admired rather then understood, & the other make themselves ridiculous rather than venerable, (both sorts so teaching as if neither the teachers themselves, nor the people taught had souls to be saved) they rather turn men out of the Church to Rome or Amsterdame, or harden them in their profaneness and irreligion, then turn them to righteousness; Yet let us not wrong the age wherein we live, nor slight the graces of God conferred on it: I am confident we may boldly affirm of it, that God gave the word and great is the company of the Preachers, never any age before in this kingdome, nor at this present any kingdom or country in the world, affording so many, so able, so faithful Teachers; and if many thereby be not turned to righteousness, it is their own fault, nay it serves to aggravate both their offence and their punishment, it takes away all colour from excuse, and adds weight to their condemnation; And so I pass from the persons rewardable to the reward itself, the second main branch of my Text. Though it be not lawful to work for the reward, yet is it not unlawful in our working to cast an eye upon the reward for the better supporting of our patience, and the cheering up of our faith and hope; Thus our Saviour set before himself the joy to come; his Apostle, the price of the high calling; and Moses his servant the recompense of the reward. Now in this reward we have, the condition, the different degrees in that condition, and the perpetuity of those degrees; first then of the condition which is shining, They shall shine. The shining light was at leastwise of all the visible creatures the first that Almighty God made, and among them all it is the most beautiful, the most cheerful, the most useful. Now it seems requisite and suitable that they who shine in wisdom here in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, should likewise shine in glory hereafter, that they who are filled with the light of knowledge, and imparted their light to others in the Church militant, should themselves be filled with the light of glory in the Church triumphant. We shall then behold him face to face, who is the light of the world, who lighteneth every man that cometh into the world, who is the father of lights, who is clothed with light as with a garment, and dwelleth in light that is inaccessible, which no man can approach or attain unto, and in his light shall we see light, nay in his light shall we be light. They looked unto him and were lightened▪ psal. 34.5. Even in this pilgrimage and valley of tears, with open face we behold as in a glass the glory of God, and thereby are changed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the spirit of the Lord 2. Cor. 3.18, much more than shall we be changed into the same image, when we behold him not in a glass, but as he is. The path of the just saith Solomon, Prov. 4.18. is as the shining light, which shineth more and more until it be perfect day our shining then is begun here in this life but the perfect day, the perfection of this shining is reserved for the next, here it is that the daystar ariseth in our hearts, and never leaves us till it turns us into stars; In which regard the seven Angels, that is the seven Pastors of the seven Churches are named stars. Rev. 1.16. And the twelve Apostles are represented by a crown of twelve stars, Rev. 12.1. but this was in regard of the present condition, the future both of them and all those who by their teaching should be turned unto righteousness, our Saviour himself resembles to the shining of the Sun, Math. 13.43. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the Sun in the kingdom of my Father: they shall shine, and that as the Sun; they shall shine forth, as the Sun when he darts his beams forth in their full strength at high noon. All the shining, all the glittering pomp and bravery of the great Monarches of this world at their highest festivals or greatest solemnities is no more to this future shining of the Saints then is the light of a dim candle to the brightest star, or the shining of a glow-worm in the night to that of the Sun when as a bridegroom he marcheth forth of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a mighty Giant to run his course. When Moses came down from the mount and from talking with God, his face shoes so bright as the Israelites could not behold the brightness of it but he was forced to cover it with a veil, that so he might talk with them; and of S. Stephen it is said, that all who sat in the counsel where he was convented and arraigned, looking steadfastly on him saw his face, as it had been the face of an Angel: now if it please God thus to confer such a wonderful measure of shining glory upon his servants here on earth, what shall we conceive he hath reserved for the glorified Saints in heaven? at the transfiguration of our Saviour, we read that his face did shine as the Sun, and his very raiment was white as the light, which Saint Peter standing by and beholding was so ravished as he talked of building tabernacles for Moses & Elias, not well knowing what he spoke, yet was all this but a type as it were or shadow of that glory and Majesty, with which he was afterward to be invested and to which we shall be conformed, for when he shall appear, we shall be like him 1. joh 3.2. We shall be then like him for that he shall change our vile bodies, and make them like his glorious body; these vile bodies of ours sown natural, shall be raised spiritual, sown in corruption, shall be raised in immortality, sown in weakness, shall be raised in power, sown in baseness, shall be raised again in glory, in shining glory answerable to the city in which they shall be placed, whose light is like to a stone most precious, even to a jasper stone, clear as Crystal, the streets thereof of pure gold as transparent glass, the foundations of the wall garnished with all manner of precious stones, the Saphyr, the Emerald, the Chrysolite, the jacinth, the Almethyst, and the like; the 12 gates of 12 entire pearls, such shall be the shining glory of the place, and that of the inhabitants thereof every way correspondent thereunto. Here we dwell God knows in a great deal of darkness, the darkness of error and ignorance, the darkness of sin, the darkness of misery, but then he who brought light out of darkness, shall turn our darkness into light, the darkness of ignorance into the light of knowledge, for than shall we know him as we are known of him, the darkness of sin into the light of holiness, resembled by those long white robes spoken of in the 17 of the Reuel●; and lastly the darkness of misery into the light of happiness. Then shall all tears be wiped of our eyes, we shall rest from all our labours, and not only so but enter into our master's joy: it is not said that our master's joy shall enter into us, but we into it, in regard of the fullness thereof, for in his presence is the fullness of joy, and at his right hand are pleasures for evermore: fullness of joy, not drops or showers of joy lightly to bedew or besprinkle us, but rivers of joy, floods of joy, even to bathe ourselves in. And look as unwilling as a natural man would be, who enjoys the light of the sun to return back again into his mother's womb, so unwilling would a glorified Saint be to return from this shining glory and fullness of joy to the honours and pleasures of this world. The several and different degrees of this reward are clearly represented unto us by the difference between the brightness of the firmament & that of the stars; They that be religiously wise, though they never have the function nor the gifts to teach, shall shine as the one: but they who have both the calling and ability to teach, and withal a blessing upon their labours thereby to turn many unto righteousness, as the other, as the brightest stars for ever and ever. I am not ignorant that some learned Divines have not only doubted of this disparity of glory in the Saints, but have denied it and disputed against it; yet those very men have confessed it to have been agreed upon by the general consent of the Fathers, which for mine own part I must profess I am unwilling to forsake, specially where the Scripture and reasons drawn from thence are so fair for it, and in the analogy of faith nothing against it. That there are diversity of gifts, and withal that we are to covet the best gifts, S. Paul hath made it evident, and our Saviour that of the seed which fell in good ground, some brought forth an hundred, some sixty, some thirty fold; and what they teach we find confirmed by daily experience. That there are different degrees in grace then, there can be no question, and I think as little that there shall be in glory, since grace is but a step to glory, and glory again the crown of grace; He who hath told us that in his Father's house are many mansions, seems to have intended not only a multitude in number, but a difference in order, and so did the ancients understand it, Let us hear one for them all, Apud patrem mansiones multae sunt, & tamen eundem denarium dispares laboratores accipiunt, quia uno cunctis erit beatitudo laetitiae, quamuis non una sit omnibus sublimitas vitae, saith the great Gregory, in the last chapter of the fourth book of his Morals, In my Father's house are many mansions, and yet the labourers, who entered the vineyard at different hours, received every one the same penny, because all shall enjoy the same happiness, though some be advanced to an higher pitch of glory; As in vessels some are bigger, some lesser, yet all are full to the very brim; and of eyes some are stronger, some weaker, yet all behold the same sun of righteousness, yet shall not all vessels of glory be capable of the same measure, nor all glorified eyes be fixed upon their blissful object with the same strength, said in eisdem mansionibus (saith the same Doctor) erit aliquo modo ipsa diversitas concors, quia tanta vis amoris in illa pace nos sociat, ut quod in se quisque non acceperit, hoc se accepisse in alio exuleet; But in these many mansions there shall be a friendly kind of diversity, because so forceable shall be the charity of the Saints in that eternal peace, that what every one hath not received in himself, he shall rejoice to have received in and by another. He that gained two talents to his Master, and he that gained five, they are both commended for their faithfulness, & both entered into their master's joy; yet as their talents were at first bestowed upon them according to their several abilities, so no doubt but their reward was in some sort proportionable to their several gains, which partly appears in this, that the talon which was taken from him who had but one, was conferred upon him who had gained five, and not upon him who had gained but two. It is by all Divines freely acknowledged that there shall be different degrees of punishments in hell, in as much as it shall be easier in the day of judgement for some, then for others; and some shall be beaten with more, others with fewer stripes; why not then different rewards, or rather different degrees of the same reward in heaven? It is true that for the greater terror the degrees of punishments are thus differenced in God's justice according to our deserts, yet may it well be that for our better encouragement likewise in his mercy he hath thus proportioned out these different degrees in our reward, not for any merit of ours, but partly thereby to quicken us in the way of virtue and godliness, and partly to show his truth, as in disposing of all things so of his rewards, as a man that hath many sons, and promiseth to proportion out his Legacies to them, as they shall shoot nearer or farther off the mark, set up by himself, conditionally that they hit the butt, is in a manner bound to bequeath him the fairest portion who comes nearest the white, not for the merit of the son, but by reason of his own promise. Little is the knowledge God knows, very little which we poor worms here crawling upon the face of the earth, have of things that are in heaven, farther than in holy Scripture they are revealed unto us yet thus much we know that those blessed ministering spirits, by their maker called Angels, because they are his messengers sent forth to minister for their sakes who shall be heirs of salvation, are not all of equal rank, some being Cherubins and Seraphins, others thrones and dominations, some of an inferior sort and therefore termed Angels only, others of a superior & in that regard styled Archangels: which how to interpret or accord, were they all equal for my own part I must profess I cannot possibly conceive. Now as in the life to come we shall be like the Angels free from the use and want of those perishable things which this life stands in need of, so likewise it is not improbable but the glorified Saints, may some way resemble the different orders in the several distribution of rewards; and to come somewhat nearer my text, and withal fully home to the point in hand, There is saith the Apostle, one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another glory of the stars, and one star differeth from another in glory; & then presently infers, so shall it be in the resurrection, as one star differeth from another in motion, in situation, in colour, in influence, in order (the stars in their order fought against Sisera) so likewise both in bigness and brightness: and so shall it be in the resurrection. Behold saith our Saviour I come quickly and my reward is with me to render unto every man according as his work shall be, not propter but secundum opera according to his works; according to the matter of his work so shall be the substance of his reward, according to the manner of his work, the kind of his reward, and according to the measure of his work the degree of his reward; As a man soweth, so he shall reap, that's for the kind; and he that soweth sparingly shall reap sparingly, he that soweth bountifully shall reap bountifully, that's for the degree. If a cup of cold water shall not pass without a reward, much less he whose whole study hath been to advance God's glory in the works of charity and piety. There is no question but the confessors who for the profession of the truth patiently endured stripes, banishment, imprisonment, confiscation of the goods and the like, and much more the holy Martyrs who cheerfully sealed it with their blood, shine more gloriously then ordinary Christians; There is no question but the Patriarches, & the Prophets, specially Abraham the father of the faithful, shine more gloriously then ordinary believers; no doubt but Lazarus and Abraham were both in glory, yet Abraham's condition was of the two, the more eminent; There is no question but the blessed virgin the mother of our Saviour, a chosen vessel full of grace, highly favoured, blessed among & above women; shineth more gloriously than Mary Magdalen or other women; There is 〈◊〉 question but the Apostles of Christ, who not only laid down their lives for the testimony of the truth, but were in a manner the first founders of Christian religion, and the Secretaries of the holy Ghost, being specially inspired for the penning and publishing of those sacred Oracles, which they recommended to posterity, and are now extant for our salvation, shine more gloriously then ordinary Professors; in which regard our Saviour at his coming to judgement assigns them twelve thrones, as assessors with himself in a special manner. Lastly there is no question but those faithful Pastors, who like sacred lamps spend their oil and consume themselves to ashes to give others light, and to direct them in the way to heaven by their pens and tongues, teaching and turning many to righteousness, shall shine more gloriously than those Disciples who by them are turned, but have neither faculty nor authority to teach, and by teaching to turn others. Here then is our comfort & encouragement▪ that howbeit from men we have many times very little thanks for our great pains in teaching, yea even from those we have taught, and endeavoured to turn▪ nay though instead of thanks, the world frown upon us and raise storms against us, yet our reward is the contentment of a good conscience, in the discharge of our duty here, and that shining crown of glory hereafter, laid up and promised to them who are faithful to the death who have fought the good fight, and have finished their course; Our trust & assurance is that the less thanks and reward we have on earth, the greater our reward shall be in heaven, and the more that those whom we have turned unto righteousness, shall increase in number, in knowledge and in obedience the greater shall the augmentation of our reward be▪ and last, if in glory we shall know one another as good Divines probably conjecture, for that we shall undoubtedly know our Saviour in regard of his humane nature, and the Apostles present at his transfiguration perfectly knew Moses and Elias, though they had never seen them before; if I say we shall then and there know one another, it cannot be but a great addition to our happiness to see and know them in the same state with ourselves, of whose conversion under God, we have been the happy instruments. The last considerable point in this reward is perpetuity, they shall shine as the stars for ever & ever; for though the degrees thereof be different yet are ●●●y all equal and agree in duration, and therefore are they all by the purchaser of them called mansions, not houses, because they everlastingly abide, or houses not made with hands but eternal in the heavens; for here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come, this world passeth away, with the lust and fashion thereof, but that which is to come is laid upon sure foundations, whose builder and maker is God, and as is the maker so is the city, & as the city so the citizens, & as the citizens so the state of glory, all correspondent, each to other, all everlasting, the shining is for ever and ever without variation, without diminution, without intermission. The moon is sometimes waxing and sometimes waning, but with these stars it is not so, they are always in the full; the sun itself is sometimes eclipsed by the interposition of the body of the moon between us & it, but with these stars it is not so, they never lose their light, nay those visible stars in the firmament which we now behold shining so brightly, shall one day fall from heaven, but these stars shall never fall, Stella cadens non est stella cometa fu●t, if they fall they were never stars, and if they be stars they shall never fall; Even th●●tarres fixed in the firmament of heaven (which are but shadows and resemblances of these blessed stars) in that ordinary course of nature wherein Almighty God hath set and settled them, could never of themselves either fall or fail, according to that of Siracides, 43.20. At the commandment of the holy one they will stand in their order and never faint in their watches; Agreeable whereunto is that of the Prophet David speaking of the kingdom of Christ, His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me, it shall be establshed for ever as the moon and as a faithful witness in heaven, 148 36. and in another Psalm, praise ye him sun and moon praise him all ye stars of light, He hath established them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass. Though then at the dissolution of all things, Ignea pontum astra petent, these stars we now gaze up on with a delight mixed with wonder, shall by the extraordinary power of that hand which made them, be again unmade and cast down from heaven, yet these wise, these teaching, these iustifijng stars resembled by them shall never faint but shine in the fullness of their strength for ever and ever, they shall never wander as the planets, but remain for ever as fixed stars; to them it shall never be said as to Lucifer, How art thou fallen from heaven O Lucifer, son of the morning Esay. 14.12. Adam might and did fall from paradise, The Angels both might & did fall from their first habitation; but these stars shall never leave their stations; If here they be preserved safe in the right hand of him who is Alpha and Omega the first and the last. Reuel. 1.16. much more shall they there be out of gunshot, out of all doubt or fear or possibility of danger, in this to they shall be like the elect Angels of God, which are now so confirmed by jesus Christ, the head of men and Angels in their blessed estate as they can never fall either from grace or glory. what a spur than should this be unto us that our pains in teaching and turning men to righteousness, as also the difficulties and the affronts which many times attend them, are for a time only but, our reward eternal; It is a di●ine saying of Seneca, Dolour sileuts est feramus, non gravis est patientia, sigravis est feramus non levis est gloria; If our burden be light let us endure it, our patience is not great, if great let us endure it, our glory is not light; I may add Non brevisest gloria, our glory is not short; 2. Cor. 4.17. Nay our light afflictions which are but for a moment work for us a far more excellent & eternal weight of glory; our light afflictions which are but for a moment an excellent, a more excellent, a far more excellent & eternal weight of glory; which is therefore called a crown of life, because this life in comparison of it is not Vita vitalis, scarce worthy of the name of life; everlasting life, the very life and soul, the period and perfection of all the Articles of our faith, being infinite degrees beyond the longest thread of this present life, or the life of the world itself, should it last many thousand years longer than yet it hath done; There is not so much disproportion betwixt the life of a gnat and an elephant, or betwixt the life of a Methusalem and a Child that is carried from the womb to the tomb, as is betwixt this present life of darkness, and that life of shining for ever and ever; betwixt two finites, be the one never so long, and the other never so short there is some proportion; but betwixt a finite and an infinite, be the finite never so long there can be no proportion, and consequently no comparison; In which regard as the shining dazzles our eyes, so doth the duration thereof infinitely exceed the reach of all mortal understanding and our deepest thoughts are presently lost and swallowed up therein, as in a bottomless gulf or endless maze. Though then the combat perchance be sharp, yet let us remember that our crown is immarcessible, a crown that withereth not, as those crowns or garlands of oak, of joy, of laurel, of myrtle which by the ancients were bestowed upon the conquerors in the public games; when the chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 1. Pet. 5.4. Though the race seem tedious and wearisome, yet let us remember that the crown (the prize of our running) is incorruptible, 1. Cor. 9.25. Every man that striveth for mastery is temperate in all things, now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible: The crowns of the greatest Monarches in the world though they last long, yet are they all but corruptible crowns subject to wearing, to foiling, to cracking, to stealing, and sometimes by iuvasion from abroad, or insurrection from at home, they are violently taken from their heads, or if their crowns be not taken from them, long it cannot be in the course of nature, before they may and must be taken from their crowns: but when this incorruptible crown shall once be set upon our heads by the hand of Almighty God, it shall never, it can never be again taken from us or we from it; as the figure of a crown is circular, having neither beginning nor ending, so this crown of immortality though it have a beginning, yet never shall it nor can it have any ending. I have now done with my text, and come to the application, though as unwilling to part from the one, as to undertake the other, but both must be done, and if I should hold my peace, these stones would speak. This dear, this reverend, and worthy brother of ours, who hath now resigned up his soul into the hands of his maker, & her presents his earthly tabernacle, the remainders of his mortality by us to be interred with Christian burial in assured hope of a joyful resurrection, might justly account it not the least part of his happiness, that he was brought into the light, during the reign of that truly noble and renowned Lady, Queen Elizabeth, and by that means was baptised in the same faith and religion in which he departed this life. He was descended of an honest, a virtuous, and religious parentage, brought up in a liberal and free manner, first in the country, and then in the University, where he received the highest degree that Mother of his could bestow upon him save one, but in the judgement of all that knew him, deserved that too better than many who have received it both before him and since him; so as whether his degrees more honoured him, or he them, as well by the exercise he performed for them, as by his sweet conversation and abilities in all kind of learning, is not easy to determine: by the divine Providence he was there incorporated into that seminary, which hath yielded many goodly plants to our Church, and among the rest our right reverend Diocesan, his contemporary and ancient acquaintance, He had to Uncle by the Mother's side that jewel of Prelates the mirror of our age, for sanctity, Piety, and Theology all in one, whom he proposed to himself as a pattern for imitation; He lived to see his children's Children, and his Elder sisters children's children's Children to his great comfort, and yet by God's blessing is his Father's Brother yet living too, and present at his funeral. Had his means been answerable to his worth, he had not lain in such obscurity as he did, but had doubtless moved and shined in a far higher and larger sphere than he did, yet God so blessed him with competent means, that he lived contentedly, brought up his Children in a decent manner, furnished himself with a fair Library, relieved the poor, was not wanting to his kindred that stood in want of his help, & for hospitality he was constant in it, entertaining his friends, and such as came to visit him in a cheerful and plentiful manner; But upon these I will not insist, choosing rather to come to those which are more proper both to him and my text: his intellectual, his moral, his civil, his spiritual wisdom, his teaching & his turning of many unto righteousness. First then for his intellectual wisdom; the sharpness of his wit, the fastness of his memory, and the soundness of his judgement were in him all three so rarely mixed as few men attain them single in that degree; His skill in the languages was extraordinary, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, and I think Italian; His knowledge in the liberal arts and Sciences was universal, Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric, Poetry, History, Philosophy, Music and the rest of the Mathematics; in some of which Sciences he so far excelled, that I dare say in these western parts of the kingdom he hath not left his equal: neither do I speak any thing to amplify by way of Rhetoric, I speak less than the truth. His moral wisdom appeared in the checking of his appetite by temperance and sobriety; free he was in the lawful use of God's creatures, but never excessive, nor ever could be drawn to it, either by example or persuasion: which in a constitution so crazy was no doubt under God a special means for the drawing out the thread of his life; in his carriage he was grave yet sociable enough, courteous yet without affectation or vain compliment, a sure friend to the utmost of his power, where he professed it, yet without flattery. His civil wisdom appeared in the government of his parish and his family, in the education of his Children and the Children of his friends upon special request committed to his charge, in his own matches and the matches of his daughters; and lastly in the preserving, managing and disposing of that estate which God lent him, in an orderly manner. His spiritual or divine wisdom appeared, in his great knowledge in the sacred scripture, in which with Timothy he was trained up from a Child, and as another Apollo's grew mighty in them; whereunto he added the help of the best Interpreters both ancient and modern, the serious study of the Fathers, the schoole-divines, the Ecclesiastical story, and the controversies of the present times, aswell with the Romanists as among ourselves, & that in matters not only of Doctrine but discipline; in all which he was so well studied and upon all fitting occasions so willing and ready either by writing or speech to express himself, as many, and those not unlearned Divines were content, nay glad to draw water from his well, and to light their candles at his torch; nay some of his adversaries in his life time, have in open pulpit since his death, to God's glory, their own comfort, and his honour confessed as much. But the highest point of his spiritual wisdom appeared in the practice of piety, in a due conformity of his actions to his speculation drawing out as it were a fair copy in the course of his life, of those wholesome lessons which he found in his books, form in his brain, and taught to others; And herein indeed do I take the very marrow and pith of spiritual wisdom to consist, in the possession and fruition of supernatural truths, according to that of the great Earl of Mirandula, Veritatem Philosophia quaerit, Theologia invenit, religio possidet, Philosophy seeks the truth, Divinity finds it, but religion possesseth it; Religion I say, which binds us to the performance of our duties to God and man. One main branch of this duty and effect of this wisdom was his Teaching; He taught every where & every way, by his example & by his pen, but specially by his tongue; by his tongue both privately and publicly, publicly by expounding, by catechising, by preaching: in which he was so diligent, that since his entering into the Ministry (which he often professed to be his greatest honour and comfort in this world) he waded through the whole body of the Bible, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the revelation. And as he was thus diligent in teaching, so was he constant in his course as long as his health and strength would give him leave, and I may truly say beyond his strength, resolving with that uncle of his no less good than great, that a General should die in the field, & a Preacher in the pulpit. The manner of his teaching was not by loud vociferation, or ridiculous gesticulation, or ostentation of wit, or affectation of words, but in the evident demonstration of the spirit and power, it was demonstrative, masculine and mighty, through God to the pulling down of strong holds, deep it was and yet clear, rational and yet divine, perspicuous yet punctual, artificial yet profitable, calm yet piercing, ponderous yet familiar, so as the ablest of his hearers might always learn somewhat, & yet the simplest understand all: which was a rare mixture, and in this mixture he ran a middle & moderate course, most agreeable to the Canons & constitutions of that Church in which he was borne and bred, betwixt the apish superstition of some, and the peevish singularity of others, betwixt blind devotion and overbold presumption, betwixt unreasonable obedience, and unwarrantable disconformity, betwixt popish tyranny grounded upon carnal policy, and popular confusion guided by mere fancy, the one labouring for an usurped Monarchy, and to turn all the body into head, the other for a lawless anarchy, and to have a body without a head. Now though in his teaching he ran this middle course, yet did it always aim not only at the information of the judgement, but the reformation of the will, the beating down of impiety, and the convincing of the conscience, to the drawing of his hearers as from ignorance to knowledge, and from error to truth, so likewise thereby from rebellion to obedience, from profaneness to religion; And truly I little doubt but many a good soul now a Saint in heaven did they understand our actions and desires, and withal could make known their conceits to us, would soon give us to understand that under▪ God he was the instrument for the turning of them to righteousness, and so for the directing and conducting of them to that place of their bliss; and as little doubt I but many a good soul who hears me this day, in secret and in silence, blesseth God and the memory of this good man, for that spiritual knowledge and comfort which they have received by his Ministry; once I am sure that a virtuous Gentlewoman of good note and rank, hath since his death by her letters written with her own hand to some of his nearest friends testified, her turning to righteousness to have been first wrought by his means; and no question but many others might as justly and truly do the like, were they so disposed, or occasion required it. This was the course of his life here, now for the manner of his departure hence; when his last sickness first seized on him, he accounted himself no man of this world; when he was in his best health though as a pilgrim he walked in it, yet as a soldier he never warred after it, but now being thus arrested and imprisoned he professed to his friends who came to visit him (holding up his hands to heaven) that though his body was here yet his heart was above, and consequently his treasure; for where a man's treasure is, there will his heart be also; He likewise assured us that though he saw death approaching, yet he feared it not, death being now but a drone, & the sting thereof taken out; during his sickness he made his household, his congregation, his chamber, his chapel, and his bed his pulpit, from whence he cast forth many hloy and heavenly ejaculations, and made a most divine confession of his faith, not only to the satisfaction and instruction, but admiration of his hearers; Among the rest two things there were, which he much and often insisted upon, the one that he hoped only to be saved by the merits of jesus Christ, the other that he constantly persevered in the faith and religion professed and maintained in the Church of England, in which he was borne, baptised and bred: and this he many times and earnestly protested in a very serious and solemn manner, pawning his soul upon the truth thereof. His glass being now almost run, and the hour of his dissolution drawing on (though his memory and senses no way failed him) he desired to be absolved after the manner prescribed by our Church, and according to his desire having first made a brief confession, & thereupon expressing a hearty contrition together with an assurance of remission by the precious blood of his dear Saviour, he received absolution from the mouth of a lawful minister, & having received it, professed that he found great ease & comfort therein, & withal that he was desirous likewise to have received the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, if the state of his body would have permitted him; & not long after imagining with himself, that he heard some sweet Music & calling upon Christ, Sweet jesus kill me that I may live with thee, he sweetly fell asleep in the Lord, as did the Protomartyr, who ready to yield up the Ghost prayed and said, Lord jesus receive my spirit. Thus he lived and thus he died, near approaching the great climacterical of his age; And by this time I am sure you find and feel with me that we have all a great loss in the loss of this one man; His flock hath lost a faithful pastor, his wife a loving husband, his children a tender father, his servants a good master, his neighbours a friendly neighbour, his friends a trusty friend, his kindred a dear kinsman, this whole country a great ornament; The king hath lost a loyal subject, the kingdom a truehearted Englishman, the Clergy a principal light, the Church a dutiful son, the Arts a zealous Patron, and religion a stout Champion▪ we have all lost, only he hath gotten by our loss, he hath made a happy exchange; instead of his congregation & singing of Psalms with them here, he is now joined to the congregation of the first borne, whose names are written in heaven, with whom he bears a part in the everlasting Hallelujahs; instead of the Church militant, he is inrooled in the Church triumphant, having his palm in his hand in token of victory; instead of his friends and kinsfolk here, he is become the companion of the blessed Saints and glorious Angels; instead of his wife and Children, and lands, and goods, and attendants here, he now enjoys the blissful vision of the face of God and the full fruition of jesus Christ; by means whereof no doubt he shines as the brightness of the firmament, nay as the brightest star in the firmament, and ●o shall shine for ever and ever; Sic mihi contingat vivere, sicque mori; God grant we may so live, as with him we may dye comfortably, and so dye as with him we may live again, & shine in glory everlastingly. Who so is wise will ponder these things, and they shall understand the loving kindness of the Lord; Consider then what I have said & the Lord give you understanding in all things. SACRAE TRINITATI GLORIA. This Sermon being presented to the view of the Right Reverend Father in God, the Lord Bishop of Exeter, together with the Author's purpose of publishing these ensuing works of his deceased friend, it pleased his Lordship to return this following answer, which together with the Sermon, may serve in part to let the world know his great worth, though in a manner buried in obscurity. Worthy Mr Dr Hakewill; I Do heartily congratulate to my dead friend and Colleagian, this your so just and noble a commemoration; It is much that you have said, but in this subject no whit more then enough; I can second every word of your praises, and can hardly restrain my hand from an additional repetition; How much ingenuity, how much learning and worth, how much sweetness of conversation, how much elegance of expression, how much integrity and holiness have we lost in that man? No man ever knew him but must needs say that one of the brightest Stars in our West is now set; The excellent parts that were in him, were a fit instance for that your learnedly defended position of the vigour of this last age, whereunto he gave his accurate, and witty astipulation. I do much rejoice, yet, to hear that we shall be beholden to you for some mitigation of the sorrow of his loss, by preserving alive some of the post-hume issue of that gracious and exquisite brain, which when the world shall see, they will marvel that such excellencies could lie so close; and shall confess them as much past value, as recovery; Besides those skilful and rare pieces of Divinity tracts, and Sermons; I hope (for my old love to those studies) we shall see abroad some excellent monuments of his Latin Poesy; in which faculty I dare boldly say, few, if any, in our age exceeded him. In his polemical discourses (some whereof I have by me) how easy is it for any judicious Reader to observe the true Genius of his renowned Uncle, Bishop jewel? such smoothness of style, such sharpness of wit, such interspersions of well-applyed reading, such grave and holy urbanity: shortly (for I well foresaw how apt my Pen would be to run after you in this pleasing tract of so well deserved praise) these works shall be as the Cloak, which our Prophet left behind him in his rapture into heaven; What remains but that we should look up after him, in a care, and endeavour of readiness for our day; and earnestly pray to our God, that as he hath pleased to fetch him away in the Chariot of Death, so that he will double his spirit on those he hath thought good to leave yet below: In the mean time I thank you for the favour of this your grave, seasonable, and worthy Sermon, which I desire may be prefixed as a meet preface to the published Labours of this happy Author; Exon Palace Mar. 22. 1631. Farewell from your loving friend and fellow-labourer, jos. Exon. TWO TREATISES 1 Concerning the force and efficacy of reading. 2 Christ's prayer for his Church. OXFORD Printed by I.L. for E. F. 1633. ACT. 15.21. For Moses of old time hath in every City them that Preach him being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day. OMitting for the present whatsoever else might profitably be observed out of these words. I will at this time only inquire these three things. The first whether preaching in this place be distinguished from Reading. The second whether Reading be a kind of Preaching. The third, whether reading be an ordinary means to beget Faith and convert a soul. The truth of which three questions while I endeavour to resolve not so much with heat and vehemence of passion, as strength and evidence of reason: let me entreat you all, Right Worshipful Reverend and beloved Christian brethren, but for the space of one hour to lay aside all prejudice, and to hear with indifference what I can say. When I have done, if my resolutions appear to be grounded upon sound and convincing arguments, I hope you will according to your duties readily yield unto the truth: if otherwise, every one may still abound in his own sense and ye have free liberty to carry home the same opinion ye brought hither with you. In the mean season I beseech the Lord to direct your hearts, and to give you a right judgement in all things. The first Quere is, whether preaching in this place be distinguished from reading. In resolving whereof I will not be so peremptory as some are: only I will show what I conceive and upon what grounds. This I conceive, that Preaching here is no other than the public Reading of Moses: and I conceive so upon these grounds, because there appeareth nothing in the words to force a distinction, but rather something importing an identity. That there is nothing to enforce a distinction appears, if either ye consider the context and reason of the words, or the text itself and the form of words used therein. First therefore as touching the Context, It is manifest by this particle For, that these words are inferred as a reason upon some thing premised. Thus. Some of the believing Pharisees had taught the brethren at Antioch, Act. 15.5. that except they were circumcised and together with the faith of Christ observed the ceremony of Moses they could not be saved. verse. ●. Whereof after much altercation and dispute the Apostles being advertized, vers. 4.6. they summon a counsel at jerusalem to stint the quarrel. vers. 7. etc. In it Saint Peter expressly affirmeth, that salvation is impossible by the law, and that the grace of Christ is of itself every way sufficient which sentence Saint james having readily approved, he adds withal, vers. 13.14.15. that for the settling of the Church's peace, it would not be amiss to write unto the believing Gentiles, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, vers. 19.20. from fornication, from things strangled, and from blood. For, saith he, Moses of old time hath in every City them that preach him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day. Now how comes in this For? and what is that conclusion whereof this is a reason? here I find difference of opinions: but among them all three seem to me to be most probable. Of them all take which you list, and the public Reading of Moses alone will be a sufficient proof thereof. The first opinion is Saint Chrysostoms', in whose judgement, Saint james would prove this conclusion, that it is altogether needless to write unto the believing jews' touching abstinence from these things. And why is it needless? Because they perfectly know these things already. But how came they to the knowledge of them? By hearing Moses publicly read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day: for he in such clear & express terms hath delivered the same, that whosoever heareth cannot but take notice thereof, as besides sundry other places you may see in Num. 25. and Leu. 17. which you may peruse at your better leisure. Num. 25.1. &c Leu. 17.10. The second opinion is of the French translators: this. Ye may not think that by this decree the law of Moses will be vilipended or disesteemed. Why? Because the Reading of Moses, saith the marginal note, will not be discontinued in the assemblies of the believing jews, neither will the believing Gentiles make scruple to assist them therein. The third and last is the common opinion, and carries with it best likelihood: this. We must for a while condescend to the believing jew in observation of the ceremony, lest we scandal them, and cause them to stagger in the faith. The reason, because they know by the weekly reading of Moses that it is his ordinance: to whom they are so strongly addicted, that they cannot yet without danger to their faith be weaned from him. And thus take which of these conclusions you please, and the sole reading of Moses is a sufficient proof thereof. You will say, so is interpretation also. I deny it not: only I affirm that from the context or reason of the words ye cannot force a distinction between Preaching and Reading. No more can you from the Text, and the form of words used therein. Indeed if the words were in the original as Hieron. to whom we are referred englishes them, In Preachers plea. debellatum esset, the war were ended. For thus he renders them, Moses was both read and preached, than which a plainer distinction cannot be. Whether so reading he intended the advantage of his cause, I will not say. Demortuis nil nisi bene: he was while he lived a grave and reverend preacher. Howbeit the original reads otherwise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath them that preach him being read. Beza turns it thus cum legatur, seeing he is read: others thus, in that, or inasmuch as he is read. Which how it can enforce a distinction I see not: rather it imports the contrary, that Preaching here is no other than Reading. So seemeth the Syriack also to understand it, Moses hath Caroze, Heralds, or Criers in the Synagogues, who read him every Sabbath day. And indeed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used (whence also Caroze as Casauhon thinketh fetcheth its pedigree) properly imports the art of a Praeco or Crier. In Baron. ●1 16. n. 23. Duplic. cont. Stapl. l. 1. c. 6. Now Praeco a crier, as Whitaker observeth Recitat edicta non exponit, barely reads or recites his Prince's edicts, doth not expound them. If then I should say, the King hath in every town those that preach or publish his proclamations being openly read by the Towneclarke upon market days: could any man of sense or understanding distinguish the preaching or publishing of the proclamation from the public reading thereof? No more can he Preaching from reading in this place: for the case is exactly the same. Add hereunto that such Preaching even in the judgement of the adversary is here meant, as was ever performed in every Synagogue upon every Sabbath day. Now that Moses of old was read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day, Act. 13.27. it is clear in my text. So is it also Act. 13.27. the voices of the Prophets are read every Sabbath day. But that Moses in every Synagogue every Sabbath day was interpreted and Sermons made upon him, doth not appear, and I think will hardly be proved. For as for those places where in mention is made of exhortation after reading, they are to little purpose: inasmuch as they only show what sometimes and usually, not what was always done. In the Sabbatticall year upon the feast of Tabernacles, Deut 33.10.11 the law was commanded to be read: of expounding there is no mention at all. Nay seeing then the whole law was entirely to be read, it seems very probable that in such ascantling of time there could be no expounding. In the days of good King josiah, the book of the law which Hilkiah had found in the house of the Lord was read in the ears of all the people: 2 King. 23.2. but of exposition not a word. N●h. 8.3. Ezra also the Priest read the law before the congregation from morning till midday: but that his reading was interrupted by interpretation is not so clear as you are borne in hand. For first, if any did interpret it was the Levites: but that Ezra the Priest, and a Scribe so learned should be put to the inferior and base office of reading, and the Levites but petty ones, in comparison advanced unto the higher and worthier of interpreting, seems altogether improbable. Secondly, where it is said the Levites caused the people to understand the law: that it seems was done not by way of expounding, but by causing the people to stand still in their places, and to give due attention. As for that which follows they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading, it is in the original thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may fitly be rendered they made attention and understood the reading: referring the distinct reading of the law unto Ezra, making of attention to the Levites & understanding to the people. And thus do sundry worthy Divines conceive of this place. All which not withstanding, because divers other great clerks, & amongst the rest our late translators are of another mind, I may not be too peremptory herein. Yet will I be bold to infer, that unless they can prove that sermons were every Sabbath made in every Synagogue (which I think they will never prove) Preaching in this place will be all one with Reading. So will it be also, unless they can show that whatsoever was read was expounded: for it seems by the text that whatsoever was read was preached. But as with us, the Psalms and Lessons and Epistles and Gospels with other parcels of Scripture read every Lord's day in our Churches, are not nor cannot all at once be expounded, but only some small portion: so the Petaroths or Sections of the law and the Prophets, Elias Levita. ordained by Ezra of old to be read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day, are as they are set down by the son of Maimonie so large, Ben. Maimon. that they could not possibly, at leastwise conveniently be interpreted at one time. I presume therefore all was not interpreted which was read: yet all was preached which was read: wherefore Preaching cannot in this place be interpreted but only Reading. Besides these reasons, lest any should think I stand single, and by myself alone, it may please you to know that I am backed with the authority of sundry grave Divines: of whom I will name two only, with either of whom that one to whom we are referred is no way to be compared. Apol. against T.C. The one is reverend Whitgift late Archbishop of the See of Canterbury, in his defence against Cartwright: the other is learned and profound Hooker, the hammer of our schismatics, whose books they are afraid to look upon least they be confounded, Eccles. Polit. l. 5. in his Ecclesiastical Polity. These both affirm Preaching in this place to be no other than Reading. Whitgift adds, that all expositors he could meet withal were of the same mind: so that in effect I am warranted with a cloud of witnesses. Against all which, besides confident asseveration, I find nothing opposed save one only passage out of the second tome of Homilies: Hom. 1. p. 1. wherein say they, our church doth principally fasten on this text to prove a distinction between Preaching and Reading. Whereunto I answer, that the intent of the Homily is to show the right use of Churches, and that in them the word of God should be both read and interpreted: and to this end are alleged sundry passages out of the Acts, together with this text, all which jointly but not severally conclude what was intended. For Act. 13.5. speaketh only of Preaching, this text only of Reading, and Act. 13.14. of both. But how soever the Homily understand this place, sure I am both this book and the Church of England account of Reading as an effectual Preaching, as shall anon in the due place be demonstrated. In the mean season I hope I may be bold out of all these premises to infer this conclusion, that if any have publicly said, that▪ whosoever collecteth out of this text Reading to be Preaching is no better than a seducing spirit, gives the lie to his mother the Church of England, yea to God himself, and is mad with reason. He himself at that time spoke more out of Passion than reason. For a seducing Spirit is not every one that erreth and delivereth what he conceiveth to be true: but he who out of the love of error endeavoureth to lead others astray from the truth. And o thou glorious Archangel of the Church of England Whitgift, wert thou also a seducing Spirit? Or was it true of our Church in thy time which the Prophet spoke of his, Doctores tui Seductores tui, thy teachers are thy seducers? And thou profound Hooker, than whom never any man spoke with more reason, wert thou also mad with reason? And ye both when ye undertook the defence of the Polity and government of your Mother, did you under pretence thereof give the lie unto your Mother, yea even to God your Father also? What shall I say? The Lord forgive these intemperate speeches. The best buckler to defend off such venomous arrows is a good conscience and Christian patience. And thus armed I pass to the second part. The second Quere is, whether Reading be a kind of Preaching. That Reading should be called or counted a kind of Preaching there is a generation that at no hand can endure. Such language they hold to be a foul Solecism in divinity: but the doctrine itself a great impeachment unto Preaching. What, say they, when our Saviour commanded his Apostles to go into the World, Mar●. 16.15. and to preach the Gospel unto all creatures, is it not a sottish thing to think he means no more than this, go learn to read well, then call the people together, and read the word unto them? When St Paul saith to the Romans, How can they preach except they be sent, doth not this imply that Preaching is more than bare Reading? 2. Cor. 2.16. When the Prophet Esay said, How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace, etc. Do you think he spoke this of one that should come with a book in his pocket and read unto Zion? Who, saith S. Paul, is sufficient for these things? Now if Reading be Preaching who is not sufficient for these things? 2. Tim. 4.1.2. Finally, When S. Paul chargeth Timothy to preach the word, to be instant in season, & out of season, to reprove, rebuke, exhort withal long suffering and doctrine: What? means he no more than this, go take a care to read well? These are their choicest objections out of Scripture: unto all which I briefly answer thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: I looked that they should punctually conclude, Ergo Reading is no kind of Preaching, but they instead hereof substitute another conclusion, Reading is not all that Preaching that is required in a Minister, which who denies? For we freely confess more is required then ability to Read: except only then when sufficient Ministers, or there where sufficient maintenance cannot be had. In such a case better a Reader than none, to publish God's word, to baptise children, to administer the Communion, and to perform other necessary duties, which but by a Minister may not be done. As for the descant upon this plainsong, what? did Christ command no more than to come with a book in ones pocket, and to read fairly? from what spirit it proceeds I will not say: sure I am it is a stale popish jest. Thinkest thou, Defence. eccles. author. l. 3. c. 7. saith Stapleton unto Whitaker, when Paul preached unto the Gentiles to convert them, he delivered them the book of the old Testament, or recited and read the same unto them? But besides testimony of Scripture they vouch the authority of the book of Homilies and Canons: whereof the one distinguisheth Readers from Preachers, which were great wrong unto them if they be Preachers. The other forbiddeth Ministers to preach in private, whereby I may not so much as read a chapter in my house if Reading be Preaching. This argument I think themselves make as little reckoning of, as they do of the authority whereon it is grounded. For it is a plain fallacy of Equivocation, and they must needs be very blind if they discern it not. For when our Church putteth a distinction betwixt Readers and Preachers, she understandeth Preaching in the strict and special signification for one kind of Preaching, namely interpreting or making of Sermons. And in this sense it is most true Reading is not Preaching: and very simple must he be that holdeth bare Reading to be the making of a Sermon. But when we say Reading is Preaching, we understand Preaching in a more large and general signification, as by and by you shall hear: whereunto because they speak not, they speak not to the purpose. Furthermore, this doctrine, say they, is a maintainer of Idlers, and dumb dogs, and soul murderers, & what not? Pax mifrater, good words I pray you, for these are but the evaporations of a hot brain. far be it from us by any means to maintain any such kind of Cattle. We wish with all our hearts, that not only all Ministers, but all the people of God could prophesy. Howbeit, were there not an idler, nor dumb dog, nor soule-murtherer, as these men are pleased to term them, in our Church: yet if public Reading continue, and I hope it will continue so long as the Sun and Moon endureth, Reading will ever be a kind of Preaching. In the mean season I could wish that they who are so eager against dumb dogs, would sometimes remember to turn the edge of their tongues against bawling curs also, with whom the Church of God is as much pestered as the other: those I mean who behave themselves so audaciously & confidently in the pulpit, yet have neither the learning nor the wisdom to speak humbly, discreetly, and to the purpose. One argument yet remains, Preaching was before the word written: but before writing Reading could not be: Reading therefore cannot be Preaching. Pardon me my brethren if I call a spade a spade, and in plain English say, this is a mere Popish argument. For in like manner reasoneth Charron a French Papist, Trois verities l. 3. c. 4. par. 3. to prove that Faith is not taught by Writing or Reading. The Scripture, saith he, came but late into the world: and the world had been without it for the space of two thousand five hundred years, namely all the time from Adam to Moses. If then in the mean while the Faith was published to the world and received by it, it could not be by the word written or read (which then was not) but only by the word preached and heard. But in the same sort, as Francis junius confronteth Charron, Confront. ibid. so will I answer these men. First, although before Moses no part of the Canon was written: yet happily there might be other godly and holy books penned, out of which the true faith might be learned. Secondly, grant that at that time nothing at all was written: yet the argument followeth not, The world was a long time without Scripture, Ergo neither now is it the purpose of God to teach by Writing or Reading. For contrarily, seeing it hath pleased God of his goodness at length to commit his word unto writing, it is manifest that he now intends men should learn the knowledge thereof even by Reading also. Wherefore I conclude, that as before Writing there was happily but one kind of preaching, namely speaking to the ear: so now since the time that God's word hath been written, there are more kinds than one, namely speaking to the eye too. Thus having removed these rubs as it were out of our way, let us proceed in God's name to maintain the truth propounded, that Reading is a kind of Preaching: wherein I must entreat you again & again not to mistake me, as if I held bare Reading to be all that Preaching which is required in a Minister; or that it is the making of a Sermon, that is, the expounding of a Text, deducing of doctrines, and particular application of the same by way of exhortation. far be such vanity and folly from me. What then? Surely by Preaching generally I understand the publishing, or notifying, or making known of God's word. Which seeing it may be done by sundry ways & means, as inwardly, outwardly, publicly, privately, by word, by writing, by speaking, by reading, by Catechising, by conference, and the like: I boldly affirm that there are divers kinds of Preaching, and that Reading is one of them. And lest any man should think I stretch the word Preaching too far: be it known unto you that I do no more than Martin Bucer sometime Divinity Reader in Cambridge, as he is cited by D. Whitgift, hath long since done before me: for as he granteth that there are sundry sorts of Preaching, so among them he reckons Reading for one. And whatsoever some punies avouch to the contrary, I dare engage all the poor skill I have in languages upon it, that the original words usually translated Preaching, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the old Testament, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the new, are not in Scripture, no nor in other writers restrained unto the mouth or scholying upon a Text, but are of far larger extent and capacity, even such as we have above delivered. So that (to come to an issue) when we say reading is a kind of preaching, our plain meaning is, that it is a way or means by which the word of God is pub●lished and made known. Which being so, what is it, my brethren, that so much offendeth and angreth you? Is it the inconvenience of the terms, or the untruth of the proposition? For indeed I find you so variable and uncertain that I know not well where to find you. Is it the language that seemeth so harsh and jarring to your ears? It seemed not so unto the ancients, who made no scruple to speak so. Learned Hooker who carefully inquired into this business, hath observed to my hands diverse passages. The Council of Vaux saith, Canon. 4. If a Presbyter or Minister cannot through infirmity preach by himself, he may preach by his Deacon reading some Homily of the Fathers. Where note by the way that if reading an Homily be Preaching, Reading of God's word is much more. Can 11. The Council of Toledo also calleth the Reading of the Gospel Preaching. So doth Isidor and Rupertus likewise, the reading of a Lesson in the Church. And a right learned Lawyer of our own country hath observed it also in the Law, In ans. to the Abstract. Quae Prophetae Vaticinati sunt populis praedicare, id est, legere: to preach, that is, to read unto the people what the Prophets have foretold. Thus they. But if it be so inconvenient to say Reading is Preaching, why do you yourselves call Preaching Reading? For do you not in ordinary speech call your Preachers Lecturers? And what is that but Readers? And when you would know who preaches, is it not your manner to ask who reads? And the Sermons of a Preacher, do you not style them his Lectures or Readins? But to leave descanting, besides that the Original words, as we have said, include both Reading and Sermoning: let it in particular be observed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in Scripture indifferently used for either. As namely in one place of Esay it is said, Esa. 29.12. The book is delivered to him that is not learned saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Read this I pray thee: Id. 61.1.2. but in another place, the Lord hath anointed me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach or proclaim the acceptable year. Neither is it to be neglected that from the self same root cometh also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scripture. Thus the ancients stick not to call Reading Preaching. Neither stick they to call Writing Preaching. justin Martyr saith, Paraen. ad Gentes l. 17. Strom. l. 1. p. 1. that the very writings of the Gentiles preach judgement to come. Clemens of Alexandria, Ambo verbum praedicant, etc. Both preach the word, one by writing, the other by voice: and the science of Preaching availeth both ways, whether it work by the hand or by the tongue. S. Augustine also, Doct. Christ. Prol. They who understand these things produnt ea caeteris, notific or preach the same unto others either by speaking or writing. Unto these ancients our modern writers agree. Duplex est praedicandi modus Sermo & Scriptio, there is two sorts of Preaching, Cont. Bellar. contro. 1. Speech and Writing, saith junius. Confront. l. 3. c. 4. And again, who dare say S. Paul preached not when as he wrote unto the Corinthians, woe is me if I preach not the Gospel. In Rhem. Test Ro. 1. 15. Dr Fulke, S. Paul did preach the Gospel also by writing. Dr Whitaker, The Apostles were commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach or make Disciples, Cont. Bellar. con. 1. q. 6. c. 9 tum voce tum scripto, both by voice and writing. De Idol. Eccl. Ro. ep. ded. Dr john Reynolds, I who now cannot with my voice as heretofore through the infirmity of my body, evangelizo manu ac scriptione, preach yet with my hand and writing as well as I can. Advers. Cost. de Script. De S. script. Gomarus, There are two kinds of Preaching Enuntiation and writing. Zanchie not only approveth it but proveth it too, Go teach all nations, saith Christ: here is a duty commanded. Lo I am with you to the end of the world, this is a promise annexed. With whom is he? with the Apostles. How long? unto the end of the world. Therefore must they preach to the end of the world. They cannot by word of mouth, for they must die. By Writing therefore. Finally the book of Homilies, and the learned Translators of our last Bible affirm the same. The book of Homilies, in the Law written with his own finger, Against peril of idol. p. 1. & that in the first table, & in the beginning thereof, is this doctrine against Images not briefly touched, but at large set forth and preached. The Translators, Preface to the Reader. The seventy Interpreters, prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written Preaching, as S. john Baptist did among the jews by vocal. And thus if either ancient or later Divines known how to speak fitly, it cannot be inconvenient or scandalous to call Reading or Writing Preaching. What then? Is there untruth in the proposition? If so, then have all those worthies, above cited spoken not only inconveniently but untruly also. But I beseech you my brethren, do you indeed think Reading is no way a publishing or making known of Gods will? I can hardly believe it. When God first commanded the law, and afterward the Sermons of the Prophets, and successively the whole Canon of Faith to be written, the old Testament in the vulgar language of the jews, the new in the tongue that then was most generally understood: what was his intent and purpose therein? Was it not to endoctrinate his Church, that we through patience & comfort of the Scripture might have hope? Rom. 15.4. When the Septuagint by the special providence of God translated the books of the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greek, and the whole body of Scripture under Christianity was so carefully turned into all languages: was not the one done for the information of those jews that were Hellenists and understood not Hebrew, and the other for the instruction of such Christians as knew no other but their mother tongue? Doubtless it was. For translation say our last learned translators, Preface to the Reader. is it that openeth the window to let in the light, that breaketh the shell that we may eat the kernel, that putteth aside the curtain that we may look into the most holy place, that removeth away the cover of the well that we may come by the water. Furthermore, what is the reason that so many grave and learned men have in all ages published so many excellent books? and that Preachers also not content to have spoken by word of mouth unto their auditory, cause their Sermons to be set forth in print unto the world? Is it not that they who never knew nor heard them may yet reap benefit by their writing? True it is that neither Original, nor Translation, nor any book whatsoever can avail, if it be locked up in a chest, Deut. 13.11. & 17.1. & 6.6. or laid on a desk, and never be opened or looked into. God therefore commanded in the old Testament that the law should be read both publicly & privately: joh. 5.39. and Christ hath ordained the same in the new. And S. Paul when he wrote his Epistles, meant not that they should lie still under seal: Col. 4.16. but, saith he, when this Epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans: and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laeodicea. 1 Thes. 5.27. And again, I adjure you by the Lord that this Epistle be read unto all the holy brethren. According to this commandment hath the practice both of the jewish and Christian Church ever been, Act. ●. 27.15.21. and is duly continued amongst us to this day. Now all this cui bono? and to what end such a world of books, but that by reading them we may attain to knowledge? Surely if we poor scholars were no better furthered in our studies by Reading then by Sermons: small would be our knowledge, and poor God wot the entertainment ye were like to receive from us. Our Saviour Christ thought that Reading might instruct, Mat. 24.15. when he said Qui legit intelligat, Eph. 3.4. let him that readeth understand: and Saint Paul when he wrote, By reading ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ. But what need we to multiply arguments, seeing it is not only confessed that Reading is after a sort a publishing of God's word, but also such a publishing as prepareth way unto faith, and furthereth it when it is obtained, which cannot be but by teaching and notifying the truth. I conclude therefore that reading is a means whereby the will of God is made known, and consequently is Preaching. Which if any yet again purpose to gainsay, let me entreat them, not to say one thing, to wit, that Reading is not Preaching, and to mean another, thus, Reading is not Sermoning, or all the Preaching required: but to speak to the purpose, and punctually to demonstrate, that reading is not a publishing of God's word, which I know they can never do, and I think they will be ashamed to go about. And so I pass from the second unto the third part. The third and last Quere is touching the virtue and efficacy of Reading, whether it be an ordinary means to beget faith and to convert a soul. That it should have such a faculty is with much confidence denied: Faith and conversion by all means must be restrained to Sermons and the Preachers mouth. Some little of their holy water sprinkle are they content to bestow upon reading. It may prettily fit a man to hear a Sermon, and further him when he hath heard: it may serve to nourish, set forward, and increase faith when it is gotten, but to begin, to breed, to work faith where it is not, that belongs unto a Preacher, nothing can effect it but a Sermon. If we say many have been converted by reading only, as namely St Augustine, Confes. l. 8. c. 12. if either we may believe himself, or Martyr, jewel, and others testifying of him: and Antony the Eremite, who as Hierom saith, was brought to the faith lectione Evangelicâ by reading the Gospel: and john Isaac a jew both by his birth and religion, Cont. Lind●n who professeth that he became a Christian by reading the 53. of Esay: In vita sua. and junius, who if I misremember not imputeth his own conversion to the reading of Saint john's Gospel: and finally many of our forefathers, unless we will damn them all into the pit of hell, who living in the blind times of Popery, came to the light of the truth, as Mr Foxe saith, Acts & Mon. either by reading themselves, or hearing others read, Preach. plea. yea, as Hieron himself confesseth, by parcels of Scripture, the writings of good men, conference with others though seldom and secret, nay by knowing little more than the Lords prayer: these, I say, and sundry others if we object unto them, their answer is ready, it was Extraordinary, Def. of Admon. it was miraculous. For ordinarily reading saith T. C. cannot deliver a soul from famishment, from the wolf from destruction: Preach. plea. yea, saith Hieron, knowledge so gotten is but vain jangling, and swimmeth in the brain, but converts not the heart. So that had we verbatim written all those heavenly Sermons which St Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles preached among them: had we that famous Sermon of St Peter by which three thousand souls at once were added to the Church: Act. 2.41. nay had we all the gracious words sanctified by our blessed Saviour's own mouth while he lived here in the flesh: yet could they not beget faith or convert a soul, but only extraordinarily, and by way of miracle. A strange and incredible assertion, and they had need to be armed with mighty demonstrations to persuade it. Let us therefore examine the force of them. First they urge that of Elihu in the book of job, job. 33.23.24 If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand to show unto man his righteousness: then is he gracious unto him, and saith, deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom. Here deliverance is by a messenger: this messenger is a minister, and that not a Reader but Preacher, there being in jobs time no Scripture and consequently no reading. Whereunto I answer first, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies also an Angel, & that thereupon some interpret it of a good Angel, others of the Angel of the covenant, rendering the words thus. If there be an Angel speaking for him, and showing for man his righteousness. If so, as it is very probable, then is the argument of no force, here being no speech of a Minister but mediator, nor of a Preacher speaking to man, but of an advocate interceding for man. Secondly, be it that a Preaching Minister is meant, yet not every one, but one among a thousand. For to say that not one among a thousand Ministers, but one Minister among a thousand men is understood, is too sleight. Mercer is of another mind; and Oecolampade conceives it of a grave, intelligent, and wise teacher, such as is rarely to be found. And so by this reckoning Faith should be tied very s●ort: and the Sermons of vulgar and ordinary Preachers should not be able to beget Faith, Lastlie, he that attributeth such efficacy to Sermons, doth not so doing deny it unto other means: and who, Contra Char. l. 3. c. 4. saith junius, having any Christian sense or zeal dare say that Faith is not to be advanced by all means? yea, but in jobs time Reading could not be a means. True: yet it followeth not but now it may be a means. Then it was not when there was nothing to be read: now it is as we have showed, the whole Canon being written. Prov. 29.18. In the next place they urge that of Solomon, where there is no vision there the people perish. here by vision vocal preaching is meant: but without vision no salvation, Ergo nor without Preaching or Sermons. I answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or vision imports not the act of the seer or a Sermen: but the object or thing which he sees. Otherwise when it is said, the vision which Isaiah saw, we might read it thus, the Sermon which Isaiah saw: Esaiah. 1.1. & so to see a vision shall be no other than to make a Sermon, which is absurd. By vision then are we to understand the law, as it is in the latter clause of the verse, or the revelation of Gods will: as if the wise man had said, where God revealeth not himself there the people perish; which is undoubtedly true. And as undoubted is it that God revealeth himself by more ways then by Sermons. Howbeit I deny not but in some sense it may be truly said where vocal Preaching is not there the people perish: not for that they want the Ordinary means as long as they have the written word, but because of their negligence and retchlessness who of themselves will not search the Scripture, nor seek the truth until others bring it home unto them. Thirdly they object that of the Apostle, It pleased God by the foolishness of Preaching to save them that believe; 1. Cor. 1.21. where, say they, Faith and Salvation are tied unto Preaching. But first I deny that Preaching is here the making of a Sermon: for it is not in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports not the act of Preaching, but the object or thing preached. Duplic. cont. Stapl l. 2. c. 10 Hence Whitaker expresseth it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is preached: and Zanchy yet more manifestly by Doctrina Evangelica, De S. Script. the doctrine of the Gospel. And this indeed seems foolishness unto the natural man, yet being known, by what way soever, it worketh Faith and is the power of God to salvation. Secondly suppose that preaching of Sermons were here meant, yet what consequence is this, Sermons breed Faith, ergo Reading doth not? For both may. This is their solemn error they labour to show what virtue sermons have, but never show that such virtue belongs to Sermons only. Lastly they object that of S. Paul to the Romans, Rom. 10 13.14 How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a Preacher? Here Invocation is chained to Faith, Faith to Hearing, and Hearing to Preaching. This is their Achilles, and therefore will we endeavour to give it full satisfaction. First then grant that Faith dependeth upon such Preaching as may be heard, yet this lets not but it may be the effect of reading: for when the word is publicly read, I hope it is heard also. But I answer secondly, and more roundly to the purpose, that Hearing in this place betokeneth not only the outward act, or, as Philosophers call it, passion of the ear: but whatsoever else is analogical and proportionable thereunto, as namely Reading, and Seeing, and the like. And herein, lest any should think me singular, or to maintain a strange Paradox, it may please you to know that I am warranted both by the language of holy Scripture, and the judgement of our best Divines. In scripture, Ps. 19.1.2.3. the heavens and the firmament are said to have a speech: and when by seeing and contemplating them we learn the invisible things of God, Rom. 1.20. we are said to hear their voice? The word written hath in like manner a mouth, Deut. 17.11. 2. Thes. 2.8. Act. 13.27. Rom. 10.8. joh. 19.37. Rom. 3.19. Heb. 12.5. Rom. 9.27. joh. 5.39. Heb. 4.12. Luc. 16.29. Gal. 4.21.22. a voice, a speech given unto it, whereby it speaketh, it cryeth, it testifieth: and when we look upon it or read if for our instruction we are said to hear. They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them, saith Abraham in the Parable: and S. Paul, Do ye not hear the Law? Scriptum enim est, for it is written. And if as Cyprian saith, When we read God speaketh unto us, how can it be but that in reading we hear the voice of God? When we receive a letter from our friend, we are said to hear from him: why not from God also when we read his letter? For so the Father's style the Scriptures. Certainly our worthiest Divines conceive of hearing no otherwise in this place. Confront. l. 3. c. 4. Learned junius, It will be said Faith cometh by hearing: the answer is ready, Hearing is of the word whether it be spoken or written. Ibid. And again, As the word spoken and written differ only in this, that the one is sounded in the air, the other is apparelled in white paper, and guarded with black lines, to the end one may see it, and hold it by the coat, which pronounced only would fly away: so hearing and seeing in regard of the effect is all one. Writing to speaking, and seeing the book to Hearing is analogical. So junius, De verb. scrip. Zanchie, Legendo Scripture as audimus, In Reading we hear the Scriptures. In Rhem. Test. Rom. 1.15. Dr Fulke, S. Paul did preach the Gospel also by writing, and the people did hear by reading. D. Whitaker, Dupl. contr. Stapl. l. 2. c▪ 10. De script. q. 5. c. 8. arg. 2. writing is the imitation of speech, auditur ergo, therefore it is heard. And the same D. Whitaker interpreting these very words, Faith cometh by Hearing limiteth it not unto the outward ear, but extendeth it thus, ex auditu, id est, ex sensu Scripturae rectè percepto, by Hearing, that is, by understanding the right meaning of Scripture, Cont. A.D. c. 9 by what way soever. This exposition Wotton approving, he further adds, that it is not the Apostles purpose to disable the word Read, but partly to show that the means of salvation proceed from God alone, partly that no man might excuse himself by ignorance, God having sent his servants into all the world: without which sending none might preach either by word or writing, and without which preaching no man could believe. And thus have you both the true meaning of this place,, and a full answer unto the objection. Other passages besides these do they urge: but being either of the same nature, or of less moment, I will not trouble you with them. Now it remaineth briefly to resolve and confirm the truth. Wherein to the end it may appear, that what I have often maintained in private, I am neither afraid nor ashamed publicly to profess in pulpit: I here openly proclaim, and confidently affirm, that Reading is an ordinary means to beget Faith and convert a soul. Which that I may the more clearly and distinctly demonstrate, give me leave in few words to open the terms & meaning of the Proposition. First then by Faith I understand not only that whereby we yield assent unto Scripture the Principle of Faith that it is God's word, & to all those articles of Faith specially fundamental established by this principle, which we call Historical or Dogmatic Faith: but that Faith also whereby we are justified, and by which we accept Christ to be our Mediator, King, Priest, and Prophet, together with the effects thereof, Repentance from dead works, and new obedience. All this I comprehend under the name of Faith. Secondly by Means I understand such middle or secondary causes as come between the first cause and the effect for the producing of it. And these means if they be praeter ordinem besides the perpetual order placed in things, there being no coherence between them and the effect, or no aptness in them to produce the effect, then do we call them Extraordinary: and such was the feeding of Elias by Ravens and the curing of the blind man by daubing clay upon his eyes. 1. King. 17.6. joh. 19.6. But if they be secundum ordinem according to the perpetual order established in things, having in them an aptness and fitness to produce the effect, then are they called Ordinary: and such is the nourishing and sustaining of man by bread. Now the sovereign & prime cause of Faith is God. God worketh it by his word. The word worketh as a Doctrinal or Moral instrument by way of argument & persuasion. Before it can persuade it must be revealed. God therefore revealeth it, and that sometimes without means, by an immediate impression of light and grace upon the soul, Act. 2.4. Act 9.3. etc. Gal. 1.12. as he did unto the Apostles on the feast of Pentecost, and to S. Paul in his journey towards Damascus. But generally and for the most part he revealeth it mediately and by the intervention of means. The Ordinary means is that which is settled and established to continue in the Church for ever. That is the Ministry of the Church, whose office is by all means to publish the word, whether by Writing or by Speaking, and this again whether by Reading or Interpreting. All which, if they have in them an ability and fitness under God to convey into our hearts the knowledge of his word, then undoubtedly are they all Ordinary means to beget faith. And such an ordinary means among the rest do I affirm Reading to be. Which having thus fully explained the terms, I now come to demonstrate: and first in that faith whereby we yield assent unto the Scripture that it is the very word of God. The last and highest principle whereinto Faith is resolved, and whereupon it finally stayeth itself is the Scripture: yet is it not so unto us until we be persuaded that it is the word of the eternal verity, which can neither err nor lead into error. But how come we to be. persuaded hereof? By Sermons? I deny not but Sermons are under God a sufficient means to persuade it. But when did you ever hear a Preacher treat of this argument, or go about to prove it? Or if any have done it, did they not persuade you to that whereof you were already persuaded? Yes questionless. For besides the testimony of the Church, in the public reading of the Scriptures as the word of God, there shineth forth in them such a Majesty and divineness as is not to be found in other writings: and when by Reading yet take notice of so many oracles, and miracles, and predictions, and sundry other things far exceeding the power of nature, Dupl. cont. Stap. l. 2. c. 6. doth not reason itself tell you, saith Whitaker, that they must needs be of God? In the way to the true Ch. The same saith D. john White Many times Pagans and Atheists without the Ministry come to Faith by only Reading: whence but being convinced by Scripture itself? If then the very Reading of holy Scripture may bring unto our knowledge such remonstrances and arguments as convince the mind that it is the word of God, certainly it is an ordinary means to beget this faith: for what can be more ordinary than arguments and demonstrations. But the former is true, as we have proved: therefore the latter also. If so, then much more is it apt and fit to beget that Faith whereby we yield assent to those articles which are built upon Scripture: especially if two things may be granted, first that it is perfect, secondly that it is facile & easy to be understood. That it is all-sufficient and containeth whatsoever is necessary either to be believed or done unto salvation, none but a Papist will deny. And surely if it be defective, either it is from God, or from the penmen. Not from the penmen, for they were but hands, and could not but write what the head indicted to them. If from God, then either because he could not, or because he would not perfect it. To say he could not, is to derogate from his wisdom and power: to say he would not is to detract from his love, and to tax him of envy. But what need me to spend more time in this point, seeing I now deal against those who challenge unto it such a perfection, that nothing may be done, no not to the taking up of a straw, without warrant from it. The Scripture than is perfect: is it also facile and easy to be understood? Aristotle saith of his Acroamaticks that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, published in that they were written, not published because of their darkness. In the books of Heraclitus there was so great obscurity, that he was therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Obscure. May we justly say the same of the Scriptures, and the penmen thereof? Surely it cannot be denied but that some things are difficult: yet as there are deep places where the Elephant may swim, so there are shallow where the Lamb may wade: and as there is harder meat which the strong man may chew, so there is milk also which the infant may suck. And I boldly affirm that all fundamental points and duties necessary to salvation are in Scripture so clearly delivered, that if they were written with a sunbeame they could not be more clear. In Ps. 26. God hath spoken so, that not a few, but all may understand, Ep. 3. saith Hierom. He speaketh to the heart both of learned and unlearned, Dial. cum Try phon. saith Augustin. Scriptures are so plain as they need not to be expounded, L. 7. in julian saith justin Martyr. They exceed no man's capacity, saith Cyril of Alexandria. They are easy, not to the wise only, but women and boys, Hom. 1. in joh saith chrysostom: And again, They are easy to be understood, to the Servant, to the Countryman, to the widow, to the stripling, De Script q. 2. c. 14. arg. 5. to him that is very simple. The same say all our Divines against Papist. The Scripture, saith Whitaker, may easily be understood of any if he will. And Zanchie, De verb. scrip. will a Father speak obscurely to his children in things concerning their salvation, that they shall need to seek interpreters? No verily. But God being wise was able to express himself, and being good he would: and it was necessary to speak plainly in things so necessary. If then, to come to a conclusion, Scripture contain all what is necessary, and that in such plain terms that whosoever readeth may easily understand: how can it be but Reading should be an apt and fit means, and consequently an ordinary means to beget this Faith? For if once we believe that Scripture is the word of God, we cannot but yield assent unto those verities that are so plainly delivered therein, and which we know to be witnessed by the truth itself. The same do I also affirm of that Faith which we call justifying, and of the fruits thereof, Repentance and New obedience, that the Reading of Scripture is an apt & fit means to beget that also. For it presenteth unto us store of strong motives to persuade, sweet promises to allure, terrible threatenings to affright, notable examples to imitate, and the like: than which there cannot be a better outward means, and there needs no more but the inward concurrence of God's spirit to work a perfect conversion. Read among other places the 28 of the book of Deuteronomie, ●ut. 28. and then tell me whither the Sermons of any man, nay whither the tongue of men and Angels be able to persuade more effectually. Sermons you say ordinarily beget Faith, work Repentance, and breed sanctity and newness of life: not so Reading. May it please you then to tell us for our better satisfaction, what such coherence there is betwixt Sermons and Faith, which is not betwixt it and Reading? And what that intrinsical and proper quality of Sermons is whereby Faith is begotten which is not also to be found in Reading. Is it in the doctrine and matter of Sermons? It is the very same which we read. Is it in the arguments and motives whereby they persuade? We read either the same, or as forcible in the Scripture. What then? Is it in the utterance, voice, gesture, behaviour, or credit of the Preacher? Much less: for than should we be beholding for our Faith to accidents more than substance, Cor. 2.4. & to the plausible enticements of humane wisdom, rather than the evidence & demonstration of the spirit. Wherein then lies the virtue? Forsooth in God's blessing: for Preaching is the ordinance of God, and he hath promised to bless it. But stay, my brethren, is not Reading God's ordinance also? And doth God, having imprinted in it such an aptness and fitness ordinarily to beget Faith, either curse his own ordinance, or suspend the operation of it so, as it shall never work but only extraordinarily? What shall I say? When they have answered what they can unto the question, the sum of all, as Hooker observeth will be this, Sermons are and must be the only ordinary means, but why and wherefore we cannot tell. And so I pass from the first argument, drawn from the aptness and fitness of Reading to produce all these kinds of Faith. Now in the second place I dispute ex concessis, from that which is yielded and granted by the adversary. First it is granted by Hieron, and we have proved it by the testimony of M. Fox to be true, that many of our forefathers in the blind time of Popery were converted to the true Faith by reading only. This, say they, was extraordinary: but I infer that therefore it was ordinary. For if reading be excluded, & sermons be the only ordinary means, it will follow that the Church at that time was without the ordinary means: for wholesome Sermons than were not to be had. But it is a strange point in Divinity that the Ordinary means should at any time fail in the Church: and I presume when that faileth the Church of God will fail also. If so, then is there some other ordinary means besides Sermons; and what can that be but the written word and the Reading thereof? It is further granted, and that rightly, that whosoever readeth the Scriptures, or heareth them read, is thereupon bound to believe. And this is so clear a truth, that Whitaker could not forbore to charge his adversary Stapleton with much folly for holding the contrary: Dupl. contr. Stapl. l. 1. c. 9 Sic tu planè desipis, saith he, Art thou so very a fool as to think that the word of God hath no authority, or bindeth no man to believe, but then when it is preached? Certainly if the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles was to be believed when it was delivered by them in their Sermons: it is as much now to be believed when it is conveyed unto us by way of writing and reading. Whereupon saith Calvin Although the Apostles be dead, yet their doctrine liveth & flourisheth, 2. Pet. 1.15. and it is our duty to profit by their writing as much as if themselves were now publicly speaking before our eyes. Unless therefore God's word cease to be his word when it is read, an obligation in reading is laid upon us, to yield all credence and obedience unto it. Now God bindeth not but by a commandment. He commandeth therefore to believe by Reading. What? Doth he command us to believe by a means that is utterly unable and unfit to work belief? And doth he daily and hourly tie our Faith unto that which he means not to bless unto that end, but once as it were in an age and extraordinarily? Questionless, seeing God hath ordained that his holy Scriptures be ordinarily read both in public and private, and hath bound us all to believe whensoever we either read them or hear them read: it cannot be but that Reading is an ordinary means to beget faith, and that God will always vouchsafe to bless his own ordinance to the same end. In the third place I urge the testimony and authority of holy writ. But happily so doing I may be counted in the number of those vile men, who like venomous spiders suck poison out of the sweetest flowers. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the die is cast: and angry speeches may not hinder me from maintaining truth by the word of truth. When all Israel, saith Moses, is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose: Deut. 31.11.12. thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of his Law. Here in express terms the Reading of the law is commanded: and it is particularly commanded to this end that men may learn thereby. What? the fear of God, and obedience to the Law. God therefore hath appointed Reading to be an Ordinary means of conversion. It is answered that such Reading is meant as was accompanied with interpretation. So they dream indeed: but in the text there is no mention of interpretation. Neither is it likely, seeing now the whole law was to be read at once, as is above said, and the scantling of time would hardly bear any exposition. Howsoever, sure I am the holy Ghost ascribeth the effect unto Reading, and I think he both knew and meant what he said. jer. 36.2. etc. In the Prophecy of jeremy God commandeth the Prophet to write all his Prophecies in a book, that all the house of judah might hear them read, for it may be, saith God, that hearing they may return every man from his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin. According to this commandment jeremy dictates all the Prophecies unto Baruch, Baruch writes them, and being written reads them in the house of the Lord. Here again Reading is commanded by God, and to the same end, that the people thereby might be moved to repentance. To this they answer, first that God speaketh after the manner of men. True, when he saith it may be, as if he knew no more than man what the effect would be. Yet is it plainly intimated that Reading is an ordinary means of repentance. Secondly, say they, jeremy had preached the same before, and so they are Sermons that are commanded to be read. Be it so. Yet than the very Reading of Sermons may work Repentance, which the Preaching of them could not. To say nothing that these Sermons written were Gods word both for matter and manner: so that if the Reading of them might be effectual to conversion, the like efficacy cannot reasonably be denied unto the Reading of that written word which now we have. Lastly, say they, this was extraordinary, for jeremy was in prison and could not come to preach. It is untrue that jeremy was now in prison: for then the Princes would not have said unto Baruch, V. 19 Go hide thee thou and jeremy, and let no man know where ye be. And whereas jeremy saith, V. 5. I am shut up I cannot go into the house of the Lord, the best Expositors understand it of some other impediment, and not imprisonment. But be it that jeremy was in prison, yet is the Reading of his prophecies no more extraordinary than the Reading of any other book of Scripture, nor the Reading, of these less effectual than of them. To let pass sundry other passages of Scripture, I urge in the last place that of Saint john, joh. 20.31. These things are written that ye might believe that jesus is the Christ the son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name. Here writing is made the means of believing, as believing is made the means of life everlasting. But Writing without Reading is void and of no effect: the meaning thereof is as if he had said, These are written to the end that by reading them ye may believe. For to restrain it thus, These thing are written to the end that a Preacher by discoursing or making Sermons upon some parcels of them may work Faith in you, is too absurd and shameless: although I deny not that Sermons are an excellent means to beget faith also. Unto the authority and testimony of Scripture I add the consent of ancient Fathers: who although they be but little reckoned of by some children of these times, yet have ever been of great credit with those that are wise and learned. Cap. 18. Tertullian in his Apologeticum wishes the Gentiles to search for the Seventies' translation in Ptolemies library: or if they will not take the pains to go into the Synagogues of the jews that are among them, there to hear the same translation read. To what end? that so they may find the true God and believe. Comment in Psal. initio. S ● Basill affirmeth that the Scriptures are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a common Apothecary's shop as it were, of the soul: and that every one may be a Physician to himself, and take from thence what he needs according to the nature of his disease. Ser. 35. St Ambrose saith, Sacrarum Scripturarum lectio vita est, the reading of the Holy Scripture is life, according to that of our Saviour jesus Christ, john. 6.63. verba quae ego loquor spiritus sunt & vita, In Esa. 11. the words which I speak are spirit & life, Saint Hierome, Frequenter evenit ut homines saeculares mystica nescientes simplici lectione pascantur: It oftentimes cometh to pass that lay men ignorant of the mysteries of religion, are fed and nourished by bare reading. St Augustine, Epist. 120. Ama Ecclesiasticas literas legere, etc. Accustom thyself to read the letters of the Church, that is, the Scriptures, and thou shalt not find many things to demand of me: but by reading and meditating, if also with pure affection thou pray unto God the giver of all good things, thou shalt learn all things that are worthy to be known, or certainly the most things rather by his inspiration then any admonition of men. Finally john Bishop of Constantinople, the noblest Preacher of all the Fathers, and styled for his eloquence chrysostom, that is Golden mouth, and whom for his pregnant speeches to this purpose I have reserved to the last, saith as followeth, All things necessary are in Scripture so manifest and open, In 2. Thes. Hom. 3. that we need nor Homilies nor Sermons, were it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through our own sluggishness and negligence. And again, Prol. in Epist. ad Rom. If you will studiously and diligently read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye shall need no other thing: for he is true that saith, Quaerite & invenietis, seek and ye shall find. Ad Col. Hom. 9 And again, Neque moreris alium doctorem, etc. Neither stay thou for other Doctors: thou hast the oracles of God, none can teach thee better than Dr Peter or Dr Paul. Home 3. de Lazaro. And yet again, The Apostles and Prophets as the general Schoolmasters of the world, have made their writings so plain to all, that every one of himself only by reading may learn: and ye need nothing else but read. And yet again lastlie, In 2. Thes. Hom. 3. why say they should I go to the Church if there be no Sermon there? (right the language of some of our time) This saith he, is it that hath corrupted and overthrown all. For what need is there of a Preacher? This necessity comes through our own negligence. For what need sermons? All things are clear and plain in holy Scripture: whatsoever things are necessary are manifest. But because ye are nice auditors, and seek to have your ears delighted, therefore do you call for sermons. Thus far Chrysostom: and thus the Fathers. With whom agree our modern Divines both foreign and domestical, who perhaps are more gracious with our adversaries then the Fathers. And here I might allege many passages out of P. Martyr, In loc. clas. 1. cap. 6 In loc. de Sc. Musculus, Aretius, Zanchie, Piscator, and others, of whom one sweareth that whosoever diligently readeth shall at length be taken, another affirmeth that God would have the Bible read of all thereby to know the truth and to be saved, De verbo script. Praef. in Math. and all of them though not in direct, yet in equivalent terms avouch my conclusion. But I will content myself with these few following. Francis Cha●ron l. 3. c. 4. In Test. Rhem 2. Pet. 3. parag 1. Francis junius, I believe because I have read, and read it written: and again, Faith is wrought by hearing and by reading also. Dr Fulke, By reading of the Scriptures ignorant men may learn to have true knowledge, and wild wicked fellows to become more stayed in their wits. Duplic. contra Stapl. l. 1. c. 7. Ibid. c. 11. Dr Whitaker, by the reading and study of Scripture Faith is learned by the ordinary way to learn faith. Again, Faith is cherished by reading saith Tertullian: now faith is nourished and cherished, ex quibus existit, by the same means that bred it. Ibid. And yet again, Reading is the ordinary means of edifying: and God is effectual by reading, & giveth the Holy Ghost thereby. Against A▪ D. ca 3. Wotton. We doubt not many have, we are sure they might and may attain to the same faith, what if I say to justifying faith too? without any Preaching by the reading of Scripture. For since it is partly the matter that must argue the Scripture to be the word of God, partly the majesty which any man may discern in the manner of writing: unless it can be proved out of the Scripture that the Holy Ghost will not work by these upon the heart of him that readeth, but only of him that heareth a man expound this word unto him, I see no sufficient reason why faith may not be had by reading, where God's ordinance of Preaching is only wanting, and not wilfully neglected. Dr Nowell in his Chatechisme appointed by authority to be taught in all schools, Nowel's Cha●. By what way or means is the knowledge of Gods will declared in his word to be attained? By diligent reading and meditating of God's word, or by attentive hearing the same read and purely expounded by others. The book of Homilies affirmeth, Tom. ●. hom. 1. p. 1. that the reading of Scripture breedeth knowledge, turneth, illuminateth, comforteth, encourageth: and again expressly, The ordinary way to attain the knowledge of God and ourselves is with diligence to hear and read the holy Scripture. Finally, if the judgement of the chief governor's of our Church, and the public authorising of books for the maintenance hereof be a sufficient argument, I dare be bold to say that this is the very doctrine of the Church of England. Sure I am that the reverend father of this Diocese who best should know it, gave express commandment that it should publicly in this pulpit be acknowledged, that reading is an ordinary means to beget Faith, and not Preaching only as they term it. Thus our latter Divines. I have but one thing more to say in this point, and it is this, that howsoever these men may differ from Papists in other opinions, yet I see not how they can clear themselves from Popery in this. For to omit all consequences which necessarily follow upon it, thus in plain terms say the jesuits of Rheims, In Rom. 1.15. Faith cometh ordinarily of preaching and hearing and not of reading and writing. And Bellarmine, De verbo dei l. 4. c. 12. Scripture was not given to this end to be a rule of Faith, but to be a certain profitable commonitory to preserve and nourish that doctrine which is received by preaching. And Stapleton, Defence. Eccles author. Reading is not via ordinaria, the ordinary way to Faith: and again, Scripture binds not a man to believe, neither is Faith to be had by it, but only as it is preached by the Church. Trois verities l. 3. c. 4. Lastly Charron, Faith is by the word Preached and pronounced by voice, not written or read. Ibid. Again, Thou believest because thou readest: thou art no Christian: for the Christian believeth afore reading and without. Ibid. And again, Faith got by Reading is acquisite, humane, studied, not Christian: and he that hath it is no Christian, his Faith must have another name. jump almost with that ere while quoted out of Hieron, ordinarily knowledge so gotten is but vain jangling and swimmeth in the brain but renews not the heart. Thus Papists: against whom our men mainly oppose themselves herein. And thus have I at length resolved the three Questions in the beginning propounded, and as I trust maintained the truth of God, and that as becometh the truth with the spirit of meekness and sobriety. Withal as I suppose I have made a sufficient Apology both for myself and other my reverend brethren, who in the general understanding of the ordinary auditory of this place have been publicly censured as Seducing Spirits, for holding that which I have now maintained. Reason would that he who seemed to lay this scandal upon us should have made public amends, and either have interpreted himself if he were misunderstood, or acknowledged his rashness if he did so censure. But seeing it will not be, and so much charity cannot be found in the heart, yea over and above, seeing I have since that time been braved to my face, and as I am credibly informed, often insulted upon behind my back, as if I durst not publicly show my face in these points: though otherwise I could have been content to hold my peace for the peace of the Church, yet now I could do no other than I have done, and pardon me I beseech you, for hereunto have I been forced and constrained. Sooner perhaps would I have discharged myself of this burden, if sooner I could have met with so fit an auditory. For who can better testify of what I say, or are fitter to be judges and umpires in such a business, than you my reverend and beloved brethren of the Clergy? To you therefore and to your grave censure do I refer both myself, & whatsoever I have said, duly remembering that of the Apostle Paul, 1. Cor. 14.32. the spirit of the Prophets is subject to the Prophets. And now give me leave to address my speech unto you my beloved brethren of the Laity, specially you that are the ordinary auditory of this place. Let me entreat you all not again to mistake me, as if by what I have said I went about any way to derogate from Sermons. I say mistake me not again, for once already have I been either ignorantly or wilfully misconstrued. Preaching some while since in this place on Luc. 20.34.35. and enquiring as my Text occasioned me, Luc. 20.34.35. who they were that should be accounted worthy to obtain the next world, and the resurrection from the dead, I affirmed first in general that it was not semblance only or show of religion that could make a man worthy, and then in particular, that a man might be a frequent auditor of Sermons, might go two, three, four, more miles to hear them, all the while might look the Preacher stark in the face, afterward return with joy, call to mind, talk, confer and repeat the same, and yet for all this still be counted unworthy. And fearing lest I should be misunderstood, I then entreated you not to mistake me, as if I misliked Sermons, or the going to them. Nay I exhorted you to go, provided you went not with contempt of Divine Service at home, nor departing from your own Minister how mean a Preacher soever, none I think being so mean but is able to teach you more than you know: provided also that you pass not through the Churchyards of as reverend and learned men as these parts afford any to go a mile further to hear a novice, and when you are returned, that your repetitions be not vainglorious, with such a rumble, and after the manner of a riot, but modest and severally in your own houses, and lastly that the fruit of your often hearing be not a demure look only and a prating tongue, but true humility & charity which best conformeth us unto JESUS CHRIST. These things I then said, and for aught I yet see said not amiss: yet am I censured as an enemy to Sermons, as one that grieves the hearts of God's Saints, and lash the faults of Hypocrites on the backs of God's children. Wherefore you see I have reason now to be wary of myself, and to prevent the like danger that I be not the second time mistaken, as if I spoke in derogation of Sermons. Sermons I acknowledge to be the blessed ordinance of God, & as learned Hooker saith, they are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, wings to the soul, spurs to our good affections, food to them that are sound and healthy, and unto diseased minds physic. Whatsoever any can truly say in honour of them, withal our hearts we subscribe unto it. If comparison be made between Reading and Sermons, we readily yield the precedency to Sermons. For although it be the same word which is read & treated upon: yet the manner which is or should be used in Sermons, by explaining that which is hard, deducing of doctrines, and applying them home unto the conscience, doth more speedily and easily inform the understanding and beget Faith, as he that is taught by one that is his craft's master shall sooner attain to knowledge than he that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and hath no other help then his own industry. I add farther that whosoever neglecteth or contemneth Sermons, neglecteth and contemneth the ordinance of God, and consequently God himself: neither may such a one look for a blessing from God upon his Reading or whatsoever other means he useth. So that my desire is by all means to encourage all, and by no means to dishearten any from the frequent hearing of Sermons. Howbeit I may not so advance Sermons but that I must give Reading the due also. Never more need. Among Papists the Stews pass unpunished, but to read privately in the Bible is death: their public reading is in a tongue unknown, whereby they make God a Barbarian to the people. Smith a Puritan, a Brownist, an Anabaptist, a Se-baptist, Mar. 4.17.20. what not? saith that Reading is but a ceremony, and that our Saviour read indeed to fulfil all righteousness, but when he had done shut the book to put an end to the ceremony. He saith farther that Reading is the Ministry of the letter & so of death; and that it is unlawful in worship to hold a book before the eye. Our brethren of the faction have not only said it, but also printed it, that Reading is not feeding, but as evil as playing on a stage, and worse too. And is it not the manner of many, Admon. to the Parliament. neglecting public Service and Reading, to send their servants or children to see whether the Preacher be ready to go into the pulpit? For till then they list not come, and so according to the Frenchiest, turn all God's worship into a mere preachment. To say nothing that they tie your Faith unto the Preachers mouth, and deny unto Reading all power to beget it: the contrary whereof you have now heard sufficiently, as I am persuaded, demonstrated unto you. Behold therefore, blessed brethren, behold the largeness of God's bounty and goodness in making the means of your salvation so facile and easy unto you. He hath made every one of you capable of reading: there is none but may learn to read if he will. It is as easy as to learn to play at tables or cards: and a little of the time which some spend in Alehouses and idle exercises would soon make them perfect scholars therein. But were it difficult to read, yet have you ears, and you may daily hear God's word both publicly and privately read unto you in your mother tongue, if so you please. It is hid from none but those that will not seek it, saith chrysostom: and it is exposed and made obvious to every one, lest any should perish for want of ability to find it. It is not so high above thee, Deut. 30 11.12.13.14. as Moses saith, that thou shouldest say, who shall go up for us to heaven and bring it to us? Neither is it so far from thee, that thou shouldest say, who shall go over the Sea for us and bring it unto us? But the word is very nigh thee: if thou wilt but open thy eyes, thou mayst read it at thy pleasure, or if thou wilt but lend an ear, thou mayst when thou wilt hear it read unto thee. Let no man think himself abandoned of God, or destitute of all means, as long as he hath free liberty to read or hear the written word. Neither yet let any man say unto me, what need Sermons if reading be sufficient? For it is as if he should say, what need two eyes if a man may see with one? No, my brethren, God is more bountiful and liberal then so: and as he hath provided more kind of stuffs for our back then one, and more kind of meats for our belly then one, so hath he ordained more means of Faith and Salvation than one. Among them, if you will, let Sermons be the principal: yet is it not the only means, but reading is a means also. For as St Hierome saith, The Scriptures of God teach the people not only by the ears, but by the eyes also: and he that sanctified sounds and words unto the ears, hath also sanctified letters and characters to the eye, and blessed be the name of God for both. Courage therefore, Christian brethren, courage: buy you bibles, and read them diligently: and when they are publicly read unto you, listen unto them carefully. It can not be but so doing ye shall reap wonderful benefit. josephus writeth of the jews that they were all generally very skilful in the text of Scripture. It is reported of Alphonsus the wise and learned King of Arragon, that he had read over the whole Bible fourteen times, besides the Gloss and other commentaries upon it. Yea divers women, as Gorgonia sister to Gregory Nazianzen, Paula, Eustochium, Salonia, Celantia, with others, by frequent reading became marvellous ripe in Scripture. And Gregory the great tells us of a man utterly unlearned, that could not so much as read, who notwithstanding bought himself a bible, and entertained one in his house to read unto him, whereby, saith he, iuxta modum suum plene didicit Scripturas, according to his measure he perfectly learned the Scriptures, though otherwise he were a man altogether unlettered. Courage therefore again Christian brethren, joh. 5.39. courage: search the Scripture, as our Saviour counselleth, Psal. 1.2. delight in the law of God & meditate therein night and day, with David, and you shall undoubtedly aspire to the same degree of saving knowledge that they have done before you. Be you men, be you women, be you learned, be you unlearned, be you of what trade or condition of life soever: God will deny his gracious assistance to none of you unless you be defective to yourselves. Only as he that will reap true comfort by the holy communion must come with due preparation thereunto: so must you also come to the reading of the word in praeparatione animi, with a ready disposition to love and embrace the truth when it shall be discovered unto you. 2 Thes. 2.10.11 For unto those that receive not the love of the truth, God will send strong delusions, that they shall believe lies. Whereunto if you add your humble and devout prayers unto God, according to Gregory Nazianzens counsel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pray and search, and shall say with David Aperi oculos, Lord open mine eyes, & doce me iustificationes tuas, teach me thy statutes: then will the lamb of the tribe of judah come, and open the book that is sealed, & by it give us such a measure of sanctifying knowledge & grace as may suffice to bring us to the state of eternal blessedness and glory: which the Lord grant us all for his Christ's sake. TESTIMONIES OF SUNDRY modern writers touching the efficacy of Reading, gathered by the Author since the Preaching of this Sermon. Babington on the second petition. TWo extremities there are which of all Gods chosen are to be eschewed: the one is an estimation of Reading, so great, as that being had we feel no want, neither think it a want never or seldom to have any Preaching. The other is so far to extol Preaching as that we utterly contemn Reading, yea exclude it from all power in the blessing of God to work faith in us or any. The mean betwixt both which is a right and true conceit both of Reading and Preaching. Know we therefore that in the word they are both commended, yea commanded and ordained of the Lord as means to erect this kingdom of his in our hearts, for which we pray and of which we now speak. And first for reading to name but a few places of a number, mark what the Lord saith in his law laid down for all his people Deut. 31.9. Act. 13.15. Luc. 4.16. jer. 36.6. See and mark both the warrant of Reading and a profit hoped for by it of the godly. So far were they ever from either contemning this means, or from denying it power in God's blessing to work Faith and repentance in the hearers. Also a little after: Let no Harding therefore in the name of all blasphemous Papists call reading of the Scripture to the people in the Church, a spiritual dumbness and a thing unprofitable: but let us ever with the chosen of the Lord receive the good of it, and bless God for our liberty. Dr Davenant B. of Sarum upon the Epist. to the Coll●ssians pag. 522. They err who deny that the reading of the Scriptures doth not avail to the edifying of Christian people in Faith and Charity, unless at the same time there be joined therewith an enarration or explication of them by a Preacher. God forbid that we should extenuate the utility or necessity of preaching: yet we affirm with the Psalmist touching the word of God studiously and devoutly read, that the law of God is immaculate converting souls, the testimony of the Lord is faithful giving wisdom to the simple, Psal. 19.7. Dr Fulke against Heskins. Pag. 6. The force of Christ's word is as great by his spirit in the Scriptures which this dog calleth the dead letters, as it was in the voice when it was uttered. Pag. 25. This (to wit, that the people must be taught and learn hard cases of the Priests.) shall be granted to the uttermost, so that you will allow the people to Learn such things as are easy not only of the Priests, but also of their own reading, study, and conference with them that are no Priests. Dr Googe in his whole armour of God Pag. 217. Quest. Whether is the word preached only, or the word read also a means of working Faith? Ans. It may not be denied but the holy Scriptures themselves, and good commentaries on them, and printed Sermons or other books laying forth the true doctrine of the Scripture, being read and understood may by the blessing of God work faith. But the special ordinary means and most powerful usual means is the word Preached. This is it which the Scripture layeth down, Rom. 10.14. 1. Cor. 1.21. Mayer on james cap. 1. v. 18. Pag. 183. Quest. But is it necessary that the word should be Preached to the engendering of faith in us, or will it not suffice to read it? Ans. It is not to be doubted, but a man may be converted by the word read. For Luther by reading was turned from Popery, and john Huske by reading of Wickliff's books (And in the margin he noteth, that Saint Augustine saith he was converted by reading Confes. lib. 8. cap. 12.) & whatsoever is set forth in Preaching the same is read also: and the reading of the word in a large sense, as Preaching is put for publishing Gods will to the hearer, is said to be Preaching, Act. 15.21. and such as read are pronounced blessed Rev. 1.3. yet notwithstanding when the word is preached as preaching in a more strict sense signifieth expounding teaching and exhorting out of the word of God, it is more effectual. Wheatly in his new birth Pag. 17. There may be a question made whether the word of God read only may become effectual to regenerate: or whether it must want this efficacy unless it be Preached as well as Read? To which question me thinks that this should be a true answer, that the instrumental power of regenerating cannot be denied to the Scriptures barely read, though Preaching be not joined withal. For why? seeing the doctrine of the Gospel is called the ministration of the spirit, and it is the doctrine of the Gospel when it is offered to the understanding by bare reading: therefore it must follow that in such case also it may become the power of God unto salvation, and the instrument of the spirit unto regeneration. The same precepts promises and threats are by reading delivered to the mind of the man that readeth or heareth the word read. And why then should we think that the Holy Ghost either cannot or will not work together with them? Yea doubtless he can do it when he will, and will do it then whensoever he doth not (as oftentimes he doth not) afford to men a possibility of enjoying any other help then reading. Unless the not being preached could make the word not to be the law of God, I see no reason that it should be thought unable to convert souls without being preached. And a little after. It will not at all follow that because the word read is able to beget Faith, either the Ministers may content themselves usually to read it without preaching, or the people usually content themselves to hear it so, and not be careful to seek for the preaching of it. Amies in his Medulla Theologiae lib. 2. cap. 8. Numb. 5. Hearing therefore in this place is any Perception whatsoever or comprehension of the words of God whether they be communicated by Preaching or reading or by any other means. Numb. 6. This word therefore (of Hearing) is not so narrowly and strictly to be understood, that either principally or necessarily it should always include the outward sense of hearing, but that it should denote any perception of the will of God. Tilenus' in his defence of the Perfection of Scripture Pag. 5. Let us see this enthymeme or imperfect argument of Pyrrhonian Logic: The Apostles first taught by lively voice, Ergo they pretended not to teach by their writings which succeeded their preaching. The consequence is as good as who should say, one eateth first for to nourish himself, therefore drink serveth nothing to nourishment. A non distributo ad distributum etc. And a little after. We know that to preach and to write are things very accordant, and which are comprehended in one and the same commandment given to the Apostles teach all nations, which yet to this day they teach by their writings. He which commanded them the thing which is to teach, commanded also the manners of teaching, which are to preach with lively voice, and to set forth the doctrine in writing, both of them being fit for teaching, and this latter most fit for to continue, and to transfer doctrines and instructions unto posterity. Daniel Chamier in his Panstratia Tomo. 1. Lib. 1. c. 21. num. 6. To teach comprehendeth as well the lively voice as writing. So Paul preached the Gospel unto the Romans no less by writing an epistle unto than, then teaching them by lively voice out of the prison. And it is the solemn custom of the Fathers when they cite any thing out of the Apostles writings, to express it in these words, The Apostle teacheth: yea & St Paul ascribeth unto the Scriptures that they make a man wise. Ibid num. 7. All men know that a thing may be related two ways, both by lively voice and by writing. For as those things which are in the voice are signs of those things which are in the mind: so those things which are in the writing are signs of those which are in the voice. And therefore the same is both ways equally signified or related. Ibid. cap. 22. num. 2. Because the lively voice is used to no other end, save to express the meaning of the speaker, and Scripture doth evidently express the meaning of God speaking unto us: therefore in this respect it is false that the Scriptures are dumb. For we no less understand that a man is justified by Faith when we read it in Paul, then when Paul himself pronounced it with his lively voice. Lib. 6. cap. 5. num. 7. The written word is distinguished from the word preached by no substantial difference. For they differ neither in specie, nor in genere, nor in number, but only in accident— So, for example, that Sermon which first S. Peter made unto the jews after the gift of the holy Ghost, differeth, not from that which we read Act. 2. related by S. Luke, save only as writing is not a lively voice: yet because writing is no other than the image of a lively voice, so little difference letteth not but that I may affirm the Sermon which I there read to be the same which S. Peter then made.— Wherefore if it be the same Sermon in number, why may not the same be affirmed of the same? and I truly avouch it to be read in S. Luke, Having heard these things they were pricked in heart? These things, I say, which both Peter then delivered by lively voice, and now S. Luke representeth unto us. Ibid. cap. 18. num. 8. Vergerius an Italian Bishop, who had negotiated many businesses for the Pope against Luther, undertaking to write a book against the Apostates of Germany (for so he termed them) and diligently seeking out their arguments to confute them, was himself so overcome by the strength of them, that rejecting his Bishopric, and the hope of a Cardinalship, he utterly renounced all Popish tyranny. Ibid. lib. 7. cap. 9 num. 17. The meditation of the Scriptures is doubtless an Ordinary means ordained by God to procure Faith. For, these things are written that ye might believe. joh. 20. Ibid. lib. 10. cap. 6. num. 11. To preach comprehends not only the lively voice but also writing: so that those words Preach the Gospel are thus to be understood, intimate the Gospel unto all nations by what means soever it may be rightly intimated, whether it be by lively voice or by writing. D. Davenant B. of Sarumon Coloss. 1.9. pag. 64. They are not carried by an Apostolical but Antichristian spirit, who deny unto Laics, the Ordinary means of begetting wisdom & spiritual understanding, namely Reading and understanding of God's word. For the law of the Lord is immaculate converting souls: the testimony of the Lord is faithful giving wisdom to the simple, Psal. 19-7. Psal. 119.130. in English meeter. When men first enter into the word, They find a light most clear: And very Idiots understand, When they it read or hear. Phil: Melancthon Enarrat, Symboli Niceni. In conversion these causes concur, the holy Ghost moving the heart by the Gospel, the voice of the Gospel weighed and considered either when it is heard, or when it is read, or in godly meditation, and the will of man not resisting the voice of God, but assenting although with some trepidation. Ainsworth Counterpoison, p. 116. The Gospel noted to be the means of our calling. 2. Thes. 2.14. he maketh known unto his people outwardly by his word, 2. Cor. 5.19. spoken Act. 5.20. and written joh. 20.31, and inwardly by his holy spirit, Neh. 9.20. 1, Cor. 2, 10.12. FINIS. JOH. 17.1. etc. These things spoke JESUS, and lift up his eyes to Heaven, and said, etc. ALL holy writ simply and in itself considered is of equal worth and dignity: the Author, the Matter, and the Manner being in every part alike Divine. Howbeit considered respectively and in relation unto us, one Scripture without impeachment or derogation may justly be preferred to another. For as touching the Matter, some Scriptures are more importing us, as containing doctrines of Absolute necessity to be believed: whereas others are so only in the Disposition and Preparation of the Mind. And as for the Manner whereas others are darkly and obscurely delivered, some are so attempered and proportioned unto the weakness of our capacity, that they are more easy and available for our instruction and edification. In both these Respects, this seventeenth Chapter of the Gospel after S. john, seemeth to me among all other to be the most eminent. For if you regard the Matter, it contains Doctrines of highest nature and consequence, as being the very foundation of the Church's happiness, and the anchor of all her hope. If the For me, it is so heavenly and divine, so powerful and persuasive, that he must needs be destitute of all spiritual sense and taste, whosoever with the naked and bare reading thereof is not extraordinarily ravished and affected. The serious and due consideration of all which, together with the unspeakable benefit that might grow to the people of God by the right dividing and handling thereof, hath at length overcome and persuaded me, to undertake at times the interpretation of this whole Chapter in this place. That so, if it please God, before I sing my nunc dimittis, I may with these treasures satisfy some part of the debt I owe thereunto both for my birth & breeding. And because these first words now read seem unto me not unfitting the present occasion, or to succeed what I have already delivered upon the like occasions: I have thought good at this time to make entrance thereupon, & so as it is in the proverb, Vnâ fideliâ duos dealbare parietes, to dispatch two businesses at once. For having heretofore vindicated the Dignity of the Ministry from the Contempt whereto it is subject, by prescribing a sovereign Remedy & Defensative against it, as also having demonstrated the power and efficacy of Preaching, even of that which is only by Reading, which is the first office of the Ministry: method and order would that in the next place I speak of Prayer, which is the second. And hereunto am I also invited by this Text. For, to forbear further prefacing, this seventeenth Chapter containeth in it a most heavenly and divine Prayer, which our blessed Saviour and Mediator addresseth unto his Father in behalf of Christ mystical, as the Father's term it: that is, the whole Church consisting both of Head and Members. The Parts thereof are two, a short Preface prefixed by S. john, and the Corpse or body of the Prayer. The Preface is my Text, wherein relation is made of an Act invested with certain circumstances. The Act is Prayer. The Circumstances are three, Quis, Quando, Quomodo. Quis, the Orator who prays: jesus, These things spoke jesus and lift up his eyes. Quando, when he prays, after he had spoken these things: These things spoke jesus and then lift up his eyes. Quomodo, after what manner he prayed. The Manner is external, and standeth in two things, in gestu oculorum, and in Sermone oris. In the Gesture of the Eyes, He lifted up his eyes unto heaven: in the Speech of his Mouth, He said. Of these things briefly & plainly, as it shall please God to assist. Of all duties universally required of all men, Prayer seems to me the most noble. So noble that by it all the whole worship and service of God, is in Scripture usually denominated. And although the Houses of God be consecrated to other uses as well as it: yet are they not called Houses of Preaching, or Houses of Sacraments, but Oratories or Houses of Prayer. Prayer, as Damascen expresseth it, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the mounting or flying up of the soul unto the throne of Grace. It is the Sweet incense, that sweet smelling sacrifice, that savoureth so pleasingly in in the nostrils of our God. It is that strong cord that draweth down all blessings and graces from Heaven upon us. The importunity whereof of Jacob's makes us Israel's, wrestlers prevailers with God, that if we will he cannot go from us, until he hath granted us his blessing. For it hath annexed unto it the gracious promise of impetration; Ask and ye shall have, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. Neither is there any thing so difficult or impossible with man, but by Prayer it may be obtained. By Prayer Abraham, when he was far stricken in years, and the womb of his wife Sarah was now dead, obtained a son of God, even Isaack●. By Prayer jacob escaped the fury and danger of his brother Esau. By Prayer the children of Israel were delivered from their cruel servitude and bondage in Egypt. By Prayer Moses stood in the gap, & pacified the wrath of God that he destroyed not his people. By Prayer and the lifting up of his hands, the same Moses overthrew the host of the Amalekites. By Prayer josua stopped the course of the Sun, and God was obedient unto the voice of a man. By Prayer Samson revenged himself upon his enemies, and ruined the house of Dagon upon the Philistines. By Prayer Solomon obtained an incomparable measure of Wisdom from God. By Prayer Hezekiah being at the point of death, had fifteen years more added to his life. By Prayer Daniel stopped the mouths of Lions, the three children quenched the fiery furnace that not a hair of their head perished, jonas was discharged out of the whales belly, and the prison gates opened of their own accord to enlarge St Peter. It is a Panchreston available for all things. It cureth diseases, dispossesseth devil's, it sanctifieth the Creatures unto us, unlocketh the gates of heaven, and procureth the coming of the Holy Ghost. It is seasonable for all times, fit for all places, necessary to all persons; without it no business whatsoever we undertake can thrive or prosper. It extendeth itself far and wide to the benefit of all: and in that regard excelleth Faith. For the just man shall live, not by another's, but by his own faith: and therefore we say I believe. But Prayer is an act of Charity, which seeketh not her own, but the good of others also: and therefore we pray Our Father. Had not St Stephen prayed for his persecutors, haply St Paul might still have continued in his Pharisaisme. And had it not been for the continual tears of holy Monica, perhaps her son Augustine had perished in his Manicheisme. Infinite are the brands that prayer hath pulled out of the fire, unspeakable the benefits it hath procured unto others. But what speak I of men? It maketh wondrously to the ●●●●ing forth of God's glory. Could we of ourselves command all good, we would never become suitors for any thing: but according to the counsel of Seneca, fac te ipse faelicem, we would make ourselves happy. But by making our addresses unto him, we acknowledge ourselves to be Mendicos Dei, God's beggars, every way insufficient in ourselves, and that we depend for all whatsoever either we are or have upon his alsufficiency alone: which maketh so much to the advancement of God's bounty and inexhaustible goodness, as nothing can do more, you see, beloved brethren, how large a field I have to expatiate in, and how easy it is to overflow the banks in the commendation of this holy exercise: but that I remember how my Text limiteth me unto the above named circumstances. And therefore leaving this generality I come unto them in particular. The first circumstance is, Quis, the Orator, who prays, jesus: These things spoke jesus and lifted up his eyes. That jesus was very frequent in Prayer, all the Evangelists with one consent testify. Sometimes he went up into a mountain to pray, sometimes he retires himself into a solitary place to pray, sometimes he prayeth by himself alone, at other times he takes some of his Disciples with him, some times he spendeth whole nights together in Prayer, when he was baptised he prayed, and now that the time of his Passion is at hand, he is careful to prepare himself by making this heavenly Intercession to his Father. In a word, the whole course of his life seemeth to have been no other than a continual practice of this duty. This Duty I say: for indeed so it was, he being a Priest, and it being the office of a Priest to pray. Wherefore he that bestowed that Honour upon him, even then when he anointed and consecrated him, charg●● him therewith. Thou art my son, saith he, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me. According to which Charge, now being made a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, In the days of his flesh he offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death. And although he be now set at the right hand of his father, crowned with glory and majesty: yet being a Priest for ever, he never ceaseth in such sort as becometh his glorious estate to make Intercession for us. Yet this is not all: for it is further to be observed, that Christ is not Priest as Man only, but as Emanuel on God-man. This the Apostle to the Hebrews carefully demonstrateth. The law saith he, maketh men high Priests which have infirmity: but the w●rd of the Oath which was since the law maketh the son who is consecrated for ever more. And again Christ, saith he, by his eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God. And if he were a Priest after the order of Melchizedecke, as he was without Father or Mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, as also being Vntithed in the loins of Abraham: it cannot be that he should be Priest as Man only (for of Man only these things cannot be verified) therefore as God also. If so, then Prayer being an act of Christ's Priesthood, it followeth that it is Emanuel, God-man that prayeth, and that his Prayer is a Theandricall action, as Divines term it, Divinely-humane, or Humanely-divine. This speech haply may sound harshly in some ears, & there are who stick not to charge it with ●tat arianism, as if thereby we made Christ inferior to his Father: whereas he himself thought it no robbery to be equal unto him. Give me leave therefore to bestow a few words for the clearing of this difficulty: the rather, because it is, being rightly apprehended, the ground of singular comfort unto us. It is a Fundamental article of the Christian Faith that in Christ there are two distinct Natures, his Divinity & his Humanity: & that both these concur to the constitution of one Person God-man. Whence it followeth that the Agent or Principle which acteth all the works of Mediation, is but one by reason of the Unity of the Person, even Christ God-man: according to that protrite Maxim, Actiones sunt suppositorum, all actions issue and proceed from the Subject, or person. Howbeit seeing the Person always worketh by his Natures, and they, as we have said, in Christ are two: it followeth by reason of this duality, that there are two distinct Principles by which Christ worketh or mediateth, according to that other rule in nature, Natura est principium motus & quietis, nature is the principle both of rest and motion. This for further illustration may be exemplified in Humane actions. For as it is Man, or the Person of Man consisting of Soul and Body, that understandeth, reasoneth, moveth, speaketh, yet it is the Soul by which he understandeth and reasoneth, the Body by which he moveth and speaketh: so in the actions of Mediation, it is Christ God-man that worketh them all, yet some by his Godhead, and some by his Manhood. Here therefore are we to distinguish. The works of Mediation, are either of Sovereignty and Authority, or of Subjection and Ministry. Of Sovereignty and Authrity, as to send the Holy Ghost, to illuminate the Mind, to raise from death: of Subjection and Ministry, as to suffer, to die, to be raised from death. All these things did Christ as he was God-man both do and suffer: but yet the former by the Principle of his deity, the latter by the Principle of his humanity. It is further to be observed, that although both the Natures in Christ remain distinct, and consequently their several operations also: yet as Leo truly saith, Agit v●raque forma cum communione alterius quod cuiusque proprium est, both Natures do that which is proper unto them, but with Communion of each with other. This Communion is the concurrence of both Natures in the same Person by their several proper actions, to the producing of one Apotelesma or outward effect pertaining to our Salvation. In which concurrence the Deity is ever the principal, and the Humanity is the Organ or Instrument of the Deity: so that it never moveth to any thing, but as it is acted and moved by the Deity, and from it receives all its value, dignity, and efficacy, as in Man the Body doth from the Soul. These things being thus demonstrated, let us in a word apply them to our particular. This Prayer of Christ is an act of his Priesthood. He● therefore prays, that is the Priest. The Priest as we have showed, is Christ God-man. Christ therefore prayeth as God-man. But the act is Ministerial not Sovereign. He prayeth therefore, not by the Principle of his Deity, but in his Humanity. Howbeit with Communion of the Deity: the Instrument partaking with the Principal Agent, and deriving all its virtue and efficacy from the concurrence thereof. Which being so, the more either ignorant or malicious are our adversaries of the Church of Rome, who slander us as if we held Christ prayed in his Divine nature. Nay we know Prayer is a work of Ministry, and implies inferiority: whereas the Word is coequal to his Father. If may be the dream of jews in their Talmud, that God prays certain hours every day: or of Turks in their Alcoran, that he prayeth for Mahomet. But we know that God hath no superior to whom he should pray: and that his will is omnipotent, and the effectual cause of all things, so that he needs not pray. But it pleased the son of God to assume our nature, and in the same to make himself less than his Father, and to become obedient unto him in all things. So that although it be God-man that prays, yet praying non qua Deus, sed qua homo, not in the form of the Word but of a Servant, it can be no impeachment to his Deity. Now if it be God-man that prays, is it possible he should miss of his suit? joh. 11.41. Surely he himself saith, I know thou hearest me always. Heb. 5.7. And the Apostle affirms that in his Prayers and Supplications he was still heard. If he be the only Son in whom the Father is well pleased, Mat. 3 17. will he think you deny him any thing? joh 16.23. Nay if we that are so unworthy are yet heard for his sake: how can he that is of such infinite worth but be heard when as himself prays? He is therefore always heard. What is it then he here sues for? To himself Glorification, to his Apostles to know and teach all saving truth, to us that believe through their word, Sanctification, Union with him, Perseverance in grace, and the blessed-making vision of his Clory. Doubtless therefore he himself sitteth at the right hand of his Father: and swayeth all things both in Heaven and earth to his Churches good. His Apostles both knew and taught all the counsels of God: and we may safely build upon the Foundation they have laid. As for us, all those things shall surely be made good unto us. And though Satan desire to winnow us, yet Hell gates shall never prevail against us. For he that never faileth to be heard, hath prayed for our Faith that it fail not: than which what surer ground of peace and joy to the conscience can there be? As it is the ground of comfort, so is it of Instruction also. For if he that is both God and man disdained not to pray: it may well become us that are but dust and ashes to humble ourselves to God in Prayer. Christ's actions are our examples. Often had he by Preaching exhorted unto Prayer. But exhortation prevaileth not so much as example, unto precept therefore he addeth his own practice. Hence praying at the grave of Lazarus, joh. 11.42. because, saith he, of the people that stand by I said it. Tract. 104. in joh. And St Agustine, Ita se Patri voluit exhibere Precatorem, ut meminisset se nostrum esse Doctorem: he so exhibited himself an intercessor unto his Father, Idem in Psal. 56. as he remembered himself to be our Doctor. Hearest thou then thy Master pray? Learn thyself to pray. Ad hoc enim oravit ut doceret orare: he prayed to this end to teach thee to pray. The practice of other Saints should much move thee: but the example of him who is the sanctifier of the Saints should move thee much more. But most of all us that are the Priests of God. For as he being a Priest, makes intercession for his Church unto his Father: so should we unto God for the people committed unto our charge, and that not privately only, but publicly also, and in the face of the congregation. A duty now adays too much slighted of many, & causing in the people a general disesteem of the public Prayers and blessings of God's Ministers. The Lord persuade those that are in authority betimes both to look unto it and to reform it. And thus much of the Orator: who prays. The next circumstance is Quando, when he prays: it was after he had spoken these things. These things spoke jesus, and lift up his eyes and said. So that first he spoke these things, and then lifted up his eyes and said. He spoke these things. What things? If it shall please you to reflect a little upon the three former Chapters, you shall readily understand what they are Our Saviour having a little before his passion celebrated the Passeover with his Disciples, and immediately upon it instituted the blessed Sacrament of his Body and Blood, knowing that the time of his departure was near at hand: out of the abundance of his love towards them, he holds them together, and in the mean season delivers unto them matters of wondrous consequence both for their edification and consolation. For having acquainted them with his departure, as also the great sorrows and afflictions that would attend them after his ascension: he telleth them that this notwithstanding they ought rather to rejoice then be dismayed. For he goes to prepare a mansion for them in his Father's house, that he will not leave them as Orphans but send the Comforter unto them, who shall abide with them for ever, that he will leave his Peace with them, and whatsoever they shall ask the Father in his name shall be granted unto them. Mean while that they continue in his love, and testify the same by keeping his commandments, abiding in him, & loving one another. As for him, he will see them again, & replenish their hearts with everlasting joy. And albeit by the imminent tempest or tentation, they may for a time be scattered, yet let them not be overmuch discomforted, for he hath overcome the world, and after a while he will return again, and take them home unto himself for ' evermore. These things spoke jesus. Things as you see for the Matter most heavenly and divine: and you need not doubt but the Manner was every way suitable to the Matter, full of grace and gravity. Whereby we that are the Ambassadors of Christ are exampled both what we are to speak, and how. Not what we list, or as we list: but these things and thus, this Matter, and thus for the Manner. But alas, how much we fail too many to us, either in the one, or in the other or in both. For some of us Nihil agimus, speak nothing at all, or but very seldom, drowning our abilities in the depth of silence, and digging our talon into the earth, without any employment thereof to the advantage of God's treasury, little remembering that dreadful sentence of the Apostle St Paul, Woe unto me if I preach not the Gospel. Others again aliud agunt, say indeed somewhat, but not these things; fictions and dreams of their own brain, frivolous and impertinent matters, perhaps also Pelagianisme or Popery, or such like stuff, forgetting that other as fearful sentence of the same Apostle. Though we, Gal. 1.8. or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Others yet again malè agunt, speak haply some of these things: but not with due gravity and discretion, in this manner, little regarding that weighty charge of the Apostle St Peter, If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God. 1. Pet. 4.11. Forsome, whether out of affectation, or for want of better breeding I know not, utterly neglect all care of elocution, using a barbarous kind of rudeness & rusticity in delivering their minds, & enforcing what they say with no other than loud clamours and vociferation. That they hope will be counted plain Preaching, this powerful Preaching: as if there were no distance between plainness and rudeness, or that powerfulness lay in such hoobubs and outcries, and not rather in the strength of arguments and reasons to persuade. As these by their slovenliness defile and deform the purity and beauty of God's words: so there are others who think to set a better grace upon it, than ever the Holy Ghost himself did. For distasting the language of Canaan sanctified by Christ and his holy Apostles: they hunt after I know not what new fangled and acquaint phrases, and as they term them, strong lines, as if the style of the Scripture, and those Primitive Preachers were too low and mean for their transcendent Divinity: But to what end are these curious webs? And why in weaving them do they like Spiders thus unbowell themselves? Is it to convert a sinner, or to save a soul? No verily: but only to catch an Eugè or a Bellè, or some such fly of popular acclamation or applause. If diverse Patients sick of several diseases, as the Megrim, Pleurisy, Gout, Dropsy, and the like, should repair unto the Physician for counsel, and the Physician should forthwith take up a piece of Galen or Hypocrates and read a neat and curious Lecture unto them, and so dismiss them, one hanging the head, another holding his sides, a third halting; and every one with the same disease he brought with him: spectatum admissi risum ten●atis, could you forbear laughter at so ridiculous an act? As ridiculous, or rather, because it is in a matter more serious, more ridiculous is it in a Minister, neglecting his main end, to seek his own praise by pleasing the itching ears of vain men, rather than to cure their sick souls, and to procure unto them everlasting salvation. But I beseech you, beloved brethren, tandem hoc agamus, let us at length attend the business which Christ hath charged us withal. What errand he hath put into our mouths, that and no other let us freely deliver. And let us strive to deliver it in such manner as may make most to our end, that is, the building up of men in their most holy Faith. This shall we the better do, if we look unto Christ, and what form he used. A better precedent can we not possibly follow: for never spoke man as he did. Him did the holy Apostles make their pattern, and by virtue thereof converted the world unto the Christian Faith. If we look unto any other, and for the pleasing of them form our Sermons after the humour of those whose humour we should rectify: neither shall we please God, nor happily in the end them. A certain Painter having with all his skill drawn two pictures as like as possibly he could, reserved the one in his chamber, and set forth the other on his stall to the view and censure of all that passed by: and whatsoever they misliked he would with his pencil alter according to their judgement until it was grown every way deformed. At length setting forth his other picture by it, and the people commending it as an exquisite piece, & condemning the other as a deformed monster: yet that, quoth he, I drew according to your judgement, this according to my own art and skill. Certainly, certainly if we shall attend the several censures of our auditors, and patch up Sermons according to their liking, monstrous and enormous must they needs be. Much better were it therefore by our own art, our art being learned from the example of Christ and his Apostles, to frame all our Sermons: so shall we gain many souls unto Christ, and purchase to ourselves true praise with God, and in the consciences of all good men. What though this way we cannot make so much show of learning and eloquence? Yet therein shall we be like the Apostle S. Paul, whose preaching was not in the enticing words of man's wisdom, 1. Cor. 3.4. but in demonstration of the spirit. Yea like unto Christ himself, who though he were rich, yet made himself poor, that he might make many rich. In a word, 2. Cor. 4.7. let us duly remember that although we be dispensers of heavenly treasures, yet is it the pleasure of God, we have them in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us. But of what jesus spoke enough. After he had spoken these things, than he lift up his eyes and prayed. Not but that without Prayer he was able to effect what he prayed for. For being perfect God, and the absolute dispenser of all grace, we cannot without fearful impiety think, that out of infirmity he seeks that by request which of himself he could not accomplish. No, but as Ambrose saith, though he were Potestatis author, Lord of power: yet would be Obedientiae Magister, the teacher of obedience, by due performing his own duty. For, as we have said, he was a Priest: and the duties of Priesthood are three, Docere, Orare, Sacrificare, to teach, joh. 17.8. to pray, to sacrifice. As for the first, he hath already carefully taught them, and given them the words which his Father gave him. As touching the third, he was now ready to offer up himself as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world: for so saith he by and by, Ib. v. 1. Father the hour is come. Betwixt these two intercedit intercessio, he maketh humble suit that both the one and the other might be effectual to the eternal salvation of all those whom his Father had chosen out of the world and given unto him. And thus as in Christ's Priesthood, so also in his practice, Preaching and Prayer were usually joined together. What Christ therefore hath conjoined let no man dare to put asunder. Act. 6.4. The dispensation of the Word and Prayer, are by the joint testimony of all the Apostles, the two principal offices of the Ministry. Hardly therefore can they be divorced without maiming or mangling thereof. As in Preaching we are the mouth of God unto the people: so by Prayer ought we to be the mouth of the people unto God. By the one we teach them the will of God: by the other we bless them in the name of God. As we are bound to plant and water by Preaching: so are we by Prayer to mediate unto God for increase. For that will affect but coldly, except this quicken and inflame it. It is not the Word or Prayer severally, ●. Tim▪ 4.4.5. but the Word and Prayer jointly, that both sanctifieth the Creature unto us, and the people unto God. Whence it followeth also that as the Minister is to Preach and Pray: so are the People to Hear and Pray. For Preaching is to no purpose without Hearing: and to what end Praying in the Congregation if none concur with him? Hear therefore they must, that they may believe: Rom. 10.17. for Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And Pray they must both for their Pastors, faithfully and diligently to dispense the word of truth amongst them: and for themselves, that God would open the ears of their hearts also, that what they hear may be even the savour of life unto life unto them. This condemneth all those, who either out of a disrespect of Preaching are all for Prayer, such as were the ancient Euchetae, and too many also amongst us now adays: or out of a contempt of Common Prayer, are all for Preaching, seldom presenting themselves in the Church until the Preacher be in the Pulpit. No marvel if the Hearing of the one be fruitless, seeing they despise the Prayers of the Church by which the blessing is obtained: and if the Prayer of the other be uneffectuall, seeing they little regard Preaching by which it is to be guided. But here happily it will be demanded, whether of the twain Preaching or Prayer is the more noble. A question much debated of late, and with too much faction and vehemence. Whereunto this I have to say, that if the comparison be intended between Preaching and the Prayer of private men: without doubt Preaching is the more excellent. For it is public, and therefore more profitable. A public embassage from God, and therefore more honourable than a private supplication unto God. To say nothing of the more solemn promise made unto it, of shining as the brightness of the firmament, Dan. 12.3. and the stars for ever and ever. Yea but Preaching is subordinate to Prayer: and the end is more worthy than that which is subordinate thereto. Nay but it is preordinate rather, as the Intelligences are to their orbs, or Prudence unto virtuous actions. Or if it be subordinate, yet is it in order to the chiefest good: as the kingly office is unto meaner trades for the public weal, and the Mediation of Christ to the salvation of man for the glory of God's grace, which yet are not therefore inferior. But if the question be of Preaching, and the public prayer of the Church, God forbid that I should set or foment any such quarrel between them. By the eager preferring of the one unto the other, both may easily be vilified. The overmagnifying of Prayer hath heretofore shut Preaching out of the Church: and the overaduancing of preaching hath almost excluded prayer. And it may be it is Laziness that speaketh so much for all praying: and vainglory that is so earnest for all preaching. But dares any man thus quarrel the prophecy and Intercession of Christ? I trow no: for they are both alike infinite in worth and dignity. Preaching and prayer are answerable unto them: why then should we imagine such an inequality between them? If when we preach we speak in God's name unto the people: when we Pray we speak in Christ's name unto God for the people. They are not subordinate one unto the other: but both coordinate unto the same main end. joined together they are, as it were, a familiar Dialogue between God and us: wherein God discovereth his will unto us, and we say with S. Augustine, Da quod jubes, & jube quod vis, give grace to do what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt. They are the Angels of Jacob's ladder: our Prayers are Angels ascending up unto God for us, and our Sermons are Angels descending down with a blessing from God upon us. In a word they are both necessary, and of singular use in their place: and therefore let neither be undervalved, but both have their due honour. So shall God be glorified in his Ordinances: and we enjoy the benefit intended to us by them. But of the second circumstance when he prayed, so much. The third and last is Quomodo, How, and in what Manner he prayed. The Manner here expressed is only external. Not that this Prayer wanted the internal Form of truth and sincerity in the Heart. For he was a true Israelite in whom was no guile. Ye● he was Truth itself: forso he saith, I am the way, the truth, and the life. And being Truth, he taught others to worship God in Spirit & Truth: and condemned all those who draw near to God with their lips, their heart being far off from him. But by this outward comportment, our blessed Saviour expresseth his inward affection: and thereby lessoneth us to take heed that we presume not to appear before God with holy countenances and hollow hearts. For he is the tryer and searcher of the reynes, and judgeth not of the heart by the outward appearance, but of the outward appearance by the heart. Unto these Hypocrites that dissemble both with God and man, and who love to take religion on them, but not to have it in them: give me leave to say in the words of S. chrysostom. O Hypocrite, if it be good to be good, why wilt thou not be that which thou wilt seem to be? And if it be evil to be evil, why wilt thou be that which thou wilt not seem to be? If it be good to seem to be good, it is better to be so: if it be evil to seem to be evil, it is worse to be so. And therefore either seem as thou art, or be as thou seemest to be. But to return to the Manner, it is, as we have said external, and double, ingestu O culorum, & Sermone Oris. Of the Eyes first. He lifted up his eyes to Heaven. Elsewhere he used a contrary gesture, Mat. 26.39. and prayed grovelling upon his face. Neither do we read that the Saints in their Prayers always used the same situation and posture of body. Act. 7.60. Steven prayed kneeling, Luk. 18.13. the Publican stood, David watered his couch with his tears lying therein, Elias making request for himself sat, 1. King. 19.4. although Tertullian think it utterly unlawful to pray sitting. Ad Simply. l. 2. q. 4. So that as S. Augustin observeth, that the certain site of the body when we pray is not prescribed in God's word, so as the mind be present, and perform its intention to God. The jews indeed were commanded to look unto the Temple, and Daniel observed it. Dan. 6.10. But that was typical, and the date of the Ceremonies is expired. joh▪ 4.21. Now therefore the best rule is this, In public Prayer, to conform ourselves unto the usual and appointed gesture for avoiding of scandal: in private deliberate Prayer, to choose such as we think fittest for the present to affect the mind: in sudden ejaculations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that wherein the motion of God's spirit shall then find us. But although religion lie not in gestures, and no one posture of the body be of absolute necessity: yet I know not how, these three naturally love to accompany our affection in Prayer, the Knee, the Eye, and the Hand. The bend Knee betokening our humble subjection unto God, and reverend fear of his presence. The Eye, either dejected and cast down in token of humiliation for sin, or erected and lifted up to heaven (as here) in token of our Faith and Hope, that we look confidently to have our desires granted of God who dwelleth in Heaven. The hand also lifted up, as ready to receive, what we hope from above shall be granted unto us. Whether Christ at this time used all these three gestures, or no, is uncertain: for the Text saith not that he bent his knees, or lifted up his hands, but only that he lifted up his Eyes. And whether did he lift them? To Heaven. And why thither? Because there his Father dwelleth, who is the giver of every good gift. In regard whereof he taught us also to say, Our Father which art in heaven, Et ubi pater ibi patria, where his Father dwells, there is his country, and the place of his everlasting abode where he longs to rest himself. And therefore no marvel if thither he lift up his Eyes. A certain Separatist from this Gesture collecteth thus, ye must lift up your eyes, therefore ye may not pray on a book. Must lift up? what necessity I pray? Did our Saviour forget himself when he fell on his face? Or the Publican do amiss when he stood aloof off, not daring to lift up his eyes to Heaven? Certainly which way soever the Eye looketh, Sursum Corda; the lifting up of the heart is the sacrifice which God accepteth. But what? is it utterly unlawful to pray on a book? why then have learned and Godly men compiled so many books of Prayer to this end? and what uniformity is there like to be if in the public Liturgy there be not a certain form of Prayer? But God is the God of order not confusion: and will they nill they, to pray devoutly on a book, is more pleasing unto God, than their proud and schismatical praying without book. From this lifting up of the eyes, we may with better reason learn, when we make our addresses unto God, to abandon earth, and to entertain nothing but heavenly cogitations. The natural erection of our countenances intimates, both where our Hopes should lie, and with what contemplation our minds should continually be taken up. To bend our eyes toward heaven, and fix our hearts upon earth, is a fouler solecism in religion, than that stage-player committed in action, who when he said O heaven, pointed to the earth, and when O earth pointed unto heaven. Eyes likewise that are unchaste & full of lust, how dare they look up unto that holy place, or that holy one that dwelleth therein? As pure hands, so pure eyes are to be lifted up: else shall our prayer be turned into sin unto us. Such hands, such eyes we cannot have until the heart be sanctified. If that be clean, the eyes are clean also, and we may boldly advance them towards the throne of grace, Heb. 4.16. not wavering or doubting, jacob. 1.6. 1 Tim. 2.8. but steadfastly believing we shall obtain what we ask. Ma●▪ 11.4. The same Spirit that persuades us to cry Abba Father, testifieth of the Father's love, and warranteth us with confidence to repair unto him. Et quid negabit qui iam dedit filios esse? What will he deny who hath already vouchsafed us the Adoption of Sons? Nay quid negabit qui filium nobis dedit? Having given us his Son, how can he but with him give us all things. Indeed considering our own vileness, and the glorious Majesty of God: it is reason we should cast down our eyes, and approach unto him with fear and trembling. Howbeit as he said, Qui apud te Caesar, audet dicere, maiestatem tuam nescit: qui non audet, nescit humanitatem: so say I, whosoever dares to present himself before God, knows not the greatness of his Majesty: but whosoever knoweth his facility and loving kindness, needs not fear boldly to lift up his eyes unto the hills from whence his help cometh. And if such confidence may be used in Private Prayer, how much more in the public congregation of the Saints? For a threefold cord is stronger than a single, to draw down the blessings of God from heaven. And so many congregations are so many armies as it were, offering such violence unto the kingdom of God, and with such importunateness assaulting him, that it is impossible for them to be repulsed. They therefore are much to be blamed who neglect, I had almost said despise the assembly of God's people, preferring their own private devotions unto the public Liturgy of the Church. Of whom I say no more but this, it is much to be feared lest they that do so, pray with more pride and hypocrisy, then true devotion when they are at home. But de gestu oculorum, of the gesture of his eyes so much. Sermo oris, the speech of his mouth followeth, He lifted up his eyes to heaven and said. The Prayer was vocal, and yet in regard of God voice needed not. 1 Sam. 1 12.13. The Prayers of Hannah, of Moses, of Nehemiah were Mental only, yet God heard them. Exod. 12.15. If he were such a God as Baal of whom the Prophet Elias jestingly said, Neh. 2.4. Cry aloud, 1 K. 18.27. for he is a God, either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked: then speech happily might be necessary. But our God knoweth what is in man, joh. 2.25. and needeth not that any should testify of man. Heb. 4.12.13. He discerneth the thoughts and intents of the heart: and all things are open, yea he knows thoughts long before they be conceived. Nevertheless this example of our Saviour Christ manifestly showeth that Vocal prayer is also convenient: yea & in some cases necessary. In public Prayer, and when we pray with others (as now our Saviour did with his Disciples) speech is necessary. Else how shall the rest consent and say Amen thereunto. Expedient also it is in regard of the Angels both good and evil. The good: for as our Repentance, so our devout Prayers also do much rejoice them. The evil: for as a Father saith Confitearis Deum apud te, ut Diaboli audiant circa te, & contremiscant propter te, confess God that the Devil's may hear which are about thee, and tremble because of thee. Neither is it inconvenient in respect of our selves. And first to discharge the debt we owe unto God, offering unto him the Calves of our lips. Host 14.6. For the tongue was created to bless God withal. jac. 3.9. And as Believing is of the heart: Rom. 10.10. so ought we also to confess with the mouth. Again to stir up the more devotion in Prayer. For as St Augustine saith, Affectus cordis verbis excitatur orantis, care of speech restrains the wand'ring of the mind, and the more vehement and significant the words are, the more is the heart affected. Lastly because of the redundance of the affections upon the body. For as a vessel full of new wine, job. 32.19. will burst with the working thereof except it be vented: so is it with us in our strong passions until they be uttered. Psal. 39.2.3. While David held his peace he was much troubled: his heart was hot within him and the fire burned, until he spoke with his tongue. When his heart was replenished with joy, than his glory, that is, his tongue also rejoiced. Psal. 16.9. Act. 2.26. And our Saviour Christ in the days of his flesh, Heb. 5.7. because of his vehement sorrows and fears, offered up Prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears. And thus you see both what necessity and expedience there is of Vocal prayer. But this is not all: our blessed Saviour had a further aim in it, when he thus prayed. He uttered it by word of mouth, not only for the present comfort of those that heard him: but, as I conceive, that it might be registered and recorded as a perpetual Canon of that glorious Intercession which he maketh for his Church in heaven. For although it were delivered here on earth, yet it pertaineth to the state of glory also▪ and therefore would our Saviour have it registered, both that from hence the Saints might derive sound comfort and consolation unto their souls; and be furnished of a true pattern of Prayer, with what wisdom, sobriety, and convenient brevity they are to speak unto God. So that this Prayer is of singular use in the Church, and will be throughout all generations for ever more. But I press this point no further. All which hath been said touching it, I thus apply. First it maketh for the comfort of plain and simple, yet honest minded people, that although they have but little skill to set words, and formally to deliver their minds: yet their Mental Prayers and short Ejaculations are pleasing and acceptable unto God. God forbid it should be otherwise. For in the approach of death when sickness hath sealed up our lips, or in the time of persecution when tyrants bereave us of our tongues: have we together with the loss of speech lost also ability to pray? No verily. For though with Moses we s●y nothing, yet our thoughts may cry so loud in the ears of God, that he may say unto us as sometimes he did unto Moses, Quid clamas ad me, why dost thou cry unto me? Multi sonant voce, & ●orde muti sunt, many sound aloud, saith St Augustine, with their voice that are dumb in their heart. And the contrary thereof is as true, Multi sonant cord & voce muti sunt, many are silent with their lips, yet loud with their affections. The common rhyme, though it be not very elegant, yet carries good sense with it, Non vox sed votum, non cordula musica sed cor, non clamans sed amans cantat in aure Dei; not the voice but the vow, not the harp but the heart, not lowing but loving music for God's ears. Secondly it serveth for instruction, that although Mental prayer may be available without vocal: yet is not vocal so without Mental. For as the body without the soul, so words without concurrence of affection are dead. The jews drew near unto God with their mouth, & honoured him with their lips: but the heart being removed far off, Ibid. 64.7. it is expressly said, they called not upon his name. All Babblers therefore are here condemned, who hope to be heard for their heathenish battology. Mat. 6.7. Such are all they, who pray in a language they know not: like unto Parrots, or the Cardinal's jay, that could repeat the whole Creed, but understood never a word thereof. A thing utterly repugnant to nature, to Scripture, and the practice of all antiquity: and is rather the dotage of a drunken brain, than the serious exercise of true piety. Such also are all they who understand, but attend not what they say: suffering their thoughts to range about impertinent businesses, as if a little lip labour were enough for God. The Schoolmen ha●e a rule, that a general intention without particular attention is sufficient. But it is a profane rule: & the Gentiles Hoc age shall rise up in judgement against it, and condemn all those that practise it. Lastly it may serve for direction how & in what manner to mould and form our Praying. For as our Preaching so our Praying also must be conformed to his example. Now if you please to search into it, you shall find this Prayer, for the Matter most heavenly, for the Method, most orderly, for the words most express and significant, and for the length, no way tedious, as wherein is, to use the words of St Augustine, Non multa locutio, sed multa precatio, not much talking but much praying. Every thing is carried with deep wisdom and advisedness, nothing rashly or tumultuarily. Not a word but breatheth forth perfect holiness and charity; and to be brief, nothing but what every way may become the son of God himself. Oh that our Prayers might always be framed according to this pattern! How acceptable would they then be to him to whom they are addressed? But indeed we imitate it not as we ought. For on the one side, some of us present unto God, I know not what curious contriving of words: as if he were sooner to be taken with the froth of humane wit, then with Christian gravity and simplicity. Others on the other side, and those God wot silly ones, though they know neither what to say nor how; yet lest they should seem destitute of the Spirit of Prayer, they presume on the sudden, without any meditation, to pour out whole floods of words without one drop of sense, & spinning out their prayers to an enormous length, forgetting that God being above in heaven, & themselves here on earth, their words should be both weighty and few. Would a man prefer a petition to his Prince, without due consideration of all things before hand? But these love to be too homely and familiar with God: and I cannot better compare them then to little children, who would fain tell a tale to Father or Mother, not knowing either what it is, or how to utter it. My advice unto these should be, first that they would no longer overween themselves, mistaking the Lips of Calves for the Calves of the lips. Then, that upon knowledge of their own inability, they content themselves with short Ejaculations, and such Prayers as grave and learned men have provided for them. Lastly, that Humility and Charity be their ordinary Prayers. For beside Mental and Vocal, there is also Vitalis Oratio the Prayer of a godly life: which cries as loud unto God for a blessing, as Abel's murder, or notorious sins do for vengeance. Without which though a man roar like Stentor, and multiply words as the sand: God turneth the deaf ear, and will not vouchsafe to hear him. But of this, as also of the whole Preface thus much. Howbeit before I conclude, I must crave leave to address a few words unto you also my Lord, who are the Angel of this Diocese. You have heard what foul abuses there are both of Preaching and Praying: it belongeth unto your Lordship to see them redressed. Some are silent and say nothing: it were good their mouths were opened. Some instead of God's truth broach their own perverse opinions: it were fit their mouths were stopped. Others with their rude behaviour and outcries disgrace Preaching: these might be taught a little more civility. And others weaken the power of Preaching with too much curiosity: these might be persuaded to a little more simplicity. As for Public Prayer, it is too much neglected and despised, and I fear the scandalous lives of Ministers is in part the cause thereof. For although the efficacy, as of the Word and Sacraments, so of it also, depend not upon the quality of the Minister, but God's ordinance, and the blessing of Balaam though a false Prophet were available, yet the people are not so considerate, but the lewd lives of Hophni and Phinees may soon bring the Sacrifices of God into contempt with them. Your Lordship therefore may be pleased to have a special eye unto the reformation hereof. And seeing the remissness of Heli will not effect it, by rigour and severity to procure it: that so the lives of your Clergy being answerable unto their high calling & exemplary to their flock, the Liturgy of the Church may recover its ancient credit and dignity, to the glory of God, the honour of the Ministry, and the building up of God's people in their most holy Faith. which the Lord grant for his Christ's sake. V. 1. Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee. Having dispatched the Preface, we are now to enter upon the Corpse or Body of the Prayer, wherein you may be pleased to observe with me other three particulars, Quem, Pro quibus, Quid, to whom, for whom, and for what he prays. For unto these three heads as I conceive, the whole prayer may conveniently be reduced. Of them therefore in order, as it shall please God to assist. And first of the first, Quem orat, to whom he prays. This appeareth by the very first word of the Prayer, Father, the hour is come glorify thy son. It is his Father to whom he prays, even the first Person in the Trinity. For although the word Father be oftentimes understood Essentially, that is, for the whole Godhead subsisting in all the Persons, as namely when it hath reference unto men, or Angels, or the rest of the creatures: yet here being referred unto the Son, or the second Person, it must needs be understood Personally, for the Father of that Son, that is the first person in the Trinity. True it is, the Person of Christ consisteth of two natures, his Deity & his Humanity; & this humanity is a Creature as well as that of other men. Yet notwithstanding seeing the Person is but one, & the Humane nature subsisteth not of itself, but only in the Son of God, & by his Subsistance: it is the first Person in the Trinity, and he alone who is the Father of our Lord jesus Christ. Howbeit the Nature's being not one and the same, but differing, he is Son unto his Father, not by one only, but by a double Filiation. As he is the Word, by way of Natural Generation, begotten from all Eternity of the Substance of his Father. Of his Substance, whereby he is Consubstantial and Coessential with him, God of God Light of Light, very God of very God as it is in the Nicene Creed. From all Eternity: for as the Sun cannot be without his Beam, so neither could the Father ever be without his Word: but as himself is Eternal, so is his Son Cöeternall with him also. Lastly Begotten not made, as Athanasius saith: but how and after what manner is incomprehensible and unspeakable. It is enough for us to know, saith Gregory Nazianzen, that the Father hath begotten to himself a Son: as for the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let it be adored with silence. And seeing as Ambrose saith, neither archangels know it, nor Angels have heard it, nor the world comprehended it, nor the Prophets understood it, nor the Apostles inquired after it, nor Christ taught it, but said, no man knoweth the Son but the Father, nor the Father but the Sun, and he to whom the Son will reveal it: it is our duty to surcease from further searching into this deep mystery. It is sufficient for us by Faith simply to believe that the Manner whereof Reason cannot reach unto. As touching the Manhood of Christ, he is in regard thereof the Son of the Father also, yet not by way of Natural generation, or else of Adoption, as all the Saints of God are: but by Grace of Personal Union: whereby being prevented from having any Subsistance in itself, it hath the very Subsistance of the Word, or Second Person communicated unto it. So that although as Man, he be not Generatus filius the Son begotten, yet is he Natus filius Dei, borne the Son of God: according to that of the Angel Gabriel. That holy thing that shall be borne of thee shall be called the son of God. Now the Son prayeth unto his Father, first to testify that his eternal Procession and Filiation is from him, and that of him he hath received both that individual Union by which his Humane Nature is hypostatically assumpted and united unto his Divine, & that oil of gladness or precious Unction of the Spirit, wherewith he is Habitually graced and anointed far above all his fellows. Secondly, to manifest his Dispensative and voluntary subjection unto his Father in the form of a Servant: wherein, though he were the Son and cöequall with the Father, yet he learned obedience, as the Apostle to the Hebrews witnesseth. Heb. 5.8. Lastly, to give us an example of imitation, both to whom, and to whom alone we are to address our Prayers: namely to God our Father & to none other. Not to pray unto him is mere Atheism and profaneness: to pray to any besides him is Idolatry and Superstition. First therefore as Christ to his, so are we to pray to our Father. Our Father is the holy and blessed Trinity, both by Creation and Adoption. For being extrinsecall actions they are undivided and common to them all: and so not the Father only, but the Son and the Holy Ghost together with him, created and adopted us. To the holy Trinity therefore not excluding any of the Persons are we to pray. And to this our Saviour, as by his example, so by his Precept also directs us, when he commands us thus to pray, Our Father which art in Heaven. Shall I spend time to prove that we are to pray unto God our Father? This were but to light a candle at noon day. Search the Scriptures and you shall find it every where commanded. Hath he not made all? doth he not sustain all? do we not depend upon his goodness for all whatsoever either we are or have? If the eyes of all things look up unto him, expecting a supply of all their needs from him: should not our eyes much more be fixed upon him? The very light of reason dictates the same unto all, and requires this duty at the hands of all. Even Gentiles and mere naturalists have ever duly practised it, in all their needs invoking him whom they supposed to be God, yea some of the learned among them, Alcibia 2. five 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diog. Laert. Dan. 6.7.9. as Plato and Aristotle, and others also, as Proclus saith, have written books of this argument, and in them given excellent precepts and directions how to pray. A Giant therefore was he (and we read of no more but he) who commanded that for the space of thirty days together no man should presume to ask any thing of any God or man, save only of himself. Atheists and profane wretches are all those, who in their heart denying either the Being or the Providence of God refuse to pray unto him. Such as among the Gentiles were the Epicure Philosophers: and among Christians some few furious Heretics. Godless and irreligious also are they, who believing and acknowledging both, yet never privately, and but seldom publicly, and then very slightly & perfunctorily perform this duty. Hence is it that the prophet David makes the not calling upon God the special character of a foolish Atheist, Psal. 14.1.4. who if not with his mouth, yet in his heart denies God, and despises all religion. ●am. 4.2.3. No marvel if they want the true wisdom, seeing they ask it not of him who is the only donor thereof: or if they ask it that yet they have it not, because they ask it overly with the lips, and not sincerely from the heart. But let us, my beloved brethren, follow the precedent of our blessed saviour, and as he, so let us ever address our prayers unto him that is our Father. Nothing can be denied us that we ask of him in the name of his son. joh. 16.23. And if evil Fathers give not instead of bread a stone, Mat. 7.9.10.11 or instead of a fish a serpent, or instead of an egg a scorpion unto their children: Luk. 11.11.12 13. how much more will our Heavenly father give us his spirit, and together with it all good things, if we ask them of him? As to our Father, so to our Father only must we pray, if we will keep ourselves to the example of Christ: for to his Father alone doth he address himself, Father, saith he, the hour is come. Give me leave to bestow a little pains in proof hereof. For it is now high time to be at down Popery by all means, it being of late grown too too impudent, as having been but too much countenanced. Angels and Saints departed, say Papists, may be called upon. May be? and why not must be? Forsooth, howsoever they would fain have the vulgar sort believe it, yet dare not the learned among them affirm it to be necessary. And they have reason. For were it otherwise, either it must be because we are so commanded, or for that without it we cannot obtain our end, namely grace and assistance in all our needs. But commandment we have none. If we have, let them show it, together with promise of impetration if we call upon them, or of commination if we neglect it. But this they neither do nor can show. The fittest place for it, if any such were, had been where our Saviour the best Doctor teacheth us how to pray. Yet there he sendeth us neither to Saints nor Angels, but only to our Father. Had they had any right to our prayers, Christ was just and would never have appropriated that unto God which was due also unto them: & could they have been unto us all a present help in need, I am sure neither would his love have concealed it from us, nor his goodness have envied their help unto us. Directing us therefore in this perfect platform of Prayer unto no other than our Father: it is more than evident his will is not we should seek unto any other. Now as it is not necessary in regard of commandment, so neither is it in respect of the end. For our end, namely impetration, and obtaining our desires may be attained otherwise. How so? By the intercession and mediation of Christ jesus. This I trust they will not deny to be of itself sufficient every way. Certainly without much derogation from the honour of Christ they cannot. For he hath expressly promised that whatsoever we shall ask the Father in his name shall be granted unto us. joh. 16.23. So that neither in this respect is such invocation necessary. How then? Forsooth Pious and Profitable: for so they state it. But if that only be Pious which is pleasing and acceptable unto God, Conc. Trid. less. 9.2. Bell. de Beat. Sanct. l. 1. c. 19 and no worship be accepted of him but that which is agreeable to his commandment: then cannot such invocation be Pious. For as we have showed, it is no where commanded: and not being commanded it is but a superstitious Willworship, which the Lord with much indignation rejecteth, demanding, who hath required these things at your hands? Esa. 1.12. And if it be not Pious, than neither is it Profitable, but vain and to no purpose. For so saith our Saviour, Mat. 15.9. In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. But how unprofitable and unavaileable such Prayers are will more fully appear, if we duly consider how unfurnished of abilities both Angels and Souls departed are to help and steed us when we call upon them. For to this end three things are necessarily requisite, particular knowledge of all our doings, ready will to help, and power enabling them to help us. First I say Knowledge, not of the state of the Church militant in general (for such we deny not unto the Saints departed, much less unto the Angels whom God hath appointed to be the Guardians of his chosen people) but of us all, and all our actions in particular, yea of the secret cogitations of the heart, and the inward sincerity thereof. For Prayer is not always Vocal, but sometimes Mental only, 1 Sam. 13.25. such as was that of Hannah: Rom. 8.25. and oftentimes consisteth of such groans and sighs as cannot be uttered. And when it is uttered & becomes Vocal, speech and whatsoever is external is but the carcase thereof, the life and soul thereof is the internal truth of the heart, it being nothing else but a pouring out of the soul or discharging of the heart before God. Which being so, I would fain learn, Psal. 2.8. if God only be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Scriptures every where teach, 1 King. 8.39. 2 Chron. 6.30 and it be a prerogative peculiar to him alone to try and search the heart: Mat. 6.4. Rom. 8.26. how either Angels or Spirits deceased come to the knowledge of those Prayers that are only conceived in the mind, or can discern with what affection they are delivered? They may perhaps say, This people approacheth with their lips, but whether the heart be near or far off, that is beyond their skill. So is it also particularly to know the outward state, and to hear the Vocal Prayers of all men wheresoever throughout the whole world. For they are not as God present at once every where, but as creatures bounded and measured by time and place: so that at one time they cannot occupy more than one place, and consequently cannot take notice of all what is done at the same time in every place. True it is the blessed Angels of God sometimes attend upon us here on earth; but ordinarily they wait upon the throne of God in heaven. When they are sent, with any message they come unto us: and when they have done their errand they return again. So that as well ascending as descending Jacob's ladder, Gen. 28.12. neither do we know when any of them come unto us, or how long they stay with us, neither do themselves always know in what state we are, or what we pray for in particular. As for souls departed, as it is no part of their office to encumber themselves with our businesses: Esa. 63.16. 2 Reg. 22.20. so if we may believe Scripture they have no particular knowledge of them, job. 14.21. yea they are often taken from among us, Eccl. 9.5. to the end they may not be troubled with them. Psal. 146.4. And indeed not knowing of themselves as being absent, if they have any such knowledge it must needs be by revelation or relation from others. Is it from the Angels then? But they know not all our needs, as not being always with us. And what a compass is it, that the Angels come down hither, and then return back again, to acquaint the Saints with our needs, that they may pray for us? Is it from Souls newly arrived? Surely they at their departure are more careful of themselves and their own future state, then inquisitive after the state of others. And the knowledge they carry hence with them can be but of a few things near at hand which they have seen and heard, not which were far distant, or of all wheresoever and whensoever done. Besides, what a dream is it, that those ancient Saints should then only intercede for us, when by some of these new comers they are particularly informed of us? whence is it then? Forsooth from divine revelation? what? special and particular then when we pray? De beat Sanc. l. 1. c. 20. Nor so neither, saith Bellarmine. For then the Church would not so boldly say unto the Saints Pray for us, but sometimes remember to beg of God that he would reveal our prayers unto them. Neither can a reason so readily be yielded why the Saints before the coming of Christ were not called upon, seeing God might as well have revealed the Church's prayers unto those then, as to these now, what revelation then? That whereby in the glass of the Trinity they see all whatsoever may any way belong unto them. Mor. l. 12. c. 13 Then belike not all things, as Gregory saith: else what needed this restriction? And yet, if all things be Christ's, 1 Cor. 3.22. and whatsoever is Christ's belong unto them as being in Christ: then seeing all that belongeth unto them, they see therein all things which they will none of. But the truth is, this devise of the glass is but a poor shift. For the essence of God is most simple and immutable, and varieth not as things here vary. Neither is it, as Aquinas saith a necessary but a voluntary glass, reflecting not all that it knows, but what it pleaseth to make known: which upon the matter is no other revelation then that which Bellarmine himself rejects. By all which it appears that nor Angels nor Saints have sufficient means of particular knowledge. As is their knowledge, so is their desire: for the will follows the direction of the understanding, wherefore there is no particular knowledge, neither can there be any particular will. That the Saints who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like unto the Angels do together with the Angels desire in general and wish for peace on earth and good will towards men, we no way deny: but that they have a will to help this man, that man, every man, at all times, in every their several needs and necessities we can no way grant. For of their Will we are to judge by their calling, and of their Calling by the Will of God, to which their Will only is conformed. If therefore it be the will of God that every one of them should take particular care of all our several affairs, this must appear by some commandment or promise of God made unto them. But in Scripture, where God only revealeth his will such commandment & promise we find none. True it is the Angels are Ministering spirits, and as it pleaseth God are sent forth to do him service here below. But which of them, and for whom, and about what business, and when, and where, & how long, and the like, are circumstances hidden and concealed from us. Neither are they all employed in every business, but when and where it pleaseth God. Whence it followeth that where they are not employed they have no particular will to help. As for the Saints departed, we read not of any commandment they have to attend us or our affairs. Nay we read they are taken away, to the end they should not be troubled with them. So that resting from their labours, and having no further vocation thus to be employed: neither have they any particular will to help. Now wanting both knowledge and will, to what end were ability, had they any? But indeed sufficient power they want also. For although they be blessed, and have the beatifical sight of God, yet Gods they are not, which yet they must needs be▪ if at one view they could behold all things that are done, or at one instant hear all the suits that are made unto them by so many thousands, in so many places, so far a sunder, and at once. For ability to perfome so much belongs only unto him who knows all, is every where, and to whom nothing is impossible: and therefore not unto the creature, which being of a finite and limited nature cannot attend so many, so diverse, and so distant businesses otherwise then successively. And thus seeing Angels and Saints neither have particular knowledge of our estates, nor ready will to help, nor sufficient power enabling them to help: it followeth that to pray unto them must needs be vain and so no way Pious or Profitable. Perhaps will some say, though it be not Profitable yet neither is it Hurtful. Yes hurtful, and that in a high degree. For it is most derogatory to the glory of God, and the mediation of Christ: and consequently is superstitious, impious, and sacrilegious. It derogates from the glory of God, in that it ascribes unto the creature that which belongs only unto him, Esa. 42.8. & 4 ● 11. and cannot without much wrong be given to another. For he that prayeth unto Saints or Angels acknowledgeth them so doing to be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, as is above insinuated: which yet are attributes so proper unto God, that they are utterly incommunicable unto any other. Rom. 10.14. And if as Saint Paul saith we can call upon none but him in whom we believe, and we may believe in none but only in God, not in St Peter, In joh. tract. 54. & Ser. 131 de temp. as Saint Augustine saith, because Peter justifieth not the wicked, nor in the Church, because the Church is not God, but the house of God: than whosoever calleth upon the creature, thereby testifieth that he placeth all his Faith and affiance, & so maketh it a God, which is no less than high treason against God. Add yet further, that Prayer is a principal part of that worship which is due only unto God: Mat. 4.20. according to that of the Psalmist, Psal. 65.2. O thou that hearest prayer to thee shall all flesh come. And indeed so proper is it unto God, that the ancient Fathers have from it thus argued unto the Deity of Christ and the blessed Spirit, They are to be called upon, Ergo are God. which were but a silly consequence, might others also be invoked besides God. Derogatory therefore it is unto the honour of God. So is it also unto the Mediation of Christ. For holy Scripture maketh him our only Mediator and Advocate: and therefore only because he alone hath merited and procured our redemption. So saith the Apostle, Christ who died, Rom. 8.34. or rather who is risen again, who also is at the right hand of God, 1 Tim. 2.5.6. and maketh intercession for us. And again, There is one God, and one Mediator between God and Men, the man Christ jesus who gave himself a ransom for all. And Saint john, 1 joh 2.1.2. If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, jesus Christ the Righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins, whosoever therefore joineth fellows with Christ in the office of Intercession (and so do all that call upon Saints or Angels) notoriously detracteth from him in his Mediation, and in that honour which he appropriateth to himself, of treading the wine press alone, Esa 63.3. without any other to help him: which how sacrilegious it is who seeth not? One thing more I have yet to say before I leave this point: namely that against the Invocation of Saints we have the prescription of a very long time on our side. For in the old Testament and during the space of well near four thousand years we have no warrant at all for it. Praef. de eccls triumph. & l. 1. c. 19 Nay Bellarmine himself (howsoever our adversaries to blear the eye of the world make a flourish to the contrary) expressly confesseth that the Spirits of the Patriarches and Prophets before the coming of Christ were not so worshipped and called upon, as the Apostles and Martyrs now are, because as yet they were detained in those infernal prisons where they had not the beatifical sight of God. Now if the Patriarches than saw the face of God as far forth as the Saints do now (as indeed they did) the argument is so much the stronger, if yet all that while they were never called upon. In the new testament likewise we find no warrant for it even by their own confession. And Salmeron the jesuit rendereth reasons thereof. For, saith he, the jew that never had called upon any of the Patriarches or Prophets would hardly have been drawn to pray unto those newer Saints: & the Gentiles would have thought that instead of those many Gods which they had forsaken, a multitude of other Gods had been put upon them. As for the times after Christ and his Apostles, it was long before it crept into the Church: and when it entered, it was but the opinion of some private men, and not the public doctrine of the Church. All the Fathers which proved the Deity of the Son & of the holy Ghost by this duty of Invocation, must needs if they will not contradict themselves be against it. So must they also (and they are not the least or meanest part of them) who held that the Faithful hence departed are not admitted into heaven, but continue elsewhere in some secret receptacles without the vision of God until the day of judgement. For upon that vision, even in the judgement of our adversaries, their particular knowledge of all things here done on earth dependeth, upon this again their Invocation. In a word whensoever or howsoever it began, as it grew on, so was it still opposed, and never gate public strength until the blind times of superstition overswaied true devotion. The case then standing thus, that Invocation of Saints and Angels is neither necessary, nor pious, nor profitable, but rather impious and extremely dangerous, as being derogatory to the glory of God & the honour of Christ's Mediation, and that no ground or warrant at all can be found for it, either in the old or new Testament, or in the writings and practice of those holy Fathers who flourished when the Church was in her primitive purity: the case I say thus standing, our safest course will be to follow the precedence and direction of our blessed Saviour and with him to address ourselves unto our heavenly Father, and to none other. It is he alone who at all times can both hear and help. Neither is he more able than ready and willing to grant our requests, if we come unto him in his son's name. Night and day he stretcheth out his arms towards us, he invites us with all lovingness to come unto him, he chargeth and commandeth us in all our needs and necessities to direct our prayers immediately unto him. Let us not therefore solicit any other mediators or spokesmen for us, as if we doubted of his fatherly goodness and affection towards us: but let us rather come directly with all boldness unto the throne of grace, Heb 4.16. to the end we may obtain mercy, and find grace to be holpen in due season. So to do is not Presumption but Faith and Duty. And so much for the first part of our Saviour's prayer Quem orat, to whom he prays. The second is, Pro quibus orat, for whom he prays. He prays for the Church mystical, as some term it, or, as it may more fitly be called, for Christ mystical, that is the whole body consisting both of the Head which is Christ, and all the rest of his members. That it may more fitly be called Christ mystical, we have the warrant of S. Paul, who expressly calleth it so. As, saith he, the body is one, and hath many members, 1. Cor. 12. 1●. and all the members of one body, though they be many, yet are one body: even so is Christ▪ Where by Christ nothing can be meant but the whole consisting both of Head and Members. Had the Church as it's distinguished against the Head been understood, he would have said, as St Austin observeth, De piece. mer. & rem. l. 1. c. 31 ita & Christi, so is Christ's, that is, the body of Christ, or the members of Christ: but he saith, ita & Christus, even so is Christ, unum Christum appellans caput & corpus, calling both the head and the body one Christ. The same doth St Austin elsewhere also observe upon those words of the Apostle, He saith not, and to seeds as speaking of many, Gal. 3.16. In Psal. 142. but as of one, and to thy seed which is Christ. Now, saith he, some perhaps will say, if Christ be the seed of Abraham, are we so also? Remember that Christ is the seed of Abraham: and if by this we also are the seed of Abraham, then are we also Christ. Unto this warrant of Scripture add we the reason thereof: that Christ and his Church being twain and yet constituting but one mystical body, it is fit the denomination of the whole should be taken from the better and more worthy part, which is Christ, and not the inferior, which is the Church. But of this by the way. For Christ mystical then doth our Saviour pray: but first for himself, and then for his members. For himself, from hence unto the ninth verse: for his members, from thence unto the end of the Chapter. If any demand a reason of this order, I answer first, Christ is the more worthy person. Col. 1.18. For he is Emanuel, God-man appointed by his Father to be the Head of the Church, and in all things to have the pre-eminence. And therefore as he hath in our Creed before the Church, so in this Prayer also he deserves to have precedency. Secondly, he knew it could not go well with his Church, unless first it went well with himself. For under his Father he was to be the fountain of life and grace, the universal cause of all good unto his Church, and to this end was he to be anointed of the Spirit without stint or measure. Ps. 133.2. So that unless the ointment be poured upon Aaron's head, it cannot descend unto the beard, and from thence unto the skirts of his garment. joh. 1.16▪ And unless Christ be first replenished himself, we cannot of his fullness receive either grace for grace or glory for glory. That therefore it might go well with us he prays first for himself. But then in the next place he maketh suit for his Church, as if without her welfare it could not be well with him. For as for her he was incarnate, so without her he counts himself imperfect. For so it must needs be, if as St Paul saith, she be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. The reason, because he is her Head. Eph. 1.23. And therefore though he fill all in all, yet without her he wanteth of his own fullness, because he is no other than a head without a body. And this you see for whom he prays, as also in what order, & why in such order he prays for them. Whence briefly we may observe, first to what height of honour it hath pleased Christ to advance his Church, in that he hath made her not only Christian by virtue of her Spiritual unction, but also Christ by reason of her mystical union with him: than which what higher dignity? Secondly, that in all things Christ is to be preferred even to our very lives, yea our souls and their salvation, as Moses and S. Paul sometime did, because he is of infinite more worth and desert then all. Thirdly, that Christ is the Principle of all good, and that the life both of Grace and Glory is to be derived from him alone. If we seek it from Saints, or Angels, or any other creature, they will but deceive our hopes in the end, as water torrents that pass away do the travellers of Temah and Sheba. joh. 6.15. etc. Lastly, that as in hell the rich glutton could not find so much as one drop of water so out of Christ not a drop of grace is to be had. Carefully therefore are we to labour that we may be in him. Being in him, we cannot but be partakers of all goods together with him. Neither need we fear the loss thereof, Col. 3.3. for he hath received it for us, and our life is hid with Christ in God. And thus much of the second part Pro quibus, for whom he prays. Come we unto the third. Quid orat, what he prays for: & first what to himself then what to his Church. To himself he prays for Glorification, rendering diverse reasons why it should be granted unto Him. Of all which we will speak in their order: but first of the thing demanded, Glorify thy Son. Glory is no other than the splendour, clarity, brightness, or shining of a thing resulting and rising from the perfection, eminency, or excellency it hath above other things. For example, the Glory of God is the perfection of his nature and attributes infinitely surpassing and outshining the perfection of all creatures. 1. Cor. 15.41. Among the creatures, the Glory of the Sun, Moon, and Stars is their incomparable brightness above other lights. Mat. 6.29. Of Princes, their peerless sovereignty and state above the subject. Gen. 49.6. Of Man, the soul and speech by which he excelleth the brute and dumb creature. Psal. 16.9. Of the Church, her special privileges above all other societies. Ib. 87.3. And so in other things. So that Glory is no other than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, greatness joined with beauty or goodness. Not every beauty or goodness, but that which is exochally or eminently so. In regard whereof in Hebrew it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Weight, as causing those that behold it, as it were, to sink under the burden thereof. Whereunto S. Paul, as it seems, alluding, joineth an exceeding weight with Glory. 2. Cor. 4.17. In the Chaldee it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preciousness, as being of greatest worth and value: in which respect the Apostle joineth Riches with Glory. Col. 1.27. In Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fame, opinion, from the effect thereof: because in the mind it begetteth due estimation of it, and in speech honourable mention. In regard whereof it is defined by some, Clara cum laude notitia, an apprehension thereof together with praise: by others laus consentiens bonorum, or vox hominum incorruptè judicantium, praise given by good men, or the report of them that judge rightly thereof. Of which again by and by. Such is Glory. Now to Glorify imports two acts, the one of bounty and liberality, the other of justice.. That whereby Glory is conferred & bestowed where it is not, or is augmented and increased where it is not in the full measure. And so God is said to glorify the creature, according to that of the Psalmist, Grace and glory God will give. This whereby the glory that is is acknowledged & ascribed unto the thing that is glorious, yea whereby it is made known & manifest to others to the praise and honour thereof. And so the creature is said to glorify God. And in this latter sense we find these three words of Praising, Honouring, and Glorifying in Scripture ordinarily to be used: although in proper speech each have its several and peculiar notion. For Praising is that act where by in words we give testimony of the virtue or goodness of a thing. So the Philosopher, Laus est oratio magnitudinem virtutis indicans, praise is a speech declaring the greatness of virtue. Honouring is an higher degree where by not in words only, but by outward gestures and signs also we testify of the excellence & goodness of a thing. Glorifying is the fruit or effect of both. For in praising by words and honouring by signs we cause the goodness and excellency of a thing to spread itself unto the knowledge of many. Whence instead of glorificatio diverse say clarificatio, deriving gloria from clarus, as if it were claria, to import the making of a thing illustrious & to shine abroad. St. Basil therefore defining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to glorify by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and S. Augustin by gloriosum dicere, to say a thing is glorious, say something but not all. For as we have showed, it steps further and includes more within. it. And thus you see in general both what glory is, and what it is to glorify: by which as by a thread we may easily be guided to that particular which here our Saviour craves when he saith, Father glorify thy Son. For undoubtedly he prays that his father would bestow upon him what glory he wanted, if he wanted any: and the manifestation of that glory which already he had, if he had any, or should have therefore. Wherefore to make all plain, we will inquire three things. First, What glory he was presently possessed of, secondly, what glory yet he wanted, and thirdly how he would be glorified. Of these in order, and first of the first. That Christ now presently was possessed of glory, though haply not as yet in the full measure, cannot be denied. For although the Prophet say that he had neither form, Esa. 53.2. nor comeliness, nor beauty: yet indeed he was the fairest of all men, Psal. 45.2. & full of grace and truth. Outwardly and in the eye of natural men beauty he had none, joh. 1.14. he seemed a Worm rather than a Man: but inwardly and to them that were spiritual he both was and appeared glorious, and they beheld his glory, not as of man, but as of the only begotten of the Father. Omitting therefore this as granted of all hands, let us rather inquire touching his glory what it was. It was double, the glory of his Person, and the glory of his Office. The glory of his Person again is double. For being the word made flesh, & so consisting of two distinct natures the Word and the Flesh; though the Person be but one, yet is there a twofold glory thereof, one of the Word, another of the Flesh. The glory of the Word standeth in two things, first that he is the eternal Son of the eternal Father, begotten after an unspeakable manner of his own substance: and therefore the brightness of his glory, Heb. 1 3. etc. and the express image of his Person. A name too excellent for the Angels themselves. For never did the Father say to any of them Thou art my son this day have I begotten thee. Secondly that being so begotten he is consubstantial and coequal with his Father: neither counteth he it robbery to be equal with him. Phil. 2.6. For though he be the Son and not the Father, yet being of the same Substance he is one and the same God with him, and may justly challenge unto himself the fullness of the Deity as far forth as the Father. A glory infinitely transcending that of any creature. The glory of his Flesh is likewise double, of Assumption and Communication. Of Assumption by which it was taken into the divine nature. For as soon as it began to have being in the womb of the blessed virgin, it was prevented from subsisting in itself, and was drawn into the unity of the Person of the Son of God, eternally to subsist therein. The highest dignity that a creature can aspire unto. That of Communication is whereby glorious things are communicated unto his humane nature. And it is either Personal or Habitual. Personal is that whereby as the nature of man is truly given to the Person of the Son, so the Person of the Son is truly communicated unto the nature of man. Whereupon because in the Person of the Son is the fullness of all perfection, and all the essential attributes of the Deity, as namely Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and the rest: therefore do we say that all these attributes and that fullness of perfection are communicated also unto the Manhood. Howbeit not Physically and by effusion, as if the same properties which are in God should formally and subiectively be in man, as heat transfused from the fire is inherent in the water. For that which is infinite cannot be comprehended of that which is finite. How then? Personally in the son of God. So that by reason of the hypostatical union there is such a real communion between them, that the son of man is truly the Son of God, and consequently also Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and the rest. The want of due consideration hereof was it that bred that monster of Ubiquity, and that great quarrel betwixt us and the Saxon Churches. joh. 1.16. Communication habitual is that whereby the fullness of grace was bestowed upon him to be subiectively and inherently in his Flesh. And this is the glory of his Unction. Esa. 11.2. For the spirit of the Lord rested upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. Psal. 45.7. By this Spirit was he anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, joh. 3.34. yea he received the spirit without measure or limit both for the essence & virtue, thereof, intensively and extensively, to all effects and purposes both for himself and others. So that in his Will there was perfect justice without taint or stain: in his Mind perfect wisdom and knowledge, both Beatifical whereby he saw God far more clearly than any other, as being more nearly united unto him, and Infused whereby he knew all heavenly and supernatural verities, which without the revelation of grace cannot be known, yea Acquisite and Experimental also whereby he knew all whatsoever by the light of reason and nature might be known. So that he was ignorant of nothing which he ought to know, or might make to his full happiness. And this was his Habitual glory. Now the Glory of his Office briefly was to be the Mediator between God and Man. An office of so high a nature that it could be performed by none but only him who was both God and Man. For hereunto it was necessary that he should be a Prophet, a Priest, and a King. A Prophet as an Arbiter to take knowledge of the cause & quarrel depending between them, and as an Internuntius or legate to propound & expound the conditions of peace that are to be concluded upon. A Priest▪ to be an Intercessor, and to make interpellation for the party offending, and then to be a Fideiussor or Surety, making satisfaction to the party for him. A King having all power both in heaven and earth to keep and preserve the Church so reconciled in the state of grace, & to tread down under his feet all the enemies thereof. Wondrous Glory, and far above that of any creature. And this is the Glory he was already possessed of. Wanted he yet any further Glory? yes verily, and that in regard both of his Divine and Humane nature. Of his Divine: Phil. 2.7. for the Word had now emptied himself of his glory. Emptied himself I say, not simply and absolutely, for he could no more in such sort abdicate his glory then cease to be himself, it being essential unto him, and his very self: but oeconomically and dispensatively, vailing & covering it under the cloud of his flesh. Serm. 12. For if as St Leo saith, the exinanition of the divine Majesty was the advancement of the servile form unto the highest pitch of honour: then by like proportion the advancement of the servile form was the exinanition of the divine Majesty. This Exinanition or Emptying of himself was in his Incarnation, conception, nativity, obedience, active to the law of nature as being the son of Adam, and to the law of Moses as being the son of Abraham, Passive in suffering hunger and cold and weariness, & a thousand sorrows whereunto the infirmity of his flesh was subject. In this state Christ now stood, neither had he as yet recovered the Glory whereof he had emptied himself, nay he was not as yet come to the lowest degree of his humiliation. For though they were instant and ne'er at hand, yet his agony, his sweeting of blood, his arraignment, his cross, his death, his imprisonment in the grave were not yet come. All which did more & more eclipse the glory of his Deity: so that this Glory of the word as yet he wanted. In regard of his Humane nature, he had not yet deposed humane infirmities, as hunger, thirst, fear, sorrow, anguish, and the like. Neither had he obtained incorruption, impassibility, immortality, nor that glorious purity, strength, agility, clarity of the body which he expected, together with the fullness of inward joys and comforts in the Soul. Add hereunto that the actions of his mediation, namely of his Prophecy, Priesthood and Kingdom, had not, nor could not be hitherto perform gloriously, but only in such an humble manner as suited with the state of humiliation in which presently he stood. To make all plain, though as the School speaketh he were Comprehensor & in termino affectione iustitiae, yet he was viator & extraterminum affectione commodi, that is, though in regard of holiness and righteousness he were already pe●●●●y blessed and arrived at his end, yet by reason of th●●pprehension of those unpleasing and afflictive evils which now were, and yet were more to be upon him, the joys & delights of heaven were not imparted to him. So that the fullness and compliment of Glory he had not yet attained. Which being so, the third and last enquiry, how he would be glorified, may easily be resolved. For as appears by what we have said, he desires the dispelling and removing of all those thick mists and clouds which hitherto eclipsed his Deity: that is the deposition, not of his Humane nature (for that is now become an essential part of his Person, and shall continue therein unto all eternity) but of all humane infirmities, and that low condition to which he had humbled himself, to the end the glory of his Deity might at length appear and shine forth most perfectly. He desires furthermore that his Father would be pleased to glorify him by preserving and supporting him in the last act of his tragedy, I mean his bitter agony and passion, by losing the sorrows of death and raising him from the grave, by taking him up into heaven, & setting him at his right hand crowned with majesty and power, and finally by conferring upon him all glorious endowments both of soul and body, and joining him unto himself not only by the affection of perfect justice, but of comfort and delight also. He desires lastly to be glorified by the full manifestation of his Glory, both that which already he had, and that which yet he was to have; that not only jews but Gentiles also by the mission of his holy spirit, and the preaching of his Apostles might know him to be the eternal Son of God, of the same substance with the Father, and no way inferior unto him. Man also, but such a man as is assumpted 〈◊〉 the unity of the second person in the Trinity, sla●●●●ed and condemned yet just and innocent, dead and buried yet raised up again and living, humbled low yet exalted high, even to the highest top of all, Phil. 2.9. as having a name given him above every name: And that these things being generally known of all, vers. 10.11. he might be magnified and adored of all: and at the name of jesus all knees might bow, both of things in Heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue might confess that jesus Christ is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father. And thus you see how our Saviour would be glorified. The consideration of all which may be unto us of singular use and comfort. For first seeing Christ who cannot be denied what ever he demands hath prayed for his glorification: what vanity is it for any man to think or hope that he can hinder or obscure it? Let jews persecute him, put him to death, set a watch about his sepulchre to keep him down: yet can they not let but he shall revive and rise again. Though tyrants by open violence oppose the profession of his name, and Heretics by Sophistry seek to undermine it, and Antichrist assault it both ways by violence and sophistry: yet maugre all their cunning and malice his Father shall surely glorify him. Yea he is God manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. justified in the spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up into glory. Only now it remains to expect and pray for his return in glory. Secondly, the Glorification of Christ is the pledge and earnest of our Glorification. For had not he risen, ascended and been received up into glory, neither should we. The gates of death had been bard upon us, and of heaven shut against us, & we should have been covered with eternal shame and ignominy. But now Christ like another Samson hath broken through the gates of death, our head is risen and we in him. He is ascended and gone from us, but gone to prepare a place for us, that where he is there we may be also, and behold that his glory; and beholding it be made like unto him, bearing his glorious image. For as now because he is full of grace we of his fullness receive even grace for grace: so being full of glory, of his fullness we shall also receive even glory for glory. Memorable is that saying of Tertullian, De resur. car. c. 51. As he hath left unto us the earnest of his spirit, so he hath received from us the earnest of our flesh, and hath carried it into heaven as a pledge that the whole sum shall one day be reduced thither. Rest therefore secure oh flesh and blood, ye have livery & seizan of heaven and the kingdom of God already in Christ. Thirdly Christ so earnestly suing for his Glorification, it is our duty by all means both to procure and further his Glory, which if we cannot do in such sort as his Father doth, yet are we to perform it in such a sort as we may. If not gloriosum faciendo, by bestowing glory upon him: yet gloriosum dicendo, by praising and magnifying his glory. By faith we are to be assured thereof, by confession to acknowledge it, by our holy Christian life to testify that the faith of our hearts and the confession of our mouths accord and agree together, and as much as lies in us to labour that others may glorify Christ together with us. Fourthly and lastly, as Christ did so are we warranted by his example to pray for our own Glorification: that God would be pleased to perfect that glory upon us which here by grace he hath begun in us. Hence is it that the Saints are said not only to love, but also to long for the second coming of Christ, as knowing that till than it cannot be obtained: that the Church also so earnestly prays, Turn my beloved and be like the Roe or young Hart upon the mountains of Bether, Cant. 2.17. Rev. 22 20. and again yea come Lord jesus come quickly. But may we with Christ desire that the Glory begun in us be manifested unto others? we may. For we are commanded to provide things honest in the fight of all men, Ro. 8.17. Mat. 5.16. and to let our light so shine before men that they also may see our good works. Only we must take heed that we affect it not from men principally, nor make it our main end (for this would be the foul sin of Vainglory) but that with Christ we seek it of our Father in the first place, and to the end that being glorified of him he may be glorified by us. For not he that commendeth himself or is commended of others is approved, 1 Cor. 10.18. but he whom God commendeth. And so much for Quid, what our Saviour craveth to himself. Now that he may not be denied his request, he presseth his Father with sundry weighty and important reasons: all which God willing we will handle in their order. The first is drawn from the circumstance of time, thus, The hour is come, therefore glorify thy Son. What Hour? undoubtedly the hour of his bitter passion. This appeareth evidently by that of our Saviour, Mat. 26.45. Lo the hour is at hand, and the son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. That also of Saint john, joh. 8.20. They laid not▪ hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And yet more plainly by that of our Saviour, joh. 12.23.24.27. where having said, the hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified, presently he speaketh of his death, and addeth, Father save me from this hour, but therefore came I into this hour. This Hour is here by way of eminence called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the, or that hour, both in regard of the great work that was to be performed therein, as also for that it was long before determined by the Father to that work. But now, saith Christ, that hour is come, that is, it is instant and at hand. And so indeed it was. For the same night that he uttered this prayer he was betrayed, and the next day cruelly executed. By which it is evident that he was not ignorant of the hour, but as he foreknew it, so he was ready also to enter into it. So that in these two words these three things come to be considered, the Hour, the work of the hour, & the knowledge he had both of the Hour & the work thereof. But before I spoke of any of them, it is reason we should show the force of Christ's argument, & how it follows, The hour of my Passion is now at hand: therefore thou oughtest to glorify me. Some, as namely those of the Church of Rome, make the reason of the sequel to be the merit of his passion, for that by it he should deserve his glory. Now true it is that Christ both did and suffered many things worthy of most large and ample reward. Howbeit for aught we can find in Scripture, all was for us with neglect of himself. There was no perfection but either he was already possessed of it, or it was now due unto him by virtue of the personal union. At the first instant whereof all glory would have flown to his Humanity, had it not by special dispensation been stayed until he was come to the lowest bottom of his humiliation. Which being done, and the stay removed, it could not but naturally flow unto him. So that how he should merit for himself cannot well be conceived without impeachment of his glorious Union. Phil. 2.8.9. As for those texts they allege for proof, Heb. 2.9. all of them show rather ordinem then meritum, Luc. 24.26. that his glory succeeded his passion, not that his passion merited his glory. Heb. 1.9. For as touching that to the Hebrews, Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity: wherefore God even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows: if it import merit, it must be of Unction and not of final Glorification, which they will none of, & indeed cannot be. For in the very first instant of his assumption, & as soon as the Humanity had being, the ointment was poured upon him, so that it could not possible be prevented by merit. Merit therefore is not the reason of the sequel. What then Surely the Promise of his Father. For it was not the Fathers will that ignominy should always rest upon the son, or that the sl●●es as it were of Glory should still be stopped against him. Wherefore he promised, Esa, 53.10.11. When he should make his soul a sacrifice for sin, he should see his seed, and prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord should prosper in his hand, so that he should see of the travel of his soul, and be satisfied. Yea he swore unto him, Ps. 110.4. and repented not of it, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedeck, Heb. 7.21. that is, who by performing the office of his Priesthood, should pass into his eternal and glorious kingdom. And upon this ground it is that our Saviour affirmeth, Luc. 24.26. Christ ought first to suffer, and then to enter into his glory. And hence also it is that here he saith, The hour is come, glorify thy son: as if he should say more fully, thou hast bound thyself by promise, yea and by oath too, that when by suffering I shall have finished the work of redemption for which thou sentest me, thou wouldst fully satisfy me with glory. Now the hour of my passion is come, and I am ready and willing to undergo it. Remember therefore thy promise and perform it. For unless thou wilt fail of thy word (and fail of thy word thou canst not, because thou art truth itself) thou must needs glorify me. And thus you see both the reason and necessity of the sequel in this enthymeme. Whence we are lessoned, first, to imitate Christ, and with him to ground all our prayers and hopes▪ upon our Father's promise. For he is omnipotent and can, true & will perform. Unto Godliness he hath made the promise both of this & the other life. Live we therefore godlily▪ & then fear we not boldly to approach unto the throne of grace, and to charge him with his promise both for the one and for the other, thou hast promised, and therefore glorify me. Again, as Christ could not have ignominy and shame always to rest upon him, but that obice remoto the stay and let being removed, Glory would surely flow unto him by reason of the hypostatical union: so by virtue of the mystical union we have with Christ, obice remoto, as soon as the let and stay is done away, it cannot be but that forthwith from him Glory should be derived unto us. That let is Sinne. Sin being crucified and slain by death, when we are ready to yield up the ghost, but specially when the day of resurrection is come, we may say with Christ, Father, the hour is come, glorify thy son. Lastly, if we will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reign with Christ in glory, we must first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suffer with him in humility. He bore the Cross before he could wear the Crown: & we are predestinated to be conformed unto the image of the Son. Rom. 8.29. And we also in our flesh must fulfil the remainders of the afflictions of Christ, Col. 1.24. if we will be glorified with him. But of this enough. Now let us resume the three particulars above mentioned to be considered. And first of the first. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the or that hour, that is the hour decreed & determined unto the Passion of Christ. For he that is the creator of time, Act. 1.7. hath ever reserved the disposition thereof in his own power. And as he hath ordained of all that shall come to pass, even to the lighting of a sparrow and the fall of a hair: so unto every thing hath he set a season, Eccl. 3.1 and a time to every purpose under heaven. If to every thing and purpose: then much more to this work, as being a business of greatest weight and consequence. And seeing as the Prince of Physicians saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, time is that wherein season is: it may not be doubted but God hath ordained such a time for it as was every way most seasonable. And truly did S. Augustin say, Omnia proprijs locis & temporibus gessit Saelvator, our Saviour acted all things in their proper times and places. Let us therefore a little more particularly inquire touching this time and season: and here first in what age of the world, secondly in what year of his own age, thirdly and lastly in what time of that year he suffered. As touching the age of the world, it was not instantly upon the creation thereof, nor yet soon upon the fall of man, but a long time after, even towards the end of foure-thousand years, and the beginning of the last age of the world, Gal. 4.4. called therefore in Scripture, the fullness of time, and the last days. Heb. 1.2. This time was of old foretold by the Prophets. For although the incarnation and suffering of the Messias was for a while preached indefinitely, without designation of any certain time, as namely unto Adam and Abraham▪ yet afterward it pleased God to reveal it more definitely, Gen 49.10. as by jacob, the sceptre shall not depart from judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come, and by Daniel, Dan. 9.24. &c that seventy weeks after the going forth of the Commandment to restore & build jerusalem being well near expired, the most holy should be anointed and Messias be cut off. At the end of which time there was a general expectation of the Messia● among the jews, as appeareth by Scripture. 〈…〉 that very time he came, and suffered in the flesh, as by the same Scripture is purposely declared. Some that are counted skilful in Chronologie▪ and the computation of times, place the Passion of Christ in the year of the world three thousand nine hundred fifty and three. Others I know reckon otherwise, but the numb●● of years where in they differ is so small, that it is little o● nothing at all to be reckoned of. Haply you will demand why it pleased God rather to appoint this time then any other. I answer because this time was of all other the most seasonable & fitting. The time before the fall, and while man stood yet in his integrity could no way be fit. For as our Saviour saith, He came not to call the just, and again, the whole need not the Physician. Mat. 9.15.12. There being therefore as yet no sickness nor wound: neither was there any need of physic or salve. Had man persisted in his innocence, Christ had never been incarnate nor had suffered. To have suffered soon after the fall would also have been very inconvenient. For it was reason that man sinning by pride should have a time to humble him, to see his misery, to seek help, and to exercise his faith. The dignity also of our Saviour's person was such, and the work of redemption so important, that so much haste could not well stand with either. Luc. 18.8. And if Christ suffering so lately shall at his second coming scarce find faith on the earth: what a scarcity of faith would there have been, and how cold would charity have waxed by this time, had he suffered so long ago, and presently upon the fall? For which cause also it was not to be deferred unto the last period of the world, lest in the interim religion and the knowledge of God should quite be extinguished. Besides it 〈◊〉 ●it that some time should be allowed between the work of our redemption and glorification, to the end that the power of God our Saviour might be praised and spread abroad, our faith exercised and tried not only in regard of things past and present but future also, and our thankfulness testified by our faithful and diligent serving of him. The duest time therefore was by the wisdom of God chosen▪ and Christ came and suffered neither too soon nor too late, but in that season when both jews and Gentiles were come to their ripeness, the one to be broken off by reason of their incredulity, the other to be grafted in through God's goodness and mercy. For as touching the jews, they were now grown to such an height of impiety, that as josephus saith, had the Romans never so little deferred their desolation, either the earth would have swallowed them, or a deluge of waters have drowned them, or fire from heaven have consumed them, for Sodom was never so abominable. As for the Gentiles, their fullness was now come in, they were grown white and ready for the harvest, and the calling of them so long delayed was now to be commenced. And so much for the age of the world. As touching the year of his age wherein he suffered, it was, if we may believe Irenaeus, about the fiftieth, which he voucheth to be an Apostolical tradition. But indeed he is foully mistaken, as is generally agreed upon by all. Where by the way may be observed what small credit is to be given to Fathers in point of tradition. The ground of his opinion was that of the jews, Thou are not yet fifty, joh. 8.57. and hast thou seen Abraham? But they spoke at random, and after the manner of disputers grant him more than might well be admitted. The common received opinion is, that he suffered being three and thirty complete, & in the beginning of his four and thirtieth. Howbeit Scaliger, and that as it seems not without good reason, addeth one year more, and placeth his Passion in the beginning of his five and thirtieth. For taking it as granted that at his Baptism he was full thirty, Luc. 3.23. between that and his Passion he finds as he supposeth five Passovers. The first in the second of john, Ver. 13.23. And the jews Passeover was at hand. Vers. 1. The second in the first of john, After this there was a feast of the jews: which he proveth to be Easter by that in the former Chapter, Vers. 35. Say not ye, there are yet four months and then cometh harvest? Vers. 1. The third in the twelfth of Matthew and the sixth of Luke where his Disciples walking through the corn fields plucked the ears of corn. Vers. 4. The fourth in the sixth of john. And the Passeover a feast of the jews was nigh. The fifth and last was that wherein he was crucified. Which being so, then Christ being baptised in his thirtieth complete, and dying in the fifth Passeover after, his suffering must of necessity be in the beginning of his five and thirtieth. But about this I will not contend. The odds of one year cannot be great. Inquire we rather why he suffered at this age. First, because it was unfit that old age should creep into that nature which was so nearly united unto the eternal son of God. Secondly to testify how dear he loved us, that was content then to die for us when as yet he was in the very flower and vigour of his age. Thirdly, mystically to teach us, that as he grew in age and stature, and then being come to his full consistence and strength declined not: so we should also grow from faith to faith, from grace to grace till we come to our full 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christ, never more afterwards to feel any decay. Lastly to show, as St. Augustin probably conjectureth, in what age or stature we shall rise again, how young or old soever we die: namely in that wherein Christ himself died and rose again. And so much touching the year of his age. The time of the year wherein he suffered was the day of the feast of Passeover, even the fifteenth of the month Nisan. For the evening before he eat the Passeover with his Disciples, which by the law of God ought to be done upon the fourteenth of Nisan: & the next day after he died. Here perhaps it will be objected, that the jews began not their Passeover till after Christ was crucified, as plainly appears. joh. 13.1. ●. cap. 19.14. & 18. 2●. Before the feast of Passeover, supper being ended, saith St john. And again, It was the preparation of the Passeover, and about the sixth hour. And yet again, they themselves went not into the hall of judgement lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passeover. Whereunto I answer, that by this it seems to me more than manifest, that Christ and the jews did not both eat the Passeover at once, but our Saviour the evening before and the jews the evening after he was crucified. What then? Did Christ as Lord of the Passeover prevent the due day prescribed by his Father? So some say, but very unprobably. For Christ came to fulfil the law: & therefore without doubt he precisely observed it. How then? Surely the jews failed, not he. For the day of the Passeover and the weekly Sabbath falling immediately this year one after the other, they according to their old custom, translated the Passeover upon the Sabbath, and observed both on one day. But our Saviour preferring his Father's order unto humane traditions, took order it should be prepared for him on that very day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in which, Luc. 22.7.8. as St Luke saith, the Passeover ought to be sacrificed. So that, as we have said, the feast day itself was the day of his suffering. Then which no time could be more convenient or seasonable. For as by other levitical ceremonies, so was he also typed by the Paschal lamb. And therefore what time more fitting the sacrifice of the true Lamb, then that which presently followed upon the slaying of the typical? Whereunto St Paul alluding, for even Christ, ●. Cor. ●. 7. saith he, our Passeover is sacrificed for us. Add hereunto the assertion of some, that as Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same day he was created sinned: so the same day after the revolution of some years, man's sin by the death of Christ was done away, and he again created anew. Which if it could clearly and infallibly be demonstrated would argue a special providence of God in the dispensation of this day. Add lastly, that at this time all the jews wheresoever were to appear at jerusalem, & to celebrate this feast before the Lord: and that in this regard also it was fit he should at this time suffer, that more public notice might be taken thereof, and it the better be divulged and spread abroad. And thus also you see in what time and season of the year he suffered. The consideration of this circumstance of time may serve first to convince the jews of obstinate incredulity. For if God have by his eternal decree determined a set hour unto the coming and suffering of the Messias, & that hour be now many hundred of years past: then is Christ already come, or God faileth of his purpose. But that such a precise hour was set, and that God cannot fail of his purpose, the jew knoweth well enough. Obstinate therefore needs must he be, still denying that the Messias is come. Secondly it may serve to confirm and settle our Faith in the truth of the promised seed. For they that came before or after the appointed hour could not be the true shepherd, but thieves only and robbers. But jesus the son of Mary came and suffered in that very time, and in him were fulfilled all whatsoever was by the Prophets foretold concerning the Messias. He therefore is the true Christ, neither are we to look for another. Thirdly, not whithstanding this appointed time, we are to remember for our further consolation, that jesus Christ is yesterday and to day and evermore. Heb. 13▪ 8▪ And therefore as he was virtually the lamb slain from the beginning of the world▪ so the virtue of his death and passion reacheth down to these times also, and evermore will be available to the justification of a sinner, whosoever shall be provided of true Faith thereby to apprehend it. Fourthly, as unto this particular of Christ's passion, so unto other things also, as namely our vocation, conversion & repentance, hath he appointed a due time. This is called the acceptable time, and our Hodie to day: which if wilfully we neglect, we may with Esau, seek the blessing with tears, and never after recover it. Take we heed therefore while it is called to day, that we harden not our hearts, but hearken unto his voice, and duly obey it that we may be admitted into his rest. Lastly, as God out of his deep wisdom, so are we in imitation of God to do all things in due season. For as nothing is contented out of its proper place, so nothing is welcome or gracious that is done out of due season. It is not every word how true soever that is like an apple of gold with pictures of silver, but that only which is Seasonable. Learned is the tongue of that man that speaketh a word of comfort in fit time: and thrice blessed is he who like a tree planted by the rivers of waters bringeth forth his fruit in his proper season. And thus much touching the time when Christ suffered. The next point to be considered is the work of that hour, what work will you say? The bitter passion of our Lord and saviour jesus Christ. what Passion? The suffering of that punishment which was due to sin for the satisfaction of his Father's justice. What, was he a sinner and deserved such punishment? No, by no means. For as touching Original sin, the passage of that was so stopped up in his conception by the Holy Ghost, that it could no way enter into him. And for Actual sin there was not so much as guile found in his mouth. But he was to suffer for our Sins, and to satisfy his Father. We had eaten sour grapes, and his teeth were set on edge, yea but what justice is this, that Titius shall sin, and Sempronius be punished? The cause is not alike. For Christ undertook to be our Surety, and to satisfy all our debts. And to this end the Word became Flesh, that being otherwise impassable, he might in it suffer the punishment due unto us. But might not God if he had been so pleased have used some other means for the appeasing of his wrath? Yes doubtless, for he had abundance of spirit & wisdom. But he chose this as the best course for the declaration of his justice and mercy: justice in the rigorous exacting of satisfaction for sin yea even from his own son, mercy in the free pardon of sin by the death and passion of his son. Excellently to this purpose Cameracensis, God in the beginning gave unto man, truth to instruct him, justice to direct him, mercy to preserve him, and peace to delight him. But he rebelling against his creator, they all fled from him, & returned unto God. Where justice called upon him for satisfaction, and truth required performance of his word: but Peace sought mitigation of wrath, and mercy sued for pardon. In this difficulty wisdom interposed herself, and found out a means to content all, namely by the incarnation and suffering of the son of God. Whereunto the Father yielding all were soon accorded: and so mercy and truth met together, and justice and peace kissed each other. For further ratification whereof it pleased the Father solemnly and unalterably to decree, that his son should suffer in the flesh. Whereupon our Saviour saith it was so determined: and the Scriptures as they foretell it, so they affirm that thus it must be, and that Christ ought to suffer. Luc. 22.28. Esa. 53. Mat. 26.54. Luc. 24.26. Act. 2.33. And according to this determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, when the hour appointed was come he was delivered and taken and by wicked hands crucified and slain. Of which great work being now to speak, and to inquire into the Punishment fore appointed unto him by his Father; because some extenuate it too much as if he seemed only to suffer, or suffered not what indeed he did, others again too much aggravate it as if he suffered the very pains of the damned in hell, we will as warily and as carefully as we can steer between that Scylla and this Charybdis. And to this end we will diligently inquire four things, the species or kind of punishment he suffered, the extension, the intention, and the duration thereof. And of each of these briefly in a word. The kind of punishment was that which was due to sin, and every way equivalent for the expiation thereof: howbeit so far forth and no further than was convenient for such a person. First, therefore he suffered not that Punishment of sin which is sin (for God many times and that justly punisheth one sin by another) The reason; for that then he should have been a sinner either by inherent or actual sin, and so could never have made sufficient satisfaction for the sins of others. Neither secondly did he suffer the personal punishment of this or that man, as the gout, the stone, the dropsy, and the like. For he took not the person but the nature of man into him: and so made himself subject not to Personal but to Natural infirmities only. To say nothing that those pains are many of them so contrary and repugnant one unto another, as they are incompatible in the same person. Nor yet thirdly did he suffer those punishments which proceed either from the conscience of inherent sin, or the eternal continuance of sin, such as are Remorse and despair. For in him was never any sin whether Original or Actual. Only it was imputed unto him inasmuch as he undertook to satisfy for it. These foreprised and excepted all other sorts of Punishment were laid upon him. And because in Sin there is a double act, an Aversion or turning away from God the chiefest good, and a Conversion or turning unto that which is only a seeming good, and consequently the desert of a double Punishment, the one of loss to be deprived of the true good, in regard of the Aversion, the other of sense, to feel smart both in body and soul in regard of the Conversion: our blessed Lord and Saviour suffered both. The Punishment of Loss, being in regard of present comfort and joy left unto himself and in a sort forsaken of his Father, of which again anon in the due place. The punishment of Sense, for he felt during the while extreme both torment and pain outwardly in the body, and horror and anguish, inwardly in the Soul. The Extension whereof was also exceeding general: for he suffered from all that any way could afflict him, and in all whatsoever belonged unto him. From his Father therefore he suffered, who for a time abandoned him and delivered him into the hand of sinners, from the powers of darkness who laid upon him whatsoever their malice could devise, from the jews who stumbled at him and despised him, from the Gentiles who made a game and laughingstock of him, from Magistrates who convented and condemned him, from the people who arrested and accused him, from the Clergy who charged him with cozinage and blasphemy, from the Laity who cried out crucify him crucify him, from his enemies who cruelly persecuted him, from his friends who in his greatest need started aside from him, from foreigners who disdainfully shook the head at him, from those of his own household who most treacherously betrayed him, and in a word from all sorts both of men and women: yea from the Heaven which denied to give him light, from the air which refused to vouchsafe him breath, from the earth which would not so much as bear him, & from what not? And as from all, so he suffered also in all. In his goods, being stripped even of his raiment, and lots cast thereon, in his good name being esteemed a deceiver, a blasphemer, a drunkard, a glutton, a magician, a traitor to Caesar, in his friends who were scattered as soon as the shepherd was smitten, in his mother through whose heart a sword was driven, in his soul by strong fear before his passion, and extreme sorrow in his passion, in all the parts of his body, his head being crowned with thorns, his face spit upon, his cheeks buffited, his hands & feet nailed, his sides pierced, his back & arms, scourged, and the whole upon the cross barbarously stretched and racked: in all his senses, the touch by wounds, the taste with myrrh and vinegar, the smell with the loathsome savour of Golgotha, the hearing with shameful taunts and revile, and the sight with mows and disdainful behaviour, finally in the whole person by death, & the separation of the soul from the body. The Intention of all which was likewise exceeding vehement, even proportionable unto the desert of sin, wherefore he sticketh not to say, Lam. 1.12. Behold and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow? And again, the sorrows of hell compassed me round about. Not that he felt the flames of hell fire, or the same kind of torment which the damned suffer in hell (far be such impiety from our thoughts) but that which is equivalent thereunto. Had he suffered only the death of the cross, and no more, his martyrs might seem to have endured more bitter pains, and with more patience than he. But this in no case may be imagined His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his fear and consternation, his strong cries, his agony and bloody sweat, his earnest prayer that if it were possible the cup might pass from him, and that lamentable expostulation, my God my God why hast thou forsaken me, do all mainly argue that his pangs were high strained and extraordinary. For although he were not forsaken of his Father either by breach of personal union, or loss of unction, or diminution of grace, or despair of protection and deliverance: yet he was abandoned and ●eft destitute of all present comfort, so that his sorrows could not but be above all other sorrows. And indeed how could it be otherwise? For not to speak of the pains of the body (which yet some affirm to be more intense then could be of other men by reason of the perfection and fineness of his complexion) his sorrows were not for the sins of one man, but of the whole world, which could be no less than a world of sorrow. And if his love to us were so infinite that he was content to suffer all these extremities for us: his sorrow for the miseries we were in could be no less, but must every way be answerable unto his love. So must it unto his wisdom also: for by it perfectly knowing and apprehending all the causes and reasons of sorrow, it cannot be avoided but that according to this knowledge & apprehension his sorrows should be strained and intended. The last point is the Duration of his pains, or how long he suffered them. They were not eternal, nor might continue upon him for ever. Had they so continued, he had never conquered death nor hell: and having not freed himself from them, how could he set us free? They continued therefore upon him but that hour, the time destined by his Father thereunto: which being once expired; all his pains and sorrows ceased together therewith. Here it will surely be objected, the punishment due unto sin is an eternal punishment. If then the sufferings of Christ were only temporary and not eternal, how hath he suffered and satisfied sufficiently for sin? For time holdeth no proportion with eternity. Whereunto I answer first, that in regard of the dignity of his person, the shortest punishment inflicted upon him is equivalent to the eternal punishment laid upon others. For he is not a mere man, but God and man. And as there is not between time and eternity, so neither is there between God and mere man any proportion at all. I answer secondly, that eternal punishment is due only to an eternal sin, not to that which is interrupted and broken off by grace. Sin though the act thereof be transient, yet it leaveth such a stain upon the soul, as continueth in it evermore, if by mercy it be not blotted out, and evermore disposeth unto sin. Now he that is so disposed sinneth in suo aeterno, and having as much as lies in him a perpetual purpose of sinning, he shall as he deserves perpetually and everlastingly be punished. But they for whom Christ died, have their sins broken off by grace, their souls by little and little cleansed from the stains of sin in his blood, a hatred and detestation of sin wrought in them, together with a sincere love and study of holiness, until sin be utterly destroyed and abolished in them. Christ therefore thus purposing to put a full end to all their sins, reason would that an end 〈◊〉 should be set unto his sufferings, and their sins not being eternal, that neither his sufferings should be eternal. And thus much for the Duration of his Passion. The use of all may be this. First, seeing Christ hath suffered all these things and that for us, it is fit that we by all ways and means should study to come to the full knowledge thereof. It was not for Angels, and yet they earnestly desired to look into this mystery. Us it concerns only, and nothing more than it: and can we possibly neglect the learning of it? The Apostle Saint Paul accounted the knowledge hereof to be of all other the most excellent, and all other things in comparison of it to be but loss and dung. Phillip 3. ●. 1 Cor. 2.2. Whereupon he protesteth that among the Corinthians he was resolved not to know any thing save Christ jesus and him crucified. Why then should not we be of the same, Eph. 3.18. and pray with him that we may be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height? That knowing what great matters he hath done for us, we may be the more incited to be thankful unto him for it. Secondly, seeing it pleased the Father thus to decree that his son should suffer all these things for the satisfaction of his justice, and that otherwise he would not be appeased for sin: we may thereby learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how precisely rigorous God is in the punishment of sin, together with the vileness and odiousness thereof. The due consideration whereof would both terrify us from the committing of sin, and work in our hearts a loathing & detestation of sin. For if God will not be pacified without full satisfaction, how dare we commit it? And if nothing can cleanse the leprosy thereof but only the blood of the son of God, how can we but abhor it? Thirdly, seeing he hath resolved to appease his wrath, and to rest satisfied for sin in the sufferings of his son, we may therein as in a crystal glass clearly behold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the great love of God towards man. It was not for the sinning Angels and their redemption that he gave his son, but for us men and our salvation. Rather than he would lose the whole race of mankind, he would spare nothing, no not his best beloved. With whom although he were ever well pleased, yet he must needs suffer for us, that in him he may be also well pleased with us. Fear we not therefore nor despair of grace. Though our sins be never so many and grievous: yet the son of God hath satisfied for them all. Tender we this payment unto his Father, and it cannot but be accepted. But yet lastly, seeing his sufferings were but a short time, and so not intended for eternal sins, but those only which were to have an end: it may give us a cave at to break off our sins be time, least being justly cut off in them they prove eternal to us, and so we have no benefit in the sufferings of Christ. For as the Apostle St Paul saith, Heb. 10.26 & 29. if obstinately and wilfully we resolve to sin after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. For this is to tread under foot the Son of God, to count the blood of the Covenant wherewith we were sanctified an unholy thing, and to do despite unto the spirit of grace. But of this second part, the work of the hour enough. The third and last is the Knowledge he had both of the work and the hour. The Hour, saith he, is come. He knew it therefore, else how could he say it. And out of this knowledge was it that so often he foretold of both. Of his Passion. joh. 3.14. As, saith he, Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness: even so must the son of man be lifted up. And again, more plainly unto his disciples he showed, that he must go unto jerusalem, Mat. 16.21. and suffer many things of the elders and chief Priests and Scribes, and be killed. Of the Hour. For sometime saith he, Nondum venit hora mea, joh. 13.1. my hour is not yet come. Another time, jesus knew that his hour was come. And if Simeon and Anna, and other of the jews foreknew the time of his coming in the flesh, and accordingly expected him: should not he much more know the hour appointed unto his sufferings, and accordingly prepare himself for it? For, as himself witnesseth, for that hour he came into the world. But how came he to the knowledge hereof? First, by the Scripture, Luc. 24.46▪ and the prediction of the Prophets. For, thus, saith he, it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer. But where is it written? Every where almost. And concerning his Passion, in the Psalms of David especially, & the prophecy of Esay. And touching the hour, in the blessing of judah by jacob recorded in Genesis, and that memorable prophecy of seaventy weeks in Daniel, as is above already specified. All which Scriptures he himself could not but understand, who opened the minds of others that they might understand them. Luc. 24.45. Again, he came to the knowledge hereof by special revelation, as being a Prophet, yea the greatest of all Prophets. For being in his humane nature assumpted into the Deity, and to this end assumpted that when the hour was come in it he might suffer: it could not be that either the hour or the work of the hour should be concealed from him. The Word undoubtedly knew it, for he appointed it. As undoubtedly he made it known unto his manhood which he had so nearly taken unto him, for that the same so mainly concerned it. If this be so, will some say, why then knowing it did he not avoid it? was it because he could not? Not so. For he was omnipotent: and he only had power of his life to lay it down or to take it up, neither could any without his own permission take it from him. If he would he might have prayed to his Father, & he would have sent him more than twelve legions of Angels to preserve him. Mat. 26.53. And if before the hour was come he had so often freed himself from the hands of his most violent enemies: why should he not in the very hour be as able to deliver himself? For his power was still the same and never a whit diminished. He could then, but would not avoid it. And why would he not? First, because his Father had decreed it, and he would in no case be disobedient unto him. For he came to do his will, and therefore professed it was unto him meat and drink to do it. In regard whereof he disclaims his own will. Not my will, saith he, Heb. 5.8. but thy will be done. Wherefore though he were the Son, Phil. 2.8. yet he learned obedience: and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Secondly, because of the tender love his Father inspired into him towards mankind. For it was the love he bore them which made him so willing: Rom. 5.8. and out of it though we were his enemies, yet he was content to dye for us, 1 joh. 3.16. and to lay down his life though it were so dear unto him. Lastly, had he not been willing, neither had he satisfied. His willingness proceeding from such love was the very form of his sufferings, and made them meritorious. Without them sacrifice is vain and without virtue, according to that misericordiam volo non sacrificium, I will mercy and not sacrifice, and again, melior est obedientia quam victimae, obedience is better than sacrifice, But it will be said, that all this notwithstanding he seemed very unwilling to dye. For did not he very passionately entreat his Father to be delivered from that hour? joh. 12.27. And that if it were possible the cup might pass from him? Mat. 26 39 For satisfaction of which doubt we are to know, that Christ though his manhood were assumed into the Deity, yet was he not thereby freed from aught that is humane. Being man therefore, as man he was measured by time, and his apprehensions could not all be in an instant, but one after another successively. Wherefore the first apprehension of his Passion was simple as of a thing evil in itself and afflictive to his nature, without any further consideration: for so only Sense & inferior reason at the first presented it unto him. And thus far it is true he desired to decline it. Neither was it evil so to do, it being agreeable to that law of nature which in creation was imposed upon us. But when in the second place it was by superior reason presented unto him invested with other circumstances, as namely that it was his Father's will, that for this end he was sent to the world, and that without it the world could not be redeemed there being no other means beside to effect it: forthwith apprehending it in this manner, he yielded most willingly thereunto, and said unto his Father, not as I will, but as thou wilt. Just as a Patient, who considering the potion offered him by the Physician only as bitter & distasteful loatheth and abhorreth it: but considering with all the operation thereof and what good it may do him, he readiy admitteth and accepteth of it. And thus much touching the knowledge Christ had of his Passion and the hour thereof, together with his willingness to suffer in obedience to his Father, and out of the love he bare us. Whence we may learn, first from his knowledge, that as he knew both what and when he was to suffer in his own person, so he knows also both what and when to suffer in his mystical body. This may minister matter of singular comfort unto us. For if it be so, what harm can at any time betid us? He will not suffer so much as a hair to fall from our head but as he pleaseth. For he hath numbered them all, and there is not a tear we shed from our eyes but he lays it up in his bottle. Many may be the troubles of the Righteous, but as he foresees them all, so will he support us in them, and one day deliver us from them all. Secondly from his willingness to suffer for us, to assure ourselves that his freewill offering is accepted of his Father, & we may confidently r●ly thereon as a full satisfaction for all our sins. Withal that we be also ready and willing to suffer for him. What ever can be laid upon us, is nothing to that which he endured for us. Oh those glorious Martyrs who so joyfully suffered such exquisite torments for his name's sake! Hitherto we sit quietly under our vines & fig trees. How soon the days of trial may come who knows? God grant us to be of like mind whensoever it comes. Thirdly, from his obedience, to yield absolute obedience unto the will of our Father, and denying our own wills to say unto him, not as I will but as thou wilt. Away with hypothetical and conditional obedience, if it make for my profit and advantage, or may be without my loss & hindrance. Say we rather with Queen Hester, Dan. 3.16.17.18. If I perish I perish, and with the three children, We are not careful o Nebucadnetsar to answer thee in this matter. Our God whom we serve is both able and will deliver us. If not, yet know we will not serve thy Gods. Last from his love, the best we can to requite him with love. The debt of love we owe him is infinite because his love to us was infinite. Which seeing we can never repay to the full, let us endeavour what we can, and bestow ourselves upon him, even our reasonable service of him. And thus much touching the first argument whereby he would persuade his Father to glorify him. The second is drawn from the highest and chiefest end of all things, the glory of God, in these words, that thy son may glorify thee. And it may be reduced into this form, That by which I shall glorify thee, and without which I cannot glorify thee, thou mayst not deny unto me. But by my Glorification I shall glorify thee, and without it I cannot glorify thee. Therefore my glorification thou mayst not deny unto me. Of the truth of both these Propositions I am now to speak: Which I shall eftsoons perform, if first we may know what the Glory of the Father is. For what Glory is in general, & what it is to Glorify, we have already spoken of at full, and therefore forbear to speak any further of it. That God the Father is Glorious nothing is more evident. In Scripture he is called Pater gloriae, Eph. 1.17. Psal. 24.8. the Father of glory, Rex gloriae the king of glory, Act. 7.2. Deus gloriae the God of glory: and so great is his Glory that it is therefore to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an excellent or magnificent glory. 2 Pet. 1.17. This glory is the splendour or brightness of his perfection above all other things. The ground thereof is perfection: that whereby it appeareth is the Splendour or brightness thereof. jam. 1.4. Perfection is cum nihil deest, when nothing is wanting. Whence in Hebrew it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth All. And it is double, either in suo genere in its kind, and so the Sun is said to be perfect, because it hath the fullness of light, or absolute, to wit, an interminable, infinite entire possession of all good, and so God only is perfect. And this Perfection is again double, Substantial or Personal. The Substantial, is the very Godhead itself considered in its Nature together with all the essential properties thereof, as knowledge, wisdom, justice, mercy, power, eternity, and the like. And this is so the Glory of the Father as it is also the Glory of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. For as the Creed of Athanasius hath, The Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one: and so the Glory equal and the majesty coeternal. This Perfection exceeds that of the creature infinitely, and that in sundry respects. For first, whereas the Creature hath perfection only in its kind, and one is destitute of that which is bestowed upon another: the Father hath the full possession of all Good whatsoever is or possibly can be imagined. secondly, whereas other things have their perfection only suo modo, according their capacity, which because they are creatures can be but finite: the Father hath his modo perfectissimo, after a most eminent and unconceivable manner, which because he is of infinite capacity must needs be infinite, And lastly, whereas the creature hath his perfection aliunde, from another without him, not from himself, namely God, according to that of the Apostle, Quid habes quod non accepisti, what hast thou which thou hast not received: the Father hath his from himself and of himself, without dependency or beholdingness unto any other. His Personal perfection is his Fatherhood, or that whereby he is the Father. And this is proper glory, incommunicable even to the Son or the Holy Ghost: for neither of them is the Father. And this glory stands in three things. First, that he is Prima persona, the first person in order. In order, I say, not in dignity: for so all three are coequal. The Son is the second, the Holy Ghost is the third: but he neither is not may be called the second or third, but only the first. Secondly, that he is the fountain and original of the Deity unto the Son and the Holy Ghost: unto the Son gignendo, by way of generation, unto the Holy Ghost together with the Son spirando, by an unspeakable manner of Proceeding. Thirdly and lastly, that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unbegotten, and proceeding from none: so that whereas the Son and the Holy Ghost receive their Personality from him, he receiveth his from neither. These privileges are so great, that although the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost exceed not one the other either in essence or dignity, yet the Father in regard of these is in Scripture by a kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or excellency called God. This double perfection of the Father is not without its Splendour & Brightness by which it shineth and appeareth. Were it without it, it could scarce be called glory. Now we know that the Father was never without his glory, no not then when things were not as yet created. Else how could he be said to manifest his glory? For manifestation is of that which is. joh. 17.5. And doth not our Saviour likewise desire to be glorified with that glory which be had with his Father before the world was? The Perfection thereof the Father by the Splendour and Brightness thereof shineth and appeareth two ways, first inwardly to the holy and blessed Trinity, and then outwardly unto others. Inwardly to the Trinity, by intervention of understanding and knowledge. For shining internally with the fullest clarity unto them it cannot but appear unto them: and appearing they cannot but contemplate and admire it as the Ocean and magazine of all good. Outwardly unto others by works conformable unto his perfection: as namely of Creation, Sustentation, Government, Redemption, and in the end Restauration of all things. For in these the goodness, Wisdom, Power, justice, and Mercy of God do shine and appear to us, whom it hath pleased God to enable with understanding to see and in some measure to comprehend them. But the shining forth of all perfection, and the appearance thereof in full strength, is reserved unto that day When the creature shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God: Rom. 8.21. and unto Faith whereby we see only as in a mirror, intuitive beholding of the face of God by vision shall succeed. And this is the glory of the Father. Now to glorify him cannot be to give or add glory unto him. For, as we have showed, he is absolutely Perfect and lacketh nothing: and his property is to give unto all, but to receive from none. It is therefore to manifest his glory, & to make it publicly known throughout the world: as if our Saviour had said, Father unless thou glorify me, the brightness of thy glory will exceedingly be eclipsed & obscured: but if thou glorify me, then shall the Glory be greatly manifested by me, and I shall make it known far and near among the sons of men. This being the meaning of these terms, let us now examine both the Propositions of the argument above propounded, & try the truth of them. The Mayor is That by which I shall glorify thee, and without which I cannot glorify thee, thou mayst not deny unto me. An evident and undoubted truth: else never would Christ have said it, especially in a matter so much concerning him. For if, as Solomon saith, the lip of vanity becometh not a Prince, much less would it become him who is the wisdom of the Father and very truth itself. And if nothing can concern him more than his own Glorification: then certainly to speak slightly and impertinently in a matter of such moment would have argued much weakness. And indeed it is so apparently true that our Saviour only affirms it without vouchsafing it any confirmation at all, as if he knew that his Father neither would nor could deny it. Nevertheless the truth thereof may yet further appear: First by the continual practice of all the Saints, conformable unto this of Christ. For in all their addresses unto God they ever urged him with his Glory, as the strongest argument to persuade, when the Lord had threatened to smite the people of Israel with the pestilence and to disinherit them because of their murmuring and incredulity, Num. 14.12. Moses thought nothing would sooner move him to commiseration and pity of them then the impeachment otherwise of his honour: For, Vers. 15.16. saith he, the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying, Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he swore unto them, therefore hath he slain them in the wilderness. As if he should say, thou mayst not do it, because it will discredit both thy truth and power. Again Daniel when the seventy years of judah's captivity were near at an end, entreateth the Lord to remember them in mercy, and to return them back again into their own country. But what argument useth he to persuade? Dan 9.17.18.19. For thine own sake, saith he, because the city and thy people are called by thy name. As if he should say, lest otherwise thy Glory by failing in performance of thy promise towards thy people should be called into question: what Psalm almost is there in which the Prophet David presseth not upon God this reason? Return O Lord, Ps. 6.4.5. deliver my soul, oh save me for thy mercy's sake. For in death there is no remembrance of thee, in the grave who shall give thee thanks? Ib. 142.7. Bring my soul out of prison that I may praise thee: the righteous shall compass me about, for thou shalt deal bountifully with me. Quicken me O Lord for thy name's sake: & 143.11. for thy righteousness sake bring my soul out of trouble. It were infinite to quote particular passages. In a word, did not our Saviour when he taught us to pray direct us ever to conclude with this argument, For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory? And did not St Paul according to this direction end his Prayer with ascribing Glory unto God in the Church by Christ jesus throughout all ages? Eph. 3.21. If then others have mightily prevailed with God in urging him with his Glory: shall we think that the Son of God can be less prevalent with his Father pressing him with the same argument, Father glorify me, for so I shall be able, else not, to glorify thee. Secondly, the manifestation of the Father's Glory, is the architectonical and sovereign end of all things. This he himself principally intended in all his works: this he set up as a mark for all to aim at. Prov. 16.4. The Lord, saith Solomon, made all things for himself, even the wicked for the day of evil. The predestination also of the Saints, and their adoption to be children by jesus Christ, was, as S. Paul testifieth, to the praise of the glory of his grace: Eph. 1.5.6. Rom. 11.36. yea of him and through him, and to him are all things: to whom be glory for ever, Amen. For to the praise of the glory of his Power all things were created. To the praise of the glory of his Wisdom all things are ordered and governed. To the praise of the glory of his Mercy are we ransomed in Christ from the bondage of misery. And to the praise of the glory of his justice are impenitent sinners reprobated and condemned. And reason it should be thus. For as out of him all things were educed as being the fountain and prime cause of all: so unto him it was fit all things should be reduced as unto the last and chiefest end of all. Right even as out of the sea all rivers flow, and then reflow back again unto it. Neither indeed was it possible to be otherwise. For God being in himself blessed and all-sufficient, cannot rest in any thing that is extrinsecall and without himself. In himself therefore he must find it: and what other can that be then his Glory? His Glory therefore did he necessarily propound unto himself as the sovereign end of all his actions: and unto it here doth our Saviour subordinate his own Glorification. So that hence also the truth of our Mayor plainly appeareth, that unless the Father will be without his Glory (and without his Glory he neither will nor can be) he must needs grant to his Son that without which he cannot glorify him. Thirdly and lastly, the glory of the Father is most dear and precious to him. It is unto him as the apple of his eye, which at no hand may be touched: yea as his very self, because it is himself. Hence it is that he is so jealous of his glory: neither can endure that it should be given to any other. And hence it is also that he threatens never to hold him guiltless whosoever taketh his name in vain: yea that he will most severely be revenged of all those that any way dishonour him. Rom. 1.21.22.23.24. Because, saith S. Paul, when they knew God they glorified him not as God, nor were thankful, etc. therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts to dishonour their bodies between themselves. This spiritual punishment is the greatest of all judgements in this life: and is usually attended with eternal shame and confusion of face in the next. And reason it is that they who sleight that which God holdeth so dear, should themselves be slighted of him: and seeing they disdain to glorify him that he by just vengeance should glorify himself upon them. So dealt he with Pharaoh, Nabuchadnetzar, Antiochus, Herod, and other proud tyrants: and so will he one day deal with all those that set so light of his Glory. Is then the glory of the Father so dear and precious unto him. Is he so jealous and chary of it that he will not have it in any case touched or blemished? Then surely that which maketh for his Glory, and without which the Son cannot glorify him, may not be denied him. And so much for the Mayor. The Minor Proposition is, But by my glorification I shall glorify thee, and without it I shall not be able to glorify thee. This though it be as true as the former, yet the truth thereof is not so evident as of that. For it may be objected, that our Saviour now praying for his Glorification, implies therein that he was not as yet glorified. For we use not to sue for what we are already possessed of, but only give thanks for it. Yet by and by he saith, Ego glorificavite, I have already glorified thee on earth. Vers. 4. As he was God he had from all eternity glorified him in heaven. As he was Man he had here on earth glorified him by his doctrine, life, obedience, miracles. And if we as yet unglorified do glorify him: how should not the Son much more be able to do it? Unto all which I thus answer briefly, that glorifying is double, either Inchoate or Complete. As touching the Inchoate, it is true that as the Father had in part already glorified him, as in particular by the raising up of Lazarus: joh. 11.4. so had the Son also in part glorified the Father. But as touching that which is Complete, neither had the Father as yet so glorified the Son nor the Son the Father. Wherefore as our Saviour is to be understood here to pray for his perfect Glorification: so are we to conceive it also of the Fathers, as if he had said more fully, unless the Father perfectly glorify the Son, neither can the Son perfectly glorify the Father. For as God declared the glory of his power in delivering Israel out of Egypt by a mighty hand, & with many signs and wonders, yet had his mercy and truth, yea & his power also been much impeached, had he not proceeded according to promise to settle them safely in the land of Canaan: so the Father although he had begun to show his glory in the incarnation of his Son, and all other his noble acts, yet if he did not go on to consummate and perfect his Son's glory, by supporting him in his last combat, raising him from death, taking him up into heaven, and setting him at his right hand with all power and authority, the glory of his goodness, wisdom, mercy, justice, and omnipotence, would be exceedingly blemished. But when once the Son shall be so glorified, then shall he by virtue of the power given him, pour forth of his spirit upon the sons of men, subdue the world unto his obedience, trample all his enemies under his feet, and recover the kingdom unto his Father. Whereby it will manifestly appear, that he is the eternal Father, very God, the author of life and salvation, sweet in his goodness, true in his promise, just in retribution, wise in all his actions, and most powerful also in his executions. And so much likewise of the Minor. The use whereof may serve, first, for confutation. For it answers a vain quarrel of the Arrians against the coequality of the Son with the Father. The Father, say they, must needs be greater than the Son, because the Son saith, Pater clarifica filium, father glorify thy son: and he is greater who gives then he who receives glory. De Trinit. l. 2. c. 4. Whereunto I answer in the words of S. Augustin, Quòd si ille qui glorificat, etc. If he that glorifieth be greater than he whom he doth glorify, let them grant that they are equal who glorify one the other. For it is written that the Son also glorifieth the Father, joh 17, 4. I, saith he, have glorified thee on earth. So also elsewhere, saith our Saviour, joh. 16.14. the spirit shall glorify me. And there being in the holy and blessed Trinity such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Circuminsession as whereby each Person dwelleth in other: it cannot be but each of them should know, and knowing mutually and eternally glorify one another. Secondly it serves for information, that as Christ our head referred his own Glorification unto the glory of his Father, so we that are his members should do the like and in all things seek to glorify our Father. Nay if Christ to the praise of the glory of his Father's grace was content to become sin and a curse for us: how much more are we bound in every thing to intend his glory of whom he exacteth no such thing. It is the rule of the Apostle S. Paul, Whether ye eat or drink, or do any thing else, do all to the praise and glory of God. All whatsoever either we are or have we have received of him, and it is he who by Christ hath redeemed us both bodies and souls: let us therefore glorify him both in bodies and souls, for they are his. Thirdly and lastly, seeing our Saviour urgeth his desire to glorify his Father as a special argument to persuade him to grant his request, it may serve for singular comfort unto us, that as long as our actions respect God's glory and are joined therewith they cannot but be accepted. He will surely bless them, and give them good success, sith his glory cannot be divided from them. A holy life glorifying God is a vital prayer. Though we hear no speech from it, yet it cryeth aloud in the ears of God; and saith, Father thou mayst not deny to glorify me, for through the whole course of my life I study nothing more than to glorify thee. And thus much of our Saviour's second motive drawn from the highest and most sovereign end of all, the Glory of his Father. Vers. 2. As thou hast given him power over all flesh that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. His third reason is drawn from the Power bestowed upon him by his Father, thus, Thou hast given him power over all flesh to the end he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him: Ergo thou oughtest to glorify thy son. The Antecedent of this Enthymeme is delivered in the Text in express terms. The Consequence is only insinuated & implied. For clearing whereof it may please you to observe with me, first that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here translated as, is not a note of similitude, but importeth a reason or cause. In regard whereof Euthimius expoundeth it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if he had said forasmuch or because. Secondly, that the word Power is in the original not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betwixt which two there is great difference. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth power of right or authority, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power of might or ability. Which although they may and oftentimes do concur in the same person, yet many times they are divided. For some there are who have right and authority, but want might and ability; and others there are who have might and ability but want right and authority. These for want of right do not justly what they can do, and they for want of might cannot do that which otherwise they might justly do. These things duly considered, the reason of the Consequence will easily appear. For if God have given him authority (as indeed he had) he ought withal to give him ability. For that without this is fectlesse and to no purpose: and it sits not with the wisdom of God to do things in vain. This were with Herod and the jews to set a crown on his head, to put a reed in his hand, to clap a purple robe on his back, & to make a mock king of him. As therefore he hath given him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right and authority: so must he also give him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strength and ability. But Ability he can have none, nor give life to them that are given him (which is the end propounded unto him) except his Father glorify him. This appears thus. The glorification which the Son desires, stands especially in his Resurrection, Ascention, Session at the right hand of his Father, and Return to judgement. If then he rise not again, we are yet in our sins as St Paul saith, 1 Cor. 15.17. and have no right either in the first or second resurrection. Death hath still power upon us, yea upon Christ himself, and utterly bars us from eternal life. Again if he ascend not neither can we. The way unto heaven is not opened, neither are there any mansions there prepared for us. And what life can there be, if we be excluded from those joys above. Thirdly, if he sit not at his Father's right hand, then can he not gloriously interceded for us with his Father, nor send his spirit unto us, nor govern us by his spirit, nor subdue our enemies unto us, without which we cannot be partakers of that life. Lastly, if he return not again to judge both the quick and the dead, then can he not (according to promise) return any more to take us home unto himself, that where he is, there we also may be, to behold that his glory, and by beholding to be made like unto him, wherein standeth our eternal life. And thus you see the necessity of this Consequence, Thou hast given me power, Therefore must thou glorify me. Come we now to the Antecedent. In which, for the fuller handling thereof, we may observe these four particulars, Quid, In quos, A quo, & Quorsum. Quid, what is given him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Power. In quos, over whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, over all flesh. A quo; from whom, from his Father, thou hast given. Quorsum, to what end, that he may give eternal life to all that his Father gave him. Of these in order. First, Quid, what hath the Father given him? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power, that is, as we have above showed, Right and Authority over all flesh. This is double: for it is either Essential or Economical. Essential is that which he hath qua 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he is the Word. In regard whereof being God, & coequal with his Father▪ look what Power the Father hath he hath the same also inhering in him, namely an infinite, unlimited, independent, and sovereign power. And this, because it is of his very essence, so that he can no more be without it than not be God, therefore do I call it Essential. And yet, as I take it, this is not here meant. For the end of the Power here spoken of, is to give eternal life. Now to purpose an end implies Election & Deliberation, and so an indifference before choice, so that it is arbitrary not necessary. But this Essential power of Christ is not arbitrary but necessary, as proceeding not of choice, but of the necessity of his nature, and therefore cannot be here meant. The Economical Power than is that which he hath quà Emanuel, as he is God-man, and hath taken upon him the form of a servant. For the Man Christ jesus is our Mediator, & therefore our King, it being one office of his Mediation to be a King. And hence it is that our Saviour affirmeth that authority is given him to execute judgement because he is the son of man, joh. 5.27. or as some expound it, quatenus, as he is the son of man. In this nature also it is said that the government is upon his shoulders, Esa 9.6. Mat. 2.6. & that he is made a Governor to rule his people Israel. This Power because he hath not as the former of the necessity of his nature, but only of voluntary dispensation, therefore I call it Economical. And because it is Economical therefore is it not infinite & unlimited as is the Essential, but Subordinate unto it. True it is the humane nature subsisting in the Word, the very Word together with all the divine attributes are communicated unto it, so that it may be said, the man Christ is Omnipotent & hath infinite power. But this must cautelously be understood, not that the Manhood hath in it formally & subiectively such infinite power, but only personally and by grace of Union. Otherwise the humane nature being finite is no more capable of infinite power than it is to be God, which is impossible. The Power then which the Manhood of Christ hath residing in it, is finite and created: but yet such as is far greater than of any creature beside. For to which of the creatures beside is the Subsistence of the son of God communicated? If to none, then can they not have such power as he that subsisteth in the Deity. Eph. 1.21. Whence the holy Apostle affirmeth of him, that he is advanced far above all Principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world, Phil. 2.9.10.11. but also in that which is to come: & again that God hath highly exalted him; and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of jesus every knee should bow, of things in Heaven, and things in earth, & things under the earth, Heb. 1.4 and that every tongue should confess that jesus is the Lord. And yet again that he is made far greater than the Angels, inasmuch as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Read the rest of that Chapter, for all makes to this purpose. Now the power here meant not being that Essential, must needs be this Economical. For other power he hath none, and this he hath received thereby to give eternal life. But let us inquire a little farther into the nature of this power. There is a double created Power, the one Secular and Mundane, the other Heavenly and Spiritual. Is this Power of Christ Secular and Mundane? Surely such a Power the jews expected in their Messias, and the Apostles themselves were for a while swayed with the like hope concerning Christ. And now also some Papists there are who for the easier advancement of the Pope thereunto would fain have it so: Mat. 28.18. because as here he saith Power, so else where our Saviour saith, De Pont. Rhom. l. 5. c. 4. All power is given unto me. But for these, Bellarmine himself may suffice to confute them. For saith he, every kingdom is acquired by one of these ways, either by Inheritance, or Election, or Conquest, or Donation. But Hereditary kingdom Christ had none. For although he were descended from David and so was of the blood royal: yet that he was next of blood unto the crown doth not appear. And beside as touching the kingdom the seed of jecon David had long before determined in jeconiah, jer. 22.30. neither was any of his race ever after King. King also by Election he was none, as appears by that of john, joh. 6.15. that when he perceived they would come, and take him by force to make him a King, he departed from them into a mountain himself alone. Luk. 12.13.14. And when he was requested to divide the inheritance between two brothers, joh. 12.31. Col. 2.15. he refused: 1. joh. 3 8. joh. 18.36. for, said he, Man who made me a judge or a divider over you: Neither was he so by conquest: for he never made war upon any mortal Prince, but only on the prince of darkness. Nor finally by Donation from God, for my kingdom, saith he, is not of this world, and again, my kingdom is not from hence. as if he should say, a King I am, but no secular King. Neither did he at any time exercise any kingly▪ power, but ●ame rather to minister and to be judged, then to judge & to be ministered unto. Furthermore, Kingly authority was neither necessary nor profitable unto him, but superfluous and unprofitable. For the end of his coming was the redemption of mankind, whereunto temporal power was not necessary, but only spiritual. And whereas it was his office to persuade from the love of worldly glory, wealth and pleasures unto the contempt thereof: temporal power would have been not only unprofitable, but also a great let and hindrance thereunto. Lastly, all the Prophets foretell only of a spiritual and eternal kingdom, which should be restored to Israel. But temporal is not eternal: and how can such a kingdom be said to be restored, seeing it continued still in the hands of the Romans, until by them they were rooted out from being a nation upon earth. Secular and worldly power therefore our Saviour had none. What then? Heavenly and Spiritual. And this appeareth first by the end of Christ's coming, and the authority bestowed upon him. For this was Spiritual: namely to deliver mankind from spiritual Egypt and Babylon, the bondage of Sin and Satan, and to bring them unto the eternal fruition of God, wherein standeth everlasting life. Secondly, by the means appointed for the achieving of this end. For the weapons of his warfare are not carnal but spiritual. Outwardly he worketh through the ear by the preaching of the Gospel; inwardly upon the spirit & conscience by the power of his divine spirit, whereupon saith the Apostle St Paul, Rom. 14.17. The kingdom of God is not meat & drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. In a word, what more frequent in Scripture then to call this power of Christ the kingdom of Heaven? Which what other doth it import then that it is no way earthly, but altogether heavenly and spiritual. But you will say, wherein standeth this Spiritual authority of Christ? I answer in two things, whereof the first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the enacting of wisdom and good laws. For without laws no kingdom or state can stand. And to him alone it belongs to command laws who is the sovereign. The sovereign in this kingdom is Christ. He therefore is Legislator, the law maker, jam. 4.12. yea, as St james saith, Vnus legislator, the only law maker. And by virtue of this power he prescribeth unto the subjects of his kingdom both credenda, what articles we are by Faith to believe, & facienda what duties we are in life to perform. All which lest any should plead ignorance he hath caused publicly to be proclaimed both by word and writing. And to persuade the readier obedience to them, after the manner of all lawmakers, he annexeth both promises and threatenings: promises of rich and plentiful reward to them that shall be obedient, threatenings of rigorous and severe punishment to all that shall be rebellious and disobedient. To descend to farther particularity would be infinite. I forbear therefore, and pass to the other part of his power, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, righteous judgement. For laws without due execution are vain and to no purpose duly executed they will not be, unless there be a superior to look unto it. As therefore Christ is the Lawmaker, so is he also judge, ordained by God, according as we believe in the Articles of the Creed, Act. 10.42. to be the judge both of quick and dead. A sovereign judge, from whom lies no appeal. A righteous judge who accepteth the person or none, but pronounceth sentence precisely according to the work. According I say to the work. For herein standeth his power of judicature: namely in dispencing rewards and punishments according to the observation of his laws, or the transgression of them: which ever he doth upon due cognizance of the cause, and conviction of the party. A power far above the reach of any other creature, and incident only to him who subsisteth in the person of the son, and that by virtue of such personal union. So that as the Priesthood of Christ is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which cannot pass from him unto another: by the same proportion his kingly power is so proper unto him, as it is uncommunicable to any other whatsoever. And thus much of the first point Quid what is given. Whence we may observe first, seeing the Power of Christ as he is man, be far above all created Powers, yet is not infinite: it makes against all those who either swallow up the humane nature into the divine, and so turn it into God, such as were some of the ancient Heretics, and among them the Eutychians: or who shed and pour out all the divine attributes, and so the omnipotence and infinite power of God into the humanity, such as are, if yet now adays such there be, some of the rigider divines in Germany. If there be such I say. For perhaps all the late quarrel risen betwixt them and us grew only upon misprision (as some worthy divines have observed) not well distinguishing between Essence and Subsistence, Zanch. Field. whereof that is finite this infinite. For Christ's humanity though according to its essence or Natural being it be not every where, but determined unto one place: yet in respect of his Subsistence or Personal being it is every where, and circumscribed in no place. For proper Subsistence of its own and in itself it hath none: only the Subsistence of the Son of God is communicated unto it, which is infinite & unlimited. Secondly, if this Power of Christ though finite yet be incommunicable and cannot pass from him to any other: what presumption, what arrogance is it in him, who not being Christ, yet dares say with Christ, Data est mihi omnis potestas in coelo & in terrâ, all power is given me both in heaven and in earth? Who thereupon takes upon him to forge new Articles of Faith, and to obtrude them upon the Church under pain of damnation? who also takes authority unto him to make laws equally binding the conscience with God's laws, & that without any relation unto divine law at all? Who finally (for to reckon up all the blasphemies of this sort would be infinite) pretends a power to dispense with the law of God, to grant indulgences for sin, & to free men from the punishment inflicted by God upon them for sin? Certainly whosoever challengeth these things to himself can be no less than Christi aemulus, even Antichrist himself: whose proud usurpations upon the power of Christ shall one day be recompensed with equal shame and confusion. The rather because thirdly, whereas the power of Christ is not secular but spiritual, he claimeth both, and so assumeth to himself more than ever Christ did. Ecce in potestate nostrâ imperium ut demus illud cui volumus, Lo, saith Pope Adrian, the empire is in our power to bestow it where we please. And hence I suppose it is that instead of the old style Vicarius Christi the Vicar of Christ, they now begin to style him Vicedeum the Vicar of God▪ for that by this they may perhaps wrench in his temporal power, which by the other they could not, inasmuch as Christ never had it. Lastly therefore, seeing Christ contented himself with his spiritual power only, rejecting that which is secular, let not us look after outward pomp or state in his kingdom, nor judge of the Church by such deceitful notes. Rather let us judge of it by the laws thereof, and by the rule of Faith professed therein. As the power of Christ is Spiritual, so is his kingdom also, and therefore by spiritual marks and notes to be discerned. But to proceed. The second point is, in quos, over whom or how far his authority extendeth. It is, saith my text, Over all flesh. This word Flesh is diversely used in Scripture. Among other significations usually it is put for Mankind. As where it is said, Gen. 6.12. that God saw all flesh had corrupted his way upon earth, Esa. 40.6. that is, all men. And again, All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower in the field. And yet again, Mat. 24.22. Except those days should be shortened, no flesh, that is, no man should be saved. And so is it to be understood in this place, Christ hath power over all flesh, that is, over all mankind. Now he that saith all excepts none. All men therefore of what age, sex, degree, condition, or quality soever, are under the power and jurisdiction of Christ. And as touching the Saints, and those that are members of his mystical body, it is questionless. For to them he is Caput a head to rule and govern them, a Husband to order and direct them, a Shepherd to feed and oversee them. He hath bought them with his most precious blood, he hath conquered them out of the hands of Satan and all that hated them, he rules by the sceptre of his word, and guides them by the manuduction of his blessed spirit. And as he hath many ways made himself Lord over them, and testified his authority and power by his mighty operations in them: so have they freely and voluntarily submitted and resigned themselves unto him. Power therefore hath he over these, as over his obedient and loving subjects. But question may be made touching reprobate and wicked men whether he have any authority and power over them yea or no. For, as the Psalmist saith, Ps. 2.2.3. They band themselves and take counsel together against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, let us break their bands asunder and cast their cords from us. And our Saviour in the parable, Nolumus hunc regnare super nos, we will not have this man reign over us. But notwithstanding all this reluctation and resistance, yet power and authority hath he over them still. Rebellious subjects they may be, yet subjects they are. Will they, nile they Dominabitur in medio hostium, he shall reign in the midst of his enemies. If they will not submit unto the gentle sceptre of his word, he hath an iron rod in his hand wherewith to break and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Psal. 2.9. Luc. 19.27. And those his enemies that would not he should reign over them, bring them hither will he say, and slay them here before me. Authority than he hath though they acknowledge it not: and overrule them he will, resist they never so much. Overrule them I say, either to their salvation by converting them, or to their confusion by delivering them up unto their own lusts. In a word, whether they be good or evil, how high or low soever they be, Rev. 19.6. he is Lord of them all, Rex regum & dominus dominantium, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Rom. 14 9 yea Dominus tum mortuorum tum vivorum, Lord both of quick and dead. But what? Hath he power only of men, and not of other things? Yes questionless. For, saith David, Omnia subiecisti pedibus eius, Psal. 8.6. thou hast put all things under his feet. And the Apostle applying it unto Christ addeth, In that he put all in subjection under him, Heb. 2.9. he left nothing that is not put under him. Mat. 11.27. joh. 3.35. Our Saviour Christ also himself affirmeth that all things are delivered him of his Father: yea that all power is given him both in heaven & earth. Mat. 28.18. Particularly in heaven over the blessed Angels. For, saith S. Peter, 1. Pet. 3.22. he is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God, Angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. Eph. 1.10.21.22. He is unto them a Head and Mediator, though not of Redemption, as unto man, yet of Confirmation in the state of grace; and though not to deliver out of misery, yet to prevent their falling into misery. Hence it is that they are reckoned in the number of those that pertain unto the Church, Heb. 12.22. Luc. 22.43. Heb. 1.14. that they minister both to the Head thereof and it also, Luc. 15.10. rejoicing at the conversion of a sinner, 1. Pet. 1.12. and desiring throughly to be made acquainted with the mystery of the Gospel. In earth also hath he power not only over men, as is above declared, but also as the Psalmist witnesseth, Ps. 8.6.7. over the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, Rom. 8.19.20.21. the fishes of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths thereof. Whence it is that the creature being sensible of the vanity whereunto it is now subject, longeth and waiteth for his second coming, in hope then to be freed from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. Even the devils themselves and whatsoever is under the earth is subject unto him. While he lived here on earth he cast them out, commanded and restrained them at pleasure: yea to others also he gave power to cast them out in his name. It is he that hath the keys of hell and death: Mar. 16.17. Rev. 1.18. and by force of them he reserveth the sinning Angels in everlasting under darkness unto the judgement of the great day. jud. 6. Finally unto him is put in subjection not only this present world, but that also, Heb. 2.5. as S. Paul saith, that which is yet to come. If all this be so, will some say, and Christ's power be so large, why is it here restrained only unto all Flesh, that is, unto Mankind? I answer, that these words are not to be understood exclusively, as if his power reached no further then unto man, but principally and especially, and that for two causes. First because he took flesh and therein suffered not for Angels or any other creature, but only for us men, according to that in the Nicene Creed, who for us men and our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate. Heb. 2.16. Whereupon saith the Apostle, He took not on him the nature of Angels, but took on him the seed of Abraham. Secondly, for that as all things in the first creation were made for man, so in the recreation and restoring of man it was fit that power should be given over all things for man. Whereupon, saith the Apostle, All things are yours, and ye are Christ's, and Christ is Gods. The consideration of this large power of Christ, extending itself not only over all flesh, but all other things also for our benefit, should teach us in any ca●e not to rebel against our Liege Lord, but as becometh dutiful and loyal subjects with all humbleness to submit ourselves unto his sovereign authority. That which he requireth at our hands is, according as S. Paul teacheth, first to confess with our tongues that jesus Christ is the Lord to the glory of God the Father, Phil. 2.10.11. advancing him above all powers, thrones, and dominations whatsoever: and never to be afraid or ashamed to profess ourselves to be his Christian servants, notwithstanding any danger might accrue unto us thereby. And secondly to bow the knee at the name of jesus, that is in heart to honour, to adore, to worship him, to love and fear him, to put all our trust & confidence upon him, and in one word to obey him. And to this end we are to use all possible means to settle and confirm this faith in us that he is our Lord, and hath absolute power and authority over us: and then diligently to study and inquire what his laws are, that so we may both know what he commands, and wherein we are to obey. For the ignorance of the law excuseth not: and it is good to see with our own and not with other menseys. For how do we know whether they will direct us? But then unto faith and knowledge are we to join practice, yielding unto him absolute, constant, and cheerful obedience: and that not only actively, but if need be passively also, even with the expense of our dearest blood. Neither need we to make question of doing any thing he commandeth. Psal. 45.6. For his sceptre, as Dauid ●aith, is a right sceptre, and whatsoever he commandeth is just. It is also easy and not hard to be done. Mat. 11.30. For my yoke, saith he, is easy and my burden light: and his commandments, ●aith S. john, 1. joh. 5.3. are not grievous. The law indeed of works is a rigorous law and unsufferable. Wherefore by S. Paul: it is called a kill letter. But the law of Christ is a law of grace, requiring only repentance from dead works, belief in him that hath merited forgiveness of sin, and sincere ●ndeauour of new obedience, God accepting the will for the deed. To this therefore if we willingly submit ourselves, we shall find first Protection from him (and he is the stronger man) against all our enemies, than provision in all our needs and necessities, & lastly rest to our souls, by peace of conscience here, and eternal refreshment in the next world. Nay we ourselves also shall have power over the nations, Rev. 2.26. and reign with him as king's world without end. But if through stiffneckedness we refuse the yoke, and pull back the shoulder rebelling against him: know we that he who sitteth in heaven will laugh us to scorn the while, and in the end recompense us with weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. All those that will not bow unto him, with the iron mace in his hand will he break them to powder: and hue in pieces all such as would not have him to reign over them. Let us therefore betimes serve the Lord with fear, and kiss the son lest he be angry, and we perish from the way when his anger is kindled but a little. O how blessed are all they that put their trust in the Lord. And thus much of the second point in quos over whom he hath power. The third is A quo whence or from whom he hath his power. Not of himself, but from some other: for thou hast given, saith our Saviour. Who is that? He to whom he speaketh. He speaketh to his Father, Father glorify thy Son. It is his Father therefore of whom he received it, and received it by gift. And indeed the power he hath quâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he is the Word, he hath received from his Father, and that by gift, donatione naturali & ab aeterno, by natural donation and from all eternity. For as he is God of God and light of light, so is he also Lord of Lord: the Father being the origen, source, and fountain of the Deity. If so, than the power he hath qua Emanuel as he is God-man, must needs be much more from him, I, saith God, Psal, 2.6.7. have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. And that it is the Father speaking so of his Son appeareth when by and by he saith, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Mat. 11.27. So saith our Saviour also, Omnia mihi tradita sunt à Patre, all things are delivered unto me of my Father. And again, joh. 3.35. The father loveth the son and hath given all things into his hands. C. 13.3. And S. john, jesus knowing that the father had given all things into his hands. And finally S. Peter, Act. 2.36. God hath made that same jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ. Howbeit this power the Father gives not as the former Donatione naturali by natural donation, sed gratuitâ by free & voluntary gift. And therefore as notwithstanding the former he was coequal with the Father: so in regard of this he is subject to the Father. Wherefore in this respect he saith Pater major me est, my Father is greater than I: and though he be Lord of all yet the Father calleth him his Servant. And the School in regard of his humane nature saith that he is Subiectus sibi ipsi, subject to his own self. But it will be objected that Christ obtained his kingdom by conquest, how then could he receive it from his Father by gift. Whereunto I answer first, that the right & title he had was from the gift of the Father before he went about to conquer it: secondly, that the power also whereby he conquered it he received from the gift of his Father. In regard whereof the Father sticketh not to challenge the conquest unto himself, Psal. 110.1▪ Sat thou, saith he unto the Son, on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Which yet is thus to be understood, that the Father by the Son, and the Son under his Father by power received from him hath subdued and mastered all his enemies. But when received he this power from him, and how long was he to hold it? He received it then when he received his unction. His Unction he received in the instant of his Incarnation. For as soon as the Personal union began, so soon was he anointed with the oil of gladness above all his fellows, that is with the fullness of all such graces as were fit for the menaging of so great power, Esa. 11.6.2. as wisdom, counsel, zeal of justice, strength, and the like. And no sooner was he anointed but presently he was a King: Melchizedeck a king of righteousness, wise to do judgement & justice. It is true he suppressed this power for a time. For the Word emptied himself of his glory, and his humane nature was to suffer many things. Whereupon it is said, Mar. 6.5. He could do no miracle in his own country, nor might not send his Disciples into the way of the Gentiles. It was as a sword in the sheath, or as David's authority before Saul's death. At times indeed he showed some tokens thereof, as in stilling the Sea, commanding spirits, raising the dead, and the like: yet the execution thereof could not be plenary till after his resurrection, and when he was set at the right hand of his Father Licet Christus quantum ad divinitatem, In Mat. 28. etc. saith Lira, Although Christ according to his divinity had from all eternity this power in heaven and earth and authoritatiuè by way of authority, had it he also as man from the first instant of his conception: yet executiuè by way of execution he had it not before his resurrection, but would be subject to possibility for our redemption. But how long was this power to continue with him? Forever? For as he was a priest; so also was he to be a King for ever after the order of Melchizedecke. Thy throne o God, Psal. 4 6.5. Heb 1.8. saith David, is for ever and ever: Dan 7.14. a text which Saint Paul to the Hebrews applieth unto Christ. And Daniel, His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass a way, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Luc. 1.33. And the Angel Gabriel, He shall reign over the house of jacob forever, 1 Cor. 15.24.28. and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Yea but doth not the Apostle say, that when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power, than the kingdom shall be delivered up by him to God even the Father, and that then the son himself shall also be subject unto him? It is true, he saith so. But we are further to know, that the kingdom of Christ containeth in it two things, the mediatory function of his Kingly office, and his Kingly glory. That he shall lay aside: for then there will be no further necessity nor use thereof. He shall not need to fight any more with the prince of darkness, nor to govern his Church as formerly by the word and sacrament. For God as he is now something in us, so then shall he be all in all unto us. But this he shall hold for ever, as being by the acts of his mediation justly acquired, and according to covenant bestowed upon him by his Father. As therefore the Father even now reigns although he have delivered the kingdom to the Son: even so then shall the Son also reign, although he deliver up his kingdom unto the Father. And thus hath Christ omnem potestatem, in omnia, & in omnia secula, all power, over all things, and unto all eternity. The use of this point briefly may be this. First, seeing Christ usurped not this power: but received it by lawful donation from his Father, therefore neither should we presume upon any office or place until we be lawfully called thereunto. Should we run without sending, we should but incur the displeasure of God, & be authors of much confusion and mischief in the Church. Secondly, seeing he received this power together with his Unction, it may lesson us not to affect any calling till we be anointed with sufficient gifts for the discharge thereof. Go teach & baptise all nations, saith our Saviour to his Apostles: but withal he furnisheth them with cloven tongues, and filleth them with the Holy Ghost. To adventure on a business without due abilities, as it proceedeth from abundance of boldness, so will it be recompensed with equal measure of shame. Lastly, seeing his power continueth for ever, and of his kingdom shall be no end, we may take knowledge that it will be in vain for any to oppose themselves unto it. Hell gates shall never be able to prevail against it: how much less the policies of mortal men, or their strongest attempts? For that which is eternal is invincible, and can never be destroyed. And thus much of the third point A quo from whom. The fourth and last is Quorsum, to what so great power was given him. For we may not think that God doth use magno conatu nihil agere with much a do to effect nothing. And if nature which is but the creature of God do nothing in vain, and wise men ever propound some end unto their actions: much more ought we to judge so of him who is both the author of nature and wisdom itself. An end therefore was intended: and that doubtless of highest consequence. For otherwise what need so great power and glory to achieve it? If in the creation dixit & factum est, the word was no sooner said but the thing was done, yet here not words, no nor so great power without his glorification will not serve the turn, this it seems is of a higher strain than that. What then may it be? This, that to as many as are given him of his Father he may give eternal life. Esa 8.14. This I say properly and directly: for accidentally he may be unto some a rock of offence, Rom. 9 33. and the savour of death unto death, 1 Cor. 2.16. namely to all those that shall presume to rise up against that authority and power which his Father hath given him. For the further unfolding of this point four things are here to be observed, Quid, Vnde, Quibus, & Quamdiu. Quid, what the gift is? it is Life. Under whence it is, from the Son, that he may give. Quibus to whom it is given, to as many as thou hast given him. Quamdiu how long the gift lasteth, it is eternal life. And of these in order, though not according to their worth and desert (for who is sufficient for these things?) yet as it shall please God to enable and assist. First Quid, what is the gift? It is Life. Life is double, Natural and Spiritual. Natural is that which things live by power of nature. But this is not hear meant. For the Father bestows this generally on all men, whereas the life here intended is to be conferred only on those whom the Father hath given unto the son. The Spiritual is likewise double, Sinful or Holy. Sinful is that whereby men live unto sin. But because they that so live are dead unto righteousness, & the wages thereof is nothing but death, neither can this be here meant. For this is to be counted rather a Death then a Life, whereas the Life here-spoken of is the end wherefore so great power was given unto Christ, and so cannot be but a happy and blessed life. The Holy life is therefore here understood, a life which none can live until he be dead unto sin, and elevated by grace above nature: even that life which in Scripture is called the new life, and includeth in it both the life of grace and the life of glory. Now because this Spiritual life is denominated Life from the proportion it holds with Natural life, Rom. 6.4. especially that of man, unless we first know what this is, distinct knowledge of that we cannot well have any. This we cannot know but by the direction of Natural Philosophy. For Natural life is a term properly belonging unto it, and the rule of Logic teacheth that look to what art the terms do belong, from thence are we to fetch our demonstrations. I must crave pardon therefore if I search a little into it. Howbeit I resolve to be very brief, and to trouble you with no more than is necessary for clearing of what is intended. Life is of some defined by motion and operation. And so seemeth Aristotle to define it where he saith, Vivere est intelligere, sentire, to live is to understand, hear, see, touch, and the like. But this definition is more popular than proper. For life is one thing; & the operations of life another, and they differ as the cause and the effect. Yet because it is best discerned by the operations thereof, therefore have they thought good so to describe it. For those things are said to live which any way move themselves. Move I say, for those things which move not live not. And move themselves by an internal principle of their own. For neither do those things live which are acted only by an extrinsecall and foreign principle: such as was that statue or engine of which the Poet, Duceris ut nervis alienis mobile signum, and such as are also clocks and watches and the like devices. The same Philosopher therefore elsewhere speaking more accurately of this matter, De Anima l. 2. c. 4. defineth life by Being: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, to live is to be. Which is not yet Simply to be understood, as if whatsoever had being had also life: but respectively unto things that live, for their life is their being. And so much doth the Philosopher himself insinuate, saying more fully, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, life to things that live is being, But such a Being as naturally moveth itself. Whence it is not unfitly defined by one to be essentia parturiens actiones, such a being as is in travel with action. This natural life is threefold, Vegetative, Sensitive, and Intellectual. The Vegetative is in Plants, that Being whereby they grow and receive nourishment. The Sensitive is of Beasts, Fowls, and Fishes, that Being whereby they see, hear, touch, taste, smell, and move from place to place. The Intellectual is of Angels and Spirits, that Being whereby they understand and will. These all of them are jointly and together in man. For with plants he hath growth and nourishment, with beasts, fowls, and fishes sense and lation, with Angels and Spirits understanding and will. Whereupon it is that the Philosopher maketh the life of man a rule to all the rest. And therefore is to be defined. Such a Being as is able to produce all these operations, but specially those that are Rational, because they are most properly Humane. To come then to an issue, by all that hath been said it appears that to the constitution of the natural life of man, and generally of all natural life three things are required, Esse, Posse, Operari, being, ability, and operation. Being that there may be ability, and ability that there may be operation. For no life where no operation, no operation where no ability, no ability where no being. And such is the natural life of man. Proportionably whereunto, as to me it seems, Spiritual life may thus be defined, Such a new or spiritual being as enableth to produce spiritual or supernatural actions. In which definition all those three things necessarily required unto life are, as you see, comprehended. And first Being, not natural but spiritual superadded unto nature. Superadded then when we are first engrafted and incorporated into Christ. For no sooner do we subsist in him, but forthwith old things pass away and all things are made new. 2. Cor. 5.17. Gal. 6.15. From thence forth become we new creatures, new men, Eph. 4.24. renewed in the inner man, and in the spirit of the mind: Col. 3.10. having new hearts, new affections, new senses, all new. 2. Cor. 4.16. Eph. 4.25. In a word, then are we made Spiritual men, not only conformed unto, Psal. 5.12. but also transformed into the image of Christ himself. Gal. 6.1. Rom. 8.28. Secondly, ability. For together with our new being we receive also the Spirit of power: 2. Cor. 3.18. whereby as while we were out of Christ we were able to do nothing, 2. Tim. 1.7. so now being in him we are able to all things. joh. 15.5 Phil. 4.13. For then the holy Ghost is pleased to infuse and imprint on our souls the gracious habits of Faith, Hope, and Charity, and the rest, and all to facilitate the performance of spiritual duties. Lastly Operation, without which ability is but vain. For to what end is power if it be never brought forth into act? Operate therefore it doth and bringeth forth the fruits of spirit, Gal. 5.22.23. love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, Tit. 2.12. faith, meekness, temperance, and the rest. All which S. Paul reduceth unto three, Eph. 4.24. Piety, Sobriety, Righteousness. Yea to two, Righteousness and true holiness. And if we will proportion them unto the operations of the natural life, than first answerable unto the Intellectual life there is in the Understanding a spiritual apprehension and knowledge of the things of God, at least so far forth as is necessary: and in the Will; a holy pursuit of that which is good and eschewing of that which is evil. Secondly unto the Sensitive, a wise direction of all the affections upon the right object, and a due moderation of them, together with a sanctified use of the senses, as seeing, hearing, tasting, and the rest, and a right employment of all the members of the body, no more to be the instruments of iniquity unto sin, but the weapons of righteousness unto God. Lastly, unto the Vegetative, an earnest desire of nourishment by the Word and Sacraments, and a continual growing from grace to grace until we come to our full 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consistence in Christ jesus. Whereunto when we are once aspired, then begins the life of Glory, consisting in a glorious being, glorious abilities, and glorious operations. Not that it is another life differing in substance from the life of grace, but the same in an higher degree of perfection. For Glory is no other than consummate and perfect Grace. The excellency whereof as yet we know not: but this we know that when Christ shall appear we shall be like unto him, for we shall see him as he is. And of spiritual life what it is so much. For the donation of this life, power over all flesh & perfect glorification were, as my text insinuateth, necessary unto Christ. It is therefore of great consequence, and imports us far more than our natural life. For that is but our Being, this is our Well being: that is nothing but life, this is a happy and blessed life. Some son of Belial perhaps will deny this, esteeming it a sullen, sad, and miserable life. What pleasures, say they, what delight therein? And as for sorrows, besides those the spiritual man as man is subject unto, as he is spiritual he hath his proper and peculiar crosses. For he is in continual combat not with flesh and blood, Eph. 6.12. but with Principalities and powers and the rulers of the darkness of this world and spiritual wickednesses in heavenly places. A traitorous Doeg also he carries about within him, ever plotting how to betray him. Gen: 25.22. As the two twins in Rebeccas womb, so in him the flesh and the spirit are continually warring one against another, Gal: 5.17. that oftentimes as she Why am I thus, so he with much anguish cries out, Rom. 7.24. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death! In a word, the fears and horrors, and inward perplexities of conscience which times he feels, are intolerable: and outwardly he is scorned, despised, persecuted, and trodden under foot of all. So that if it be a life, it is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a liveless life, or as it is said of the bow, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it may ●eare the name of life, but in effect it is no other than death. But all this notwithstanding I affirm that this spiritual life is of all other the most comfortable & blessed. For true blessedness standeth in two things, a freedom from the true evil, and a possession of the true good. The true evil is sin, because it is opposite unto the nature & will of God who is the chiefest good: and therefore is justly attended with another evil, which is God's wrath and eternal damnation. Now the natural man that liveth not this spiritual life lieth still in sin, and is liable unto the woeful consequences thereof: and therefore in the mids of all their pleasures must needs be most miserable. But the spiritual man no sooner receives his new being. and with it his new life, but he receives also pardon of all sins past, & peccata semel dimissa nunquam redeunt, sins once pardoned never return again to judgement. It is true if afterward he sin again (as who sinneth not) he incurreth the wrath of God and deserveth condemnation. Yet upon a new act of faith and repentance (wherein God out of his mere grace never faileth him) he receieth actual pardon for them also. So that to them that are in Christ jesus, Rom. 3.1. and live not after the flesh, but after the spirit, there is no condemnation at all. Yea blessed are they, saith David, Psal. 32.1. because their iniquity is forgiven, and their sin covered. Now sin being removed which only separateth between God and man, the spiritual man is restored again into the grace and favour of God, wherein standeth the true good. This David saw and therefore said, Psal. 4.7. Many say unto me, who will show us any good? But Lord lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us. And because unto the compliment of true blessedness knowledge thereof is necessary (for according to the old Senarie, Non est beatus esse se qui nesciat, he is not happy who knows not himself to be happy) therefore hath it pleased God to give him the earnest of the spirit, 2. Cor. 5, ●. by which they may and do know what things God hath vouchsafed to give them. 1. Cor. 2.12. Whence issueth and proceedeth, first a contentment with our present state be it never so mean. For being possessed of the true good, the want of these temporal goods cannot much affect us. Secondly, Christian courage both active and passive, to adventure upon and undergo any thing, rather than to forgo the good we are possessed of. Thirdly tranquillity and peace of mind even in life and death. For knowing that being justified from our sins by Faith we have peace with God through jesus Christ our Lord: Rom. 5.1, how can we be without that peace of God which passeth all understanding? Lastly, hope that maketh not ashamed. For out of the experience of the present favours of God, we gather assurance that we shall not fail of those eternal joys promised us in heaven. The expectation whereof sweetens unto us even the bitterest sorrows of this present life, & replenisheth our souls with unspeakable comforts. So that howsoever carnal and worldly men deem of it. the spiritual life is the most cheerful and blessed life, and a very heaven upon earth. Out of this definition of spiritual life we may learn, first, that as by the operations of natural life we easily discern who lives it: so may we as easily by spiritual actions judge who lives the spiritual life. By their fruits, saith our Saviour, ye shall know them. Doth any man hear, see, talk, walk, argue, and the like; he lives. Lies he senseless without breath or motion? he is dead. In like manner he whose works are only carnal and sinful, or at the best but civil and moral, is though alive unto sin, yet spiritually dead. Were he spiritually alive he would proceed further to the acting of holy and spiritual operations. Which wheresoever they be truly and sincerely acted, there undoubtedly is spiritual life. If it be in semblance only and show, yet are we still to judge the best. For as in matters of Faith we are to think and speak according to Scripture which only is infallible: so in things concerning charity we are to think and speak according to probability. Which howsoever it may deceive, yet is it not through any fault, or with danger of him who thinks better of another than he deserveth, but only of the hypocrite who is far other then he seemed to be. But as touching ourselves, because we are privy to the truth and sincerity of our own hearts, we may certainly conclude of ourselves that we are spiritually alive, & that by the certainty of Faith. For all conclusions are of Faith which are deduced though but from one proposition contained in Scripture, if the other be any way known to be true. He that operateth spiritual actions is spiritually alive, is a proposition verified by Scripture. But I operate spiritual actions, is a proposition not contained in Scripture, but testified to me by my conscience. Ergo I am spiritually alive, is the conclusion issuing from both, and of Faith because of the Major grounded on Scripture. Secondly it showeth how impotent and incongruous the speech of those is who pretending to live this spiritual life, yet when they taxed of their infirmities, as suppose too much distemper in passion, or impatience in wrongs, or the like, presently cry out, they can do no otherwise, and who can endure it? But stay my brother, if thou be spiritual thou art not unfurnished of ability. What if I should say of a kind of Omnipotency? For so the Apostle, through jesus Christ strengthening me I am able to do all things. Why then sayest thou I cannot? To be without spiritual power, is to be without spiritual life: and they only can do nothing who are out of Christ. If therefore thou live say no more I cannot. Nolle in causa est & non posse praetenditur: thou pretendest inability, but the cause is thou wilt not. There is a spark within thee: do but quicken that up, and use thy best endeavour, and through Christ strengthening thee thou shalt be able to master any infirmity. Thirdly and lastly, seeing the spiritual life is the only happy and truly comfortable life, why study we not above all things to live this life? With out it, to win the whole world, and to enjoy all the pleasures thereof, will prove but poor gain. For what is it to the loss of the soul, which unless it live spiritually must needs die eternally. And when this life is obtained, strive we by all means to keep and preserve it. Much power and glory must Christ have before he can give it: and shall we having by gift received it, be careless and negligent to retain and hold it? Skin for skin, said he who knew it well, joh. 2.4. and all that a man hath will he give for his life. If for his natural life, how much more precious should his spiritual life be unto him? This rather than they would lose, the holy Martyrs of God were content to part both with life and livehood. Let the same preparation of mind be in us, for it is the very life of our life. And thus much of the first point, Quid, what the gift is. It is Life. The second is Vnde, whence it is. It is from the son, and that by way of gift. For so saith my Text, that he may give. First therefore it is from the Son. Which yet must not be understood exclusively, as if it were not from the Father and the holy Ghost also. For the holy & blessed Trinity is the author of all life both natural and spiritual. This appeareth plainly. For to give life is an extrinsecall action: and according to the old rule, actiones ad extra sunt indivisae, such actions as stay not within but issue forth from the Deity are common to all three persons. Hence touching Natural life it is said, In him, that is in God, Act. 17.28. we live and move and have our being. And you know who it was that first breathed the breath of life into Adam: even the wholly trinity who had said, Come let us make man. And concerning spiritual life, hence is it that it is called Vita Dei the life of God: Gen 1 26. Eph. 4.18. and that Moses saith of Israel, Ipse est vita tua, He, to wit God, is thy life. Dent. 30.20. Howbeit we are further to know that although God be the fountain of all good, yet is he to us in regard of spiritual grace until we be in Christ but fons obsignatus a fountain sealed up. In Christ he is a fountain opened, not otherwise. For he passeth no grace but by a mediator. Him therefore hath he made the Principle of all good: and to this end hath he filled him with the fullness of grace, joh. 1.16. that of his fullness we might all receive even grace for grace. And in this sense is it that we say Spiritual life is from him. 2 Cor. 4.10.11 Col. 3.3. Whence also it is called the life of Christ: & Christ himself is called, the Lord & giver of life, yea and said to be our very life. But how this life is derived from him unto us let us inquire a little farther. And because out of natural Philosophy we have hitherto proportioned the spiritual life for the substance thereof with the Natural: give me leave a little to reflect again upon the same Science to proportion out the manner of conveying it also. First therefore unto life a Soul is necessary: for without it nothing can live. Secondly, it is as necessary that the Soul have life in itself: or else how can it give life? for nothing giveth that which itself hath not. Thirdly, the Soul must not only have life in it, but also a power to quicken and make alive. For as Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ the soul is the cause and principle of life to the living body. Fourthly, notwithstanding this life and quickening power of the Soul, it is necessary for the conveyance of life unto the body, that it be first infused and hypostatically united thereunto. For before God breathed the Soul into Adam, his body though otherwise organised and form, lay but as a dead lump breathless and lifeless. But no sooner was the soul poured into him, but forthwith he began to live the life of a man. For five, upon the union of soul and body riseth the constitution and being of man. For neither is the soul nor the body severally and asunder called Man, but the whole jointly & composed together, upon which constitution and being of Man resulteth in the sixth place the natural life of man, and continually remaineth until the dissolution betwixt Soul and Body. And lastly, upon this natural life proceed ' those humane and connatural operations, of which above. Now let us as briefly apply all this unto our present purpose. First that which in the conveyance of this spiritual life is answerable unto the soul is Christ the Mediator: who therefore in six hundred places of Scripture is said to be our life. And himself saith of himself, I am the resurrection and the life: and again, I am the way, the truth, and the life. Secondly, as the Soul, so hath Christ also life in himself. As the Father, saith he, hath life in himself, so hath he given unto the Son also to have life in himself. joh. 5.26. Rom. 8.2. and S. Paul saith, that the Spirit of life is in the Son. And S. john, This life is in his Son. And again, 1 joh. 5.11. joh. 1.4. This life was in him, and the life was the light of men. Thirdly, as the soul hath not only life in it but also a quickening power, joh. 5.21. so hath Christ also. So S. john, As the Father, 1 Cor. 15.45. so the Son quickeneth whomsoever he will. And S. Paul, The first Adam was made a living soul, and the second Adam was made a quickening spirit. Fourthly, as the soul until it be personally united quickeneth not so neither doth Christ until he be mystically united. Of this Union I cannot now speak, I shall hereafter when I come to those words, vers. 22.23. That they may be one as we are one, I in them, and thou in me. Gal. 2.20. In the mean season thus S. Paul I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: that is, I live by Christ united unto me. 1 joh. 5.12. And S. john, He that hath the Son that is, he that is united unto him, hath life: but he that hath not the Son, that is, is not united unto him, hath not life. Fiftly, as the Union of soul and body makes and constitutes Man, so upon our Union with Christ are we made new men, 1 Cor. 12.12. Christian men, spiritual men, yea, as is above proved, very Christ. So speaketh S. Paul in the place alleged: and elsewhere, ye are of God in Christ jesus, 1 Cor. 1.30. that is, by being in Christ ye have received of God a new essence or being. Sixtly, as from the natural being of man comes natural life, joh. 14.19. so from the spiritual issues spiritual life. Because I live, saith our Saviour, ye (to wit who receive of my spirit, and so are spiritual men, ye I say) shall live. Seventhly and lastly, as from humane life proceed humane operations: so from the spiritual proceed spiritual actions. This hath been already showed, whereunto I now only add that of S. Paul, If Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead unto sin, Rom. 8.10. but the spirit is life unto righteousness. And thus you see how and after what manner spiritual life is conveyed unto us from Christ. It is further added that this life is not only from Christ, but that he is the donour and giver thereof. It is from him, but by way of gift. john 6.33. For so it is said, that he may gi●e. So also elsewhere, The bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, Rom. 6.23. and giveth life unto the world. And S. Paul, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through jesus Christ our Lord. 1 Pet. 3.7. Whereupon S. Peter calleth it the grace of life. And the scripture every where imputeth the whole work of our salvation from the beginning unto the end thereof unto mere grace. Now as he saith, Gratia non est gratia nisisit omnimodo gratuita: grace is not grace unless it be every way of free gift. And certainly if it be not of free gift, it is of merit and due preparation in ourselves. But I beseech you what merit, what preparation of himself was there in Adam unto life, while as yet he lay like a dead lump of clay before his maker? What in Lazarus when he had been quatriduanus four days in the grave, and began to putrify and corrupt? Surely none at all. No more can there be in us, who before we receive this life, are utterly dead in trespasses and sins. If the creature disposed not himself unto his creation, nor man unto his generation, nor the science unto its incition: how can we prepare ourselves either to our renovation, or regeneration, or engrafting into the mystical body of Christ? In a word, can sin be a disposition or preparation unto Grace? I trow no. Yet whatsoever we do before we are new creatures and live the spiritual life, is at the best but splendidum peccatum, a gay and glittering sin. For the agent is altogether sinful and carnal: and whatsoever is of flesh is flesh. Do we gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles, or good fruit of an evil tree? No verily. For such as the tree is, such fruit it yieldeth, Good it cannot yield till it be made good. Made good we are not till we believe. Till we believe therefore can we do no good. If so, than what is not of Faith, is sin, and pleaseth not God. And what pleaseth not him cannot dispose unto grace. Being then without merit and disposition unto grace, it must needs follow, that as spiritual life is by Union, so it is also by way of gift from Christ. The use of all may be first, to teach us that all they who are not unto Christ mystically united are spiritually dead: and what actions soever proceed from them notwithstanding all the specious and goodly show they make, are not living actions. For being not acted by the spirit of Christ, they are not like unto bodies animated by a humane soul: but unto such dead bodies rather as are raised up by magicians, and are stirred and moved only by the spirit of Satan. These may seem to live, but indeed live not. And if spiritual life be the only blessed life, then must these needs be in a most rueful and miserable case. Secondly it teacheth us, that if we desire to live this, we must endeavour by all means to be united unto Christ. He is come unto us that we might have life, yea and that we might have it in abundance. joh. 10.10. If we come not to him, it is our fault if we live not. And just cause shall we give him to complain of us, joh. 5.40. as he did of the jews, ye will not come to me that ye might have life. Eph. 17. Our coming is by Faith. By it Christ dwelleth in our hearts: and by it is the just man said to live. This purgeth and purifieth our souls, and produceth in us the works of charity, which are the right operations of Spiritual life. Thirdly, seeing we live by Christ, it is reason we should also live unto him. For as S. Augustin saith, every thing should live to that by which it liveth: as the body because it liveth by the Soul ought to live unto the Soul. Hence therefore is it that S. Paul would have all that are dead unto sin to reckon themselves alive, Rom. 6.11. & 14.7.8. but alive unto God through jesus Christ our Lord. Gal. 2.19. Hence also he affirmeth that none of us liveth to himself, but that we live unto the Lord: and that himself through the law is dead to the law that he might live unto God. 2. Cor. 5.14. But most expressly, thus, saith he, we judge that if one died for all, vers. 15. them were all dead: & that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them and rose again. You will say, how are we to live unto Christ? I answer, as the body liveth unto the Soul. The Body liveth unto the Soul when it is serviceable and obedient thereunto: especially when it followeth not the sway of inordinate passion, but the direction of right reason. In like manner we live unto Christ when we serve and obey him, not living after the flesh but after the spirit. For not they that walk after the flesh, Rom. 8.1.9. are in Christ, but they only who are lead by the spirit of Christ. S. Peter expresseth it by living not to the lusts of men, 1 Pet: 4 2.3.6. but to the will of God. And by and by setteth down the justs of men to be the will of the Gentiles, namely lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revel, banquet, abominable idolatries, and the like. Unto all which he opposeth living according to God in the spirit. Fourthly and lastly, hence we may learn humility to ascribe nothing to our own selves. For what are we in nature but stinking carcases? If we live, it is by the mere grace of Christ. Come unto him of ourselves to be quickened by him we could not. It was his Father that drew us unto him. Not unto us therefore, not unto us, but unto the Father through jesus Christ be ascribed the whole praise and glory thereof for evermore. And thus much of the second point, Vnde, whence this life is. The third point is Quibus, upon whom it is conferred and bestowed. Upon those, saith my Text, and all those whom his Father hath given him. Who are they? For of them Christ very often speaketh. joh 6.37. All, saith he, that my father giveth me shall come unto me, Ver●. ●39. And again, This is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing. And yet again, My Father which gave them me is greater than all. joh. 10.29. And so also sundry times in the sequel of this present Chapter. V. 6.9.11.12. For clearer understanding hereof therefore we are to know that there is a double donation by which men are said to be given unto Christ, the one Common, the other Singular. The Common is that whereby the Father having given unto the Son all power both in heaven and earth, delivereth all things also into his hand, giving as it were livery and seizing of them, that from thenceforth he may dispose of them at his pleasure. And thus all men whatsoever both elect and reprobate are given unto him. But this is not here meant, as by and by shall appear. Another donation therefore there is more special and singular whereby the Father delivereth unto the Son some of the creatures as unto a head to be his members, or (to persist in our present similitude) giveth them as a body to the soul to be acted and quickened by him: that is, to be ruled and ordered not only by the Sceptre of his Power, but of his Grace and sanctifying Spirit: Now who are these? Surely not all flesh: for all are not united to him, and so live not by him. Who then? They that are elected and chosen unto life: of whom it is said Multi vocati, pauci verò electi, many are called, but few are chosen. And that these are here meant plainly appeareth by and by where he saith, Vers● 6. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: that is, not to all, but some only selected and culled from the rest. And again, Thine they were, and thou gavest them me. How thine? By free election: and now mine by special donation. Vers: 9 And yet again, I pray not for the world, but for them that thou hast given me, for they are thine. Where you see the world distinguished from them that are given him, and excluded from being the Fathers together with them. Whence it followeth necessarily, that the donation here meant is not of all, but those only who in special sort are the Fathers, namely his chosen and peculiar ones. For the better understanding hereof, and that you may know how and in what order the Father is pleased to proceed in this gracious work, thus I take it you are to conceive thereof. First, the Father seeing all mankind by the fall of Adam to be corrupted and in the state of damnation, out of his mere mercy and love decreed, not to lose the whole race of man, but to renew and repair again his image in some of them, to the praise of the glory of his grace: provided yet always that his justice for sin be fully satisfied. Secondly, for the satisfaction of his justice, he further decreed to send his son into the world, that taking our nature upon him, he might therein suffer whatsoever was due to sin, and so mediate a peace between God and us. Then thirdly, out of the corrupt Mass of mankind he selecteth and chooseth some particulars, even such as he pleaseth, with a purpose infallibly to bring them to everlasting life. And in regard of this act it is that our Saviour saith tui erant they were from all eternity thine: and again, tui sunt, by the constant continuation of the same purpose they are still thine. In the fourth place those that are thus elected the Father giveth unto the Son to accomplish his purpose upon them, and by virtue of the power and life given him, to quicken them unto eternal life. Being thus given we are now Christ's. Whereupon also the Church is bold and saith, My well-beloved is mine, Cant. 2.16. and I am his: and S. Paul directly affirmeth that we are Christ's. 1. Cor: 3.23. And being Christ's, five & lastly, he actually enlives & quickens them, raising them up from the death of sin, and conveying into them the spirit of life, in such sort as we have formerly declared. But doth Christ bestow life upon all them that are so given him? yea verily, my text expressly affirmeth it, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. This was the very end wherefore the Father gave them to him. And shall we think that the Father took not order sufficient for the attaining of his end? God forbid. For because he would not fail of his end, therefore did he give so great power unto his Son. joh. 10.28. Such power that nothing, ibid. 10.10. except he would, could pluck them out of his hands: and so much life, that if he would he might give it in abundance. Shall we say that the Son though he hath power yet wants will? far be such blasphemy from us. joh. 6.38. For he testifieth of himself that he came down from heaven with this resolution, Id. 5.30. not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him: Id. 4.34. joh. 6.39. and now that he is come, that he seeketh not his own will, but the will of the Father that sent him, yea that it is meat unto him, to do the will of him that sent him, and to finish his work. Now this is the Father's will that of all which he gave him he should lose nothing, but as my text saith, give unto them eternal life. It is therefore the will of the Son also. And because according to the old rule Qui potest & vult facit, he that both can and will doth, undoubtedly Christ being both able and willing giveth unto all the elect everlasting life. Hence of his Sheep that is of the elect he saith, joh. 10.28. I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish. And again▪ All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me, Id. 6.37. that is, shall believe in me and live, and him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out. If Christ give not eternal life to as many as are given of his Father, than he looseth some of them. For they that live not eternally perish eternally. But the Son plainly affirmeth that all that are given him he keepeth in his Father's name and looseth none of them: joh. 17.12. & 18.9. Heb. 2.13. so that in the last day he may truly say, Lo here I am and the children which thou hast given me. And thus to them and to all them whom the Father hath given him he giveth life. But did the Father intent it, or doth the Son bestow it only on them, excluding all others? To this question because my text directly answereth nothing, I shall have just occasion hereafter fully to handle it where our Saviour denieth that he prays for the World: verse 9 I forbear the resolution of it for the present, and reserve it till then as the fitter place. In the mean season. This use may we briefly make hereof, First, it may serve as a crystal mirror wherein to behold the infinite & unspeakable goodness & love of the Father towards us. When we were in the same mass of corruption together with all mankind, it pleased him by free election to single us from the rest, and to bestow us upon his Son, that he might bring us unto life. Upon what merit? None at all. For we were as deep in the same condemnation as the rest. But such was his good will and pleasure: and this is the glory of his grace, Miserebo● cuius misertus fuero, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. Seeing secondly by the gift of the Father we are Christ's, let us know that he is a good depositary, of such care and faithfulness that he will not neglect his Father's pledge, of such strength and ability that nothing is able to wrest it out of his hands. Were we our own, or were we our own keepers, we should surely perish. But now Christ is charged with us who is the safest keeper, and who is resolved to preserve us safe until the time that he is to redeliver us back again unto his Father, who thenceforth shall be all in all unto us. Wherefore thirdly the best course we can take is wholly & absolutely to resign ourselves into his hands. To trust to ourselves or to any other, is to rely on a broken reed. But he is a sure rock upon whom we may securely build. The Father is wiser than we, and he knew well enough what he did when he commended us to his Son. And the Son loveth us far better than we can love ourselves. When we were his enemies he was content to dye for us: now we are his friends doth he abate of his love towards us? Not a whit. Let us therefore with all confidence interest ourselves both souls and bodies unto him to dispose of us at pleasure. So shall we rest safe from all dangers, and in the end be provided of everlasting salvation. In the mean season let us in the last place, love, yea and long for his second coming, that being his, there where he is we may be also. For here though we be safe, yet are we not without assaults: & those assaults many times shake our Faith, and fill us full of doubts and fears. This indeed is our weakness: For otherwise in regard of the Father's purpose, and the Son's protection we are safe: But when he shall return again to take us home to himself, then shall all doubts and fears clean be banished. For we shall no more believe, but see ourselves free from all dangers, and in perfect safety. Wherefore come Lord jesus come quickly. And of the third point Quibus, to whom thus much. The fourth and last in Quamdiu, how long this life continues. It continues not for a time only as doth the natural life, which after a short while suffereth interruption and is broken off by death: but it is an eternal life, as my text saith, and continueth for ever more, unto the proof whereof before I descend, I must crave leave to remove certain rubs out of our way, which otherwise may let and hinder us in our course. For Spiritual life in regard of the degrees thereof being double, of grace and of glory: there are who restrain eternity unto this only excluding that: as if the life of grace sometime attained not the degree of glory, but the life of glory once attained continued eternally. Howbeit that the life of Grace is also here meant plainly appeareth by the words immediately following, joh. 6.47. where our saviour saith This is life everlasting to know thee, etc. For to know God in Christ is an operation of Spiritual life. 1 joh. 5.12.13. So also elsewhere, He that believeth hath eternal life. And again, He that hath the son hath life, life I say eternal: for so it is forthwith expounded, that ye may know that ye have eternal life. Where you see that the words are not of the future tense shall have, but of the present hath life: which what other can it be but the life of Grace? And of this it is affirmed that it is eternal, and so cannot fail of glory. But further when it is said to be eternal, we are to know that there is a double eternity, the one Simple and absolute, the other only Respective. Simple eternity is that which is so both a part ante & a part post having neither beginning nor ending. And so is God only eternal. The Respective is that which is so only a part post, having indeed a beginning, but afterward never ending. And so Angels & the Souls of men are said to be eternal: and in the same sense do we understand it of Spiritual life, that in regard of the future it is eternal. Yet here again we are to distinguish. To the constitution of life three things, as we have said, are required, Being, Power, and Operation. As touching the Operations of life, we confess they may suffer intermission. For as in an Epilepsy, or fit of the falling sickness no work of life appears, and yet the party lives: so in the acting of sin, from which the best men are not always free, spiritual operations during the while cease, and yet life continues. As touching Power, that is Gracious habits imprinted upon the soul and enabling to operate, I distinguish again. For some of them either in themselves or us argue defect and imperfection, and pertain only to the condition of this present life, such as are, Faith, Hope, and Repentance, and the like. Others import perfection & pertain also to the next life, among which excels Charity. The former in the end of this life cease. For we believe because we see not, and hope because we possess not, and repent because we sin. But when we see, possess, and are free from sin, than Faith, Hope, and Repentance vanish away. As for the latter they never cease, but continue with us evermore. Yet here again are we once more to distinguish. For these habits may be considered, either in regard of Substance or Degree. In regard of degree we confess they may suffer abatement. For Faith may fall from its Plerophorie o● fullness to an Oligopistie or lower degree thereof: and Charity also may remit much of its fervour. So that in this respect a man may be said to be moribundus, Rev. 3.2. declining as it were unto death. But in regard of Substance or Being we confidently affirm in such sort as is above said that they never perish, and the spiritual man never dieth. To wind up all in a word, actus intermitti potest, & gradus remitti, sed habitus ipse nunquam potest amitti, the act may suffer intermission for a time, & the degree abatement or remission, but the habit or life itself never losing or amission. The question being thus clearly stated, let us now proceed to proof. That the life of Grace in all them that are given unto Christ by the Father is eternal, might be proved by many arguments. All what I have to say shall be reduced to one. If the life of grace at any time fail, and the elect of God spiritually dye, either it is through the deficiency of the Procreant and Conservant causes of life or the efficiency & power of the contrary corrupting causes. But it is neither through the one or the other. Ergo neither doth the life of Grace at any time fail, nor the elect of God die. The Major proposition needs no proof. For a third cause cannot be named, and therefore of necessity it must be one of the two if there be any. The Minor therefore I am by all means to fortify, and to maintain that neither the Procreant and Conservant causes fail, nor the contrary corrupting causes prevail. The efficient and preserving causes of spiritual life is as we have showed, the holy and blessed Trinity, the Father through his Son by the powerful operation and working of the holy Ghost. These if they fail, either it is because they cannot or because they will not continue this life. To say they cannot is no less than blasphemy, and contrary both to Scripture and reason. For Omnipotence is an essential attribute of the Deity, so that he can no more cease to be almighty, then cease to be himself and lose his being. In the Creed is this title ascribed unto the Father: howbe it not exclusively. joh. 1.3. Heb. 1.2.3. For the Son and the holy Ghost being coessential with him, job: 33.4. they are coequal also in might and power. Ps. 33.6. The son by the word of his power created all things together with his Father, Rom. 15.9.13.19. and by the same word upholdeth all things. And to the holy Ghost power also is attributed, even the same power whereby things were created, and wonders above the reach of nature are wrought. If it be said that the Son by taking our nature upon him made himself inferior to his Father, I confess it: and withal that his mediatory power is less than his Fathers. Nevertheless all power is given him both in heaven and earth, such a power as no creature beside is capable of, and which was given to this very end that he might both give life & continue it unto eternity. Unto which had it not been sufficient without question greater had been given▪ for the Father may not fail of his end. Of the power of God therefore there can be no doubt, Esa▪ 63.1. but that he is mighty to save, able to make us stand, able to keep us, Rom. 14.4. so that none unless he will can take us out of his hands. 2. Tim. 1.12. joh. 10.28. What say we then to his will? For as in him, that is by virtue of the first life we live: so if either he withdraw himself from us, or suffer others to withdraw us from him, we cannot subsist. Surely as he is able, so if we may believe Scripture, 2 Cor. 1.21. he doth establish us in Christ, we are kept by the power of God to salvation, 1 Pet: 1. ●. Col: 3.3. and our life is hid with God in Christ. But inquire we a little deeper into this mystery. And first the will of the Father appeareth many ways. By Election unto life: which being absolute not conditional is immutable. 2 Tim. 2 19 For the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth who are his. Phil: 4.3. Act: 13.48. And the names of all the elect are written in the book of life, out of which they can never be blotted. For they are ordained unto life, 1 Thes. 5.9. and appointed by God to obtain salvation through Christ. By his love also which is the cause of Election. jer: 31 3. I have loved thee, saith he, with an eternal love, a love which as it is without beginning, so shall it likewise be without ending. Nay if the love of a mother is more to her child when she beareth it in her arms then while it was in her womb: we may not think but the love of the Father continueth at least as great towards us when we are new borne of him, as it was when we were yet but conceived, as it were, by election. Thirdly by donation of Christ to the elect. For what greater testimony either of his love, or of his will to save then this? So God loved the world, saith Christ, that he gave his only begotten son, joh. 3.16. that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Fourthly by donation of us unto Christ. joh. 6.39. For it is the will of the Father that of those he hath given him he should lose none. And here it is said that he hath given unto the Son power over all flesh, that to as many as he hath given him he should give unto them everlasting life. And lastly by the covenant made with us. It is a covenant o● salt, an everlasting covenant. And I will betrothe thee unto me forever, Ier, 32.40. Host 2.19. saith God. And again, This is my covenant with them, Esa: 59.21, saith the Lord, my spirit that is upon thee, & my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the Lord from hence forth and forever. And thus you see the Father is willing, what the Son? His willingness also appears many ways. First by his profession of conformity and obedience to his Father's will, whereof we have already spoken sufficiently. Wherein seeing he faileth not, and it is his Father's will, as we have showed, that he should give them eternal life, undoubtedly it is his will also. Secondly, by giving himself for us. For if then he was content with the expense of his dearest blood to ransom us when we were his enemies: how much more now is it his will & pleasure to save us, Rome▪ 5.9: having of enemies made us friends, and begun the spiritual life in us? Thirdly, by conjoining us unto himself in so strait a bond of union that we are of his bone and of his flesh. For it may not be imagined that he hateth his own flesh, but loveth all the members of his body so dear, t'has as long as he is able he will surely preserve them alive. Fourthly, by his mediatory intercession. For as he prayed for Peter that his faith might not fail, so he intended the same unto all believers, as appeareth in the sequel of this prayer where he saith, I pray for them also which shall believe in me through their word, and requests his Father also to keep them. Which he would never have done but that he earnestly desired their preservation in life. Fiftly, by his care and desire that we should every way be conformed to him: that as he died and rose again and from thenceforth dieth no more, so we should first dye to sin, and then live to righteousness, and afterward spiritually never dye more. Lastly, by sending unto us the holy Ghost, to lead us into all truth, to comfort us, and to consecrate us unto him both Souls and Bodies. FINIS. A GODLY DISCOURSE OF SELFE-DENIALL. OXFORD, Printed by I. L. for E. F. 1633. LUKE. 9.23. And he said to them all, if any will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me. THese are the words of our blessed Lord & Saviour jesus Christ: and they contain in them Counsel of singular importance, given unto all those that purpose to come after him. Upon what occasion it was given is not so fully recorded by our Evangelist S. Luke: Luk. 9.22. but what is defective in him is perfecty supplied by two other Evangelists, S. Matthew, Mat. 16.21.22.23.24. and S. Mark, Mar. 8.31.32.33.34. by Saint Matthew in his sixteenth Chapter, by S. Mark in his eighth. It was this. Our Saviour had signified unto his Disciples, not obscurely and darkly, as at other times, but in express and plain terms, that he was ere long, to go up to jerusalem, and there to suffer many things of the Elders, chief Priests, and Scribes, and at length to be put to death by them. Hereupon S. Peter, being as the Fathers observe of him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more hot and hasty than the rest of his fellows, presently takes his Master aside, & consulting only with flesh & blood, begins to school him, Master, pity thyself, this may not be unto thee But Christ turning about, and looking upon his Disciples, first in the hearing of them all sharply rebukes him, Get thee behind me Satan, thou art a scandal unto me, for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that are of men: and then addressing his speech, as my Text saith, unto them all, he giveth them this wholesome and sovereign Counsel, If any of you be disposed to come after me, he may not with Peter follow his own carnal reason, nor presume by his advice and counsel to guide and direct me, nor finally must he timorously and fearfully shrug and shrink at the mention of the Cross: no, he must resolve, to deny his own self, to take up his Cross daily, and to follow me, otherwise it is but in vain to think of coming after me. This was the occasion of the Counsel, and this is the context and coherence of the words in this history. In them, it may please you further to observe with me these three particulars: First, the Parties to whom the counsel is given, secondly, the form of words wherein it is delivered, and lastly, the counsel itself. The Parties, He said unto them all, the form of words, If any will, let him, the counsel, Let him deny himself, take up his Cross daily and follow me. In the first ye have the generality of the Counsel, He said unto them all: in the second, the Liberty of them that are counselled, if any will, let him: in the last the conditional necessity of the counsel, if any will come after me, he must of necessity deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me. Of these in order, as God shall assist, and the time permit. The Parties to whom the Counsel is given are All, He said unto them all. What All? All his Disciples, as it seemeth by S. Matthew, Mat. 16.24. for, saith he, Then said jesus unto his Disciples. Mar. 8.34. But S. Mark further affirmeth that he gave it to the multitude also, When, saith he, he had called the people unto him together with his disciples, he said unto them. And these are St Luke's Alderman, all the Disciples, all the People, all the present auditory. The present auditory will some say? Then it concerns not us who were none of that auditory. Yes us as well as them: for although Christ at that time spoke only to them that were present, yet the holy Evangelists have written it for us also. Yea it is clear that our Saviour intended it universally unto all men: for that which Matthew and Luke deliver hypothetically and conditionally, thus, if any will come after me, let him, the same Saint Mark uttereth in a categorical and simple form, thus, Whosoever will come after me, as if he should say Every man without exception. So that as our Saviour elsewhere said, What I say unto you I say unto all, Watch: in like sort is he to be understood here, that what he spoke unto his auditory then, was generally meant unto all mankind, Psal 119 96. if any whatsoever he be will come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me. I have seen an end of all perfection, saith David in his hundred and nineteenth psalm, but thy word is exceeding broad. Psal. 19.3.4. Broad as in sundry other respects, so especially in this that it stretcheth and reacheth unto all men. There is no speech nor language, saith the same David in the nineteenth Psalm, v. 6. where the voice of the Heavens is not heard: their line is gone out throughout all the earth & their words unto the end of the world. The Sun which God hath placed therein, goeth forth from the end of heaven, and compasseth about unto the ends of it, and nothing is hid from the heat thereof. This doth the Apostle Saint Paul in his tenth to the Romans, Rom. 10.18. apply unto the word preached by the Apostles, plainly implying that no man in the world of what condition soever is privileged from the authority thereof. When God first gave the law unto Adam; the tenor whereof runs thus Hoc fac & vives, Do this and thou shalt live, he gave it not unto the person of Adam alone, but unto all those that were in his loins, even to all his posterity, who had the law printed in their hearts by nature. In like manner when Christ commanded the Gospel of Faith and repentance to be preached, he limited it not unto a few, but said unto his Apostles, Go teach all nations, and go into all the world, Mat. 28.19. Ma●. 16 15. and preach the Gospel unto every creature. Neither from the law nor from the Gospel was any man excepted. God is no accepter of persons: the hand that sways a sceptre, and that diggeth with the spade are both alike unto him. Idem ius Titio quod Seio, one rule unto all, whether they be high or low, noble or base, rich or poor, learned or unlearned, bond or free, young or old, of what state, age, sex, or condition soever they be. God hath not strewed the way to Heaven with roses for great ones to dance upon, and with thorns for the meaner sort to tread upon: neither hath he appointed a spacious and broad way for some, and a straight & narrow way for other some to pass unto life everlasting by. For the ways of the Lord are straight ways: and as between two points there can be but one straight line drawn, so can there be but one straight way that leadeth unto life. Vno quisque modo bonus est, mutisque nefandus: a man may be wicked many ways, but he can be good only one way. A thousand bypaths are there which lead unto destruction, and but one only right path, Eph. 4.4.5.6. that leadeth to salvation. For there is but one body, and one spirit, and one hope in which all are called, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of us all: in a word one Blessedness which is the end, and one Religion which is the way to that end, through which way every man of necessity must pass, that meaneth to arrive at that end. Now I beseech you all that hear me this day, of what place soever you be, whether high or low, that you will be pleased every one to apply this individually and singularly unto himself: and to take notice that none of you can come after Christ but only by the same way. Every one must deny himself, every one must take up his cross daily, every one must follow Christ, or else ye cannot possibly come after him. There is none of you so mean whom God overseeth or neglecteth, none so great whom he privilegeth or exempteth. And thus much of the generality of the Counsel. The Form of words in which the Counsel was delivered is, if any will, let him, which as we have said importeth the liberty of them that are counselled. For it is as if our Saviour should thus have said, Behold I tell you all plainly, no man can come after me unless he deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me. Now if any will thus come after me, I give him good leave, let him do so: for my part, I will neither force him from me, nor after me, if he come he shall come willingly; If any will let him. First therefore, Christ putteth off, and forceth no man from him. 1 Tim. 2.4. For God would have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth: 2 Pet. 3.9. neither is he willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.. I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, Ez. 1●. 3●. saith the Lord God: Id. 33.11. nay he swears as he lives he will not the death of a sinner, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. And certainly seeing man is the creature of God, and creation is the first emanation & issue as it were of his love, it cannot be that he should delight in his destruction. He made not death, Sap. 1.13. as the wise man saith: and when he inflicts it, alienum opus facit, he doth a work not so pleasing him, for he had rather show mercy, then execute judgement. Hence is it that he standeth at the door of our heart and knocketh; yea that he continueth knocking until his head be filled with dew, Rev. 3.20. Cant. 5.2. and his locks with the drops of the night: that he requesteth us so lovingly to give him entrance, Ibid. Open unto me my sister, my love, my dove, Rev. 3.20. my undefiled, promising so bountifully that if we shall open unto him, he will come in unto us, and sup with us and we with him, Mat. 11.28. and threatening us that as if we come unto him, Heb. 10.38. we shall find refreshment, so if we draw back his soul shall have no pleasure in us. Neither let us think but that God meaneth seriously in all this: for otherwise he should but mock and deceive us, pretending one thing and intending another, and (which I tremble to speak) playing the hypocrite and dissembler with us. Besides this, he should make us the ministers of the Gospel no better then false witnesses unto him, testifying things that are untrue, and which he never purposed: whereas God being omnipotent needeth not our lie, and being truth itself will not compass his end by a lie. Finally, if Christ with his hands should push from him those whom by his word he inviteth to him, than they that come not are the more excusable: for every one may plead for himself, that he suffered violence, and Christ himself hindered him, whose force no creature is able to withstand. Christ then forceth no man from him. If so, whence then is it that many who are invited come not? I answer, the fault is in themselves, they will not come. Prov. 1.24.25. I called, saith Wisdom, & ye refused, I stretched out my hand & no man regarded: ye set at naught all my counsels and would none of my reproof. Esa. 65.12. And again, I called saith God, and ye did not answer, I spoke and ye did not hear: Osea. 13.9. but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not. Wherefore he protesteth by the prophet Osea, Perditio tua ex te Israel, thy destruction is of thyself oh Israel: and complaineth by the prophet Ezechiell, Ez. 18.31. why will ye dye o house of Israel, as if he should say if ye die, it is because ye will needs dye. They refused to hearken, saith Zacharie, Zach. 7.11.12. and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears that they should not hear, yea they made their hearts as an adamant stone lest they should hear the law. In like manner in the new testament. Mat. 23.37. How often would I have gathered thy children together as the hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. Mark the words, I would, therefore Christ forceth no man from him: Luc. 7.30. ye would not, therefore the fault is in ourselves. The Pharisees and Lawyers, saith St Luke, rejected the counsel of God against themselves: & our Saviour testifieth of the jews, Io. 5.40. that they would not come unto him that they might have life: Act. 7.51. yea St Steven generally upbraids them, ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the holy Ghost: as your Fathers did so do ye. All these Scriptures evidently demonstrate, that the cause of not coming after Christ is not for that Christ forceth man from him, but because man himself refuseth to come. Let the blame thereforely where it ought, on man and not on God: Rom. 3.4. let God be true but every man a liar, as it is written, that thou mayst be justified in thy sayings, and overcome when thou art judged. As Christ forceth no man from him, so neither doth he force any to come after him: If any will let him. God offereth violence to no man's will: for though he hate evil & love good, yet neither doth he violently draw the will from the one, nor constrain it unto the other. Good is not good if it be done of compulsion and not willingly. He that doth good by constraint, would not do it, and ●o doth ill: and God shall show great mercy upon him if he do not punish him. For the sacrifices which God accepteth are free will offerings: & it is the cheerful giver whom he approveth. Hence is it that God requireth our election and choice: and election importeth liberty. I call heaven & earth to record this day against you, Deut. 30.19. saith Moses, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life. And joshua, jos. 24.15. choose you this day whom you will serve, whether the Gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the Gods of the Amorites in whose land ye dwell. In a word, all the exhortations, commandments, promises, and threatenings used in Scripture plainly argue, that it is God's will that what we do we should do willingly. Here happily some will say, what, are you fled into the enemy's camp? & are you also become a Proctor for free will? God forbid: Our coming after Christ, I ascribe not with Papists unto the freedom of our own will, but unto the free grace of God: for I confess that if he prevent us not with grace we cannot will, and being prevented if he pursue us not with his grace we shall will in vain, according to that of Saint Paul▪ It is God which worketh in you to will and to do of his good pleasure. Phil. 2.13. If it be so, will you yet say, why doth our Saviour Christ use this form of words, if any will let him? and do you not overthrow all what hitherto you have said, affirming that we can neither will nor do, unless by grace we be elevated above nature? Hereunto, to express myself more fully, I answer four things. First, if we were such as we ought to be, we might of ourselves by the means offered unto us come unto Christ. That now we cannot is through our own default who have disabled ourselves. And yet the obligation still lieth upon us, and we are bound to bring with us power, abilility, and fit dispositions. If we neither do nor can, yet may God justly exact them of us, as the Creditor may his debt of the unthrift that cannot pay him: neither is he bound again to enable him by grace, no more than a Creditor is to supply the wants of his wasteful and prodigal debtor. Secondly, although in things supernatural and spiritual the act of Willing be not in our power: yet are there many prerequisites going before which are in our power, as to go to Church, to hear God's word preached, to meditate upon it, to seek further information, etc. without which ordinarily God saveth none. God blesseth not our idleness, but our labour▪ he that will not labour shall not eat, he shall eat that seeketh his bread in the sweat of his brows. He that will not plow nor sow, shall not reap the crop: and he that will not strive and endeavour himself shall not obtain grace. Thirdly, if a man having the means of grace offered him, shall thereunto add his own endeavour, and do whatsoever lieth in his own power: who knoweth but that God will be gracious to that man? Or rather to declare my mind freely, I doubt not but that God will be gracious unto him. And although others wrench and stretch the place too far for their own advantage, yet will I not be afraid with as grave Divines as this land affordeth any to apply it unto this purpose, Mat. 25.28 29. Habenti dabitur, to him that hath shall be given. God forsaketh not man until man forsaketh him: neither fails any until he be defective unto himself. Then indeed the talon which he would not employ shall be taken from him: but he that imploies it carefully shall receive more, yea shall have abundance. Being thus called and affected God will never cease to further our conversion, unless we ourselves stop his course either by careless neglect or wilful rejection of grace. Lastly, when we have done whatsoever we can do, yet is conversion out of our power, it is the work of God's free grace, which grace of unwilling maketh us willing, not by forcing and constraining the will, but sweetly inclining and bending it. Cant. 1.4. For albeit God in converting us be said to draw us, joh. 6.44. yet may we not conceive this Drawing to be constraint or violent coaction. He draws us indeed: what? as stocks and stones? No, but as men: I will draw them, saith God, with the cords of a man, with the bands of love. Ose. 11.4. Grace so prevaileth upon the will, as it preserveth the liberty thereof. It cannot will before Grace, grace maketh it willing. When we are first converted by grace, we convert willingly: and whensoever we will, we will freely. For will is not will unless it be free. Grace indeed setteth free the will: yet except we will our conversion freely we can neither be converted nor saved, according that of Bernard, Nisi sit liberum arbitrium non est quod saluetur, nisi sit gratia non est unde saluetur, unless there be free will there is nothing to be saved, unless there be grace, there is no means whereby to be saved. And thus much have I thought good to speak touching the form of words, or the liberty of them that are counselled, partly to clear God from being the cause why we follow not this counsel, and partly to set an edge upon our endeavour to follow it. The Counsel itself is threefold, first, abnegation of ourselves, secondly, bearing of the cross, thirdly, following of Christ. And of every of them there is a conditional necessity, if we will come after Christ. For howsoever simply we may choose whether we will deny ourselves or not deny ourselves, take up the cross, or not take up the cross, follow Christ, or not follow him: yet conditionally if we will come after Christ we must of necessity deny ourselves, take up our cross daily, and follow him. So that in every of these Counsels we are to consider, first the Substance, and then the Necessity of it. But before we come particularly unto them, we must needs premise a word or two touching the condition, and inquire what it is to come after Christ. Among diverse interpretations, two there are which to me seem most likely. The first is, if any will come after me, that is, if any will be my Disciple. Thus S. Luke himself seemeth to expound it, where speaking in a manner to the same purpose he saith, Luc. 14.27. whosoever beareth not his cross and followeth me, cannot be my Disciple. Whereunto reason also agreeth, for Scholars use not to go before their Masters, but to come after them: whence usually they are called Followers, as the Followers of Plato, the Followers of Aristotle. In this sense than it is as if our Saviour should say, If any will be my scholar. But he means a scholar not titularlie and in name only, like Apothecary's boxes quorum tituli habent remedia, pyxides venena, which contain in them poisons having the titles of remedies: but really and truly, one that is so indeed, and to speak plain English, a ●rue Christian. The second interpretation is, if any will come after me, that is, if any will arrive at that end to the which I am aspiring before him, namely, eternal glory. Neither is this unlikely: for Christ is the author and finisher of our Faith, Heb. 1●. 2. who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and is set at the right hand of the throne of God. Heb. 10.19.20. He by his blood hath consecrated a new and living way for us into the holy of holies, whether he is ascended before us, there to prepare mansions for all such as will come after him. And in this sense it is as if our Saviour should say, joh. 14.2. if any will come to eternal life and glory after me. Now whether of these two senses shall we take? I suppose both: for first the circumstances of the Text admit both, secondly both agree with the analogy of faith, thirdly the safest rule is, not to straighten but to enlarge the meaning of the holy Ghost as much as may be: and lastly what God hath joined together let no man put asunder. Now no man can be a Citizen of heaven, unless he be a Disciple of Christ here on earth. The School of Christ and the kingdom of heaven are contrived like Marcellus two Temples of Virtue and Honour. For as none could enter into the Temple of Honour but he must first pass through the Temple of Virtue: so neither can any man pass into the kingdom of glory but by the school of grace. He that will be glorious there must first be gracious here. There is no salvation but only by the Mediation of Christ, his Mediation stands in his Priesthood, Kingdom, and Prophecy. He is not a Priest to one, a King to another, and a Prophet to a third, but he is all three unto a man, or he is none at all unto him: 1 Cor. 1.13. for Christ is not divided. Whence it followeth that whosoever will be saved, Christ must be a Prophet unto him, and he must be a Disciple unto Christ. The meaning then of this condition is as if our Saviour more fully and plainly had said, If any will be my Disciple, and by being my Disciple will come unto the kingdom of heaven after me. Now let us descend in due order unto the counsels, and consider both the substance and necessity of them. First of the first. Let him deny himself. What is that? God, saith the Apostle, is faithful, he cannot deny himself, that is, he cannot say and unsay, 2 Tim. 2.13. for his promises are not Yea and nay, but Yea and Amen: neither can he say otherwise of himself than he is, for he is truth itself & cannot lie. Must we thus deny ourselves? God forbid. For then how can we resemble our heavenly Father, and be perfect as he is perfect? for he neither doth nor can deny himself. And seeing Christ is the express image of his Father, Heb. 1.3. and we are to be conformed unto the image of Christ: it cannot be that he should advise us to be so unlike either to his Father or himself, as in this sense to deny ourselves. No this we leave to cheating Priests and jesuits, who have devised a new doctrine of Equivocation and Mental Reservation. If ye ask of a Priest, art thou a Priest? He will confidently and boldly deny himself and say, I am no Priest, reserving in his mind, of Baal, or of Apollo, which speech and reservation put together, make up, they say, one entire and true sentence, I am no Priest of Baal or Apollo. And this is the starting hole which these Foxes have provided for themselves in the time of danger. But O thou thrice blessed Lord and Saviour Christ, and O ye blessed and holy Apostles and Martyrs of Christ, how simple and ignorant were ye that ye knew not this doctrine? Had you known it, how easily might you have avoided those many troubles, vexations, and torments that ye endured? Thou O Christ being demanded whether thou were the Christ, mightst readily have answered, I am not, with this reservation, such as ye look for: & ye Apostles and Martyrs of Christ being questioned whether ye were Christians, might easily have replied, we are not, reserving only in your mind, such as ye slander us to be, devourers of young children, incestuous, and the like. But the school of Machiavelli and Loiola was not yet opened, and Christians hitherto were trained up only in the school of Christ: all were of the mind of that Bishop, who as Augustin saith, was Firm both in name and deed, who being demanded by persecutors for a Christian whom he had hidden, answered roundly and without all Equivocation, neither is it for a Christian to lie, nor for a Bishop to betray a Christian and therefore I will not tell you. I fear me, when these Deniers of themselues shall appear before Christ at the last day, mental reservation will hardly excuse them: and because they would not be known to be the Priests of Christ (for so they pretend) neither will Christ know them to be of his flock. But of this enough, being but by the way. To Deny then in this place, is not literally and properly to be understood, but thus, to disclaim, to renounce, to reject, to despise, to make no reckoning and to take no notice of. Mat. 10.33. When our Saviour threateneth that he will deny them before his Father in heaven whosoever shall deny him before men, what meaneth he but this, He will renounce them, Deut▪ 33.19: and not own them for his? Even as it is said of Levi to his great honour, He said unto his Father and to his mother I have not seen him, neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own, that is, he regarded them not, nor took any notice of them. But what must we thus Deny? Ourselves. He saith not, Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, Wife, children, Friends, Honour, Wealth, Pleasure, and yet these things must be denied too: but he saith, Let him deny himself. Himself? What means he by that? 1. Cor. 2.14.15 There are two sorts of men: for as S. Paul distinguisheth, there is a Spiritual and there is a Natural man. The Spiritual man is he who is borne a new of water and the holy Ghost, & by grace is become a new creature, a new man, transformed into the image of Christ. The natural man is he that is as yet unregenerate, & hath nothing in him but nature & the corruption thereof, bearing only the image of the old Adam. Must the spiritual man deny himself? No verily, so far forth as he is spiritual: for so doing, he should disclaim and disesteem the very grace of God by which he is whatsoever he is. It is the Natural man than that must be denied. Now in the Natural man there is, first Nature, and then the corruption of nature. By Nature I understand, the powers & faculties of the soul, such as are the Understanding and the light of reason, whose office is to discern truth from falsehood: and the Will (under which also I comprehend Passions and Affections) whose duty is to pursue that which is good, and to shun that which is evil. The corruption of nature, is that which in Scripture is called flesh & concupiscence, and is commonly known in the Church by the name of Original sin, because it is traduced unto us from our parents, and we are polluted therewith in every part both of soul and body from our very conception and birth. Now which of these two must be denied? I answer both: yet not both alike, but the corruption of Nature simply and absolutely, and Nature itself only in some respect. First then Nature itself must be denied. What simply and absolutely as the corruption of Nature? No, by no means▪ ●o● it is the good creature of God, & without it, neither are we capable of blessedness, nor can be scholars in the school of Christ. Nature is not opposite but subordinate unto Grace: and Grace destroyeth not nor abolisheth, but healeth and perfecteth Nature. Neither is it without cause that God spoiling man of his supernaturals for sin, only wounded him in his naturals, and left unto him both a light in his Understanding, and a liberty in his Will. Rom. 1.18. By the light of reason, the invisible things of God, Psal. 19.1. even his eternal Power and Godhead are clearly scene: & there is no nation so barbarous, but partly by inbred principles, partly by the book of the creatures know him. By the same light of reason do we in part also know the will of God: Rom. 2.14.15. for the law moral is written in our hearts by nature, and how many excellent precepts of morality do we find in the writings of mere natural men? Finally, even in the matter of the Gospel, reason seeth thus far, that it is not impossible if God will: and upon this ground, justin Martyr, Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius, Athenagoras, Augustin anciently, and Aquinas, Vives, Mornay of late, have attempted to prove by reason, the trueness of Christian religion. As for the Will, it is yielded of all hands, that in matters morally good, it hath free liberty, and may of itself either choose it or refuse it at pleasure. So that hitherto Nature & the power thereof is no way to be denied or disclaimed. Wherein then? Surely in things merely supernatural. For that which is above reason cannot be comprehended by reason: and that which passeth the reach of nature cannot be attained only by the power of nature. The natural man, saith S. Paul, perceiveth not the things of God, nor can know them, 1. Cor. 2▪ 14. because they are spiritually discerned. In these things reason is stark blind, and seeth nothing. Search the writings of the subtlest and sharpest Naturalist, and ye shall find in them of Christ and his Gospel nor palm nor footstep. Here therefore reason must be denied, and as a woman may not speak in the Church, so must reason also be silent in things supernatural. In things not revealed, it must be contented not to know: & docta ignorantia est, it is a learned ignorance. In things revealed, it must believe without and above reason: reason must be captived unto the obedience of faith. And as where the natural Philosopher endeth there the Physician begins: so where natural reason stoppeth divine Faith must come in place. Otherwise if reason will needs be prying into God's ark, and search into those mysteries that are above the reach thereof: it is the corruption of reason, and no marvel if it become vain and foolish in her imaginations. Yea when men in their curiosity think themselves most wise, then are they most infatuated. And as Ixion, in the fable, embracing a cloud instead of juno begat Centaurs thereon: so they entertaining their own fancies instead of divine verity bring forth nothing but monsters of errors and strange opinions. What I say of reason must be understood of the will also: in spiritual matters the one wanteth light to see, and the other strength to do: It is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that showeth mercy: for (as we have already demonstrated) neither can we will of ourselves without preventing grace, nor do when we have willed without pursuing grace. So that if a man will be no more than the scholar of Nature, he cannot be the scholar of Christ. For as nature is unable both to know the mysteries which Christ teacheth and to do the duties which he requireth: so doth Christ command us to renounce our natural abilities, & to come as infants unto the kingdom of heaven. But if Nature itself must be denied, much more the Corruption of Nature. For as the Scripture saith Corruption cannot inherit uncorruption: and without holiness it is impossible to see God. Now the leprosy of Original Corruption not only infects the inferior part of the soul as Papists dream, but spreads itself to every part, even the superior also. For as for the mind, it is not only blind and ignorant, but Corrupt also and full of vanity: it savoureth not the things of God, 2 Tim. 3. but they seem unto it mere folly. As for the will it is not only unable to perform spiritual duties, Eph. 4.17.18. Rome 8. 1 Cor. 2 but full of hardness also and perverseness and untowardensse unto any thing that is good. Finally the inferior part is but a shop of all turpitude & outrageousness, full of nothing else but tempestuous, tumultuous, unruly, and sinful lusts. These all as the Scripture saith, must be crucified, must be mortified, must be killed, that is must utterly be renounced and denied if we will be the followers of Christ. And reason. For the flesh lusteth and fighteth against the spirit: by reason whereof the good we would do we cannot do; and the evil we would not do we do. They that walk after the flesh, saith St Paul, are not in Christ, but they that walk after the spirit. And, they that live after the flesh shall die: neither can any man live, unless by the spirit he mortify the deeds of the body. In a word, to this end hath the grace of God appeared unto all men, Tit. 2.11.12. and instructed us, that we denying all ungodliness and worldly lusts, might live soberly, justly, & godly, in this present world. By all which it is clear, that all our corrupt lusts & affections must be denied if we will be disciples in the school of Grace, yet is it further to be observed, that when the Apost. saith, we must deny all worldly lusts, he meaneth fleshly lusts, as they have reference unto the world, & to the profits & pleasures of this present life. So that in comparison of Christ, & when they let and hinder us from coming after him, whatsoever in the world is most dear & precious unto us, must be despised and trod●n under foot. We must with the holy Apostles be content to forsake all and to follow him. Mat. 19▪ 27. Mat▪ 10.37. If we love father or mother or son or daughter more than him, Luc. 14.26. we are unworthy of him. Nay if any come unto him and hate not his father and mother, and wife and Children, and brethren and sisters, yea & his own life also (or as some think it may not unfitly be translated, his own soul) he cannot be my Disciple. Wherefore as Hierom saith, if Father or Mother shall lie in the way to hinder thee from coming after Christ, be not afraid to tread upon the grey beard of thy Father, and to trample upon the belly of her that bore thee, rather than to be barred from coming unto him. As therefore, to conclude this point, a young man in the judgement of Aristotle is an unfit auditor of Moral Philosophy: even so the mere Animal man by the verdict of jesus Christ, is utterly unmeet to be scholar in Christian Philosophy. If he will make himself meet for Christ's school, he must of necessity deny himself, which is the first Counsel. The second is, let him take up his cross daily. The Cross properly is a tree or engine of wood framed into such a form, where upon malefactors were wont to be executed and put to death. The manner was either with cords to bind them, or which was more usual with nails to fasten them hand and foot unto it, and there to suffer them to languish and pine away unto death: in regard whereof they were wont anciently to call it ultimum supplicium, the extremest and greatest punishment: & because the basest sort of people only, and such as were servants or slaves were in this manner executed, therefore was it also termed servile supplicium a servile punishment. This cruel and slavish death did our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ suffer, to free us from eternal death, and to procure unto us everlasting life. Whereupon those pressures, tribulations, afflictions, persecutions that do befall a man, not for his wickedness but for righteousness sake, & for the profession of the Gospel of Christ, are in the language of Canaan called the Cross, because they are the remainders of the afflictions of Christ, Col. 1.24. which he in his body, that is the Church, doth yet still suffer. And this is the Cross which is here meant. But it is further said, His cross. Not that Cross which a man frameth unto his own self, or rashly pulleth upon himself, as sundry Martyrs in the primitive Church seemed to do, whom yet I dare not censure, because I know not with what spirit they did it. For we may not like Coecias draw storms and clouds upon our own heads: and our Saviour himself advizeth us, when they persecute us in one City, to fly into another. Then only are we bound to bear the cross, when without denying the truth we cannot avoid it. Our Cross then is that which is imposed upon us by God, whether it be poverty, or ignominy, or imprisonment, or banishment, or whipping, or racking, or torment, or death of what kind soever. For God layeth not the same cross on all, but one Cross on one, and another on another, as he in his wisdom thinketh best. But whatsoever the cross is which God appointeth unto a man, that is his cross. And this cross saith Christ must be taken up. It was the manner that he that was cruciarius to be crucified, was to bear his cross or some part thereof unto the place of execution. So did Christ, until meeting with Simon of Cyrene, they compelled him to bear his cross. But malefactors bear it against their wills, our Saviour willingly, which was the very form of his suffering: and he requireth all those that will come after him to do so too. For to take up the cross imports not only a patient bearing of it when it is laid upon us, but also a ready and voluntary undergoing of it. And this also saith our Saviour, must be done daily, that is, at all times, and continually. Not but that the Church hath sometimes her lucida intervalla, her good days: for the rod of the wicked resteth not always upon the lot of the righteous, Psal. 125.3. and after storms and tempests God sendeth calm & Halcionian times. How then? Thus. Whensoever God sendeth the cross unto any, he must actually take it up: in the time of peace, and when there is no cross, though actually he cannot, yet must he take it up in the preparation and disposition of the mind. And this is the substance of the second Counsel, Let him take up his cross daily. The Necessity of it if we will come after Christ is easy to be demonstrated. What more manifest in the Scripture than this that the Cross is an unseparable companion of the Church? The Church is Lilium inter spinas, a lily among thorns. Christ without his cross is but a Chimoera, & so is the Church also without afflictions, Psal. 34.19. Many are the troubles of the righteous, saith David, In the world ye shall have tribulations, joh. 16.33. saith our Saviour Christ. Through much tribulation must we enter into the kingdom of God, Act. 14.2. saith Saint Paul: 2 Tim. 3.12. and again, All that will live Godly in jesus Christ shall suffer persecution. Search the records of all times from the beginning of the world down to this present, and you shall find that Persecution hath ever attended upon the Church. Not to speak of particular persons, the bondage of Egypt, the captivity of Babylon, the tyranny of Antiochus, the ten bloody persecutions of heathen Emperors, the barbarous cruelties of Antichrist, finally the fire, the sword, the massacres of this last age wherein our Fathers lived, and we ourselves yet live, do make it more than manifest. And indeed as long as Satan continueth to be malicious against us, how can it be otherwise? Knowing himself to be eternally rejected, and without redemption, he beareth an eternal hatred against God. And because he cannot wreak his teen upon him, being out of his reach: he turneth his malice against mankind, and among them those principally who by Christ are conquered out of his hands. For as the Panther raging upon the picture of a man betrays the hatred he bears unto him: so the devil to testify how much he hates God himself, spends all his fury upon him that beareth the image of God. Rev. 12.13.15.17. Hence is it that he is so wroth with the woman: and from this Wrath is it that he still, persecutes her, casts out floods of water to overwhelm her, and maketh war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of jesus Christ. As Satan so Satanical and wicked men are deadly enemies unto the Saints and holy members of Christ. Qui male agit odit lucem, 1 joh. 5.19. he that doth evil hates the light. Now the whole world lieth in wickedness, and therefore cannot endure the light either of Christ's truth or their life. joh. 15.19. If they were of the world the world would love his own, but because they are not of the World, but chosen out of the world, therefore the world hateth them. ● Pet. 4.4. They think it strange that the Saints run not into the same excess of riot with them. What marvel then if hating them, and being separated in life and conversation from them, they continually stir up persecutions against them? But it will be said, why doth not God hinder them, being able? Doth he not love his Church? yes he loves her as the apple of his eye: and because her, therefore he permits them. For as our Saviour saith. Rev. 3.19. As many as I love I rebuke and chasten: & the Apostle to the Hebrews, Heb. 12.6. whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Whereby it appeareth also that God not only permitteth, but hath a hand in the afflictions of his children, himself delivering them over unto their adversaries to correct them. Yea the Apostle S. Paul yet farther saith, 1 Thes. 3.3. that we are appointed to afflictions, Ro. 8.29.18. & predestinated to be conformed unto the image of the son of God, as in other things, so also to suffer with him that we may be glorified together. The ends which God propounded to himself herein are, partly his own glory, partly our good. His own glory in the manifestation of his justice, power, and wisdom. justice, in that he beginnneth judgement at his own house, 1. Pet 4.17. not sparing them whom he loves most dear: nor suffering them to recover paradise so easily, who had abandoned it so wilfully. Parvo parari tanta res non debuit it was not fit that such a piece should be won without striking any stroke: His power, in preserving such earthen vessels notwithstanding all the knocks and blows laid upon them, not suffering the bush to consume though flaming and all on fire, yea multiplying his Church the more they are slain, and making the blood of his Martyrs the seed of his Gospel and finally in her greatest distresses and extremities delivering her most miraculously. His Wisdom, in proportioning the body to the head: for it was not fit that Christ should wear a crown of thorns, Luc. 16.19. and we be clothed in purple and fine linen, and fare sumptuously every day, but as he entered into glory by the cross, so should we aspire to the same end by the same way. As God in the afflictions of his Church respected his own glory, so also he intended our good and benefit. Psal. 119.71. It is good for me, saith David that I have been afflicted. Heb. 12.10. He chasteneth us for our benefit, saith the Apostle to the Hebrews. First by the cross he fanneth away from the church, palea● levis fidei, the chaff of those that are unstable in the faith. Mat. 13.20.21. For the seed that falleth in the stony ground that is, he that hath no root in himself, dureth but for a while, and when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. And so the chaff flying away, the heap of corn remaineth more clean in the garner of God, as Tertullian speaketh. Again, by it are we much bettered: for as a Corrosive it frets away our rank flesh, and as a fire it purgeth away the dross of corruption and refines us. It worketh repentance of sins past, it preventeh future sins, it quickeneth the spirit of grace within us, and maketh us more careful to observe God's commandments. Psal. 119 71. Thirdly, it honours us greatly by making our virtues known unto the world. For as the valour of a soldier is best seen in the battle, and the skill of a pilot in a tempest: so is the fortitude and patience of a Christian best discerned in tribulation. Spices brayed yield the sweetest smell● & as the broaching of heresies tries how much we know of God so the fire of persecution discovereth how much we love the truth of God. Fourthly it weaneth us from the love of this world, and worketh in us a longing to be dissolved and to be with Christ, which otherwise we would hardly do: even as children would hardly forbear sucking, unless the teat be stricken with wormwood or some other bitter and distasteful juice. Lastly, si compatimur etiam conregnabimus, 2 Tim. 2.12. if we suffer with Christ, Mat 5.12. we shall also reign with him. Exceeding great shall be our reward in heaven, Heb. 12.11. saith Christ. Here on earth shall we reap the peaceable fruit of righteousness, and in heaven an exceeding weight of glory, Rom. 8.18. wherewith our sufferings are no way to be compared. Thus by Scripture, experience, malice of adversaries, & divine ordinance it plainly appears, that every one that will come after Christ must of necessity bear his cross. I add farther, he must not only bear it, but he must take it up also and that Daily. He must not only endure it with patience, but also willingly, joyfully, thankfully. Willingly, for so did Christ, who foreseeing it, and having power to avoid it, yet would not. Nothing that is forced pleaseth God, but only that which is voluntary. joyfully, so did the Apostles, Act. 5 41. rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer shame for the name of Christ: and our Saviour commanded us, Mat. 5.11.12. in the midst of persecutions to rejoice & be exceeding glad. Heb. 12.11. Nor but that affliction is in itself and for the present grievous not joyous, but inasmuch as it is for Christ's sake, and to give testimony unto the truth. Thankfully, in regard of the benefit and reward we reap thereby. Heb. 11.26. So did Moses esteem the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt. And it is reason we should thank the Chirurgeon that cures us, as well for his Corrosives as his Lenitives. Neither must we only take up the cross willingly, joyfully, thankfully, but also daily, that is with constancy and perseverance. He fighteth not the good fight, that finisheth not his course. It is not sufficient to bear out a brunt or two, Eph. 6.13. unless having done all we stand. God regardeth not so much the beginning as the end. Finis coronat opus, it is the end that crowneth the work. The reward is promised, non pugnanti sed vincenti not to him that fighteth, but to him that overcometh. In a word he that continueth to the end shall be saved, and no other. Ye see, brethren, what a large field I have to expatiate in: but the time forceth me to be brief. In other Churches upon whom the Cross now lieth heavily this theme perhaps requires a larger handling: yet is it not unseasonable in this our peace to touch it in a few words in regard of the hopes of our enemies, and our own fears, if need be to prepare us for the Crosse. And thus much of the second counsel. The third and last is, let him follow me. This many happily would think, and many indeed do think to be all one with coming after Christ: for what is it to follow but to come after? Were it so, then were I here to make an end. But I suppose there is a farther matter intended in it: and therefore let me intreat● your patience to add a word or twain concerning it. We are to follow Christ, non pedibus sed affectibus, not with our feet but with our hearts and affections: and we are to follow him Docentem & Ducentem, both teaching & leading us. For it might be demanded, if we must deny our own selves, that is, our reason and wills with all their ability and power, who then shall direct us, who shall guide us? For our minds being blind we cannot of ourselves see the way, and our wills being in bondage unto sin, we cannot walk in the way. Whereunto Christ readily returneth this plain answer, Follow me: I will be your Teacher, I will be your Leader. First then Christ is our Teacher, even he who is every way most sufficient to teach. He is the eternal word of his eternal Father, joh 1.1 the very Truth itself, and the substantial Wisdom of God. joh. 14.6. He is made of God the grand Counsellor of the Church, Prov. 8.22. the Angel of the covenant, Esa. 9.6. the Apostle of our profession, Mal. 3.1. the only Prophet and Doctor of the Church. Heb 3 1. He came out of the bosom of the Father and knoweth all his counsels: Mat 3●. 8. joh. 1 18. in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, Col. 2.3. and he hath received the Spirit without measure. joh. 3 34. Being therefore such a Teacher, him are we to follow, and we are to follow his teaching Audiendo & credendo, by hearing and believing whatsoever he saith. The divine oracle from heaven expressly commandeth us to hear him. Mat▪ 17.5.10.10.27. vers: 8. This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him. And our Saviour affirmeth that whosoever are his sheep hear his voice, and will not hear the voice of any other, implying that whatsoever heareth him not is none of his sheep. But it is not sufficient to hear unless we also Believe, that is assent to all that he says, assuring ourselves that whatsoever he affirms is true, and whatsoever he commands is just. To believe is the first ground of Christianity. He that believeth not cannot understand the mysteries thereof. O portet discentem credere, he that will be a scholar must believe his Master; if he will not he deserves to be turned out of school. Christ will not be argued with: be it above reason, or seem it against reason, yet will he be absolutely believed. And reason; for being God who neither can deceive nor be deceived, his bare word is more certain than a thousand demonstrations. Certainly, they are none of Christ's sheep that do not Believe: and without Faith it is impossible to please God, to be justified in his sight, or to obtain life everlasting. Therefore whosoever will come after Christ must thus follow him docentem teaching. So must he also Ducentem follow him Leading. He leadeth and guideth us two ways Spiritu, Exemplo, inwardly by his Spirit, outwardly by his example. By his Spirit first. For as Saint Paul saith, As many as are lead by the spirit of God are the sons of God: Rom. 8.14. vers: 9 but if any have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his. Now as the word of Christ sounds outwardly to the ear, so doth the Spirit of Christ speak inwardly to the heart. He helpeth our infirmities, and after a secret and unconceivable manner suggesteth and putteth good motions into our minds, Rome 8.26: exhorting and persuading us to the practice of all holy and good duties. Which direction of the spirit we are to follow, Obediendo, by obedience. Not to obey the good motions of the Spirit is to resist him, to grieve him, and to quench him: but to cherish the spark that he hath kindled in us, and to yield obedience unto his holy inspirations and persuasions, this is indeed to follow him. Which if we do not we are yet in the flesh and if we be in the flesh we are not in Christ jesus: for they only are in Christ who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Rome 8.1: As Christ leadeth by his Spirit, so doth he also go before us by his Example. Longum iter per praecepta, breve & efficax per exempla, the way of precept is long and tedious, but of example short and effectual. But whose example are we to follow? Man's? It is not safe: for be he never so good, yet may he err himself and misled us. Gods? That indeed is safe, because he cannot err nor misguide us: but he is invisible & cannot be seen. Therefore he became man, that being visible in the flesh he might give us example. Which we are to follow imitando by imitation. Civ: lib: 8: c: 27 For as Augustine saith, Summa religionis est imitari quem colis, It is a chief point of religion to imitate him whom we worship. But wherein are we to imitate him? In creation of the world? in redeeming mankind? in meriting for others? In working miracles, and the like? as it is reported of that mad Salmoneus, Virg. Aen. 6. Qui nimbos & non imitabile fulmen Aere & cornipedum cursu simularat equorum, who would needs counterfeit jupiters' thundering, and lightning by driving his chariot over a copper bridge, & darting torches at the faces of men. No, if we would burst ourselves with pride, we cannot imitate God in these things. Potestas subiectionem, maiestas exigit admirationem, neutra imitationem, saith Bernard, the power of God requireth subjection, his majesty admiration, neither imitation. How then? Appareat Domine bonitas tua cui possit homo quia ad imaginem tuam creatus est conformari, let thy goodness o Lord appear whereunto man being created after thine own image may be conformed. To be brief, we are to imitate Christ in all those holy duties which he commandeth and whereof he hath made himself an example. They are all summed up in one word Obedience: this he commanded, this he practised. And he practised it both actively and passively: and in both is he to be imitated. He obeyed the law of his father: the Moral law as being the son of Adam, the Ceremonial as being the son of Abraham. And this actively, exampling us to walk even as he walked in all duties by God enjoined us. 1 joh 2.6. It would be too long to particularise in all those actions wherein we are to imitate him: I would therefore commend unto you these three especially. Io. 1.14. His truth, his humility, his charity. He was full of grace and truth, he loved it, he spoke it, never was guile found either in his heart or mouth. So humble was he, that being in the form of God, and thinking it no robbery to be equal with God, Phil. 2.6.7.8. he made himself of no reputation, took upon him the shape of a Servant, and humbled himself unto the death of the cross. Rom. 5.8. Lastly such was his Charity, that he was content to shed his most precious blood for us even when we were his enemies, then which, greater love cannot be. This is the pattern, this is the precedent which we must follow. He chargeth us to know the truth, to love the truth, to speak the truth, to keep the Feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 2 Cor. 5.8. He commandeth us to learn of him that he is meek and lowly in heart; Mat. 11.29. and to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called in all lowliness and meekness. Eph. 4 2. Finally he straight enjoineth us to love one another, joh. 15.17. yea even our very enemies. Mat. 5.44: Certainly whosoever resembleth not Christ in these things is not Christ's disciple. All other marks of Christianity deceive, if these fail. Seem we never so desirous of knowledge, and make we never so fair a show, yet if we love not truth, if we be proud & arrogant, if we be uncharitable censorious of others we are no true Christians. But Christ obeyed Passively also, for he was obedient unto death, Phil. 2.8. even the death of the Crosse. And, 1 Pe●. 2.21. he suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps. He was crucified, so must we be crucified to the world. He died and we must dye unto sin. He was buried, and we must still continue dead unto sin. He bore his cross, and we must take up our cross also. Of which at large already. And thus have I at length finished all the three counsels of Christ. It remaineth to add a word or two by way of application and use. Is it so that whosoever will come after Christ, that is, be his scholar & obtain everlasting life must deny himself, take up his cross daily and follow him? O than the difficulty! o the paucity! the difficulty of christianity and salvation, the paucity of good christians and them that shall be saved. Is it an easy thing think you for a man to deny himself, that is, to pull out the eyes as it were of his own head, and then to give his hand to another to lead him which way soever he pleaseth? to renounce his own will, and to yield blind obedience unto the will and pleasure of another? Is it so easy a matter to take up the cross daily, that is, to forsake, to abandon, to loath, and detest the delights and comforts of this life, and whatsoever is dearest unto us, and in the mean season to be hated, contemned, and trodden under foot of all? yea in the midst of the cruelest persecutions and torments, to rejoice as if we were bathing in the greatest pleasures, and to give thanks as if we had received some inestimable benefit? Finally, is it so easy to follow Christ, that is, to disclaim our own lusts and desires, and leaving the broad and beaten way which all men almost walk in, finding therein great contentment, to imitate Christ in a strict and severe course of life, so irksome to the flesh and so odious to the World? They are deceived then who think to dance on roses, or to be carried to heaven on a featherbed. No, Christianity is not Libertinism nor Epicurism. Vta arcta est, the way is narrow, and Faith, the cross, and Strictness of life, three necessary conditions thereof make it so. O the difficulty! O the paucity also? How few good Christians are there? how few are there that shall be saved? Every one would willingly attain the end, everlasting life: but they are loath to endure the roughness of the way which leads unto the end. They would with Zebedees' children sit at the right or at the left hand of Christ's throne if his kingdom: But to drink of the same cup that he drank of and to be baptised with his baptism, that can they not abide If we should as Diogenes is said to have done, search with a candle every corner of Christendom for a man that denies himself, that takes up his cross daily, that follows Christ in such sort as we have declared: questionless we should hardly find him. Such men are nowadays very thin swoon. On the contrary side, those that give themselves over to their own lusts, that wallow in sensuality and fleshly pleasure, that imitate, not Christ in sanctity and newness of life, but the Devil in all kind of intemperance, iniquity & impiety, these I say abound and swarm every where. O the multitude! O the Paucity! the multitude of titular Christians, who have the name of what they are not: the Paucity of true Christians who are so indeed not only called so. No marvel therefore that our Saviour affirmeth both, that the gate is straight and the way narrow and that very few do find it. Mat. 6▪ 14: But although it be so hard thus to come after Christ, yet is it not impossible: and although but few do thus come, yet is it not in Christ that more come not, but in themselves. Let us therefore in the name of God quicken up our dull spirits, and strive what we can to overcome all difficulties. On our part nothing is required but Willingness and Endeavour: the rest God of his grace will supply. To work in us a Willingness, I suppose it will not be amiss seriously to consider, first, as touching the Denial of ourselves, what we are by nature, & thence to learn Humility: that in us there is no good at all, that of ourselves we cannot so much as think a good thought, much less perform any action pleasing and acceptable unto God. Our mind is blind, our will is unable, and as our Saviour saith, without him we can do nothing. Why should we then proudly & vainly stand upon ourselves? Nay rather why should we not in all humility utterly deny ourselves? Secondly, as touching the Cross and the taking up of it, that although it be in itself bitter and grievous, yet the end is sweet and glorious, even an incorruptible crown of glory. So we may attain eternal blessedness, what mattereth it though we pass through rough and tempestuous seas unto it? Were it not far better for us with Lazarus to suffer affliction for a short season here, and after to receive eternal comfort in heaven: then with the rich glutton to enjoy the pleasures of this present life and afterward to be everlastingly tormented in hell? If we suffer for Christ, he will be in the fiery furnace with us, and refresh us with the sweet comforts of his blessed spirit. He hath willingly borne the Cross for us: and why should not we willingly take up our Cross for him. As touching the last, which is our Following of Christ know we it is our safest course absolutely to resign ourselves into his hands. He is far wiser than we are, as being the very wisdom of his Father: and therefore knoweth both what is best for us, and how to provide for us better than we ourselves. Again, his love is far greater than ours either is or can be towards us. The heathen Poet even by the light of nature could say Charior est illis homo quam sibi, Man is more dear to God then to himself: but the light of revelation demonstrateth it more fully in that out of his infinite love he gave his only son for us. His love then being such, it cannot be but that he is most willing to do us the best good he can. Now what his wisdom and love resolve concerning us, his power is able to effect: for he is omnipotent, and nothing is impossible unto him. What then should let but that it is our safest course to make a perfect surrender of ourselves unto him? If we be left unto our own selves, we are ever in danger, and in the end shall surely perish, but being Christ's and following him, we can never miscarry nor do amiss. All these things being duly weighed & considered are sufficient to make us willing: willing I say to deny ourselves, to take up our cross daily, and to follow Christ. Unto which Willingness if we further add our own Endeavour, doing what lieth in our power, confecta res est, we shall surely come after Christ, that is, be his scholars here, and reign with him for ever hereafter. Without travel and labour, nothing can be had in this world: much less will the kingdom of heaven be obtained with sitting still and doing nothing. No it must suffer violence, & violent men must take it by force: which whosoever shall do, he shall never fail of it. Christ will instruct him by his word, guide him by his spirit, protect him with his providence, guard him with his Angels, and ever pursue him with his grace until he have brought him unto the end of his hopes, even the eternal salvation of his soul. Unto the which the Lord bring us all for his Christ's sake. AMEN. FINIS. AN APOLOGY OF THE JUSTICE OF GOD. OXFORD, Printed by I. L for E. F. 1633. GEN. 18.25. Be it far from thee from doing this thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, & that the righteous should be even as the wicked, be it far from thee: should not the judge of the whole world do right? ALthough the good in regard of God's knowledge and their own affection are chosen out of the world & separated from the wicked: yet are they not removed out of the world, but still remain therein, mixed with them in place and conversation. So that the Church of God while it is militant here on earth is no other than a floor wherein is both chaff and wheat, a field both of corn & cockle, a net containing both good and bad fishes, a flock consisting both of sheep & goats: and shall so continue until the fanning time come, until the harvest be cut, until the net be drawn to the shore, until the high shepherd survey his flock, but they shall eternally then be divided one from another, & be ranged into several places, the one into a place of refreshment & everlasting joy, the other into a place of torment & everlasting woe. In the mean season both good and bad being embarked as it were together in the same vessel, how can the good escape the common shipwreck of humane calamity? Or being enwrapped in the same punishment, with the wicked, how is God just? Abraham the father of the faithful, & a man of deep understanding in the mysteries of God's providence, yet stood astonished hereat in Sodom's case: where righteous Lot, and for aught he knew diverse other holy men dwelling, he marvelled how it might stand with the justice of God in the destruction thereof to involve both righteous and wicked together, and therefore saith according to my Text, Be it far from thee from doing this thing. A point, as you see, of great importance, and as will evidently appear by the sequel, every way worthy our present consideration, which was the cause why I made choice thereof at this time. God grant unto us the assistance of his blessed spirit that we may handle it as it deserveth, and that it may be unto us as profitable as it is pertinent. All that I have now to say touching these words may be reduced unto these three heads, God's action, Abraham's affection, Abraham's argument. God's action, how he dealeth with these mixed societies consisting both of good & bad. Abraham's affection how he standeth affected towards them. Abraham's argument, which so much swayed his own affection, and whereby he would persuade God also to be of his mind. God's action is intimated & implied generally, through the whole Text, in the words going before it in the twentieth and one and twentieth verses, wherein God acquainted Abraham how he meant to proceed with Sodom and Gomorrha. Abraham's affection is plainly declared in the Deprecation he maketh unto God for them. His argument is expressly set down in these words, Shall not the judge of the whole world do right? Which being a question propounded negatively, is to be understood as an affirmative proposition, thus, The judge of the whole world must needs do right. Of these things briefly and in order. The actions of God in this case are not always one & the same, but as his Wisdom is (to use the Apostles word) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 full of variety, so are his actions also manifold yet always just. For justice is unto God, not accidental as it is unto man, but essential and inseparable, so that he can no more do that which is unjust, then cease to be that which eternally and necessarily he is, namely God. First then, so great love beareth God unto his dear Saints and children, that the wicked among whom they live oftentimes fare the better for them, and their temporal prosperity and deliverance from dangers is to be imputed unto them. Was not wicked Cham preserved in the Ark from that deluge which overwhelmed the whole earth for his good father Noah's sake? Were not the sinful Sodomites rescued out of the hands of their enemies by the sword of Abraham for righteous Lot's sake? If fifty, if forty, if thirty, if twenty, nay if but ten just men might have been found in Sodom, had they not escaped that fearful storm of fire & brimstone which after fell from heaven upon them, even for ten sake? What speak I of ten? Ps. 106.23. One Moses standing in the breach before God, turned away his wrath, so that he did not destroy his people Israel. And God himself by the Prophet jeremy saith thus, jer. 5.1. Run to and fro by the streets of jerusalem, & behold now and know, and inquire in the open places thereof if ye can find a man, or if there be any that executeth judgement and seeketh the truth and I will spare it. According whereunto as it is recorded by S. Luke, all those that sailed with S. Paul being in number two hundred seaventy and six souls, Act. 27.24.34.37. were given unto him, that not one of them in that exceeding dangerous tempest lost so much as a hair from his head. When Augustus the Emperor had conquered Mark Antony, Plut. Ant. and taken the City of Alexandria, and the Citizens looked for nothing but extremity, the Emperor in the hearing of them all freely pardoned them for Arius sake, a Philosopher of that City, one whom he honoured much for his learning, and loved for his virtue. If the heathen who know not God can for one friends sake remit the offences of many: shall not God do much more for their sakes whom he calleth and counteth his friends? Certainly he will. Egypt shall far the better for joseph, and the very remembrance of Abraham, Isaac, and jacob shall move God to persist in doing good to their rebellious posterity. The charity of the Saints towards the wicked is very great, and the prayers they make unto God for them are many, and so available are they that by them oftentimes the arm of God is held from striking them, oftentimes his hand is opened to bless them. And thus sometimes God prospereth evil men for a few good men's sakes that live among them, Sometimes again he dealeth otherwise with these mixed companies, and when he punisheth a wicked nation, nor will be persuaded to spare them, he preserveth the godly that they taste not of the common calamity. For sometime he preventeth them by death, and taketh them into his rest before the misery come. Thus all the Fathers died before the flood came upon the world▪ and good josiah, 2. King. 22.18.19.20. according to the prediction of Huldah the prophetess, was gathered to his fathers and laid in his grave in peace that his eyes might not behold all the evil which God resolved to bring upon his kingdom. For as it is in the book of Wisdom, Sap 4.14.16.19. Because the Lord loveth the soul of the righteous, therefore he hasteneth to take them away from the wicked: and, the righteous that is dead condemneth the unjust man that is living, for God will shake his foundations and lay him utterly waste, they shall be in sorrow and their memorial perish. So that as it is a great sign that God intends to continue his mercies to a nation while as good men remain among them, according to that of old. Althes in the Poet: Non tamen omnino Teucros del●re paratis, Virg. Aen. l. 9 Cum tales animos iuvenum & tam certa tulistis Pectora, I see God hath not determined utterly to destroy the Troyans', seeing such valiant hearts and brave spirits still rise up among them: so is it as great a token of imminent destruction when the good are taken away, and as the Psalmist speaketh, Psal. 74.9. their signs are no longer to be seen among them. Now as▪ sometimes he preventeth the righteous by death that they partake not in the punishment of the wicked: so sometimes he prolongeth their life to see it, but withal sendeth them strange and miraculous deliverance that they feel it not. Thus was Noah delivered by an Ark when all the rest of the world were drowned. Lot and his family by a guard of Angels, when Sodom and the neighbour Cities were consumed, Israel by a special protection when the Egyptians were many ways plagued, Rahab by a cord of red thread when all the rest of the soul in jerico were put to the sword, the Christians by oracle at Pella, in the general vastity and desolation of judea. So that God knoweth well how to separate between the precious and the vile, and in the greatest perplexities if he please can find an issue and enlargement for all such as he loveth. Howbeit almighty God doth not always thus deliver his Saints, but sometimes involueth both good and bad in the same calamity. And even as the evil because they are mingled with the good partake with them of temporal benefits as the shining of the Sun, & the showers of rain: so the good also because they are mingled with the evil partake with them in temporal afflictions. Aliquid mali propter vicinum malum, the neighbourhood of evil cannot but work them some evil. Both good and bad are one common flesh, & common flesh as Cyprian saith is subject to the same common inconveniences, and ever will be until corruption be swallowed up of incorruption. Hence is it that in the time of famine or pestilence there is a common mortality, in hostile impressions and conquests a common captivity, in shipwreck at sea a common drowning. If then the Sodomites lose the day and be made prisoners unto Chedor-laomer, so is Lot also: if Nabuchadnezzar King of Babylon lead away the jews into captivity, Daniel and Ezechiell, and the three children are lead away also. If Totilas overflow Europe with his barbarous troops, Christians are not freer than Gentiles. Behold, Ezek. 21.3. saith the Lord by the prophet Ezechiell, I come against thee, and will draw my sword out of his sheath, and cut off from thee both the righteous and the wicked. Also by Saint john he straight chargeth his people to depart out of Babylon lest they be partakers in her plagues. Rev. 18.4. Nay if one Achan only trespass in the execrable thing, jos. 7.1. etc. he alone perisheth not, but wrath falleth on the whole congregation, which the heathen poet also observing said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hesiod. many times a whole city smarts for the offence of one. But this specially if any public man commit some notorious wickedness: for as when the head aches or is distempered, the arm vain many times is opened, so for the offence of Kings and Princes, the people oftentimes are punished, as appears in David's case for whose sin in numbering the people seaventy thousand of his subjects perished. 2 Sam. 24. That all these were wicked men, and that none of them feared God, it is both unreasonable and uncharitable to imagine: and therefore not doubting but that good and bad pell mel were cut off in that pestilence, I conclude this point with that aphorism of the Rabbins, When once the sentence of punishment is pronounced and resolved by God, and power is given to the destroyer to execute the same, he from thence respecteth the person of no man, nor putteth difference between the just and the unjust. And thus ye see how diversely God dealeth with these mixed societies: let us before we proceed unto the next point, make some use of what hath been delivered. First then do the wicked fare the better for the godly that live among them? and are their prosperities and deliverances to be imputed unto them? Oh than the extreme folly, Oh the monstrous ingratitude of wicked men: folly in imputing all the crosses and evils that befall them unto the godly, as in old time the gentiles did to the Christians, and nowadays Papists do to Protestants: ingratitude, in requiting the much good they enjoy by them with nothing else but hatred and persecution. Well doth Solomon confound Fools and Wicked: for were not wicked men mere fools they would never thus malice their best friends, nor seek to destroy them by whom themselves are preserved from destruction. For certainly will they nill they sapiens est stulti redemptio, De sacrif. Abel. & Cain. the wise man is the fool's ransom, as saith Philo, and just men are the pillars of the house, the brazen walls of a country, the charets and horsemen of a nation, without whom the world is but a stage of vanity, & a cage of unclean birds, & cannot long subsist. Wherefore although to our grief we see wicked men too thick sown among us, yet because so many good men are mingled with them, let us rejoice and be glad & give God hearty thanks for them, hoping that while they continue with us, God's blessing shall continue upon us also. And when it shall please him to translate any of them from hence, let us solicit him with our devoutest prayers, ut uno avulso suppullulet alter Aureus & simili frondescat virga metallo, Virg. Aen. 6. the one branch being plucked off, another golden one may grow up in the place thereof for the perpetuation of his favours towards us. Secondly, doth God in executing judgement distinguish between good and bad, sparing the one and punishing the other? here is a right precedent for you my Lords and other judges, and rulers of the land to imitate. Ye are in scripture styled Gods, and in this principally are ye to resemble God. Ye are carefully to separate betwixt the precious and the vile, not so as to justify the wicked, and to condemn the innocent, for both are an abomination to the Lord, saith Solomon: but to punish the evil doers, and to praise them that do well, for to this end are ye sent, as St Peter saith. 1 Pet. 2.14. There is no greater cause either of apostasy in the Church or of sedition in the commonwealth, then when they that deserve well of both are vilipended or neglected, and lewd unworthy men are honoured with the reward due unto virtue. Oh therefore let virtuous worthy men find grace in your eyes, let them in the name of God be cherished and countenanced by you, ever remembering that they are the means of much good unto the place where they live. As for wicked men, bend your brows upon them, and as they deserve it let them feel the edge of your sword. Pinguior victima mactari Deo non potest quam homo sceleratus: Sen. a fatter sacrifice can ye not kill unto God than a wicked man. If ye spare him ye spare not your own selves: judex ipse damnatur cum nocens absolvitur, the judge himself is condemned when the guilty person is absolved. And seeing so many Amorites yet remaining in the land, & they now begin to prick sorer in our sides then heretofore, hoping for a linsey wolsey Church at least ere long: it is high time for you to look carefully hereunto. Tranquillitas est ubi solus Petrus navigat, tempestas ubi Iudas adiungitur, saith Ambrose, if Peter sail alone all is calm, if judas sail with him nought but storm and tempest. If we cannot utterly be rid of them, let them be hewers of wood & drawers of water with the Gibeonits': jos. 9 27. God forbid they should steer at the helm, and be proud commanders. Thirdly and lastly, doth God sometimes enwrap both good and bad in the same punishment? This my Lords, is a mystery unimitable, and far above your reach: and to follow God in such actions were to make yourselves as ridiculous as little children, who will needs put upon them their father's coats though they be no way proportionable unto them. Theodosius the Emperor for the fault of one man at Thessalonica involved many innocents into the same punishment, but he was fain to do penance for it before he could be received into the Church by Saint Ambrose. If Politicians think they see reason of state in it, yet policy must yield to religion, the rule whereof is Fiat iustitia & ruant coeli, evil may not be done that good may come of it. For the least evil of fault is greater than the greatest evil of punishment, that being evil in nature, this only to sense, otherwise an act of justice itself. Nevertheless, albeit this act of God be not to be imitated by us, yet seeing the wicked by reason of their mixture with the Godly draw down common plagues upon them both: it ought to be our wisdom first to labour for their conversion, and if it may be, to work them into God's favour: then, if this cannot be effected, either to separate them from us by the hand of justice, or to separate ourselves from them at least wise in dislike & affection. Prov. 13.20. For as Solomon saith, He that walketh with the wise shall be wise, but a companion of fools shall be afflicted. And thus much of the first part, which is God's action: now of the second which is Abraham's affection. How Abraham stands affected in this particular case of Sodom is clear and evident by his words, Be it far saith he, from thee to do this thing, to stay the righteous with the wicked, and that the righteous should be even as the wicked: be it far from thee. He utterly mislikes that the righteous should perish together with the wicked: and desires rather that God would be pleased either to spare the wicked Sodomites for those righteous ones which happily were among them, or else to deliver the righteous from the destruction of the wicked. In a word he seems to be solicitous for them all, both for the Sodomites whether good or evil in general, and in particular for his brother Lot who dwelled among them. But here it will happily be said, what? doth Abraham prescribe unto God & impose a law upon him? Is God to be ruled by man, and divine actions to be directed by humane affections? far be such temerity, Vers. 27. far be such presumption from the Father of the faithful. No, he knows and confesses himself to be but dust and ashes, and that God is not only Liberrimus agens one that freely doth whatsoever he will both in heaven and earth, but also Sapientissimus needing no counsellor to advise him, but knowing best himself what is to be done. He doth, not therefore presume to order the actions of God, but only proposeth his humble suit unto God; neither doth he take upon him to direct him, but to deprecate for others. It will peradventure yet farther be said, that God had already signified his purpose unto Abraham, and what he meant to do. Which being so, it had been his duty to laid his hand upon his mouth, and to have rested in his will, without farther contradiction or opposition. And here caeca obedientia, blind and absolute obedience is as necessary & commendable, as in Friars to their superiors it is foolish and unreasonable. To this I answer, that God indeed had intimated his purpose unto Abraham, but yet in this form of words, Vers. 20 21. Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is exceeding grievous. I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to that cry which is come unto me, and if not that I may know. In these words you see he doth not say that he would destroy the godly with the wicked, and by the deliverance of Lot it plainly appears he never intended so to do: and therefore it could be no arrogance in Abraham to make such a charitable deprecation for them. Neither doth that appear by the words that God had past an absolute and peremptory sentence against the wicked Sodomites: for if ten righteous men had been found amongst them they had been spared: and the threatenings of God ordinarily are to be understood with a condition annexed unto them, if men repent not, yea although it be not in plain terms expressed, as in that against Niniveh, yet forty days & Niniveh shall be destroyed, for this notwithstanding upon their repentance they were not destroyed. So that this condition being here also understood, what presumption could it be in Abraham to desire favour for the Sodomites, at least upon their repentance. Finally had God absolutely threatened, & without condition, yet ought not man so much to attend what God intendeth to do agreeable unto his own will and justice, as what he himself is to do agreeable to the law of God, and nature: and then shall he find that God in denouncing and executing judgement wills two things, both that they perish and that he grieve. God had laid judea waste and sent away the inhabitants thereof into captivity, yet jeremy lamented for it. Christ knew well that God had absolutely determined to destroy jerusalem, yet he wept over it: a son may know by evident symptoms that his Father cannot live, and yet desire the prolonging of his life, and all without sin. In like manner might Abraham without offence wish all good unto the Sodomites notwithstanding Gods will unto the contrary. Now this affection of this holy Patriarch is justifiable both by the law of God and nature, having a three fold foundation to support it, Humanity, Consanguinity, Piety. First Humanity▪ for what heart of flint or adamant would not melt to behold so many thousands so fearfully to perish? It is reported of Xerxes a king of Persia that leading into Greece a huge host of about a leaven hundred thousand men, and being desirous on a time to take a view of them from the top of a hill, while he beheld them he burst forth into weeping and shed many tears: and being demanded the reason, because, quoth he, within one age not one of all these will be left. If Xerxes were so affected at the consideration of the natural death of so many: should not Abraham be much more moved at the destruction of the Sodomites, so sudden, so violent so terrible? for the manner of death is far more fearful than death itself. Nay if God himself pitied the great City of Niniveh in which were sixscore thousand persons that could not discern between the right and the left hand▪ why should not Abraham also commiserate these five cities, in which without question were many thousands of young tender babes and infants who never partaked in their parents transgressions? Above all. If ye consider that this temporal plague of fire and brimstone from heaven was praeludium aeterni, a fore runner of eternal misery in hell: what man is he that hath but a spark of humanity in him, but would wish it to be otherwise and prevent it if he could? For one man not to sympathise and compassionate with another in his miseries is mere inhumanity. Another ground of this affection in Abraham was Blood and Consanguinity: Gen. 11.27. for there lived among the Sodomites, Lot, his children and family. Now Abraham was uncle unto Lot, Lot being Harans son, which Haran was brother unto Abraham, and this is so great a nearness in blood that by the very law of nature marriage between uncle and niece, aunt and nephew is interdicted, and uncles are accounted as fathers to their nephews. Between these therefore there must needs pass a natural 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and affection, more than between them and others, inasmuch as there is a nearer union and conjunction between them. Others may be glued together by friendship or alliance: but these are of the same piece, naturally one, bone of bone and flesh of flesh. Here there ought to be no difference at all, let there be no strife between me and thee, Gen. 13.8. saith Abraham to Lot, for we are brethren: yea extraordinary love and amity, Psal. 3.145. I behaved myself, saith David, as to my friend or to my brother: and the more the love is, the more earnest and vehement will the desire be for the prevention of such evils as do threaten them. The third and last ground of Abraham's affection was Religion and Piety. For where there is a profession of the same true religion there is a straighter bond then that of blood, being members of the same mystical body in Christ jesus, Eph. 4.4.5.6. having one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one body, one spirit, one hope, one God and Father of all, which is above all through all, and in all. And out of this Union issueth that holy communion of Saints mentioned in the articles of our Creed, in regard whereof we are bound to love the Saints far above other men, according to that of St Paul, while we have time let us do good unto all, specially unto those that are of the household of faith. Gal. 6.20. Of this family was Lot and his household, and many others for aught Abraham knew, and therefore unless he would be not only without natural affection, but also without religious sympathy and compassion, he must needs stand thus affected towards this mixed company in Sodom, and beseech God either to spare the wicked for the godlies sake, or to preserve the Godly in the destruction of the wicked that it may not every way be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the one so to the other. And thus you see the affection of Abraham both what it is, and by what grounds it is justified & warranted. Let us apply this before we proceed farther. As we all profess ourselves to be the children of Abraham according to the faith, so is it our duty also to be his children in affection. And first, even towards the wicked aught we to be tenderly affected, and to pity them more than they pity themselves. Thus doth Abraham in this place: thus did David a true son of Abraham, when they were sick, Psal. 35.13. saith he, I clothed myself with sack cloth, and humbled my soul with fasting. Thus did Christ a true son both of David and Abraham, he wept for the miseries which he foresaw would fall upon them, and for preventing of them, often would he have gathered them under his wings as the hen doth her chickens, but they would not: he, I say, would, and they would not. Oh the bowels, oh the compassion, oh the perfection of Christianity! wicked men are hard hearted towards us, our bowels yearn & melt towards them, they curse us, we bless them, they afflict and persecute us, and we desire to keep off all trouble and sorrow from them, except that sorrow which will work unto them such joy as shall never be taken from them. This is a hard lesson to flesh & blood, yet hitherto must we come or we pass not beyond Scribes and Pharisees: and except our righteousness exceed theirs, we cannot possibly enter into the kingdom of heaven. Again, as no man, no not the wicked aught to be strangers unto our affection, so lest of all those that are of the same faith with us. We should be like Hippo●ra●es twins weeping together and laughing together. In the body of man if but a finger ache all the rest of the members are sensible of it: & can we be members of the mystical body of Christ and have no feeling of the miseries of our brethren? If any man offer to strike at our head, the arm presently lifts itself to ward of the blow: and shall not we, if God shake the sword of his heavy displeasure against any of his children, speedily lift up our hands unto him, & by the importunity of our prayers turn away the plague that it light not upon them? Certainly they that are not touched with compassion in the dangers of God's Saints are not the true Children of Abraham: and because they refused to be advocates for them in the day of need, neither shall themselves find an advocate that will open his mouth to speak for them in the day of their extremity. Lastly, seeing Abraham's desire is rather that evil men be spared then the good destroyed, and his hart inclineth so much unto pity, it lessons you, my Lords, also, that although through hope of impunity ye may not give liberty to sin, yet should you rather incline to too much mildness than severity. In doubtful matters it is not only more just but more safe also to follow the favourablest construction: and more Christian like is it in such a case to let the guilty escape then to condemn the innocent. It is much safer for a man to render account of his mercifulness then of his cruelty. Nero in his five first good years when he was to subscribe to the condemnation or execution of any, was wont to say Qu●m Vellem nescire literas, would to God I could not write a letter. Nay God himself saith, Why will ye die, o ye house of Israel: and as I live I will not the death of a sinner. And therefore it should be your delight also suffundere potius quam effundere sanguinem, rather to bring blood into the face then to shed it out of the body. Cuncta prius tentanda: sed immedicabile vulnus Ense recidendum ect, ne pars sincera trahatur, all other ways must first be tried, but if the wound grow incurable, it is better to cut off a part then to hazard that which is ●ound too. And so much for the second part which is Abraham's affection. The third and last part is the Argument whereby he would both warrant his own affection, and persuade God to be of his mind, and is laid down in these words Should not the judge of the whole world do right? that is as we have showed, the judge of the whole world must needs do right. The reason stands thus, To enwrap the good together with the wicked in the same punishment seems not to be just, and therefore neither mayest thou do it, for thou art the judge of the whole world & must do right. Surely if so to enwrap good and bad were unjust, God may not do it and the argument follows necessarily. But is it unjust so to do? Abraham seems to make no doubt of it, for he goes not about to prove it, and yet we have in the first part clearly demonstrated that God oftentimes doth so. What then? is there any unjustice with God? God forbid: yea let him be just in all his sayings & clear when he is judged. In rebus divinis magna caligo, said Cato, in many of God's actions there is so much obscurity that we see not the reasons of them; yet this is certain, Occulta esse causa potest, iniusta esse non potest, the reason of them may be secret, but unjust it cannot be. For he is essentially just, even justice itself, and in rebus divinis ratio facti est voluntas facientis, in divine actions the will of the doer is sufficient to justify the deed. For the will of God is the prime rule of justice, and to seek higher is to seek a former than the first, which is mere folly, whereas therefore I find a reason I will praise him, where I find none I will admire him, and acknowledge myself that am but a bubble, but a shadow, but the dream of a shadow rather to fail in understanding then God in justice. Howbeit in this point we have sufficient reason to clear the justice of God. For which of the Saints of God is without sin? And which of them hath not deserved by sin to be severely punished? Suppose they live unblamably in the sight of men, yet the eye of God that trieth even the heart and reins beholdeth much folly and iniquity in them. Do they not together with the wicked too much love temporal things? Too much I say, though happily not so much? Do they not live too familiarly with them, never rebuking them nor showing any dislike of their wicked courses? Questionless they do, and therefore no marvel if partaking in the same sin, they partake also in the same punishment, et amara sentiant quia amari esse noluerunt, drink with them of the same bitter cup, because for their amendment they would not be sharp and bitter unto them. The action of God being thus cleared from unjustice, what shall we say of Abraham and his assertion? I might dispatch him in a word and say let God be true and every man a liar: save that I desire to dismiss him with all reverence, and as far as I can to free him from blame also. Shall I say then with some, that he speaketh in the opinion of infidels who think it a high point of unjustice so to involve both good and bad together? I cannot: for it becometh not the father of the faithful to press upon God the arguments of unbelievers. Shall I say his meaning is, that it cannot every way and in all respects be alike to both without unjustice? This indeed I confess would be great unjustice: but God never suffers it to be so. Sub uno igni aurum rutilat, palea ●umat, in the same fire gold glifters and chaff smokes: pari m●tu exagitatum et exhalat horribiliter coenum et suaviter fragrat unguentum, with the same agitation and stirring, mire sends forth a loathsome stench, and ointment a sweet savour. In like manner, the same afflictions are unto the wicked, arguments of God's wrath, an act of revenge, the satisfaction of justice, an earnest penny of eternal torment, and if they take away life a fiery thunderbolt driving them down into hell: but unto the Godly the chastisements of a loving father, corrosives unto the flesh, exercises of their virtue, wormwood unto the teat to wean them from the pleasures of this world, and if they bring death with them, a fiery chariot transporting them up into heaven. So that in the same punishment neither is the same end intended, nor the same effect wrought: tantum interest non qualia sed qualisquisque patiatur, so material is it not what the pains are, as what the party is which suffers. What shall we say then. This, that Abraham's argument is rather passionate then demonstrative, yet such as holy men oftentimes use in their devotions to God, and that without sin. Cast me not off from thee, saith David. Why not? Because I am the workmanship of thy own hands. The reason followeth not, for many such have been cast off. True: yet is it a motive of affection; for what pity is it for one to cast away his own workmanship. So in this case, Oh, saith Abraham, destroy not the righteous with the wicked: rather preserve the wicked for the righteous sake. Why so? Because the judge of the whole World should do righteously. It followeth not as we have showed. True, not necessarily: yet pitying the Sodomites, and having no better plea for so bad a people, he used it to stir affection, alas that the righteous should be consumed with fire & brimstone from heaven together with the wicked, and that by him who is the judge of the whole world, & should do right. But whatsoever become of the Consequence and whethersoever it were either defect of judgement or abundance of passion that framed it: sure I am the Antecedent which he lays for his foundation is sound & good The judge of the whole world should do right, and of this briefly and in a word. In all states and commonwealths for the better ordering of them, and that vice may be suppressed, and virtue maintained, and every man peaceably and quietly enjoy his own, judges are in several places ordained, to hear all causes, and according to justice and equity to determine them. Among these there is one who is sovereign and above all unto whom appeal from all other may be made, from whom no appeal unto any under heaven may be made. But how many villainies are there committed in the world which never come to the knowledge of the magistrate, and so escape without punishment? How many noble and virtuous actions are there done whereof no notice is taken, or if it be, yet the authors neither are nor will be known and so pass unrewarded? judges themselves do they not oftentimes either upon error and mistaking as men, or for fee and favour as corrupt men pervert justice? If appeal be made unto the supreme power, what redress? many times none at all, they being the worst of all men, witness Sardanapalus, Caligula, Nero, Heliogabalus, and the like. All which considered, it cannot be imagined but that there must needs be an universal judge over the whole world, to call all men of what degree soever to account, and to render unto every one according to his works, reward to whom reward, and punishment to whom punishment is due. This judge whosoever it be, must needs be of infinite knowledge, of infinite wisdom, of infinite power. Of infinite knowledge, to take notice of all the actions of all men whensoever and wheresoever. Of infinite wisdom, to discern the sincerity or hypocrisy of every action, and according to the degree of good or evil in them so to proportion judgement. Of infinite power, to see the sentence notwithstanding the greatness of any yet to be duly executed. Of this knowledge, this wisdom, this power who is there in the world but only God? and therefore who can be this universal judge of the whole world but only he? He it is whom Abraham understands here when he saith, Should not the judge of the whole world do right? as appears by that of Saint Paul alluding hereunto, Else how shall God judge the world? and this is so clear a point in Christian religion that he is no less than an infidel that believes it not. As clear a point is it that this judge in all things doth right. I or, as we have showed, he is essentially just, and whatsoever he doth of the necessity of his nature must needs be so. So that as the Sun cannot possibly be the cause of darkness, nor the fire of coldness, nor a sweet fountain send forth bitter streams: no more can be who is justice itself do any thing that is unjust. Hence is it that in scripture he is styled the righteous judge: and that Saint Paul saith, 1 Tim. 4.8. Absit, Rome 9.14. far be it from us to say there is unrighteousness with God. This notwithstanding, some Atheist happily who thinks the Intelligence that moves the wheels of this neither world to be not Divine Providence but Blind Fortune only, will object and say, If there be such a general judge of the whole world, and he so just a judge, how comes it to pass that so many wicked men live and die without punishment? As for example that bloody and sacrilegious tyrant of Sicily Dionysius. not Deor. Him, as Cicero saith, never did jupiter dart with his thunderbolt, nor Aesculapius kill with a miserable and lingering sickness, but he died quietly in his bed, and in triumphant manner was brought into his grave, and the power which by horrible wickedness he had gotten, he left to his son as a just and lawful inheritance. To this I answer, first if men could see the secret stripes and lashes which a guilty conscience inwardly gives the soul of the wicked, they would never think that they escaped without punishment. For certainly Qui pecc●t paenam meruit, qui meruit expectat, qui expectat iam dedit, he that sins deserves punishment, he that deserves it looks for it, & whosoever looks for it already feels it. Secondly, if God here in this world publicly should reward the good and punish the wicked, men would think there were no other happiness nor misery then that of this life. As therefore God sometimes holdeth his Sessions here on earth, judging the wicked, and causing public execution to be done upon them that men may know there is a God that judgeth the earth: so sometimes he reserveth them unto the general affizes of the last day, to teach us that besides temporal there is an eternal reward and punishment to be expected after this life, the dispenser whereof is this great judge of the whole world who nor can nor will do otherwise then right. In that day, saith the Scripture, 1 Thes. 4.16. shall the Lord himself come down from heaven with a shout, Dan 7.9.10. and, a throne shall be set in the clouds, and the ancient of days shall sit thereon, whose garment is white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool, his throne is like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire: a fiery stream shall issue and come forth before him, thousand thousands shall minister unto him, and ten thousand thousands stand before him, the judgement shall be set and the books opened. Mat. 24.31. Then shall the Archangells' trumpet sound, 1 Cor. 15.52. and the dead shall rise, 2 Thes. 4.16. and the Angels shall go forth and gather both good and bad together, Mat. 13.41.24.31. and we all must appear before the tribunal of Christ, that every man may receive the things done in the body, 2 Cor 5.10. according to that he hath done, Mat. 25.46. whether it be good or evil, and the wicked shall go into everlasting pain, and the righteous into life eternal. Go too now ye Epicures, Act. 17.18.32. ye Stoics, ye Philosophers that are so wise in your own conceit, and account the preachers of judgement no better than Babblers: go too ye mockers and scoffers of this last time, 2 Pet. 3.3.4. who say where is the promise of his coming? For since the Fathers died all things continue alike from the beginning of the Creation: Manil. l 1. non alium videre paeres aliumue nepotes, the world which our ancestors saw of old, is the same which we their posterity see now: Go to I say, eat, drink, make you merry, crown your heads with rose buds before they be withered, delight yourselves in the tab●et, and harp, enjoy the pleasures that are present, let not the flower of life pass by, Eccl. 11.9. walk in the ways of your own heart, and in the sight of your own eyes: but yet know that for all these things God will bring thee to judgement. I remember that a gallant of this stamp some time said unto a reverend Prelate, what if there be no judgement to come, are you not then a very fool to bar yourself from the pleasure of this present life? to whom the Prelate, and what if there be a judgement to come, are not you then a very fool for the short pleasures of this present life to bar yourself from those eternal joys of the life to come? Thou vain man, art thou infallibly certain thou shalt not come to judgement? is there no scruple, no doubting remaining in thee to the contrary? I know thou wouldst fain have it so that thou mayst sin withal impunity: howbeit I am sure thy Conscience doth so countercheck thee, that thou canst not but doubt thereof. In a case so doubtful unto thee what folly, nay what madness is it for time to hazard eternity? and for a few fading pleasures to adventure thyself upon endless woe and misery? The wise heathen could say, Longum illudtempus cum non ero, magis me movet quam hoc tam exiguum, the long time which shall be after this life doth more affect me then this short life. If it be possible let it affect thee also: if not, sit still in the chair of scorners, scoff on thy fill, and seeing thou wilt not believe that fire is hot until it burn thee, thou shalt one day be convinced that there is a judgement when thou shalt feel the intolerable torments of those flames that never shall be quenched. In the mean season let us who have better learned Christ and know the terror of the Lord, let us I say prepare ourselves against this great & dreadful day of the Lord, giving all diligence that we may be found of him in peace without spot and blameless. 2 Pet. 3.14. And to this end let us always have it in mind, and with Saint Hierom ever be meditating thereupon. Quoties diem illum considero, saith he, toto corpore contremisco: sive enim comedo, sive bibo, sive aliud facio, semper videtur tuba illa terribilis sonare in auribus meis, Surgite mortui et venite ad iudicium: as often as I think of that day I tremble every limb, for whether I eat or drink or do any thing, me thinks I hear that terrible trumpet sounding in mine ears, arise ye dead and come to judgement. If any thing in the world will make a man sober and keep him within his banks, it is the consideration hereof. Think of this I beseech you, and think of it seriously all ye that hear me this day. Ye judges of the land be ye wise and learned, Psa●. ●0. 2.11.12 Ps. 2● 3.4. serve the Lord, and kiss the son, do right to the poor and fatherless, deliver the poor and needy, and save them from the hand of the wicked, do nothing unjustly, accept no man's person, execute justice without bribery and partiality, for yourselves must come unto judgement, and as you judge so shall ye be judged. Ye lawyers and advocates, see that ye entertain none but good causes, sell not breathe only for your fees, spin not matters out at such a length for your own advantage, in every cause deal conscionably and honestly, for yourselves shall need an advocate in that day to speak for you, quando plus valebunt pura corda quam astuta verba, when a good heart shall far more avail then cunning and plausible words. Ye Priests and Levites of the Lord, feed ye diligently the flock whereof the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, Ez 34.4. strengthen the weak, heal the sick, bind up the broken, bring again that which was driven away, seek that which is lost, be instant in season, out of season: thrice happy are you if your Lord when he cometh, find you so doing, for you shall stand in judgement, and having justified many, ye shall shine as the stars for ever and ever. Dan. 12.3. And ye the rest of my brethren whatsoever whether gentle or ungentle, rich or poor, take heed to yourselves also, and for these outward vanities of birth and wealth, see that ye neither despise nor envy one another. In that day not the first but the second birth will be regarded, and a good conscience will be more esteemed than a full purse. Watch therefore & be sober, 1 Tim. 5.11.18.19. flee ungodliness and worldly l●sts, and follow after righteousness, piety, faith, love, patience, meekness, do good, and be rich in good works, laying up in store a good foundation for yourselves against the time to come, that ye may obtain eternal life. Then shall ye not need with guilty reprobates to hang down your countenances, and to request the hills to cover you from the wrath of the terrible judge: for ye shall earnestly long for his speedy coming, and at his appearance shall ye lift up your heads for joy, Luc. 21.28. knowing that your redemption draweth near, and that now is to be pronounced that more than joyful sentence, Mat. 25.34. Come ye blessed of my father inherit ye the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: unto the which kingdom the Lord bring us all for his Christ's sake. Amen. FINIS. AN AMULET OR PRESERVATIVE against the contempt of the MINISTRY. OXFORD Printed by I.L. for E. F. 1633. TIT. 2 15. See that no man despise thee. BEing in regard of the present opportunity to address my speech at this time unto you principally, reverend Fathers, and beloved brethren of the Clergy: I have by the direction I trust of God's blessed spirit made special choice of this Text, as affording matter both of great importance, and every way concerning you. That the office and calling of the Ministry is of all other the most honourable & worthy, every one of us presumeth. That of all other it is generally most obnoxious and subject to contempt, we all by lamentable experience feel. How it may be freed from this contempt, and again recover its ancient dignity, is a point of high nature, and well worth the hearing. And this is the very purpose & intent of this Apostolical charge. For as St Paul's care that Titus be not despised implies the honour of his calling, and his fear lest he be despised argues it is subject thereunto: so his charge unto Titus to look unto it that he be not despised, evidently shows both where the cause of this contempt mostly lies, and how ourselves if we list may prevent it. So that this Text may not unfitly be called An Amulet or Preservative against the contempt of th● Ministry. And it offereth as you see unto our medi●ation these three particulars, first the dignity of the Ministry: secondly, the contempt of the Ministry: thirdly, the redress of this contempt. Of which while I discourse unto you plainly, according to my poor ability, & briefly in regard of the businesses to succeed: lend me I beseech you blessed brethren both the assistance of your prayers, and the encouragement of your favourable attention. And first as touching the Dignity of the Ministry, cui non dictus his Hylas? Virg. Georg. 3. What tongue or pen almost hath not travailed in this argument? Or what can herein be said which hath not been already said? And to say all that may be said in this short scantling of time is impossible. Heb. 5.4. I omit therefore that Scripture expressly calleth Priesthood an Honour, 1 Tim. 5.17. and affirmeth Elders to be worthy of double honour, 1 Thes. 5.13. charging all to have them not only in honour, but also in singular reputation. Neither will I stand to reckon up all those titles wherewith Ministers are honoured, 1. Cor. 4.1. as Stewards, Fathers, Rulers, Men of God, God's Ambassadors, Tit. 1.7. the light of the world, the salt of the earth, 2 King 2.12. Saviour's, 1 Cor. 4.15. Stars, Angels. Nor last will I spend time in mustering up all those honourable personages, Heb. 13.17. who have borne this office, 2 Tim. 3 17. as the First borne of every family before the Law, 2 Cor. 5.20. under the Law the house of Aaron in both mighty Kings as Melchizedeck and Solomon, Mat. 5.13.14. 1 Tim. 4.16. and finally under the Gospel Christ himself the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Rev. 1.20. Ex. 2●. 1. These things I say, Gen. 14.18. and sundry other of like nature, Eccl. 1.1. although demonstratively proving the Dignity of the Ministry, Heb. 6.29. yet of purpose I pass by as obvious and vulgarly urged. Rev. 19.16. Only at this time these three points as the choicest among the rest would I command unto your serious consideration. First the excellency of the science we profess; secondly, the efficacy and powerful operation of our Ministry; thirdly, the authority and jurisdiction annexed thereunto. For if the Science we profess be architectonical, if the execution of our Ministry be most energetical, if our authority and jurisdiction be the amplest and greatest: then is our Calling of all other the most noble and worthy. Let us therefore inquire if these things be so: and first the excellency of the science we profess. As the wise man saith of a virtuous woman, Pro: 31 29. Many daughters have done worthily, but thou surmountest them all: so say I, all Arts and Disciplines in their kind are good, as issuing from God, the fountain of all goodness: but Divinity is transcendent, and as Gregory calleth it ars artium, the science of sciences. For whereas the preeminence of one science before another standeth in two things, either that it is more worthy in itself, in regard of the matter it teacheth, or more certain and infallible in regard of the manner of knowing: this Divine science far excelleth in both. For as touching the matter, the very gleaning of Ephraim is better than the vintage of Abiezer: jud. 8▪ 2. the meanest part of this heavenly knowledge is greater and nobler than all whatsoever is comprehended within the whole circle of humane Sciences. For these, taken at the highest, aspire not above Nature, contemplating only such Verities, and directing unto such goods as are connatural unto us, and being natural are also finite, and so cannot satisfy the vast and infinite desire either of the mind or will. But the object of this Divine science is merely supernatural: the speculative part whereof contemplateth the first and highest verity even God himself, ●●e infinite beauty and glory of his nature, the incomprehensible Trinity of Persons, his wonderful works and operations, creating all things of nothing, sustaining all he created by his mighty word, ordering and governing all by his most wise providence, but specially redeeming mankind from Sin, death, and hell, into the glorious liberty of sons by the incarnation and passion of the Son of God. 1 Cor 2.14. A mystery so profound that not only the natural man knows it not, 1 Pet. 1 12. but even the blessed Angels longed to be acquainted therewith, and knowing stand amazed and ravished with admiration thereof. Neither is the Practical part any way inferior unto the speculative: for that also directeth unto the first and highest Good, even Good, in vision and fruition of whom standeth our eternal blessedness, showing also what the way is which leadeth unto this sovereign End, namely Repentance from dead works, justification by Faith in Christ, Regeneration by water and the Holy Ghost, unfeigned study and practise of new obedience, in Piety towards God, justice towards all men, and temperance towards our own selves. Thus the subject & matter of our science so far surpasseth that of other Disciplines, as supernatural excelleth natural; heaven, earth; eternity, time; the boundless wisdom of God, the narrow compass of man's reason: and they are unto it but as Hagar unto Sarah, handmaidens unto their Lady and Mistress. As is the matter, so is the manner of knowing also: that of highest price and value, this most certain and infallible. Unto the truths of other sciences we yield assent, either induced by authority of humane testimony, or inclined by probability and likelihood of reason, or convinced by the light and evidence of demonstration. The two former breed but a moral or conjectural certitude, both obscure, nor excluding all doubt, nor securing us of the truth. The third though it have greater evidence & clearness, yet hath it no more than the natural light of humane reason can afford: which what a glowworm it is, and how subject to mistaking who sees not? Aristotle, whose eyes were as sharp sighted and piercing into these matters as ever any man's, yet confesseth, we are but owly-eyed in them: and the Pyrrhonian Philosophers saw so much uncertainty in most things, that they grew to maintain an impossibility of knowing any thing. Rom. 1. 21.2●. So vain is man in his imaginations, and so full of darkness is his foolish heart, that when they profess themselves to be most wise, they become the starkest fools. But the truths of this divine science being supernatural have their certainty from a supernatural light, even the revelation of God's spirit, which can neither deceive nor be deceived: according to that of our Saviour, Mat: 16.17. Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven. This is the light shining in the dark until the day dawn, 2 Pet: 1.19. the daystar rising in our hearts, the Certitude of Faith which is simply and absolutely so, because no falsehood can possibly be under it, De fide Ann●. and being as chrysostom saith, more firm than all Demonstration, as standing not in the enticeing speech of man's wisdom, 1 Cor: 2.4. but in plain evidence of the spirit and of Power. True it is that this our Science sometime receiveth from humane wisdom, yet not because she needs it, but because we need it: nor for any defect or uncertainty in it, but for the weakness of our understanding, which, by those things that are known, to natural reason is more easily brought to understand those things which are above reason. For otherwise she is so far from receiving her Principles from any other Science, that she either allows or controls all their rules and maxims, as being their sovereign Queen and Mistress. And thus much of the excellency of the Science of Divinity: now of the Efficacy of the Ministry. jud. 8 21. As is the man, so is his strength saith the Proverb: in like manner, as is our science, so is our Ministry, that the most noble, & therefore this the most powerful. That is most powerful which worketh most effectually to achieve ' its end: and the more difficult the end is to be attained, the greater is the power that attaineth it. Now what is the end of the Ministry? It is as Saint Paul saith to build up the body of Christ, Eph. 4.12. to open men's eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, Act. 26.18. and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them, which are sanctified by faith in Christ: that is in a word, to make men partakers both of the state of grace in this life, and of eternal glory in the life to come. An employment as of highest consequence, so of greatest difficulty, that Saint Paul wondereth, who might be sufficient for it, 2. Cor. 2.16. & chrysostom saith, that the Angels themselves would tremble to undergo the burden. Yet hath it pleased the wisdom of God in earthly vessels to convey unto us these heavenly treasures: 2 Cor. 4.7. and to make the Ministry of weak mortal men mighty in operation, Heb. 4.12. able to pull down strong holds, 2. Cor. 10.4.5. and to cast down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and to captive every thought to the obedience of Christ. Hence is it that Esay calleth the word of God, Esa 53.1. the arm of the Lord: and Saint Paul the preaching of the Gospel, Rome 1.16. the power of God unto salvation. Esa. 55 11. ●. 2 Hence that God himself affirmeth, that his word shall never return unto him void, but shall accomplish that which he will, Id. 11.47.8.9 and prosper in the thing whereto he sends it. Is it is not strange that the wolf should dwell with the lamb, and the leopard with the kid, and calf and the lion and the fat beast lie together, and a little child lead them? That the cow and the bear should feed together, and their young ones lie down together, and the Lion eat straw like the Ox? That the sucking child should play on the hole of the aspe, and the weaned child put his hand on the Cockatrice's den, and all without either hurt or danger? Yet all this is done through the knowledge of the Lord, and by the power of our Ministry. This is it that filleth up every valley, Luc. 3.5.6. and leveleth every mountain and hill: that maketh the crooked strait, and the rough ways smooth, that all flesh may see the salvation of God. The meaning of which allegorical speech I cannot better express then in the words of Lactantius, Inst l. 3. c. 26. give me the man that is choleric, a railer, unruly, and with a few words of God, I will make him as meek as a lamb. Give me him that is greedy, covetous, gripple, and I will make him liberal and give bountifully with his own hands: give me him that is fearful of pain and death, eftsoons shall he contemn his gibbets, fires, and Phalaris bull: Give me the lecher, the adulterer, the tavern haunter, and by and by shalt thou see him sober, chaste and continent. Give me the cruel and blood thirsty man, and his fury shall soon be turned into clemency. Finally, give me the unjust man, the fool, the sinner, and forthwith he shall be just, and wise, and innocent. Such and so great is the power of this divine wisdom, that it quickly changeth a man, and transforms him into another shape, so as ye can hardly know him to be the same. Neither let any man think that these are but words: no they have ordinarily been and are daily done. jon. 3.6 7. Did not jonas with one sermon humble the pride of the King of Niniveh and all that mighty city into sackcloth and ashes? Act. 2 37.41. Did not Peter, at his first preaching to the jews, prick them to the heart, and at once add about three thousand souls unto the Church? Ib. 24.25. Did not Paul, discoursing of justice and temperance, and judgement to come, make Felix the governor although a heathen yet to tremble? But what speak I of particulars which are infinite? Never did Alexander or Cesar with their huge hosts of armed men, win so great victories, or erect such troops of honour to themselves, as did the holy Apostles unto the name of Christ. They were in number but twelve, for the most part poor fishermen, and unlettered, and despised in the eye of the world: and yet within a few years, armed only with the sword of the mouth, and the power of this Ministry, they conquered the whole world, and subdued it to the obedience of Christ. And whom they subdued they so settled in the Faith, that rather than they would renounce it, they were content to endure most exquisite torments, and to lose a thousand lives. In like manner hath the Ministry hitherto prevailed, and shall successively unto the world's end. How many families of Philosophers have heretofore failed without successor? Senec. cou●●. How many sects of Heretics are vanished and melted away as dew before the sun? But the Church of Christ, and his religion shall never fail. The heavens shall sooner lose their influence, and the stars their light, than the Ministry of the Church be without its strength and virtue. Neither the open violence of tyrants, nor the secret undermine of Antichrist, nor hell itself, shall ever be able to let or hinder it. And thus much of the Efficacy and Operative power of the Ministry. The authority and jurisdiction annexed thereunto is exceeding great and ample. I stand astonished at the consideration thereof: for among the sons of men there is none comparable to it. Among the sons of men, say I: Nay among the Angels of God, De Sacerd. l. 3. c. 5. saith chrysostom. For neither to them, nor to Kings or Princes, but only to the Ministers of the Gospel, are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given. These only have power to open the kingdom of heaven to all that believe, and to shut the gates against those that continue in incredulity. These have authority to bind and lose, to remit and retain sins, to enter men by baptism into the visible Church, to admit them or withhold them from the holy communion, to cut off notorious sinners from the body of the Church by excommunication, to deliver them over to Satan, and if they prove incorrigible, by anathema maranatha to separate them from the Church until the Lord come. Add hereunto that whatsoever they do here on earth by virtue of the keys, the same is eftsoons ratified by God in heaven: according to that of our Saviour, joh. 20. ●3. whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted, and whose sins soever ye retain, they are retained: Mat. 18.18. and again, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall lose in earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Now as the jurisdiction of the Ministry is wondrous great: so is the extent thereof exceeding large. For it stretcheth itself without exception of condition or degree unto all men. If I should say Angels also, perhaps I should not say much amiss. Else what meaneth that of the Apostle, Eph 3.10. unto Principalities and Powers in heavenly places is made known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God. For seeing the Church maketh nothing known but by the Ministry, and the Angels come to the knowledge of the manifold wisdom of God by the Church: it seemeth that they also are in some things informed by the Ministry. And thus at length to sum up all that hath been said, you have clearly demonstrated, not only that the Science we profess is of all other the most transcendent, and operation of our Ministry, the most effectual: but also that the authority and jurisdiction thereunto annexed is of all other the greatest and largest. Out of all which I hope I may be bold to infer the conclusion principally intended, that our calling is therefore of all other the most worthy. And is it so indeed, that the Ministry is of all callings the most noble and honourable? Then belike they that are advanced thereunto are accordingly to be esteemed. Without question they are. Reason telleth us it ought to be so: & God commandeth that it be so. The more strange it seems that whereas all other sorts of men are regarded answerably unto their places, Ministers only are vilipended and lest set by. For that so it hath ever been, the monuments of former ages sufficiently testify. Gen. 19.9.14. Num. 16 3. Noah was mocked of the old world, 2 Sam. 6.16.20 Lot of the Sodomites, Aaron of Korah, 1 King. 22.8.24. Dathan, and Abiron, David of Michol, Micaiah of Ahab and his false Prophets, Elizeus of the children and jehus captains, 2 King. 2.23. & 9.11. and generally all the Messengers and Prophets of the Lord by the jews. 2 Chron: 36.16. In the new Testament Christ himself was set at naught, Luc. 23.11. Act. 2.13. the Apostles when they were filled with the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost were flouted at as full of new wine, St. Paul when he discoursed most profoundly before the Athenians of the mysteries of Christian religion, was counted of them but a vain Babbler, Act. 17.18. and universallie all the Apostles every where were no better reckoned of then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 4 13. the offals & off scour, of the world, & do not we Ministers now a days drink of the same cup? or are we not baptised with the same baptism, wherewith Christ and his Apostles were? yes verily. Contempt pursues us also, and perhaps the more the more inferior we are unto them. Give me leave to show it in particular, if for no other cause, yet to confound the hypocrisy of these times, wherein men love not to be, but to seem to be, and to take religion on them rather than into them: howbeit briefly, for what pleasure can either you take in hearing, or I in discoursing of so sad a theme? The Honour due unto the Ministry is double; Internal, External. Internal in the Mind, in the Affection. In the Mind honourable estimation: in the Affection, Love.. External in Word, in Gesture, in Deed. In Word, honourable mention, in Gesture, reverend behaviour, in deed, liberal and bountiful maintenance. All these Honours do we justly claim as due unto us, yet are they all most shamefully denied us. For as touching the first, it is as clear as the sun at noonday by what hath been already said, that the Calling of the Ministry is in itself & above all other the most honourable. Express testimony of Scripture, & unanswerable arguments deduced from it, have sufficiently manifested the same. Now we know that reason would that every thing be valued according to the worth thereof: and very simple do we count him that sets no better price upon silver then lead, upon gold than copper, upon emerauds and diamonds than pebble stones. Which being so, it followeth that the Ministry of the Gospel being indeed so precious a jewel, as in the judgement of all accordingly to be esteemed: and very foolish or froward must he needs be, that disesteemeth or undervalueth so invaluable a treasure. And yet how many are there in these days who despise this sacred function, and set it at nought? some happily through ignorance, not knowing the worth thereof: but others out of profaneness, preferring a mess of pottage before a birthright. An evident sign and token whereof this may be among others, that those of the better rank either for wealth or gentility count themselves too good for the Ministry, and hold it a foul disparagement to bestow their children that way. No, that is an employment fit for poor men's children only. Or if at any time they vouchsafe to design their sons thereunto, they are but of the younger sort, and such as they find altogether unapt for any other calling: for otherwise, the law, or merchandise, or some trade of more advantage, sways them, and carries them clean away. Nay even those that are of good parentage, and equal unto others, if once they enter into the Ministry, they hold them abased thereby: and the very name of a Priest shall be cast into their teeth, as a notable blemish and stain unto their blood. So that that which God accounteth the greatest honour, is accounted by man a great impeachment of honour, and seldom findeth in the mind due estimation. As little love findeth it also in the affection. Saint Paul earnestly chargeth all men to love those men that are set over them in the Lord, 1 Thes. 5.12.13. that is, their Ministers, yea to bestow upon them, not some small measure, but abundance of love. And why? for their works sake, saith he: as if he had said more fully, because by the pains they take for you they deserve much love: so that if you will not amorem impendere, freely vouchsafe them your love, yet are you bound amorem rependere, to requite their labours with love. Alexander the Great was wont to say he was more beholding to his Master Aristotle then his Father Philip, for that he had his being only from the one, and his well-being from the other. And surely if we owe love unto our natural parents as authors of our temporal life: how much more is due unto our spiritual parents, who have begotten us by the immortal seed of the word unto a blessed and eternal life? Deut. 33.8 Moses blessing Levi, calleth him the man of God's mercies: Cod. l. 1. tit. 3. de episcop. & cler. 43.44. and anciently the Ministers of the Gospel were styled the beloved of God. Doth God set his mercies, and his love upon them, and dares man deny his unto them? What dares not sinful man do? He denied it. There is one Micaiah, saith Ahab, the son of Imlah, 1. King 22.8. by whom we may inquire of the Lord: but I hate him, for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. Our Saviour Christ in the charge he giveth his twelve Apostles, Mat. 10.22. foretelleth them that they shall be hated of all men for his name's sake. What he foretold them, they by experience found true, being every where persecuted even to the death. The reason, because they were the light of the world, Mat. 5.14. and the whole world lieth in evil, & every one that doth evil hateth the light, 1. joh. 5.19. joh. 3.20▪ because it discovereth and reproveth his deeds. Cic. de ami●. Verit as odium, truth begets hatred, Gal. 4.16. according to that of St Paul, Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? Unless we so pillows under men's elbows we cannot please them: if we please them not, neither can we have their love. Et hinc illae lachrymae, hence the bitter cold that nips us every where. But how little we are either esteemed or loved, will yet more appear by the outward fruits. For as is the internal honour of the mind and affection: so is the external also, in Word, in Gesture, in Deed. Honour in Word is honourable mention, whereby we speak nothing but honour of a man. And this also we justly challenge to ourselves: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people. Exod. 22.27. True it is, Ministers are not Angels, Act 23.5. but being made of the same moulds with other men, are subject to the same infirmities. Nevertheless he plays but Cham's part, Gen. 9.22, 23. that laughs at his father's nakedness: Shem and japhet will not see it, but go backward and cover it. The exorbitancies of a Minister, saith Constantine the great, ought not to be known unto the people: he for his part would rather cover them with his purple robe. For as the Council of Chalcedon saith, Delicta Sacerdotum communis est turpitudo, the sins of the Priests are the common shame of the Church. True Charity would cover a multitude of them: but to blaze and divulge them is to spread abroad the infamy of our Mother. And yet this is the ordinary practice of these days: the Ministry is the common butt against which they shoot the venomous arrows of their tongues. In all meetings, at all tables, the Minister usually is the subject of their talk: and it is cou●ted among many a special mark of true religion & zeal with open mouth to publish the faults, shall I say of inferior Ministers? Nay of the chiefest fathers of the Church. Wherein also like butcher's flies they lightly pass over the whole and sound places, and seize only upon galls and sores: that is, if they meet with an infirmity, that they are always buzzing about, as for their graces and virtues, they are wrapped up in deep silence. Physicians if they do but one good cure, grow famous thereby though they kill twenty besides: we how many good things soever be in us, yet one lean Cow swallows up the seven fat, and the least weakness is sufficient to disgrace all. Weakness say I? Nay that which is counted weakness in others, is traduced as wickedness in us: our frailties are furies, and every molehill is made a mountain. So ready are they to speak the worst of us, and so loath to say any thing that may credit our Calling. If they will scarce vouchsafe us a good word, is it likely they will afford us any Reverence in Gesture? 1. King. 18.7. Act. 10.25. Yet Obadiah the governor of king Ahab's house, meeting with the Prophet Eliah fell on his face before him. Cornelius the Centurion upon S. Peter's coming to him fell down at his feet. 1. Sam 28.14. Even king Saul before him whom he conceived to be Samuel, stooped with his face to the ground & bowed himself. And Alexander the great when he saw jaddua the high Priest, joseph. antiq. l. 11. c. 8. alighted from his horse, and humbled himself with much reverence unto him. But Constantine a greater than he when he entered into the Synod of Nice, bowed himself very low unto the Bishops there assembled, and sat not down until they desired him. Yea the very Gentiles themselves stood in such awe of their Priests, that they durst not utter an obscene word, much less misbehave themselues in their presence. What think you? Shall not these one day rise up in judgement against us Christians to condemn us? For now adays every petty Gentleman looks for much duty from us, and takes it indignly if we stand not bare before him, & worship him with cap and knee. If we expect the like again, forsooth we are grown too proud: it is honour enough for us, if they do but look upon us. Precedency is any man's rather than the Ministers: every Mammonist, every younger brother, every upstart of the first head must have the place from us. To the gay clothing every one saith, Sat here in the best room: but unto us, Stand thou there, jam. 2.3. or, Esa 3 5. sit here under my footstool. Thus children behave themselves proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable. The last honour we claim, is bountiful and liberal maintenance. Mat 10.10. For the labourer is worthy of his hire: and the mouth of the Ox, 1. Cor. 9.7.9. that treadeth out the corn, must not be muzzled. No man warreth at his own charges: and he that feedeth a flock, Gen. 47.22. liveth by it. Even the Egyptians and other Gentiles provided for their Priests. God himself appointed Triths unto Levi (the morality of which I dispute not at this time) besides Cities with their territories and sundry other things of great value. The Ministry of the Gospel is more excellent than that of the Law: less therefore cannot be allowed us. Tithe is too little, saith S. Augustin: else how do we exceed the Pharisees who tithed all▪ If we minister spiritual things, reason will, Gal. 6.6. that we receive of your temporals. The law of the Gospel requireth him that is taught to impart to him that teacheth of all his good. Philem. 19 And reason, For as S. Paul saith to Philemon, you owe yourselves unto us. And unless you under value too much the eternal salvation of your souls, ye can never sufficiently recompense the benefit ye receive of us. It is manifest then that an honourable salary is due unto us. But how I beseech you are we paid our due? Poorly God wot: witness the multitude of impropriations, the selling of benefices, the detention of tithes, or the false and repining payment of them, with the like. 1 Sam 9.7. It was once said, Psal. 83.12. What shall we give the man of God: Ex. 36 5.6. but now every one saith, Come let us take the houses of God in possession. When Moses built the tabernacle, he was fain to stay the people from giving, they were so forward: but now would God, we could stay their hands from robbing the tabernacle. Many there are who call for a learned Ministry in every parish: yet keep to themselves that which should maintain the Minister. A strange perverseness, to desire no benefice may be without a cure, and yet to require a cure without a benefice. Yea but they are content to allow a Competency. True. But if they may be our carvers, I presume it will be after the rate of Cratis in his Ephemeris, La●ret. vit. crat. Theb. ten pound to the Cook, a groat to the Physician, ten talents to the Parasite, one to the Courtesan, and to the Philosopher three halfpences. For every little is too much for us: & but enough is superfluity. Mat. 26.8. Et quorsum perditio haec, what need all this wastes. The poverty of the Apostles they often remember: but the bounty of Christians than they utterly forget. If they will have us follow the one, why refuse they to imitate the other? Act. 4, 3● 35. Let them sell all they have, and lay down the prizes at our feet, and then have with them whensoever they please. But I press these points of Honour no farther: for me thinks I hear some say, these words would have sounded better in some advocates mouth, in ours they may seem to proceed of ambition or covetousness. Whereunto I answer, first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if we speak not for ourselves, who will? and if we do, alas what are we? All other sorts of men are allowed to defend themselves: and must we alone suffer wrong and say nought? Secondly, so to censure is a spice of the contempt we speak of: for indeed we seek herein not so much our own honour and advantage, as God's glory and benefit. God's glory, whose ordinance, nay who himself by contemning us is contemned. 1 Sam. 8.7. They have not rejected thee but me, Mal. 3.8. saith God to Samuel. Ye have robbed me in tithes and offerings, saith he by Malachi. He that despiseth you, Luc. 10.16. despiseth me, saith Christ. And lastly, He that despiseth, 1 Thes. 4.8. despiseth not man but God. Your benefit. For to deny submission to those who rule over you and watch for your souls, Heb 13.17. is unprofitable for you, saith the Apostle. For first as Barnard saith, Ser●. in die Pasch. Cuius vita despicitur, restat ut praedicatio contemnatur: if once our persons grow despicable, little will our preaching avail. If our preaching avail not, neither can you believe, nor be saved. Secondly, to contemn a Minister is a fearful sin: otherwise Hoseas would never have used this aggravation, Host 4.4. the people were as they that contended with the Priest. 2 Chro. 36 16 Lastly, God punisheth it accordingly: with temporal punishment, as upon the jew, with seaventy years captivity: Esa 6.9. with spiritual, that hearing they shall hear, & seeing see, Act. 28.26. yet neither perceive nor understand: and unless they repent, with eternal also both in body and soul. But of the contempt of the Ministry enough: let us now inquire the redress thereof. See that no man despise thee, saith my text. A strange speech. For do we steer at the helm of other men's affections? Or have we the command of their actions? Why then doth he charge us to look to it that we be not despised? Surely because we ourselves are mostly the causes thereof, and for that it lies much in our own hands both to prevent and redress it. To make this appear, observe with me the words immediately going before my text, These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority: see that no man despise thee. Observe with me again what Saint Paul saith to Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.11.12. These things command and teach: let no man despise thy youth, but be an example unto believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. Which two places being duly pondered and considered, it is manifest that the Apostles meaning here is no other than this, if we will not be contemned, we must not carry ourselves contemptibly, and that to avoid this contempt, two things are necessary, first that we be Good ministers, secondly that we be Good men: for if we fail in either, it cannot possibly be avoided but we must be despised. To avoid Contempt then, first we must be Good Ministers: and to this end two things are requisite, first a talon, secondly due employment of the talon. By talon I understand fitness and ability. And that this is necessary, appeareth first by the act of God: for he never designeth any to a calling but he furnisheth him before hand with sufficient gifts. If Moses must be the chief governor and lawgiver of Israel, he shall be learned, yea even in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, Act. 7.22. aend mighty both in words and deeds. Exod. 31.2.3.4.5.6. If Bezaleel and Aholiab must build the Tabernacle, he will fill them with his spirit in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, in all manner of workmanship, in gold, silver, brass, stone, timber, and what ever else was needful. Esa. 9 67.8. Esay being to do an errand for the Lord, hath his lips first touched with a coal from the altar. jesus the son of Mary being ordained to be the Messias of the world, Ps. 45.7. is anointed with the oil of gladness above all his fellows, Act. 3.4. and receiveth the spirit without measure. Finally the twelve Apostles being to carry the name of Christ through the world, joh. 3.34. were first baptised with fiery tongues and replenished with the holy Ghost at jerusalem. The same appeareth also by the ordinance of God in his Church. Mal. 2.7. For the Priests lips (saith Malachi) should preserve knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts. 1 Tim. 3.2. Saint Paul also saith, that a Bishop must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to teach: Tit. 1 9 and able by sound doctrine both to exhort, and convince gainesaiers. And seeing no work can well go forward without fit instruments, and the end of the Ministry is to publish the Gospel, and to build up the body of Christ: reason itself telleth us, a Minister must have his aptness and fitness thereunto. Aptness and fitness I say, though not exact and in the highest measure, for than might we cry out with Saint Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who is sufficient for these things? 2 Cor. 2.16. Yet at least competent and in some tolerable measure, that they exceed the ordinary sort of men, as the Sickle of the sanctuary doth the common Sickle in value. This fitness if a Minister altogether want, how can he escape contempt? God himself in contempt calls them Idol sheapherds, Esa. 56 10. dumb dogs, blind watchmen, brute beasts. jer. 10 21. And indeed what are they but clouds without water, heads without brain, bells without clapper, nurses without milk. justly may they say with the prophet, Ah, ah, Domine non possum loqui quia puer sum, jer. 1.6. ah Lord I cannot speak for I am a child. If a man that cannot read, should take upon him to be professor in Greek or Hebrew, spectatum admissi risum teneatis, could you abstain from laughter? far more ridiculous is he who being ignorant of all humanity, takes upon him to be a teacher in divinity. Yet among these ignorants there are too many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rev. 3.17. proud beggars: Laodiceans who count themselves rich and of good wealth, 1 Tim. 1.7. yet are wretched, and miserable, and poor. Who fain would be esteemed Doctors of the law, yet understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm. Oratores novi, stulti, adolescentuli, upstart, foolish, boy preachers: of whom a man may truly say as he said of the nightingale, vox sunt praeterea nihil they are nothing else but voice, right like unto Cameleons, all lungs and no heart. Thus while some of them have mouths yet cannot speak, others speak but nothing to the purpose: both make themselves ridiculous to the world, and draw contempt upon their own heads. He that will be honoured must have his talon. So must he also duly employ it. For the end of the talon is employment: and he that hath an office is bound to act and execute the duties thereof. When the Lord of the family, Mat. 25.14. as it is in the parable, dispensed his talents among his servants, to one five to another two, to a third one: his intent was to receive his onwe again with advantage. And S. Paul knowing that God had bestowed a great gift upon Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6. chargeth him that he neglect it not: yea that he do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quicken up the gift of God which is in him. 2. Tim. 4.5. If Timothy be an Evangelist, he must do the work of an Evangelist, Rom. 12.6.7. and fulfil his Ministry. For the gift is given to enable a man in his function: that every one may minister according to the grace given him. And this he must not do slightly or profunctorily, but faithfully, painfully, gravely. In preaching the word he must be instant in season, 2 Tim. 4.2. out of season, reproving rebukeing, exhorting with all long suffering and doctrine. So shall he prove himself a good Minister of jesus Christ, 1 Tim. 4 6. 2 Tim 2.15. and a workman that needeth not to be ashamed. Honour shall crown his head: and a good name shall he purchase among the Saints. But shame and contempt shall surely pursue all those, Who having received their talon, aut nihil agunt, aut non satis agunt, aut satagunt, either do nothing, or not enough, or ever do the task. First those that do nothing: for the servant that digged his talon in the earth, and employed it not, was censured by his Master for wicked and slothful, Mat. 25 26.28 30. had his talon taken from him. and for his unprofitableness was commanded into utter darkness. 1 Tim. 5.17. It is the Elder that rules well, and labours in the word and doctrine that is worthy of double honour: the idler deserves none at all, no not so much as single. He that will not labour must not eat: and he that will not work in the vineyard must not look for his penny. Yea but they are so much employed other ways that they have no leisure. What? No leisure to be Ministers? why are they Ministers then? To feed upon the flock and not to feed it, is little better than sacrilege: and argues a base, sordid, and contemptible mind. Secondly that do something, but not enough: such as once perhaps in a quarter shower down some short collation upon their people, and then suffer them, a long time after to live like shellfish suo ●ibi succo, upon their own liquor. Such also as are more frequent, but negligent withal: not caring what they say, so they hold out their hour. If Fericles was careful not to speak an idle word before the people, and Demosthenes wished his words before he uttered them might be not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 written, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 graven: how much more ought a Minister to be advised, before he open his mouth in the congregation? What thou dost, do with all thy might, Eccles. 5 1. saith the wise man: and cursed is he that doth the work of the Lord negligently, saith the Prophet. If every one must look to his feet when he goeth to the house of God: much more must a Preacher to his tongue before he enter into the pulpit. Otherwise he shall but offer up the sacrifice of fools, and get contempt for his labour. Lastly, those who over do, or do more then enough: such I mean as affect nothing else but acquaint and curious phrases, or are unmeasurable in their allegations out of all authors both Ecclesiastical & profane, or soon aloft in unnecessary speculations far above the capacity of their auditors. These over do, & magno conat● magnas nugas, take great pains, and eviscerate themselves, as it were, to weave a web, which when it is ended, is fit for no other use, but only as an unprofitable thing to be swept away. But here some happily will say, what? Are you an enemy to eloquent and learned preaching? Or do you think it unlawful in Sermons to allege the sayings of ancient Fathers and other writers? God forbid. For as touching eloquence, although truth may be taught without it, yet as Lactantius saith, magis treditur ●r●●t ● veritati, the more decently it is trimmed, the more readily is it embraced. Neither can I well speak against it, but I must withal deny unto Moses, David, Solomon, Esay, Paul, and the rest of that holy order, apt elocution, and the tongue of the learned. As for allegations, Saint P●●l himself vouched the testimonies of Aratus, Menander, Epimenides. All truths are Gods whosoever utter them, saith Ambrose. If Philosophers have delivered things that are true, we may challenge them from them as from unjust possessors? Saith Augustine. The captive woman's head being shaved, and nails pared, we may take her to wife, saith Hierome. Tyrians may help to build the Temple: and David may behead Goliath with his own sword. And as for humane learning, it is not only lawful, but in some cases necessary. For as Logic teacheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no man can demonstrate passing from one kind unto another: but look to what science the terms of the question belong, from thence only are proofs to be drawn. Which being so, how can I handle the question of Freedom of will without natural Philosophy, whereunto that term belongeth? And how can I better demonstrate that the law Moral is written naturally in the heart, then by the testimony of those men who were never by grace elevated above nature? Wherefore if there be any who condemn the use of humane learning in Sermons: it is saith Gregory Nazianzen, because themselves are ignorant, and would not have their ignorance espied. If this be your mind, will some yet say, what is it then your dislike? First I dislike that that should be called eloquence which is not so, as being neither approved by the precepts of those who have written of Oratory, nor exampled by the practice of those who have been esteemed the most famous Orators. When holy Spiridion heard Triphyllius call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Saviour called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though both words signified the same thing, yet be sharply rebuked him saying, dost thou think thou canst speak better than Christ himself? What would he have said, think you, if he had heard Coton the French jesuit preach of the Escalados of virtue, and the Barricado's of greedy desire, and call jesus Christ the Dolphin of heaven? Surely it is the language not of Babylon but of Canaan which the holy Ghost hath sanctified for the preaching of the Gospel. Secondly I mislike that frothy conceits,, and witty vanities should be counted learning. For true learning is substantial and real, bettering the understanding, and making the heart wise: but these toys stand only in seeming, tickling the ear, & making the head giddy, but never feeding the soul. Learning you may call it if you please, 1. Tim. 6.20. howbeit, as Saint Paul saith, it is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, science falsely so called, which he would have his Timothy carefully to avoid. Thirdly and lastly, it displeaseth me, that herein they propound to themselves, not God's glory, or the edification of the Church, but their own praise & applause. To what end else this vain ostentation, of wit, eloquence, reading, and all variety of learning? Wherein first they prevaricate with Christ, pretending to woe the souls of men unto Christ, but indeed intending to win reputation to themselves. Secondly they fail the hope and expectation of their brethren, who repairing to them for instruction, receive no more benefit by their Sermons, than Caligulas' guests did by his golden banquet, which only delighted the eye, but neither pleased the palate, nor satisfied the stomach. Wise and wholesome is the counsel of S. Hierome, when thou teachest in the Church, non clamour populi sed gemitus suscitetur, stir you up not the applause but the groans of the people, lachrymae auditorum laudes tuae sint, let the tears of the auditory be thy praises. If thou canst with Peter prick the people at the heart, Act. 2.37. Act. 24.25. and make them say, Men and brethren what shall we do? If by discoursing of righteousness, temperance, and judgement to come, thou canst make Felix tremble, thou shalt both glorify God, and procure honour unto thyself. But if neglecting the glory of God, thou aim at nothing but thine own praise and commendation: God will surely pour down contempt upon thee. For his mouth hath spoken it, 13. Sam. 2.0. Them that honour me will I honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Thus to avoid contempt, it is necessary we be good Ministers. It is necessary also that we be Good men. Although intruth I see not how a man can be a Good Minister, unless withal he be a Good man. For if he defined rightly who said that an Orator is vir bonus dicendi peritus, a good man skilful in pleading: what should let but I may as truly say, a Good Minister is vir bonus docendi peritus, a good man well able to teach. And if the Goodness of a man be principally discerned in the honest discharge of the duties of his Calling: hardly can that Minister be a Good man, who doth not faithfully execute the office of his Ministry. Nevertheless to speak distinctly of them, it is necessary, as we have said, for the avoiding of Contempt, not only to be Good Ministers, but also Good Men, practising in ourselves what we teach unto others, and framing our lives answerable to our doctrine. This was typed by Aaron's Urim and Thummim which he was to carry in the breastplate upon his heart: Exod. 28.30. for the one betokened light and verity of doctrine, the other uprightness and integrity of life. The same was also signified by the golden bells and pomegranates hanging round about upon the hem of his priestly vestment? b. Ib. 33.34. for the bells are no other than the sound of wholesome preaching, and the pomegranates, than the fruits of good living. As it was typed in the old Testament, so is it expressly commanded in the new. St Paul instructing Timothy and Titus how a Bishop should be qualified, requireth of him that be be not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apt to teach, but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, blameless and faultless. 2. Tim. 3 2.3. Neither so only, 'tis 1.7.8. but that in all things he show himself also a pattern of good works. Id. 2.7. And with him agreeth St Peter, who chargeth those that are Elders that they be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1. Pet. 5.3. Samplers unto their Flock. And whensoever in Scripture a Minister is commanded to teach or feed the people of God, it is intended, if we may believe ancient Fathers, that they do it by all means: and therefore not only by preaching sound doctrine, but also by leading an exemplary life. If all the faithful must shine with good works as lights in the world: Phil. 2.15. Mat. 5.14. how much more they who by office are the very lights of the world? He was a wise natural man who said Longum iter per praecepta, breve & efficax per exempla: the course by precept is long and tedious, but short and effectual by example. And he was no fool that said, he had rather see one Calanus willingly put himself into the fire, then hear a Philosopher read a hundred Lectures of patience. For indeed, as St Bernard saith, validior est vox operis quam oris, works persuade more powerfully than words. Tetrastich. And therefore with Gregory Nazianzen do I say to thee, o Minister, whatsoever thou be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Either teach me not at all, or let thy holy life teach me: why drawest thou me thus with one hand, and puttest me off with the other? They jested anciently at those who were Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in their sayings, but not in their doings. And the Poet could say, Odi homines ignauâ operâ & philosophâ sententiâ, I detest those men whose mouths are full of the rules of Morality, yet practise none of them. But in a Minister of the Gospel it is yet a fouler incongruity if their words and works disagree. When Demades saw king Philip dancing, I wonder o Philip, quoth he, seeing thou bearest the person of a King, that thou dost the works of Thersites. Much more rightly may I say of these, I marvel that having taken upon them the office of Phinees, with what face they can act the part of Zimri. Impudent beyond measure must they needs be, who being guilty (none more) of drunkenness, adultery, blasphemy, and the like, yet lift up their voices like trumpets, and presume in open pulpit bitterly to inveigh against the same sins in others. Every one will say to such a one, Medice cura teipsum, Physician heal thyself: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you take upon you to cure others being yourselves full of boils and ulcers. It is altogether preposterous for a strumpet to take upon her the reformation of the stews. Manus quae sordes abluit munda esse debet, saith Gregory: the hand had need to be clean that cleanseth other things. The Spartans' when an evil man gave them good counsel, caused an honest man to say the same, & then embraced it. Ps. 50.16.17. What speak I of Spartans'? God cannot abide that a wicked man hating to be reform, should once take his covenant in his mouth. A more dangerous pestilence than a lewd Minister there cannot be: the contagion of his life quickly infecteth, every one thinketh it not only lawful, but safe also to follow his guide. And thus I fear do they many time's reason, the Preacher indeed earnestly dissuades from sin, and persuades unto sanctity of life, threatening hell unto the one, and promising heaven unto the other: but if he believed verily that there is a heaven or a hell, do you think he would live such a debauched and dissolute life as he doth? He knows well enough what he doth, none better: let us do as he doth, eat and drink and be merry, for to morrow we shall die. And thus Hophni & Phinees behaving themselves like the sons of Belial, are the very causes of Atheism and profaneness in the world, and by this means draw contempt not only on themselves, but also upon the sacrifices and religion of God. But contrarily, whosoever, saith our Saviour Christ, Mat. 5.19. shall do the commandments of God himself, and teach others to do them too, shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven: Of such a one it will be reported that God is in him of a truth. 2 Cor. 14.25. The Saints will receive him as an Angel of God, Gal. 4.14.15. even as Christ jesus, and be ready to pluck out their eyes to give them to him. As for others, he cannot but find approvement in their consciences: for as the wise heathen said, Sen. Adeò gratiosa est virtus, ut insitum etiam malis sit, probare meliora, so gracious a thing is virtue, that even wicked men by the instinct of nature allow and commend that which is good. And thus much of the third and last part, the redress of our contempt. Now it remains before I dismiss you, briefly to make some particular application. And here, though I well might, yet will I not extend my exhortation farther than our Apostle doth his: he restraineth his to Titus, that is to the Minister, so will I mine. First therefore, if according to our hopes and desires we might now have enjoyed the presence of the reverend Father of this Diocese, I would humbly have entreated him to See that Titus be not despised. That to this end he would have special care whom he admits into this holy order: for Non ex quolibet ligno fit Mercurius, every man is not fit to make a Minister. far be it from so reverend a Bishop, 1 King. 12 31. either with jeroboam to make Priests of the basest of the people, Sue●. Calig. c. 55. or with Caligula to destinate his horse Incitatus to the Consulship. That also he would be pleased to bear an eye upon those that are already admitted, to countenance those that walk worthy of their places, and severely to censure such as either by their idleness or misliving scandalise their profession. But I repress myself, and from him that is absent turn my speech unto you that are present and have delegate power and authority from him. You, and those that depend upon you; do I earnestly beseech, to see to it also, that Titus be not despised. Good reason have I thus to beseech you: for your exorbitations and abuses redound to the dishonour of your Lord, though he neither act them nor approve them, and from him descend to the skirts of his clothing, us his inferior Ministers. Shall I tell you a story? Erasm. de rat. concionandi l. 1. David son to Philip the good Duke of Burgundy, being Bishop of Vtrecht, would needs one day, not by his Poser but by himself, make trial of those that offered themselves to holy orders: and finding them unsufficient rejected all but three. His officers therewith offended said, it would be a foul shame to the Church, if of three hundred three only should be admitted. To whom the Bishop, it would be a fouler shame, if instead of men asses might be admitted. Yea but, say they, this age breeds not Paul's and Hieroms', you must take such as it affords. I require not such quoth the Bishop, but asses will I not admit. Then must you increase our wages, say they, for by such asses do we live. Thus you see that inferior officers sometime commit errors which the superiors know not of, wherewith notwithstanding he is charged: and that they seek more their own advantage, than the dignity either of the Church or the Church's Ministry. Ser. 7●. It was the complaint of Saint Bernard in his time that Church officers studied more how to empty men's purses, then to reform their vices. I fear these times are little better, and that our money is rather visited then our manners: so the fees come in roundly, no matter how irregularly men live. O that your principal aim were to redress abuses, & to remove scandals out of the Church▪ how precious would your name be among the Saints? and what honour might you gain both to Church and Churchmen? What shall I farther say? No more but this. Your Courts are called Christian: God grant your carriage may be so Christian in them, that they may ever truly be as they are called. My last address shall be to you my brethren and fellows in the Ministry, whom I adjure in the name of jesus Christ, Act. 20. 2●. carefully to see that no man despise you. And to this end, Hoc agite, Take heed both to yourselves, and the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers. To yourselves, that you may prove Good men; to your flocks, Mat. 19.6. that you may approve yourselves Good Ministers. Either by itself will not serve the turn: what God hath joined together, may not be put asunder: Live you never so uprightly, yet if either you want a talon, or having one you employ it not, it profiteth you nothing. Again have you never so rich a talon, and employ it never so diligently, yet if your life answer not your doctrine, it availeth you nothing. Either through your inability, or idleness, or wickedness, you murder the souls of men: Mat. 13. 1●. and God will require their blood at your hands. What he hath given you he will surely take from you: and when it is gone you cannot but grow worse & worse; until you rise to the height to impiety, and plunge yourselves into the bottomless pit of everlasting perdition. It is a fearful speech of Saint chrysostom, Quis unquam Clericum lapsum paenitentem vidit? Who ever saw a Minister recover himself after his fall by repentance? And indeed it is but seldom seen. For the sins that are single in others being double in him, and an idle word in an others mouth being as it were blasphemy ' in his: Barn. God punisheth him more rigorously than he doth others. When once he giveth over the conscience of his calling, the spirit of God departeth from him as he did from Saul: 1 Sam. 16.14. and then look what degree of excellency he held before, into the same degree of baseness he degenerates afterwards. The strongest wine turneth into the sharpest vinegar: and the noblest Angels sinning became the ugliest Devils. Mat. 5.13. In like manner is it with us. And if we who are the Salt of the earth, once lose our savour, wherewithal shall we be seasoned? Luc 14.35. We are thenceforth good for nothing, neither for the land nor the dunghill, but only to be cast out, and trodden under foot of men. Take we heed therefore that we dishonour not God, lest he dishonour us: Exod. 20.5. for our God is a jealous God, and his honour is as dear unto him as the apple of his eye. If we bear both Vrim and Thummim in our breastplates, and carry ourselves in his sight both as Good Ministers, and Good men: neither shall we any way dishonour him, neither shall we be causes of contempt upon ourselves, but shall exactly and perfectly observe this Apostolical charge, See that no man despise thee. Yea but will some say, when ye have done all ye can do, and have performed the will of God on earth, as the Angels do in heaven, yet can you not escape contempt from all, but some will still despise you. Grant it. Yet for all this Ne pudeat Evangelij, Rom. 1 16. let us not be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ. for it is the power of God unto salvation. If it proceed of Ignorance, because they know not the worth of the Ministry: let us say with our Saviour Christ. Father forgive them for they know not what they do. Luk. 23.34. If parents bear much with froward children, and Physicians with their frantic patients: why should not we pardon much more unto those, whose souls we hope by the grace of God to save? If it be of wilfulness, then let us put on the greater mind, and with the Emperor Severus, While we are careful of doing our duties, little care what others say of us. Let them spit against Heaven as long as they list, it will surely fall down in their own faces again. Their perverse judgements are to be neglected, & ad honesta vadenti contemnendus est hic contemptus, Sen. of all them that aim at a Crown of Glory this contempt must be contemned. If wicked and sinful men should honour us, we had reason to suspect ourselves, lest all were not well with us: but if they despise us, we have cause to think the more honourably of ourselves. God ceaseth not to be good though it seem not so unto some: Neither is the Sun dark because blind eyes see not the light thereof. Let ignorant & lewd wretches think as they please, yet maugre them all, our calling is of all other the most honourable: and we ourselves if we be both Good Ministers and Good Men deserve of all double honour. Which if we cannot obtain of some, Mat. 11.19. yet shall wisdom still be justified of her own children. Our own consciences, the Saints of God, his blessed Angels shall honour us: yea, as the Prophet speaketh, Esa. 49.5. we shall be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and our God shall be our strength, v. 4. with him is our reward. He will make us rulers over many things here, Mat. 25. 2●. and in the next world enter us into eternal joy.. For as Daniel saith, with whose comfortable words I conclude this exercise, They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness, Dan. 12.3. as the stars for ever and ever. FINIS. THE DOVELIKE SERPENT. OXFORD▪ Printed by I. L. for E. F. 1633. MAT. 10.16. Be ye therefore wise as Serpents and innocent as Doves. FOR the better guiding and ordering of our actions in regard of those offices which we are to perform each unto other, our Saviour in the Gospel hath given this exact & perfect rule, Do as you would be done unto. Which rule the Emperor Alexander Severus though a Heathen so approved and admired, that he caused it to be engraven in his Palaces and all public buildings, and in public executions, also the Crier was commanded to proclaim, Quod tibi fieri non vis alteri ne feceris: do not to another what ye would not have done to yourselves. Briefly, so much was this sentence applauded and esteemed, that at length it was related as a maxim or principle into the Civil law. But here happily some will say, that it would not be amiss to practise this rule towards all, if a man might find the like measure of charity from others again: but if others offer wrongs, and indignities unto me, may not I return like for like? For the better direction of our affections in such cases, our Saviour here prescribeth another most excellent and absolute rule, Be ye wise as Serpents and innocent as Doves: a sentence worthy to be engraven not only in Princes Palaces and places of public judgement, but even in the hearts and consciences of all true Christians. For it is as if he should say in regard of the evils ye may otherwise suffer. Be ye wise as Serpents, but in regard of your own practice, be ye innocent as Doves. And of this Text at this time, it being as I suppose both seasonable and profitable: yet briefly considering the many and important businesses to succeed. All I have to say touching these words may be reduced to two heads, first Christ's counsel, secondly the limitation of the practice of it. Christ's counsel is, Be wise: the limitation, Be innocent: both expressed by way of allegory or Similitude, the Counsel, be wise as serpents, the limitation, Be innocent as Doves. The meaning of all ye shall the better conceive, if ye give me leave in the person of Christ thus to paraphrase it, I do indeed advise you for avoiding of danger and securing of yourselves to be as wise and wary as serpents: but lest ye should mistake me, know that I permit not unto you an unlimited wisdom to compass your designs by what means soever. No, I would have you so to be serpents as ye cease not to be Doves, so to be wise as ye remain also innocent. Be you Serpent-like Doves and Dovelike Serpents, wisely innocent, and innocently-wise. Now of the parts in order, if first by your patience I premise a word or twain of the ground of this Oracle, occasioned thereunto by the illative practice Therefore, Be ye therefore wise as Serpents. This illative argues the sentence to be a conclusion inferred upon some premises. That which Christ hath premised is this, I send you as sheep among wolves. What is that? It is interpreted in the next verse following my Text, Beware of men. Before they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Wolves, now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Men, which if ye join together it maketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Men-wolues, that is men of a wolvish nature & disposition. For although no man would wish unto himself the body of a beast: yet too too many are contented to assume unto themselves the qualities of beasts, and in the shape of men to carry about with them wolvish natures, in ravine, savageness, cruelty & preying upon poor innocent sheep. Seeing therefore ye are to live among such Wolves, Be wise as serpents. True it is that in the golden age, as Poets fain, or rather in the state of innocency and integrity without all fiction the old proverb was true, Homo homini Deus, one man was a God unto another. For before man ambitiously affected to be a God, he was like unto God, and as the coin of God bore his image and superscription. And therefore as God being essentially good, according to the nature of good communicated of his goodness unto all creatures, and specially unto man so man partaking of God's goodness was not envious of it, but freely imparted it unto others. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neitther doth the fountain say drink not, not the autumn gather not: and man being made a fountain as it were & autumn of God's blessing denied not the use and benefit of them unto others. But that gold soon degenerated into hard iron, and man as soon ceased to be as God. For the Serpent stung him to the heart, and transfused into every vein of his soul a most deadly venom and poison whereby his spiritual life was utterly killed: and then instead of the old proverb Homo homini Deus, one man is a God unto another, began a new proverb, one man is a wolf unto another, Homo hominilupus, as appears by that wolvish fact of Cain even in the infancy of the world murdering his own brother. And although about the time of the flood the world were yet in its minority▪ yet as the scripture affirmeth men were waxen Giants in cruelty and inhumanity. Neither may we think that as the world grew elder it waxed better, for experience hath found it too true, Aetas parentum pejor avis cu●it Nos nequiores mox daturos Progeniem viti●siorem, the time of our parents is worse than that of our grandfathers, we are worse than our parents, and we shall leave behind us a posterity worse than ourselves. The Prophet indeed saith that in the latter days, The Wolf shall dwell with the Lamb, and the Leopard shall lie with the Kid, Es. 11.6.7.8. and the Lion with the Calf, and the Bear with the Cow, etc. as if men than should put off their wolvish natures and become innocent Lambs or Doves: But this is not to be understood universally of all, but only of those Wolves and ravenous beasts which are tamed by the spirit of God, and dwell in the mountain of his holiness, among whom is the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace▪ Eph. 4.3. although even in these also, as the Poet speaketh, Pauca quidem superant pristae vestigia fraudis, some relics of the old leven still remain. For being but in part regenerate, no marvel if from the principle of flesh inhabiting in them some inordinate & inconsiderate actions at times proceed. Otherwise we find the prophecy of the holy Apostle duly fulfilled, who foretold, that in the last day's men should be without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, in temperate, fierce, despisers of them that are good, 2. Tim. 3.3.4. traitors, heady, highminded. And doth not this fullness of jails, this abundance of law-quarrels, these tyrannies and oppressions of the poor plainly argue, that although wolves are long ago banished out of this Island, yet of Men-wolues there still remains too great store & plenty. Now yet happier were it for the poor sheep if these Wolves did show themselves only in their own cases: but so it is many times they put on the sheep's fell. And therefore if it be true which one saith, Perierat innocentia si prudens esset nequitia, innocence had perished long ago if wickedness had been cunning, the greater danger to poor innocents. A hard thing is it to escape joabs' stab when his salutation shall be, how dost thou my Brother, or judas treason when it is smoothed over with a kiss and an all hail, or Herod's butchery when he pretends to worship the Infant. So that is most true which Solomon saith that Daily we walk in the midst of snares, and that as our Saviour saith, We are sent abroad as so many sheep among wolves. Now then in regard of these manifold and great dangers what course are we to take? Must we be simple as asses to bear all wrongs? Or make ourselves as butts for every one to shoot the arrows of his injuries against us? Not so: for so doing we should but invite men to lay more load upon us then in the end we should be able to bear. and if thieves, as the Poet speaketh, rise up at midnight to rob and kill men, ut teipsum serves non expergisceris? should not we speedily shift us of our beds to save and preserve ourselves? The best rule than that we can follow is this of our Saniours, Be ye therefore wise as Serpents: for now I come to the first part which is the counsel. And here it were easy for me to play the Physiologer in discoursing at large of the nature of a Serpent, and the Moral Philosopher in reading unto you a lecture of Prudence. But so doing I should much forget the place where I stand, namely the chair of Divinity, transgressing that maxim and principle that Parables and Allegories are no farther to be urged then the author himself intended to extend them. And therefore although it be no difficult matter to find out many witty resemblances betwixt the nature of a Serpent and a wise Christian, yet I leave them all to such as love such witty impertinences, & will keep myself to the plain meaning of Christ. In every similitude, are contained either expressly or inclusively two propositions, which Artificers call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proposition and Reddition. In this similitude the Proposition is this, As serpents are wise, the Reddition, so ought ye also to be wise. So that first I am to speak of the one, and then in the second place of the other. That Serpents are naturally wise and subtle, Moses witnesseth saying that the Serpent was the subtlest beast of the field: Gen. 3.1. and the act of the Devil also argues as much in that he made special choice of the Serpent, as the fittest instrument to beguile the Woman. Whereupon in some languages they use to say by way of proverb, He is wiser than a Serpent. Now the wisdom of the Serpent is double either Offensive or Defensive. Offensive whereby he is cunning to hurt man. For there being a natural Antipathy betwixt the Serpent and Man, and the Serpent knowing well that Man bears him a deadly hatred, he seeketh all opportunities, and lieth in ambush as it were to take his advantage to sting him by the heel. This appeareth by the sentence of God passed upon them both, He shall break thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel: Gen. 3.15. as also by that of old jacob. Gen. 49.17. Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder by the path, biting the horse heels, so that the rider shall fall backward: Eccl. 10.11. and finally that of Solomon, If the serpent bite when he is not charmed no better is a babbler. His Defensive wisdom is whereby he is cunning to defend & preserve himself. For first, if he sees a Man whom he knoweth to be his enemy, forthwith he hasteneth away into his hole to safeguard himself. Secondly, if he cannot so escape, he foldeth all his train about his head, to preserve it as wherein his life principally consisteth. Lastly, if enchanters go about to charm him, he layeth one of his ears close to the ground, and stoppeth the other with his tail, to the end he may not hear their charms and callings, in regard whereof saith David, they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth his ear, which heareth not the voice of the enchanter though he be most expert in charming. These and other such things show his Defensive wisdom: so that the Serpent both offensively and defensively is very wise which is the Protasis or Proposition. The Reddition is, Be ye also as wise. What Offensively as wise? I know many that are of vindictive & revengeful spirits would be glad to be warranted in their humour by Christ's counsel. But such wisdom cannot be here meant, inasmuch as it cannot stand with that which our Saviour presently adds Be innocent as Doves. What is it then? Saint Augustine elegantly thus expresseth it, Esto●e astuti non studio nocendi fed noc●n●●s cavend●▪ be ye wise not to do hurt, but to avoid those that would do hurt. So that the main doctrine and rule is this, That it is lawful, yea expedient and requisite in dangers and troubles prudently and warily to decline and avoid them. Need I to spend time in proving of this? doth not the very instinct of nature command it unto all creatures? We see how the hound flies before the hound, and useth many natural sleights and stratagems to escape the danger: so doth the Partridge also to avoid the talons of the Falcon. Yea even in senseless creatures may we observe the same: The fire fleeth from the air upward to preserve itself in its element, and heavy things fall downward as knowing they are not well till they are in their proper place. But in man it is much more seen: for even in sudden perils when a man hath no leisure to think of avoiding them, if a blow be reached at him, the hand naturally and of itself, will put itself forth or lift itself up to guard him. And indeed to this end hath nature instilled into man a love towards his own self: for as the Philosopher saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every man naturally is a friend to himself. Whereupon the schoolmen say Charitas incipit a seipso, charity ever begins at a man's own self: and where this self-love is, it must needs breed a natural desire to preserve himself. Besides this love nature hath put into him fear also, fear of whatsoever evil would either hurt or destroy him. Now fear as the same Philosopher teacheth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a preserver: whereupon the woman because she is ordained to keep & preserve things at home, is made more fearful than the man. And for this cause also hath God put his fear into the heart of all his Saints to preserve them from that horrible and dangerous sin of Apostasy and falling away from him, as the Prophet saith. So that Fear is as it were the sentinel of the heart, because danger maketh it vigilant, and the nature thereof is contrary to security. Lastly besides this love and fear, there is in man an understanding also and a memory, out of which is bred Experience, and from experience proceeds the moral habit of Prudence, by which man is enabled against dangers both to foresee them and to prevent them. For Prudence, as Cicero saith, is ars vivendi ut medicina valetudinis, the art of living as physic is of health. And what doth all this argue but that it is man's duty to preserve himself? For as men have been most provident and circumspect this way, so have they ever been counted and esteemed most Prudent. Unto this instinct of nature, may we add the warrant of the Gospel. For Grace takes not away nature, but subordinate's nature unto itself: and according to the rule of Logicians, subordinata non pugnant, things subordinate one unto another, do not destroy one the other. Now that the Gospel of grace allows it as well as the law of nature is manifest: for doth not Christ himself allow it ne'er when he saith be wise as serpents? Doth he not say when they persecute you in one city fly into another? vers. 23. Doth not Saint Paul also give us this caveat, beware of dogs, beware of concision? And advise us elsewhere to walk wisely, to walk warily, to walk circumspectly: and again, Alexander the Coppersmith hath done me much evil, 2 Tim. 4.14.15 of whom also do thou beware. Many counsels to this effect have were in the Proverbs of Solomon, among the rest let this one serve for all, Prov. 17. 1●. A prudent man seeth the plague and hideth himself, but the foolish man goeth on still and is punished. Conformable unto these rules, hath the practice of the Saints of God ever been. Noah to avoid the danger of the flood builds an ark and puts himself into it. joseph in Egypt lays up store of corn against the dear years to avoid famishing. joseph and Mary with their young babe, retire into Egypt to avoid the fury of Herod. David wisely provideth for himself to escape all the snares and plots of Saul. Christ himself carefully seeketh to deliver himself from the treacherous designs of his malicious enemies. And memorable is the policy of Saint Paul, who by professing himself to be a Pharisee, set the Pharisees and Saducees by the ears that himself the while might escape them both who both else would have set against him. But some man perhaps will say, what need so many words to prove so clear a case? give us rather some direction how we may keep ourselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without gunshot. Hic labour, hoc opus est, this indeed is the point of difficulty, and if I should attempt it in this wise auditory, happily some one or other would tax me to be as wise as Phormio, who presumed to discourse of military service in the presence of Hannibal the expertest captain of that time. Neither dare I therefore nor will I adventure upon this argument farther than my text leads me, and that briefly, pointing only with my finger to the fountains. Be wise, saith our Saviour Christ as Serpents. How is that? First the Serpent by natural instinct knows man to be his mortal enemy, & that principally he aims at the breaking of his head, and therefore carefully provides for it. So should we wisely seek out who are ill affected towards us, and which way they purpose to assault us: that we may be the more able to prevent them. Sagitta praevisa facilius evitatur, the arrow foreseen is easily declined, and it is easy to countermine when we know which way the mine is carried. Watchfulness then and observation is here required. Again, the Serpent, as we have showed, stops his ears because he will not hear the enchanters charm. So should we also turn the deaf ear unto the crafty insinuations of false & treacherous Sinon's. Blessed is he that feareth always saith Solomon: for distrust is the sinews of wisdom saith the Poet, & bonum est timere omnia ut nihil timeamus, it is good to fear all things that we may fear nothing. Credulity is the bane of honest hearts, but it is wisdom timere Danaos & dona ferentes, to fear an enemy speak he never so fair. Charity you will say is not suspicious: true, without a cause. But when there is cause, wisdom requireth us to be Diffident and Distrustful. Lastly the Serpent being assaulted useth the best shift he can either by covering his head, or by flight to save himself. So should we also in all dangers use such lawful means as are offered us to free ourselves. It is not sufficient to say Dij prohibebunt haec, God will help all: nunquam propter te de coelo descendent, tibi dent mentem oportet ut prohibeas, if thou sit idle he will never come down from heaven to help thee, thou must have a mind to help thyself. To pray unto God for averting dangers without using the means is to tempt God, and to enwrap ourselves farther into danger. But I will proceed no farther in this point, nor read a lecture of wisdom unto those that are far wiser than myself: and it may be some are liker to go too far then to come too short in these matters. I will therefore pass from hence unto the second part, which is the Limitation, if first I may by your patience briefly apply this. This doctrine condemns the great foolishness of those who care not to use caution in any thing, nor toward off any thrust whatsoever is aimed at them. Such was the error of Tertullian in ancient times, who held it unlawful to fly in time of persecution: and such is the peevishness of Anabaptists in these days, who think it unchristian to defend themselves from wrongs and injuries, making themselves outlaws both to God and man, and refusing the benefit of any law. But stark frantic and mad are they who like Caecias' love to draw clouds and tempests on their own heads: right ishmael's whose hands being against all men, draw all men's hands against themselves, provoking and exasperating oftentimes those that are too mighty for them until they be crushed for their labour. More wisdom certainly were it to follow the wise counsel of our Saviour Christ to be wise as Serpents, and to make friends even of the wicked Mammon, if for no other cause yet for a Ne noceat that they do us no hurt. And as this wisdom is to be practised in regard of temporal dangers and such as concern the body, so much more in regard of spiritual dangers and such as concern the soul. Nam pretium pars haec corpore maius habet, the soul is of greater value than the body: for if the body die, yet doth the soul live, and the body shall be reunited to it, happily to live with it eternally: but if the soul perish, the body cannot live but must dye with it for evermore. Oh then, my brethren, seeing our poor souls are every hour in danger, the flesh see●ing to betray us, the world to entrap us, the Devil to devour us, seeing so many wolvish jesuits and Seminaries walk about in ship-skins using all art and cunning to deceive us, and to draw us from the faith of Christ, unto the service of Antichrist: let us that are the children of light labour to be as wise in our generation as they are in theirs, and as they are astuti Serpents study nocendi, crafty serpents to hurt, so let us be prudentes sicut Serpents study nocentes cavendi, wise as serpents in keeping ourselves from being hurt by them. Let us not be in aliis rebus cauti in maximis negligentes, wary in petty matters, and reckless in the greatest, lest we be found too much to prise this present life, & quae vera vita sit ignorare, and to be ignorant of the true life. But specially ought this wisdom to be practised by public persons, and such as have the managing of state businesses, because public evils are ever more dangerous than private. In his moderate Ans. & Mitig. Father Parsons, a deep politician forsooth, in the judgement of Papists, would not have statesmen go about to prevent ensuing dangers because they are only Contingent and nothing else but a May, to the end I think that their treacheries, and intended treasons might not be looked into nor discovered. But whatsoever this cheating Mountebank affirm, it behooveth all public persons carefully to prevent future mischiefs, and to take heed that the commonwealth incur no danger. The neglect of this wisdom is a certain forerunner of destruction. Well Pater●. Cuiuscunque fortunam mutare constituit Deus consilia corrumpit: whose state God meaneth to change, their wisdom he first taketh away. God grant therefore unto his Majesty, and to his council, and all that are in public place under him to be wise as serpents for the prevention of all such evils as threaten our state. The late devilish powdertreason assures us that the endless malice of Hell & Rome will ever be working against us: and that therefore we ought with all providence to stop and countermine them. And so much for the first part which is Christ's counsel. Be wise as Serpents. The next is the limitation of this wisdom for it is not boundless and infinite, but as unto the sea, so unto it also terms are set which it may not pass. Pone modum Prudentiae, set a measure to thy wisdom, Prov. 23.4. saith Solomon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be not wise above that thou oughtest to be wise, saith Saint Paul. And the Philosopher makes it an extreme of Wisdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be wise above measure. What then is the measure, what is the limit of wisdom? Be Serpents, saith our Saviour, yet Doves, be wise yet innocent: Be ye wise as Serpents and innocent as Doves. Be innocent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a word derived from the privative particle ae, and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and signifying simple without mixture: or from the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a horn signifying Harmless or Hurtless. The Syrian translation turns it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect, entire, upright, Tota innocentia, saith Augustine, ad unum verbum justitiae redigitur, innocence is nothing else but justice: and elsewhere. Innocentia est quae nemini nocet nec nocere velit, innocence is that which neither doth nor will hurt any. Be innocent then, and innocent as doves. Not as serpents in the winter time, which though they sting nor then being benumbed with cold, yet are full of venom but as Doves which are utterly void of malice, and have no desire to hurt. For the nature of the Dove is described in this one Distich, Est sine fell, gemit, rostro non laedit, & ungues Possidet innocuos, puraque grana legit, she is without gall, mourneth, hurteth not with her bill, hath harmless claws, and feeds on pure grain. So that all these things considered, Dovelike innocence consisteth in these three things, first to do no hurt, secondly to do all good, thirdly to do both with all sincerity. To do no hurt that we be not vicious, to do all good or else we are not virtuous, and to season all with sincerity or else it is counterfeit virtue and so double iniquity. And these duties are to be performed not only to those that are of the household of faith by reason of that mystical union that is betwixt us and them in Christ, but generally also unto all men being made of the same moulds, and united into the brotherhood of the same blood. So then Innocency is unto Wisdom as Hercules pillars beyond which it may not pass, and our Saviour alloweth men to be wise with Innocence and for Innocence but not against it. But what if by Innocence I cannot escape the danger, must I still persist in mine Innocence? If jobs wife may be judge she will say, Dost thou still continue in thine uprightness? Blaspheme God and dye. job. 2.9. But job telleth her in so saying she is but a foolish woman. vers. 10. For the law of God is eternal, immutable, inflexible, and the breach thereof is sin, and the least sin is greater than the greatest of other evils, as being most repugnant unto the nature of God, and therefore most odious unto him. In regard whereof the true Saints of God would not for a million of lives forgo their Innocence. David though he had both opportunity and power, yet would he not to secure himself lay hands on Saul: 1 Sam. 24.14. according to the ancient proverb, saith he, let wickedness proceed from the wicked, but my hand shall not be upon him. Though he kill me, yet will I trust in him, saith job. If I perish I perish saith Hester, when she was to do a necessary but dangerous duty. We are not careful to answer thee in this matter, neither will we worship thy Idols, say the three children though threatened otherwise to be cast into a fiery furnace. And the prince of Conde being commanded of three things to choose one, either perpetual imprisonment, or death, or to go to Mass, Mass quoth he, I never will, the other two I leave to the Prince's pleasure. But what speak I of Saints? Even heathen men acknowledge that Innocence is to be held notwithstanding all outward evils. It is better saith Socrates, to suffer then to do wrong. There are some things, saith Aristotle, to which a good man must never suffer himself to be constrained, but rather endure all extremities, yea death itself. Whereupon Socrates, I would rather dye a thousand times then forsake my station. And another, the veriest coward in the world am I to do evil: and yet another, it is not the part of a virtuous man to say, this I will not suffer, but this I will not do. And Fabritius obtained that honourable testimony of his enemy Pyrrhus, that the Sun would sooner go out of his course, than he stray out of the way of honesty. So that by the testimony both of nature and grace, the law of innocence is no Lesbian rule, flexible to all occasions: but according to the old saying Fiat justitia & ruant caeli, justice must be done though upon doing the same heaven and earth come together. If this be so, will some men say, how then can we be both wise and innocent at once? Very well, for as Ambrose saith, individuum justitiae & prudentiae contubernium, wisdom and innocence are inseparable companions. For first a man cannot be truly innocent except he be wise. For in all virtuous actions Prudence of necessity must be the director, seeing it is the eye of the soul, without which nothing can be done cum electione & modo upon choice and in measure. Whereupon saith Aristotle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is impossible to be good without wisdom. Secondly, neither can a man be wise without innocence. For although there be a wisdom equivocally so called by reason of the resemblance it hath with the true wisdom, being able both to find out and to menage convenient means unto worldly and evil ends: yet this Saint Paul calleth the wisdom of the flesh, and Saint james, an earthly, sensual, and devilish wisdom. But the true wisdom is from above, & therefore pure, peaceable, easy to be entreated, full of mercy, and good fruits, without judging, and without hypocrisy, that is in one word innocent. Hence is it that the Scripture termeth Sinners Fools because they are not innocent: and the fear of the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the top of wisdom because it is Innocent. Hence also it is that Moses telleth the Israelites their wisdom consisted in observing the commandments of God: and that David saith, by them he became wiser than his teachers, wiser than the ancients. And the same David having advised Princes and judges to be wise and learned, addeth presently kiss the son, intimating thereby that wisdom cannot be without religious innocence. So that as innocence cannot be without wisdom, so neither can a man be wise without innocence. And here in the very light of nature acordeth also with scripture. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Aristotle, it is impossible for a man to be wise and not good, and Cicero saith that unhonest men may be callidi & ve● suti subtle and crafty, but Prudentes wise they can never be. The reason is evident, because whatsoever is not just is not profitable, nay nothing is more unprofitable then to be hurtfully wise: insomuch as Socrates seems to have just cause when he cursed him who first distinguished between profitable and honest. Now to be wise without innocence is very hurtful unto public states, for it overthrows the society of man, if one man may advantage himself by the harm of another. For as in the fable of Menenius Agrippa the whole body soon perished when the rest of the members to ease themselves wronged the belly: so the whole commonwealth will quickly be dissolved if men may be wise for themselves only and hurtful unto others. Neither is such wisdom hurtful only to the public, but also to a man's own self. For sin being the only evil that can hurt a man, he hurts himself most who to decline a little evil of pain, or loss, or disgrace, commits an evil against his own soul. Whereby first he looseth the peace of his conscience, which is the happiness of a man, yea his heaven upon earth. For the just man is as bold as a lion, and a good conscience is a continual feast, saith Solomon. Nay Epicurus himself who placeth the chiefest blessedness of a man in pleasure, confesseth that a man cannot live comfortably unless he live innocently. For as oil preserveth the light of the lamp, so doth innocence maintain peace and joy in the conscience. Again, as by sin the peace of conscience is lost, so it worketh confusion of face in the day of judgement, when men shall be judged not by their worldly wisdom, but according to their innocence. Oh how many will there at that day cry out with Cicero, O me nunquam sapientem, & aliquando id quod non eram falso existimatum, aye me that indeed was never wise, but falsely thought to be what I was not? And with those in the book of Wisdom, C. 5. v. 4.5. We fools thought his life madness, and his end without honour: How is he counted among the children of God, and his portion is among the Saints? But the innocent heart shall then lift up a cheerful countenance, as knowing that though here it were despised, yet there it shall be justified and rewarded with a crown of glory. O innocence, innocence, had I the tongue both of men and Angels yet were I not able sufficiently to extol thee. The man that possesseth thee nothing can hurt, he is every where secure. If he be tempted, it maketh for his advantage, if he be humbled it is for his advancement, if he fight he conquereth, if he be slain he is crowned. In bondage he is free, in danger safe, in tribulation joyful: the righteous love him, the unrighteous in their conscience cannot but approve him, and God himself highly esteemeth of him. Alas, alas that among men innocence should so little be regarded. Every man desireth to have all other things good, a good house, good land, a good wife, good apparel, a good horse, every thing good: but a good and an innocent soul who desireth to have? I cannot but wonder wherein man hath so highly offended his own self, that he should thus wish all the things about him to be good, and himself only to be evil Perhaps thou wilt say, if I may be wise for myself no farther than innocence will give me leave, I shall be a right innocent indeed, living but a poor life, and nothing set by of any. Nought set by of any? What not of God, not of his holy angels, not of his blessed Saints and children? For as for wicked men their honouring doth but avile and abase us. And what talkest thou of a poor life? Is not innocence itself great riches? If thy chest be full of treasure thou countest thyself rich: and canst thou be poor if thy heart be full of innocence? Have thieves, and robbers, and evil men store of wealth, and hath he no riches in store for thee? Yes he hath already bestowed upon thee the treasures of sanctifying graces, and reserveth for thee immortality and glory, and eternal life. O the blessedness of that man who is both wise and innocent! But where shall a man find such a Serpent-dove, such a wise innocent? If a man should light a candle with Diogenes, and narrowly search every corner of the World for him, I think he should hardly find any: but must be fain to cry out with the Prophet David, Help Lord for there is not a good man left. Of wise and deep Machiavillians. I suppose he may readily find more than a good many, such as subordinate religion unto policy, holding that rule in Seneca, Pietas, honestas, pudor privata bona sunt Reges quâ licet eant, piety, honesty, modesty are the virtues of private men, Princes may do what they list: ubi tantum honesta dominantilicent Precario regnatur, he is not an absolute King but reigneth at another's pleasure who may do nothing but what is honest: and that of Lewis the 11. Qui nescit dissimulare nescit regnane, he hath not the feat of governing that cannot dissemble. These how wise soever they seem in their own conceits, are the veriest fools in the world: they say that all state-policy is built upon pretence of religion, and yet saying it is but a pretence they confess they build but on a sandy foundation. The scripture brandeth them for very fools Dixit insipiens, etc. he is but a fool that saith in his heart there is no good. O miseros homines saith Saint Augustine, qui cum voluntesse mali, nolnut esse veritatem quâ damnantur mali! Wretched men who resolving to be evil, would not there should be a truth to condemn the evil. Among these great politicians, who having no religion in them yet carefully take it on them, our superpoliticke jesuits may bear the bell. Who more pious in show? Who more mischievous in practice? Even in their doctrine under the title of Catholic faith they teach Treasons, and murders, and lying, and periuring equivocations: making way to the fulfilling of Christ's prophecy that in the latter time nor faith nor truth should be found on earth. Unto these wise hypocrites, and all others who care more for semblance then substance in religion, give me leave to say with S● chrysostom, O hypocrite, if it be good to be good, why wilt thou seem to be that which thou wilt not be? If it be evil to be evil, why wilt thou be that which thou wilt not seem to be? If it be good to seem to be good it is better to be so: if it be evil to seem to be evil it is worse to be so: wherefore either seem as thou art, or be as thou seemest to be. But let us come home to ourselves and apply this doctrine a little more closely and particularly. That you, my Lords, are wise as Serpents all the world knows: that ye are also innocent as Doves we hope well. If ye should be wise and not innocent, in what danger were we poor sheep whose lives and livelodes after a sort are in your hands? Respect of persons, & the weight of gifts would make our right to be too much slighted, and we should be but as a prey unto Wolves. Oh therefore let that holy Dove which sometime descended upon that Innocent Christ jesus, inspire you also with Dovelike innocency, that ye may have both pure hearts and pure hands. In the scripture ye are called Gods: be ye then as Gods and resemble him. And as he neither taketh bribes, nor accepteth the persons of men, so neither do you: and seeing be hath not chosen the noble or mighty of this world, let them not sway you against the righteous cause of the poor. Be you wise as Serpents to discern where the right lieth, and innocent as Doves in doing every man right. Ye Lawyers and advocates, that are so learned in the Law, even as wise as Serpents, are ye innocent as Doves also? I cannot speak upon knowledge having ever lived a monastical, as it were, and retired life: but the general voice of the world is, No cause so good that you will entertain without a fee, no cause so bade but for your fee you will entertain, selling your tongues to defend unjustice, labouring with your best skill to deceive the judge by niceties and tricks, to oppress the just cause, and to overcome truth for falsehood. How many are there who after they have spent most of their thrift, and that in just suits, complain as the Comical Poet did My Comedy was the better, but my adversaries had the better Actors? And thus ye wax in wealth though ye wane in conscience, not caring how much ye lose within, so ye may abound in riches. For as the world judgeth, your end is not to discharge a good conscience by helping your brother to his right, but how you may prevail in your cause be it right or wrong for the filling of your purses. So that Serpents ye may be, but Doves ye are not, and hardly shall a man find among you one that is both wise and innocent. Ye Nobleses and Gentles of the land that look upon your poor brethren like Anakims as if they were but Grasshoppers in comparison of you, are you both Wise & Innocent or neither? It may be some are both, perhaps so many as the gates of Thebes, or the mouths of Nilus. But as Samuel said unto Saul standing upon his innocence, What meaneth then the bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the Oxen? So may I say unto you, what meaneth the exclamation of the country upon cruel oppressions, intolerable fines, racking of rents, and the like? How wise you are I know not, but sure I am these are not the fruits of innocence, and so you are not both wise innocent. But how many among you are neither, nor wise, nor innocent? Learning and knowledge ye disdain to have yourselves, and ye despise them that have it● swaggering, swearing, smoking of Tobacco, carousing, hunting, hawking, are almost become essential to a Gentleman: so that perhaps he defined not much amiss who said, A Gentleman was a beast riding upon a beast with a beast on his fist, having beasts following him and himself following beasts. And yet forsooth this Gentleman that is nil nisi Cecropides, nothing but descended of Trojan blood, otherwise having not one commendable quality in him, will not stick to outbrave the best, and bear himself as far better than other men. So did a horse some time, I am better than thou, for I come of a better fire, I feed on better provander, I have richer furniture than thou: but quoth another horse unto him, if thou he better than I, come and run with me: in like manner say I, if ye boast yourselves to be the better men, let it appear in the virtues of a man Wisdom and Innocence. Sed lingua quo vadis, whither strayest thou o my tongue? I will say no more lest I transgress against the first part of my Text not being so wise as a serpent: and yet have I been bold to say thus much because I would practise the second part and discharging my duty be as innocent as a Dove? To conclude therefore all in a word, I could wish that what Christ hath joined together, no man would put asunder: and that as Righteousness and Truth, so Wisdom and Innocency may kiss each other, to the end that being Wise as Serpents our Innocence may be safe, and being Innocent as Doves our Wisdom may be saving. Nevertheless of the two it is better to be Innocent without Wisdom, then to be Wise without Innocency: less Wise so that more honest. For as Tertullian saith, Praestat minus sapere quam peius, errare quam fallere, better is it to be less wise than sinfully wise, and to stray ourselves then to lead others out of the way. The holy Ghost in Scripture is resembled to a Dove & appeared in the shape thereof, the devil is compared to a serpent and used it for his instrument. Illa à primordio divinae pacis praeco, the Dove in the beginning brought an Olive branch in her mouth and preached peace unto the world: ille à primordio divinae imaginis praedo, the serpent in the beginning played the thief and robbed mankind of the image of God. The Serpent is accursed of God to creep upon his belly, and to lick the dust of the earth, all his portion is in this life: but the Dove hath wings given unto her, even the wings of innocence, covered with silver, and whose feathers are like unto the yellow gold, whereby as David saith she may fly away from hence and be at rest. For when she hath traveled over the world, & by reason of the deluge of vanities wherewith it is overwhelmed can find no resting place here below, then may she betake her to her wings, and mount up aloft into heaven, where our Nöe even jesus Christ our blessed Saviour and redeemer will be ready to stretch forth his hand and to receive her into the ark of eternal glory and blessedness. Unto which the Lord bring us for his Christ's sake. FINIS. SUBJECTION To the HIGHER POWERS. OXFORD Printed by I.L. for E. F. 1633. ROME 13.5. Ye must needs be subject not only for Wrath, but also for conscience. ALthough I doubt not but a grave and learned Divine may without presumption take upon him to inform and advise and civil Magistrate in the duties of his calling, the science he professeth being architectonical and all other sciences, even that of government being subordinate thereunto: yet is it not my meaning at this time to adventure so high. I know mine own insufficiency, and you my Lords are as Angels of God. My purpose rather is to address my speech unto those of inferior place, and to advise them unto that which to me seems more necessary, Subjection and Obedience. More necessary I say for notwithstanding the negligence and corruption of Magistrates, common wealths have a long time subsisted and continued: but without Subjection and Obedience they cannot. And wisely was it answered by a certain Lacedaemonian unto Theopompus, imputing the long continuance and flourishing of the Spartan state unto the skilful government of the Magistrates, that it was rather to be ascribed unto the ready and willing Obedience of the people. Howsoever, it is evident I am sure in experience that it is most necessary, and my Text in express terms avoucheth it, Ye must needs be subject not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience. For the better husbanding of the time, and that I be not prevented thereby, I will not spend any part thereof in depending my Text upon the former words of this Chapter, but will consider it as a perfect and entire sentence in itself. Therein may it please you to observe with me two parts, A duty, & the Necessity of the same. The Duty is Subjection▪ ye must be subject. Which being a word of Relation, I must needs consider with it both the correlatives, that is to say, 1ᵒ. the Object or to whom Subjection is to be yielded. 2ᵒ. The Subject, or by whom it is to be yielded. 3o. the Relation or Duty itself, subjection. As for the Necessity, it is expressly affirmed, Ye must needs be subject: and that for two causes, first because of Wrath, secondly because of Conscience. And these are the limits within which I mean to bond myself at this time, not enlarging my speech in any part as easily I might, but only in regard of the weighty businesses succeeding summa sequens fastigia rerum. First therefore of the Duty, and therein also first of the Object to whom subjection is to be yielded. Who that is our Apostle plainly resolveth in the first verse of this Chapter, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: as also in his Epistle to Titus, Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, and to obey Magistrates. Tit. 3.1. ye must then be subject to the higher powers, ye must be subject to Magistrates. What Powers? What Magistrates? the Ecclesiastical or Civil, or both? Surely unto the Ecclesiastical Magistrate subjection is due, for as S. Paul saith, 1. Tim. 5.17. the Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour, specially they that labour in the word and doctrine. And again, Heb▪ 3.17. Obey them that have rule over you, and submit yourselves for they watch for your souls. Howbeit in this place not he, V. 4. but the Civil magistrate only is understood: for he only beareth the sword, forcing to obedience, executeth vengeance on him that doth evil, V. 6. & receieth tribute and custom, as it is in the fourth and sixth verses, which are things no way belonging unto the spiritual power. Peter must not strike with this sword, Peter must pay this tribute money. Ye must needs then be subject to the Civil Magistrate. But what Civil Magistrate? For he is either supreme, or subordinate. The supreme (to say nothing of other states and polities) in a Monarchy is the King, in whom the Majesty and sovereign authority primarily and originally resides, even as the light is radically in the sun: being, as Tertullian speaketh, Homo solo Deo minor, only inferior unto God, à Deo secundus, post eum primus, ante omnes, & super omnes, second unto God, after him the first, before all and above all, independent upon any other, subject to the control of no superior power. Subordinate Magistrates are they who derive their authority from the sovereign, as stars do their light from the sun. For it being too heavy a burden for one man by himself alone to govern so great a multitude: sovereigns have been forced to devolue some part of their charge upon others, and to honour them with some part of their authority for the discharge thereof: Exod. 18.13. etc. Moses the sovereign judge of the Israelites sitting alone from morning to evening to judge the people. jethro his father in law told him plainly, the thing thou dost is not well, advising him to authorise under him certain men that were of courage, feared God, loved true dealing and hated covetousness, to be rulers over the people. This counsel Moses followed, and God approved, and upon the same ground in all nations ever hath been practised. Now than if question be demanded, to whether Magistrate, Subjection is to be yielded, the Sovereign or the Subordinate? I answer, to both. Ver. 1. Let every soul, saith Saint Paul, be subject to the higher powers: he speaketh indefinitely without exception of any. But Saint Peter expressly speaketh of both and for both, 1 Pet. 2.13.14. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whither to the King as supreme, or unto governors as unto them that are sent by him. Yet here is it to be observed, that although Subjection be due to both, yet not alike to both: but to the Sovereign first & in the highest degree, because the fullness of power originally rests in him, and unto the Subordinate next and in inferior degree, because they have it but in part and at the second hand. And these again because they are not all stars of the same magnitude, but one differeth from another in glory, and Moses hath appointed some to be rulers of thousands, some of hundreds, some of fifties, some of ten: to every one subjection is due, not in the same measure, but according to their several places, and the power which they have received. And so much for the Object. The Subject by whom Subjection is to be yielded, is whosoever relatively is opposed to the Higher Powers. Now to the Supreme and highest power every man without exception is opposed, even Subordinate Magistrates themselves. For as in Logic that Genus which they call Subaltern, though it be a Genus in respect of those Species that are under it, yet in regard of the Genus above it is but a Species: even so Subordinate Magistrates what place soever they hold in relation to their inferior, in respect to the Sovereign or King they are but mere subjects and owe subjection as far forth as any other. And as when the sun appeareth all other stars are eclipsed and loose their light, & rivers when they fall into the sea forgo their names: so in the presence of the Prince all inferior power and authority is swallowed up and vanisheth into nothing. But both unto the Prince, and to his Substitutes all private men to whom the Sovereign hath committed no part of his power are so opposed, & therefore must be subject unto them. There is no exemption of any: Let every soul, saith the Apostle, be subject, speaking universally. Neither meaneth he by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every soul, Psychicos only, that is animal and lay-men, as some Papists expound it: but all men indifferently, Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Monks, as chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius affirm. Nay the Pope himself is not exempted from this generality, saith Bernard. And. God hath made Kings rulers not only over Soldiers, but over Priests also, saith Pope Gregory. In the old Testament Aaron was subject unto Moses, and Priests and Levites to the Prince: in the new Testament Christ himself submitted himself unto the secular power, and St Paul appealed unto Caesar, at whose judgement seat, he saith, he ought to be judged. In a word, the law of nature requireth Subjection of all, the law of Moses requireth the same, so doth the Gospel too, and therefore let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. And so much also of the Subject. As touching the Relation or Duty, that, from the higher Powers to the inferior is Rule & Government, of which neither was it my purpose, neither doth my Text occasion me now to speak: but from the inferior to the superior it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subjection. Ye must be subject. This Subjection is not a point, but hath latitude, and includeth within it sundry duties, all which notwithstanding (as I conceive) may be reduced unto three, answerable unto those three eminencies and excellencies that are in the Magistrate. For there is in the Magistrate, first the eminency of person and degree, than the excellency of power and authority, and lastly, the dignity of his work and operation: and every one of these deserveth accordingly to be requited with a several duty. First then there is in the superior powers an eminency above others in regard of their persons, as being the vicegerent and lieutenants of the King of heaven and earth, & not as other men, but after a peculiar manner in majesty and dominion bearing the image of God; the God of heaven, as Daniel saith, Dan. 2. having given unto them a Kingdom, power, strength, and glory. In which respect they are styled in Scripture Principalities and Powers, Dominations and Dignities, the Lords anointed, yea Gods, Dixi, Dij estis, I have said ye are Gods. This eminency and excellency in the Magistrate is to be answered with Honour and Reverence from us. Prov. 24.21. My son, fear the Lord and the King, saith Solomon. 1 Pet. 2.17. Fear God, honour the King, saith Peter. Honour thy Father and thy Mother, saith the fifth commandment; not those natural parents only which have begotten us, but Patres patriae, the fathers of the country also. This Honour and Reverence (as I understand) includeth within it a triple act, first of the mind in a due estimation and valuing of their place and dignity, secondly of the will in an humble inclination thereof unto them because of their excellency, thirdly of the body in outward behaviour & carriage towards them, as rising up in their presence, bearing the head, bowing the knee, reverend speaking unto them, and such like, according to the manner of the country where we live. Nevertheless of these three the second is the principal and most proper act of Honour: for a man may know the worth of a thing, and yet be no whit affected towards it, Rom. 1. as the Gentiles knew God, yet glorified him not as God: and outward demeanour & comporement what show of reverence soever it have, yet may proceed of scorn and derision, as was that of the jews towards Christ. But if upon apprehension of the Magistrates worth and excellency, the heart be inclined and duly affected therewith, all external acts of reverence will surely follow of themselves. Such a one will ever set the best construction on all their actions, interpreting nothing sinisterly, he will conceal their errors and infirmities and with Sem and japhet going backward cover them, he will not suffer them either in their persons or actions to be traduced or dishonoured, but will carefully defend or excuse them. In a word, he will not somuch as entertain an evil thought against them, so far is he from saying or doing aught that may detract from them. And so much of the first duty Honour and Reverence. The second eminency in the magistrate is the excellency of Power and Authority: whereby he enacteth and ordaineth laws for the well government of the commonwealth, commanding that which is good, forbidding that which is evil, advancing the well deserving, and punishing those that either transgress or neglect his commandments: briefly having the greatest power that can be on earth, ius vitae atque necis, power of life & death. Now unto authority who seeth not that Obedience is due? Put them in mind, Tit. 3.1. saith Saint Paul, to obey Magistrates: and indeed to what end is authority and power to command, if every man notwithstanding might refuse to obey and do what he list? But here we are to be advertized, that as the Magistrates authority is not infinite, so there are bounds set unto our Obedience. Princes though they be sovereigns in regard of their subjects, yet are they viceroys in regard of God. Regum timendorum in proprios greges, Reges in ipsos imperium est jovis: Kings command their people, and God them. Omne sub Regno graviore Regnum est: every Kingdom is under a greater Kingdom. If then they command under God we must obey, if against God, we must say with the Apostle, it is better to obey God then man. Hand over head to yield a Monkish and blind obedience unto them, is to advance man into the throne of God, and to give unto another the glory only due to him, & withal to incur●e the fearful curse threatened unto Israel for observing the wicked statutes of Ahab and Omri. Mic. 6.16. True it is we must give unto Cesar the things that are Caesar's, and so must we give unto God the things that are Gods. If any ask quis prohibet, who forbids in such cases to obey? Say maior potestas a greater power. If they threaten, answer with Saint Augustine, Da veniam, tu carcerem, ille gehennam minatur, thou threatnest the body with imprisonment, he both body and soul with hell fire. Only take heed, first that thou be not lead by fancies and imaginations, but be sure that they command against God, secondly that denying obedience thou do it in all humility without scandal or contempt, lastly that yet thou be content to obey passively, and whatsoever they shall command within the sphere of their activity, and not against God, that thou be ready also to obey actively. And so much of the second duty, Obedience. The third and last eminency in the magistrate is the dignity and excellency of his work, which is exceeding great. Ver 4.6. For he is the Minister of God for our wealth, saith Saint Paul and thereunto he applieth himself. He is custos utriusque tabulae, the guardian and keeper of both the tables of the law, 1 Tim. 2.2. that under him we may lead a godly and a peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Were it not for him every one would do what seemed good in his own eyes, and men like wolves would pray one upon another: but now by him every man enjoys his own, violence is repressed, justice is executed, religion is maintained, and humane society preserved. To procure these things, and to attend the public good, as it is a worthy, so it is also a difficult work. Hom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he may not sleep all night that hath taken charge of a commonwealth: and they that have worn it, have both felt and confessed that a Diadem is no small burden: so that it is not without cause that in the holy tongue the same word signifieth both an honour and a burden. For this worthy work so difficult unto the Magistrate, so profitable unto us, what duty are we to return? Even hearty thankfulness, and all possible requital. Verbal thanks are due, yet are they alone too slight a reward for so great a work, we are farther to requite him in our livelodes with tribute and custom, as the Apostle chargeth, and that not niggardly, and only to supply his necessities, but bountifully and proportionably unto his state and dignity. Nay because otherwise we can never make him full satisfaction, and were owe even our very selves unto him, even ourselves must we bestow upon him, and be ready to do him service with the expense not only of livelihood, but of life also. Dignus est operarius mercede sua, the labourer is worthy of his hire. But above all we must ever remember to make our addresses and prayers unto God for our Kings, 1 Tim. 2.2. & all that are in authority under them, that God would give them (to use the words of Tertullian) vitam prolixam, Apol. c. 30. imperium securum, domum tutam, exercitus fortes, senatum fidelem, populum probum, orbem quietum: a long life, a secure reign, safety at home, valiant armies abroad, faithful counsellors, good subjects, and a peaceable World. And thus have I finished the first part of my text, which is the Duty, Subjection. The next part followeth which is the necessity thereof: for it is not an arbitrary duty, nor left indifferent unto our choice whether we will be subject yea or no, but necessity is laid upon us, ye must needs be subject, saith our Apostle, or as it is in the original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of necessity ye must be subject. But what? May not a man refuse to be subject if he list? Doubtless he may. How then is it necessary as you say, not arbitrary? For clearing of this point it may please you to remember that there is a double Necessity, the one Absolute, and Simple, the other hypothetical and Conditional. Simple Necessity is that which cannot otherwise be, being infallibly and immutably determined unto one: and such necessity of subjection is not here meant, for it is manifest by experience, and the more is the pity, that too many too often refuse to be subject. Conditional necessity is that which Simply considered may be otherwise, but such or such things being supposed cannot be otherwise▪ and this Necessity is here understood as appeareth by the very text, ye must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience, as if he should say, if either ye will avoid wrath, or else will keep a good conscience, of necessity ye must be subject. So that we are bound to Subjection by a double tie, the first is Humane, the second is Divine; the Humane is the Wrath of the Magistrate, ye must needs be subject because of wrath, the Divine is Conscience towards God, ye must be subject also because of conscience. And of these two briefly. Wrath is a passion seated in the Invading part of the soul of man, whereby he desireth to keep off, or to remove whatsoever is nocive & hurtful unto him, & that by way of invading and assaulting him who either would do, or hath done us hurt. For as man naturally desireth to preserve and keep that good whereof he is possessed, and to obtain that farther good, which he seeth to be convenient for him: so if any go about to bereave him of the one or to bar him from the other, presently the blood begins to boil about the heart, and anger so inflames him, that he cannot let him alone, but must needs resist him and set against him with all his might. Hence is it that the philosopher calls anger cotem fortitudinis, the whetstone of courage, and diverse define it to be appetitum vindictae, desire of revenge. How truly and philosophically I despute not, sure I am revenge usually waits upon wrath, and our Apostle joins them both together, Ver. 4. a revenger, saith he, to execute wrath. Now the Magistrates duty is to procure the public good, & videre nequid respub. detrimenti capiat, to provide that the common suffer no detriment or harm. If therefore any shall hinder the public good, or shall work any disadvantage or damage unto the state, the wrath of the Magistrate ought to burn against such a man. And as God when his laws are broken, or himself any way dishonoured waxeth angry with man: so these Gods on earth, these vicegods, when men by contemning their authority, and denying them due subjection go about to disturb and set combustion in the state, have just cause to be angry and to seek revenge upon them. But Wrath and desire of revenge in him that wanteth power is vain and foolish according to that of the Poet Quid stulti proprium? Auson. non posse & velle nocere, it is the property of a fool wanting ability to desire to do hurt: but in him who hath not only will, but strength and power also to be revenged, it is dangerous and terrible. Fulmen est ubi cum potestate habitat iracundia, it is no less than thunder and lightning when anger and power meet together. And such is the wrath of the Magistrate, Prou. 16. the wrath of a Prince is as the roaring of a lion, and the anger of a King is as messengers of death, Pro●. 18. saith Solomon. For laws have ever been backed with severe penalties, as mults, imprisonment, banishment, dismembering, torments, death, yea cruel kinds of death, as appeareth by the laws of all other nations, and those of Moses also whereof God was author. The reason is because men are wild beasts, and would desperately break through all laws, were they not so kerbed & restrained. & bona est ars terrere ne pecces, it is great wisdom to terrify to the end that men sin not. But what are laws unless they be duly executed? Surely but scarcrows and bugbears: & therefore unto the Magistrate is the due execution of them committed, and into his hand is the sword of justice put, not to let it lie rusting in the sheath, but to draw it forth against offenders, and that first for the satisfaction of justice that the party delinquent may receive condign punishment, and then for the example of others, that Israel may see and fear. Deut 13.1. For although paena ad unum, the penalty light but on one, yet metus ad omnes, it is intended for the terror of all, not to walk in those ways which lead unto so fearful ends. And indeed to what end hath God put into the heart of man this passion of fear, but to decline and avoid all such evils as would destroy him or afflict him? Take away fear, and men will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 despise all danger, and run headlong into all mischief: but fear is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of a preserving nature, as saith the philosopher, inclining and persuading man carefully to keep himself from dangers. If then to come to an issue, ye will not work mischief unnaturally unto your own selves, if ye will avoid the Magistrate's fury, if ye will not incur the rigour of the law, nor fall upon the edge of the sword of justice, ye must needs be subject. But what need, will some man say, so much to fear the Wrath of the Magistrate? May not a man hide his counsels so deep, and carry his actions so cunningly that nor witness nor judge shall know them? If they come to light and be discovered, doth not greatness break through laws as wasps do through cobwebs? May not judges, jury, witnesses, by friends, favour, bribes be corrupted? Are pardons impossible to be obtained from Princes? Nay suppose the worst, that the penalty of the law can by no means be escaped, what care they for fines and amercements who are content to beggar themselves to enjoy their pleasures? What for shame and ignominy, who are grown impudent in all wickedness? What for death, who count it worse than death not to live as they list, and to be barred from their desires? For there have been who have said moriar modo regnet, let me dye so he may be King, and, aut Caesar aut nihil, an Emperor or nothing. To all this I answer briefly, first trust not unto secrecy, but remember what wise Solomon saith, Eccl. 10.20. Curse not the King no not in thy thought, neither the great one in thy bedchamber, for the foul of the Heaven will carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall declare the matter. Secondly, hope not for impunity: many as great, as gracious, as wealthy as thou have failed thereof: and how knowest thou but one time or other thou mayst meet with one who will accept nor thy person, nor thy fee, but will say unto thee with Saint Peter, thy money perish with thee. Lastly, if any have so far put off natural affection as not to fear Wrath, choosing rather to fall into the hands of justice then to be restrained from his wickedness: let such a one know, that what Wrath cannot, yet Conscience should work in him. For here it must freely be confessed that Wrath of itself is not sufficient: it striketh at the branches, not the root, and endeavoureth to reform outward actions, but reacheth not unto the cause which is inward corruption. Which remaining in us, Wrath happily may make us more wary in offending, but cannot work in us a love of goodness, and a desire not to offend at all. Wherefore God in his deep wisdom hath thought it good to bind us unto subjection not by a single but double tie▪ and unto Wrath to add Conscience, Ye must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience. Conscience is that faculty or power of the Practical understanding in man, whereby he is privy to all his actions whether they be immanent and conceived within, as thoughts, or emanant and issuing forth, as his words and works. This Conscience is then said to be bound, when by him who hath power and authority over it, it is charged to perform its duty, that is to bear witness of all our actions unto God, and according to the quality of them to excuse or accuse us: for that these are the duties of conscience plainly appeareth by that of S. Paul, Rom. 2.15. their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing or excusing. This charge is then laid upon the Conscience, after that by the same authority man himself is bound: for man being free, Conscience also is free, but man being bound by a law, Conscience stands bound also. But who is the binder of the conscience? God without question. He is the Lawgiver, jam. 4.12. saith S. james, that can both save and destroy: and he, as S. john saith, is greater than the conscience. But can the Magistrate also by his laws bind the conscience? Papists attribute unto us the Negative, that they cannot: themselves hold the Affirmative, that they can, and warrant it by this my Text, Ye must be subject for conscience. Upon this plain song sundry of them descant very pleasantly, but none plays the wanton more than Doctor Kellison, who infers that we despoil Princes of authority and superiority, and give subjects good leave to rebel and revolt, that we bring judges, and Tribunal seats, and all laws into contempt, that no Prince can rely on his subjects, no subjects on their Prince or fellow subjects, in a word, that we take away all society and civil conversation. To all which I answer briefly. First suppose the main ground were true, yet neither can they prove it out of my Text, nor do such absurdities follow thereupon. Out of my Text they cannot prove it, for that only affirms that the Conscience is bound, but determines not that man's laws bindeth it. Neither do such absurdities follow, for albeit we should deny man to be the binder, yet do we freely profess that the Conscience is bound, which is enough. But we answer farther that they much abuse us: for we deny not rem, that they bind, only we differ from them in modo, maintaining that they bind not in such manner as they teach. They hold that men's laws bind non minùs guàm lex divina, Bellarm. equally with God's laws, so that were there not any law of God binding to Subjection yet man's law of itself and of its own power would bind. This we deny, teaching contrarily that humane laws bind the Conscience not immediately but mediately, not primarily but secundarily, not in themselves & of their own power, but in the force and virtue of Divine law: Divine law, I say, whether that which is imprinted in the heart by nature, or that which is revealed unto us by Scripture, both which command Subjection. This truth in f●w words thus I demonstrate. First, if man's law immediately bind the Conscience, then is every transgression thereof without farther respect unto God's law a mortal sin. But so it is not, for according to St john's definition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sin is a transgression of the law, meaning not man's but God's law only: in regard whereof St Augustine saith more expressly, Sin is dictum, factum, concupitum, any saying, doing, or coveting against God's law. Besides if man of himself without respect unto God's law can bind the conscience, than either is he Lord of the conscience, and may himself convent it, examine it, take its testimony, and accordingly proceed to sentence either of life or death both upon body and soul: or he hath power to command God to sit in judgement upon the Conscience, and to be the executioner of his laws: or finally he binds the Conscience in vain and to no purpose. To say that man is in such sort Lord of the Conscience is unreasonable because his knowledge and power reach no farther than the outward man. To say that man may command God, is sacrilegious, advancing man above God. Lastly, to say that he bindeth in vain and to no purpose, is withal to say that their opinion is vain, and that man hath no such power at all. To shut up all in a word, unless a man may with as much security obey man as God, man who is subject to error and injustice, as God who is free from both; unless we be all as deeply bound to study the laws of men and to know them, as we are Gods, and to subject ourselves as absolutely unto them, it is altogether unconceavable how humane laws can bind the Conscience equally with divine. This point being thus cleared it is evident that by conscience in this place we are with St Peter to understand Conscientiam Dei, 1. Pet. 2.29. conscience towards God; and to interpret this of St Paul, Veri 13. ye must be subject for conscience, by that of the same St Peter, Submit yourselves unto every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, as if he should say, because God hath bound you to be subject. For God hath laid this obligation upon man, appears by the very institution of Magistracy. For although St Peter call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a humane creature, yet his meaning is not that it is not from man, but for man and his benefit: otherwise S. Paul expressly affirmeth that it is the ordinance of God, and Solomon that by him kings reign. Ver. 2. The reason moving God to institute the same was, partly his sovereign Lordship over man by right of creation, by which he may order and dispose of him at pleasure, partly the great love he beareth unto humane society, which his infinite wisdom saw could not so well be maintained, if every man should be left to himself, and orderly government were not settled among them. Hereupon he ordained some to be in authority, some to live in subjection: commanding the one to rule according to justice and equity, the other to submit themselves with all lowliness and humility, as (I mean touching subjection) hath in the first part (which is the Duty) been sufficiently declared. Now man being thus by the commandment and ordinance of God bound, Conscience cannot be free: but as man shall either subject or not subject himself, so is Conscience bound to testify for or against him, and to excuse or to accuse him. If then ye break the commandment of God, and refuse to be subject, there is one who will surely accuse you and will not spare, a witness whose testimony is omni exceptio ne majus better then a thousand witnesses that will testify against you, even your Conscience. But to whom will it accuse? Unto that great and dreadful judge of the whole world, whose wisdom can not be deceived, whose justice cannot be corrupted, and the execution of whose sentence cannot be avoided. And what will the sentence be? Perpetual imprisonment in the bottomless dungeon of hell, & therein eternal torments both of body and soul: which although it be not presently executed upon you, yet the worm of conscience instantly will begin to gnaw upon your souls, & fill you so full of unspeakable horror and anguish that your life shall be but a death, and this world a hell unto you. But if on the contrary side ye shall for the Lords sake, and in obedience to his ordinance yield subjection unto the higher powers, and under them live dutifully in all godliness and honesty: then shall your consciences testify nothing but good of you, and excuse you unto God, he shall justify and acquit you, your soul shall be replenished with unspeakable peace and comfort, so as ye shall have a heaven upon earth, and in heaven itself in due time such joys as nor eye hath seen, nor ear heard, nor ever entered into the thought of man. To conclude and sum up all, if either we will keep a good conscience, that we may both here and ever be blessed, or will avoid the sting of an evil conscience, and the miseries that attend upon it, we must of necessity be subject. Ye must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience. And thus have I finished the second part also, which is the Necesstie of the duty. It only remaineth now to add a word or two by way of use and application. There is a generation of whom both St Peter and St jude speak, 2. Pet. 2.10. that despiseth all government, jud. 8. and speaketh evil of Dignities, clean contrary unto the doctrine of my Text, which commandeth all to be subject, and to honour and obey the Magistrate. But these are not all of the same kind: for some despise it out of an erroneous judgement, others out of an evil habit and custom. They that despise it upon error, are either Anabaptists or Papists. The Anabaptists a fanatical & fantastical sect, utterly mislike all government and subjection among Christians. It is not without cause that S. jude calleth such kind of people Dreamers, Ver. 8. for so indeed they are, and their dream is this, that Sin is the cause of Subjection: and although it were ordained and allowed to the jews because they were but infants, yet fits it not us Christians that are in the state of perfection. Shall I dispute against this dotage and show that even among those blessed spirits that are free from sin & still persist in the truth there are Thrones, Dominations, Powers, Principalities, Angels, and Archangels? That if man had continued in his integrity, yet government should have been▪ inasmuch as man naturally is sociable and disciplinable, the moral law commands to honour father and mother, the end of government is Peace with Piety and Honesty, and one man even then should have stood in need of another? That finally there is now as great a necessity thereof as was among the jews, and that the new Testament would never have commanded Subjection, or to pray for Magistrates if it were a sin for a Christian to be a Magistrate? But I will not vouchsafe them the honour to dispute with them: let it suffice in this honourable auditory barely to affirm, first that a Christian safely may be a Magistrate: secondly, that none is fitter than he, because no man better knows the duty of a Magistrate than he: Lastly that no man can so completely and perfectly perform the office of a Magistrate but he, because no man understands the true religion which he is to maintain, and by which he is to govern, but he. As for Papists, although they do not thus reject all government, yet do they many ways both in doctrine and practise avile and abase it. For first they give unto the Pope a supremacy over Princes, even unto Deposition, and depress them so far, as to hold the basin and ewer to him, to serve in the first dish at his table, to hold his stirrup, to lead his horse, yea to be his horses too and to carry him on their shoulders. All this I marvel by what right. Aaron advanced not himself above Moses, Christ denied his kingdom to be of this world, Peter claimed no such power, ancient Popes acknowledged Kings and Emperors to be their good Lords and Masters. The first that usurped it was a mushroom of the last night, that brand of hell Hildebrand, whom therefore Baronius makes the pattern of a perfect Pope, as Machiavelli doth that monster Caesar Borgia of a perfect Prince. Secondly, as they subject all Monarches to the Bishop of Rome, so he exempteth all Clerks from their jurisdiction, etiam unctos culinae, their cooks and skullions too, erecting to himself a Monarchy in every state, possessing a third part in them, affirming that Kings may not punish his Clerks because they are not their subjects, threatening them with a thunderbolt from the Vatican if they shall presume so to do. This also I marvel by what law. Divine? we have demonstrated the contrary. Humane? Prince's cannot grant such privileges as derogate from their sovereignty. But since the Church of Rome is turned into a Court, no marvel if Christian liberty also be changed into temporal franchises and immunities. Finally they teach that if a Prince become a tyrant, or be an heretic, or excommunicate, it is lawful then to arm against him, to set upon him with dags, knives, poisons, yea if need be to undermine and blow up whole Parliaments with gunpowder: and if any of them for such practices be convented before the Magistrate, they may elude their examinations with equivocations and mental reservations, as they term it in their canting language, but in true and plain speech hellish lying and perjury. Certainly for these traitorous and more than heathenish doctrines, ye may be sure in scripture they have neither precept nor example: out of the Scripture the only precedents they can have, are the ancient Pharisees whom josephus reporteth to have been great enemies unto kings, and Mahometan Assasins, whose profession it was to murder Christian Princes: and for cogging and cheating the Priscillian heretics, whose rule was jura, perjura, secretum prodere noli, swear, forswear, and bewray not in any case the mysteries of our sect and profession. But besides Anabaptists, and Papists, there are others whose doctrines are sound and good, yet out of an evil habit and custom yield not unto Magistrates their due honour. And are there not among us too many of this kind? What muttering, what whispering, what censuring, what sinister construction set upon every action, what discovering, what blazing of infirmities, what so high but we will reach at, what so deep but we will be sounding the bottom of? Is this the honour, is this the obedience, is this the thankfulness wherewith we requite our governors? You will say they are unjust, tyrants, oppressors, bribers, God forbid: yet suppose it were so. What if parents wrong their children, and husbands be froward to their wives: shall children therefore dishonour their parents, and wives their husbands? As we delight in fair weather, so must we also patiently endure storms and tempests when they come. Hard Rehoboam must have subjection as well as David: and servants must be subject not only to good and courteous, 1. Pet. 2. but also to froward Masters. Happily our sins have deserved such chastisement, and then in wrath God sendeth evil Magistrates. A certain holy man, they say, expostulated on a time, with God why he had permitted Phocas, being so cruel a man to be Emperor: to whom a voice answered, that if a worse man could have been found he should have been set over them, the wickedness of the world requiring it. In these cases the only weapons of Christians are preces & lachrymae, fasting and prayer: and whatsoever Magistrates be, st●●l we must needs be subject. We must be subject for fear of wrath, for there is no mocking with princes. Durum est scribere contra cos qui possunt proscribere, it is dangerous to contest with them that can outlaw us and turn us out of all we have, and to jest with those that can gladio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, return the jest back again with the sword. But to be subject for Wrath only is no pleasing sacrifice unto God: nimis angusta est innocentia ad legem tantùm bonum esse, it is but a poor innocence that is forced by law. No we must be subject for Conscience, for the Lords sake. If the heathen man being damned, what he had learned by the study of Philosophy, could answer to do that willingly which others do by compulsion: should not a Christian be ashamed not to learn so much by Christian religion? The first lesson that Christian religion teacheth is humility: if this be once learned, Conscionable subjection will soon follow. For where pride reigns Omnes dominari, nemo servire vult, every one will be a King, none will be subject: but Humility is a virtue that fits us Obedience and to do the commandments of others. As for you, my Lords, to whom according to your place subjection is due, give me leave to address my speech unto you in the words of the Apostle to Titus, See that no man despise you. Neither let the speech seem strange unto you, for if you be despised, it proceeds mostly from your own default, either you are not such men or such Magistrates as you should be. It is a great incongruity to look for honour while your actions are dishonourable, and to be called and counted Lords being servants unto base lusts and affections. First then if you will have others to be subject unto you, be you subject unto God, kiss the son, honour and obey him and God will honour you. While man lived in subjection unto God all the rest of the creatures stood in awe of him: but when once he rebelled against God by eating of the forbidden fruit, they rebelled against him also. In like manner will it be with you: if ye honour him, men shall honour you, if otherwise, he knoweth how to pour contempt upon princes also. Next, it behooveth you to carry yourselves in your places as becometh you, that is, as judges not as merchants: not as merchants to buy and sell men's rights, but as just judges to give unto every man his right. And to this end it may please you to remember that the Scripture calleth you Gods, and therefore that ye should be like unto God, not accepting the persons of any, nor suffering yourselves to be corrupted by any means, but in every thing to give righteous judgement. Remember I beseech you also that God standeth in the congregation of Gods, Psal. 82.1 and although in places of judicature an empty throne be not now set for him as it was among the Ethiopians, yet be assured that he is always present with you, and will certainly judge you as he sees you judge others. Remember farther that they are men whose causes ye judge, made of the same stuff, bearing the same image of God, redeemed by the same precious blood of Christ, quickened by the same spirit, heirs of the same Kingdom with you. Oh then tender them as your own bowels, & let their blood and right be dear and precious in your eyes. Remember lastly, that though ye be Gods, yet ye are men also, and shall dye as men. In Nabucadnezars' image the head was gold, the breast and arm silver, the belly and thighs brass, the legs iron, but all ●●od on feet of clay. Oh then when you are in your tribunals think sometime of these feet, that when they ●●all fail you, conscience of doing justice may support you. judge ye therefore now, as yourselves would be judged in the last day, weigh every cause in even balance, let nothing but right sway you. Draw forth the sword of your authority, and strike at wickedness courageously. Never more need: the sins of this land are crying and spreading: among the rest the pestilence of Drunkenness infecteth every where. There was a street in Rome called Vicus sobrius, the sober street: but is there a village in England that may be called Villa sobria, the sober village? Every house almost is now become an alehouse, and they are the very schools of all roguery and villainy, yet by our country Magistrates are too much winked at and favoured. Against these and the like enormities, my Lords, there is need of your greatest severity. Qui non vetat peccare cum potest iubet: he bids men sin who 〈◊〉? power forbids them not. Let not your remissness either harden the wicked or dishearten the good: but rise up 〈◊〉 with David, Ps. 101. to destroy all the wicked of the land. justice requireth it at your hands, wisdom requireth it: justice, that offenders may be cut off, wisdom that others may be preserved from contagion, and the state from God's vengeance, which otherwise will light upon it if ye purge it not from such pollutions. But your honours are wise, and unto the wise one word had been sufficient. Yet before I conclude, I cannot but entreat my brethren of the clergy also (seeing them here so frequent) to have care that Magistracy be not despised. As we are desirous to be assisted by them, so let us in our places assist them. Let the sword of God & Gedeon, the sword of the mouth & the mouth of the sword go together: & while they labour 〈◊〉 make men subject for wrath, let us endeavour to make them subject for Conscience. Wrath belongs unto the Magistrate, but Conscience is the task of the Minister. Oh then let us apply ourselves diligently unto this task, and speak home unto the conscience, first by our holy life and conversation, and then by our powerful and effectual preaching. Let our end and aim be in all our Sermons not so much to please as to profit, nor to tickle the ear with acquaint phrases as to establish the heart with grace: that the mind being enlightened, the spirit fortified, and flesh repressed, vice may be loathed and detested, and the way of virtue facilitated and sweetened. So shall we make good subjects indeed, such as if there were no wrath to terrify them, yet merely for conscience would submit themselves. Yea so shall we prepare both them and ourselves also to be meet subjects for that glorious Kingdom, whose King is Trinity, whose law Charity, whose reward perfect blessedness, whose measure Eternity. FINIS. A DEFENCE OF THE LAWFULNESS OF LOTS IN GAMING AGAINST THE Arguments of N. N. OXFORD Printed by I.L. for E. F. 1633. A DEFENCE OF THE LAWFULNESS OF LOTS IN GAMING. NOT that I hope to purchase any great reputation to myself by confuting so slight a Pamphlet, nor yet that I desire to afford the least countenance to those irregular Gamesters, who love not to keep due compass in their play: but for sundry other important and weighty reasons, have I undertaken this Defence of Lotgames. Among the rest, first to clear the truth, & rightly to inform the understanding, that what we do, or leave undone in this case be not sin unto us. For practice without knowledge is little better than Presumption: and abstinence upon error is little less than Superstition. Secondly to arm and settle weak and tender Consciences, least happily some honest and religiously affected hearts, who have at times without scruple used these Games, receive some wound from these Arguments, and be brought into a needless labyrinth and perplexity, unless they be provided of some buckler against them, or thread to disentangle them. Thirdly & lastly to reform the affection, and to work those that are contrary minded to a little more Charity: that seeing upon how slender and sandy a ground they have wronged the people of God in their Christian liberty, tying them far shorter and straighter than God himself doth, they may be moved hereafter, not to censure their brethren with so much superciliousness, & to hold a better correspondence with them. These are the chiefest ends I aim at, & for which I have chosen rather to adventure myself into these lists, than out of I know not what imaginary fear of encouraging, idle and immoderate Gamesters, to forbear. True it is, debauched and lewd companions are not to be humoured in their vanities: howbeit it is a very preposterous course because of the abuse to condemn the lawful use, and to labour the redressing of a misdemeanure in life, either by breeding or fomenting an error in judgement. An error in judgement will you say? That is not yet demonstrated: neither will it be accounted so, until the contrary Arguments be sufficiently answered. Let us therefore in God's name try & examine the force and strength of them. N. N. Mere Lots unlawful in light matters, as at play with Cards and Dice, and the like exercises. DEFENCE. A Lot is nothing else but a casualty or casual event purposely applied to the determination of some doubtful thing. Of Lots some are Mere, some are Mixt. Mere Lots are those wherein there is nothing else but a Lot, or, wherein there is nothing applied to determine the doubt but only mere casualty. Mixed Lots are those wherein something else besides casualty is applied to determine the doubt, as namely wit, skill, industry, & the like. These terms being thus cleared, I answer, first that by the tenor of your words you seem to allow Mixed Lots in Gaming, and only disallow Mere Lots. Whereas notwithstanding you dispute anon against the use of all Lots in light matters. So that you have not expressed yourself distinctly enough, and thereby give just occasion to suspect that you apprehend of this matter but confusedly. Secondly, I deny this Proposition, affirming the Lots both Mixed and Mere are lawful even in the lightest matters: and consequently that cards and dice, and tables, and all other Games of the like nature, are lawful, and may be used for recreation. N. N. I propose two things to be decided, first, whether it be a Mere lot to game or play at Cards or Dice. Secondly, whether Lots may be used in such light matters or not. DEFENCE. Both these Questions you resolve, the former affirmatively, the latter negatively: and out of both you would infer the unlawfulness of Cards and Dice and the like exercises, on this manner. To use mere Lots in light matters is unlawful: But to play at cards or dice or the like is to use mere lots in light matters: Ergo, to play at cards or dice or the like is unlawful. Of this Syllogism I deny both the Propositions: the Major absolutely, as in the former Section, and the Minor in part. In part I say: for first, I confess that there is a Lot in all these Games. Secondly I grant that in dice, and some Games upon the cards and tables there is a mere Lot. But thirdly, I deny all Games at cards and tables to be mere Lots, forasmuch as in many of them besides the chance there is wit & skill, and both of them concur to the determining of the victory. Nevertheless you will prove both major and minor, and hysteron proteron, the minor first by a double testimony, one of Men, the other of God▪ the major next by seven, as you suppose, irrefragable demonstrations. All which we will by God's help encounter in the same order as you have marshalled them. N. N. And first that this is a Mere Lot, Mr Perkins in his Cases of Conscience testifieth it. DEFENCE. To prove cards and dice and the like Games to be mere Lots, you vouch the authority of Mr Perkins & Mr Yates. Which Argument drawn from Humane testimony, how infirm and weak it is you cannot be ignorant: for in the closing up of it yourself confess that men's testimonies may err. And certainly as long as that saying of Scripture standeth uncanceled, All men are liars, the witness of man will never prove Demonstrative and infallible. Yet this I say not any way to impeach the credit either of these or any other reverend authors, but only to discover the weakness of your Argument. Let us therefore examine both the testimonies, and first that of Master Perkins. Mr Perkins, say you, testifieth in his Cases of conscience, that dice and cards are mere Lots. Who? Mr Perkins? & that in his Cases of conscience? Pardon me, good sir, I can hardly believe it. For in that very place intended by you, dividing Games into three sorts, Games of wit, or industry, Games of hazard, and a mixture of both: howsoe●er he affirm dicing, and some Games at cards and tables to be mere hazard, and therefore in his opinion unlawful, yet he holdeth withal that some Games at cards & tables are mixed, standing partly of hazard, and partly of wit, hazard beginning the Game, and skill getting the victory. And these as he commendeth not, so neither doth he condemn: and so far is he from affirming them to be mere Lots, that because of the art and skill used in them he utterly denies them to be Lots. Wherein although for good reasons, as shall appear hereafter, I cannot yield unto him: yet can I not but wonder at the boldness of your forehead, in fathering that upon so reverend a man, which himself so publicly before all the world disclaims. But perhaps you see farther into Mr Perkins his meaning than I do: or at unawares he hath let slip some words which may make for your advantage. Let us therefore see what you allege out of him. N. N. Who saith that a Lot is a casual act applied to the determination of some particular evens, wherein we confess God to be the only determiner. Now such is the Lot of Cards & Dice. It is casual, or else it is cozening. For such as can cog or shift in shuffling are base and vile in the eyes of all men. It is applied to a particular event, namely who shall have these Cards or that Money. Again in this act we must confess God to be the only determiner or disposer. DEFENCE. Here is much ado to make M. Perkins contradict himself: but in vain, and to little purpose. Dice I confess, and some Games both at cards & tables he acknowledgeth to be mere Lots: but that all Games at cards and tables are so also in his judgement. I marvel much out of what words you can show it. Is it because there is in them a casualty? So in there is many things beside, which yet are not Lots. For as for that you say, it is casual, or else it is cozening, it is idle, and shall be answered in the next Section. Is it because in them the chance is applied to the determining of some thing in doubt? This indeed argueth them to be Lots, but not to be mere Lots. What then? Is it because in them we confess God to be the only determiner? Nor so neither: for in M. Perkins no such words are to be found. He saith indeed that in a Lot God is confessed to be a sovereign judge to end and determine things that can no other way be determined. But withal he denies many of these Games to be Lots, and therefore denies it, because in mixed games the determination of the uncertain victory is not from the chance, but from the wit and skill, at least from the will of the players. Whereupon it followeth necessarily, that in such Games he holdeth not God to be the only determiner. Yea but whatsoever Master Perkins holds or not holds, in this act we must confess God to be the only determiner and disposer. Must? Upon what necessity I pray? you will tell us: for thus you reason. N. N. For it is God, or we, or Fortune that disposeth it. Now to say it were Fortune, it were so heathenish that I hope none will dare say it. To say it is we that dispose of it, is flat cozening if it be true, & would lose all credit with Gamesters. It is God therefore that disposeth of it. DEFENCE. It is God, or We, or Fortune? And why not rather God, and We, and Fortune? For in these mixed games all three concur together. What Fortune? Fie, that were heathenish, and who dares say so? Verily no sound Christian, if by Fortune you understand that blind Idol which the Gentiles worshipped as a Goddess, and to whose inconstant wheel they ascribed that which was due to divine Providence. But if thereby nothing be meant but only chance or the casual event of things: I see not why it should be counted heathenish to say Fortune or chance hath a hand in the disposing of such things. S. Augustine indeed in his Retractions repenteth him that in other of his writings he had so often used the word Fortune: Lib. 1. c. 1. not that he denies the chanceablenesse of things, but because the word had been so ordinarily abused. For otherwise he plainly affirmeth that no religion forbiddeth to say, Fortè, forsan, forsitan, fortuitò, that is, perhaps, perchance, peradventure. Why should it, seeing the holy Ghost himself is not afraid to use it? Eccl. 9.11. Time and chance, saith the wise man, Luc. 10.31. happeneth unto all. And our Saviour Christ, By chance there came down a certain Priest that way, 1. Cor. 14.10.15 37.16.6. And the Apostle Paul three times in the same Epistle useth a word so near a kin to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fortune, that it is both derived from the same root, and usually opposed to Forecast and Providence. For want whereof in man seeing there is unto man a Fortune or chance: I hope it is not heathenish to say that in regard of us, Fortune or chance hath a finger in some things. In regard of us I say, for unto God who forseeth and ordereth all things, nothing can be casual. If Fortune, why not We much more? For in these mixed games betwixt the hazard and the victory, comes our skill and industry directing the hazard unto victory. And although it be true that God by his Providence disposeth therein, yet it is as true that man also by his counsel disposeth under God. This notwithstanding you tell us plainly, that to say it is we that dispose it is flat cozening if it be true, and will lose all credit with gamesters. I see you are a merry Gentleman, and would fain be reputed ignorant in the course of these games. Otherwise you would not but know, that to cast the die or to shuffle the Cards is one thing, and to order them after they be so cast or shuffled is another. To use cunning in the former is indeed cozening and foul play: but after the Lot is cast to order the same cunningly for our best advantage was never esteemed a matter of discredit amongst gamesters. The sum of all is, seeing that from these mixed games neither We nor Fortune are excluded: it followeth that both We and Fortune are determiners under God, and so God is not the sole determiner. N. N. I conclude therefore that the use of Cards and Dice as it is used by Gamesters is mere Lottery. DEFENCE. And I conclude the contrary, that forasmuch as Master Perkins in express terms denieth mixed games to be Lots, and it cannot any way be inferred out of his words that they are mere Lots: therefore in M. Perkins judgement they are not mere Lots. What mystery there may lie in that Parenthesis, as it is used by gamesters, neither know I nor care I, seeing it nothing belongs unto the question. And so leaving it unkith unkist, I pass unto the second testimony. N. N. Again M. Yates in his Model of Divinity pag. 165. doth thus define a Lot, It is a Divine testimony given by God in the resolution of some doubt. DEFENCE. This book of M. Yates neither have I lying by me, neither is it much material what he holds in this point. For certainly if this be his Definition it is a very unsound one. For according to the rules of Logic, every good Definition must be reciprocal with the Definite: as in this for example, Every man is a reasonable creature, &, Every reasonable creature is a man. But in this it is not so: for although every Lot may be such a Divine testimony, yet every such testimony is not by and by a Lot. Were it so, then Vrim and Thummim, and Prophecies, and Miracles, and Scripture, and such like should all be Lots: for they are Divine testimonies, and given to resolve doubts. Howbeit I grant that Lots are Divine testimonies, though not all after the same sort. To clear which I thus distinguish. Lots are either Ordinary, or Extraordinary. Extraordinary are those wherein God by his immediate and special Providence inevitably conducteth the Lot to that end whereunto it was intended. Ordinary are those wherein God by his general influence and providence supporting the natural abilities of the Creature, suffereth it to work according to that power wherewith it is enabled. Of these Lots, the former are testimonies of what God himself doth and approveth being done: the latter not so, but only of what he permitteth or suffereth to be done. The reason, because in those God himself extraordinarily worketh unto the end: but in these giveth the Creature leave to work at pleasure. This point being thus cleared, let us see how you argue from hence. N. N. Such a thing is practised by gamesters. First it is a Divine testimony: for it is all one for God to speak from heaven, and to dispose of it who shall have these Cards or that Money, as it is for him by his immediate hand of Providence to turn the Dice thus, or dispose the Cards so. For every one will confess that this is his hand, as well as he would confess that that were his tongue. And what difference is there between the tongue speaking and the hand writing in regard of testimony? Saving that the hand is the more better and the more excellent, at least amongst men. Vox audita perit, littera scripta manet. DEFENCE. Thus you argue, Where there is a divine testimony to resolve doubts there is a mere Lottery: But in Cards & Dice there is a divine testimony to resolve a doubt, namely who shall have these cards or that money: Ergo in Cards and Dice there is a mere Lottery. The Mayor or former Proposition of this Syllogism is not true: for as is showed in the former section, every Divine testimony resolving a doubt is not by and by a lot, much less a mere lot. Witness your own example of God's immediate speaking from Heaven, which yet I presume you will not say is a lot. I deny it therefore putting you to prove it: which as here you endeavour not to do, leaving it naked to the mercy of the world, so you will not in haste effect. The Minor or second Proposition I grant: for as in all Ordinary lots, so in Cards and Dice, when the Chance hath disposed, it is a plain testimony that God so permitted. Neither needed you to spend words in proof of that which is not denied, or you should have brought stronger proof. For whereas you reason thus, God by his immediate hand of Providence turns the Dice thus & disposeth the Cards so: Ergo it is a Divine testimony: though the consequence be good, yet the Antecedent is manifestly false. For although in Extraordinary lots God work by his immediate and special Providence: yet in Ordinary lots, and consequently in Cards & Dice it is not so, God in them not restraining the power of the creature, but giving it leave to work at liberty. And verily if in every lot there were, as here you seem to hold, an immediate hand of Providence, then is it in man's power to set God a working and that immediately when he listeth, which is absurd to imagine. Then also may all trials of right, of fact, of fitness to an office, and what not, be referred to a lot, as which cannot err, if God's immediate hand which cannot do unjustly direct it. Whereas notwithstanding nothing is more uncertain than a lot, and wise men refuse to commit matters of such consequence unto the hazard thereof. As for that you add, What difference between the tongue speaking and the hand writing in regard of testimony, saving that hand-writing is the better and more excellent? I con you hearty thanks for it. For if Divine testimony be the ground and reason of Faith, and the word written be Divine testimony as well, nay better, as you say, and more excellent than the word spoken by mouth: it followeth that the word written may beget Faith and convert a soul as well as the word by mouth preached. Whether you would willingly be of this opinion or no I cannot say: sure I am you must of force, if you will hold to your own Premises. This by the way. N. N. If it were in doubt or a thing in controversy, who should have the money that I possess, If I should hear a voice in the air commanding me to dispose of it to such a person, I should still doubt, and justly might, whose voice it were, whether Gods or Satan's. But if it were once put to a Lot, and disposed of to such a person, I could never doubt afterwards but that it was done by God's immediate appointment. DEFENCE. No could? Why I pray you? For may not Satan as well have a hand in a Lot, as in a voice in the air? What? is not sorcery or divination by Lots a Satanical invention? and may not Satan be a worker in his own art? If he may, how am I certain that the Casual event is rather of God's appointment, then of Satan's▪ The main error is, a conceit you have, that in all Casualties God worketh by his immediate & special Providence, which is utterly untrue, as we have already showed. And I am strongly persuaded, that this very opinion was the principal root out of which sorcery & sundry other heathenish soothsay first grew: and by which among simple and superstitious Christians they are yet still maintained and continued. But to put you from this conceit, let me entreat you seriously to consider the Lot that Haman cast from day to day, Hest. 3 7. & 9.24 and from month to month, to know what month or day were fittest for the general massacring of the jews. The Lot must needs fall on one day or other, & it fell as it seems on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month which is Adar. Ca 3.13. What? Must we now needs say that the hand of God, yea the immediate hand of God had appointed that day to that end I trow no: for the very same day Haman his whole family with many thousands of the enemies of God were destroyed by the jews, Ca 9.1 etc. & the jews themselves were delivered. Doth not Solomon also speak of thieves who share their pillages, Prov. 1.14. and robbers amongst themselves by Lot? And did not the Roman soldiers agree to cast Lots who should have our Saviour's seamlesse coat? Mat. 27, 33. Yet by your opinion when the Lot hath disposed to every one his portion: neither the thieves nor the soldiers needed afterwards to doubt but that God by his immediate hand assigned it unto them, and testified by his special Providence that he would have it so. A strange and fearful assertion, directly reversing that law of justice which requireth restitution of whatsoever is wrongfully gotten. But to what end all this? Forsooth to persuade that a Lot declares will of God as well, if not better than his own voice from heaven. Whereunto I answer no more, and I can answer no less, jud. v. 9 than the Angel did unto Satan, Increpet te Dominus, the Lord rebuke thee, for what you say is no less than flat blasphemy. N. N. Again it is for the resolution of a doubt, namely who shall have these Cards or that Mony. Hence I conclude again that the use of Cards and Dice, as it is now used by our Gamesters is a mere Lottery. DEFENCE. That in Cards and Dice there is intended the resolution of a doubt is already granted, neither is it denied that they are Lots, but that they are all Mere Lots. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to drive out one nail with another, I conclude against your Conclusion, that you have not yet, not never will be able to prove, that all Games at Cards and Tables and the like are Mere Lottery. N. N. But I leave men's testimony which may err, and will try it by Scriptures that never err. Prov. 16.33. The lot is cast into lap, but the whole disposition thereof is of the Lord. Prov. 10.18. The Lot causeth contentions to cease. Such a thing is practised by Gamesters. There is a Lot cast: what else meaneth the shuffling of the Cards, and the shakeing of the Dice, which I hear Gamesters call for so earnestly? The whole disposition therefore is of God. If I pack the Cards, or cog the Dice, & not shuffle the Cards or shake the Dice like honest dishonest Gamesters, thou wouldst refuse my company at play. DEFENCE. To let pass that both unsavoury and uncharitable jest of honest dishonest gamesters, yet doing you to wit, that there are divers in this land of far greater learning than yourself, and of singular both piety and gravity, who refuse not at times to recreate themselves at Cards after their more serious studies: to let pass I say this pure unpure jest, thus I think out of these two passages you would conclude. That Lot the whole disposition whereof is of God is a mere Lot: But Cards and Dice are such Lots the whole disposition whereof is of God: Ergo Cards & Dice are mere Lots. The Mayor you take for granted, for you go not about to prove it. The Minor you confirm by two sentences of Solomon, and the former part that cards and dice are Lots by the latter, because they stint controversies: the latter that the whole disposition of them is of God, by the former because in every Lot the whole disposition is of the Lord. This as I take it is or should be the right frame of your argument. Which I now come to answer. The knot of all lies in the right understanding of the former passage: wherein some are of opinion that Extraordinary Lots only, or to use their own words Singular, Miraculous, Divine, not Civil Lots are meant. And then the Assumption is false: for all Lots, and among the rest cards and dice are not such Lots. Others stand precisely upon these words in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But every judgement of it is of Cod: Prov. 2 31. & 29.26. and comparing it with the like places, affirm that it importeth no more but this, that in all things, yea even the most unlikely, such as are Casual Events and Lots, there is a Divine Providence, and hand of God. Which exposition no way confirmeth your Mayor: For every Lot wherein God hath a hand, is not presently a Mere lot. But to answer yet more plainly and fully, it is to be observed that the wise man saith not, God disposeth all immediately, but only thus, All the disposition is of God, by which words the use of means is no way excluded. For whether it please God to work by means or without means, his Providence ever ordereth and disposeth all. Cen. 45.5. & 50.20. The selling of joseph, the spoiling of job, job. 1.21. the railing of Semei, the incest of Absalon, the crucifying of Christ, 2 Sam. 16.12. and the like sins, though they were committed by men, Ib. 12.11.12. and through the temptation of Satan: Act. 4.27.28. yet God challengeth the doing of all to himself. Not that he wrought all by an immediate hand of Providence, for this were to make him the author, yea the only author of Sin, than which there cannot be a greater blasphemy: but because of the concourse of his Providence with the means, permitting, directing, and determining all. So that to come to an issue, although it be granted that in all lots the whole disposition is of God: yet it followeth not but in some lots, as namely some Games at Cards and Tables, wit, skill, industry, may be used under God for obtaining the victory. Whence also it followeth necessarily that all lots so disposed of by God are not therefore mere lots. But you will not let this pass so. N. N. It's of God's disposing, or of thine, or of Fortune's disposing: choose which thou wilt I care not. If it be of God's disposing, 'tis that I would have, it's that the Scripture will have. If it be of thy disposing, I know thy dishonesty. If it be of Fortune's disposing, then there were fortune: Which if thou wilt doubt of, I leave God to confute thee. DEFENCE. These are now the second seething of these coleworts, and you do not well to cloy our stomaches so soon again with them. To avoid tautology therefore I refer you for answer to what is already said: where I have showed that in sundry Games both at Cards and Tables, not only God, but man also disposeth, and that without Dishonesty, yea and Fortune too, if you will not quarrel with the word, but understand thereby a Casual accident or Chance not ordered by man's forecast or providence. Where you say you will leave them, who doubt if there be fortune, to God's confu●ing, it may please you to remember that God ordinarily reforms men's errors, not by his own immediate Magistry, but by the Ministry which he hath ordained. And therefore you much forget yourself to neglect the performance of your Ministerial duty, and to leave us poor souls unto Gods extraordinary instruction. N. N. It doth cause contentions to cease, for it disposeth the thing in controversy whether it be money or victory whose it shall be. Let no profane jester vent his wit here or blaspheme the word of God by saying that there Gaming doth rather cause contentions, such as are brawlings, oaths, curses, blasphemies, and the like, and therefore doth not cease contentions, but cause contentions: it is not the Lot, but their unlawful, unholy use of it that causeth this. DEFENCE. That a Lot stinteth contentions or controversies, is not denied: for the applying of a casual event, for the determining of a doubt is the very form of a lot. Nevertheless, in divers Games, as is already said, both at Cards & Tables, it is not the Lot only, but it and art also that disposeth whose the money or the victory shall be. As for the objection, if it be not a Chimaera of your own brain, some merry Gentleman I think made it, to dally with you, and to sport himself withal. Whereunto your answer is no less pleasant, that not the lot, but the unlawful unholy use causeth Contention, meaning thereby as I conceive it, the using of it in Games, which is a mere begging of the thing in question, that it is unlawful to use lots in gaming. Besides, you are to know the lots in gaming are not in themselves causes either of Peace or of Contention. Not of Peace, for this proceedeth from a farther compact made between those who refer themselves to a lot. Otherwise, howsoever the lots fall, if such mutual obligation be wanting the quarrel is not stinted. Not of contention, for those outrages you speak of rise only from the corruption of them that play as either their ambition that they cannot endure to be beaten, or their covetousness that vexeth them when they lose their wealth or the like. Take these corruptions away, and let moderate and temperate men only play, and you shall have neither Brauling, nor Oaths, nor Curses, nor Blasphemies, nor the like furious behaviour amongst them. And thus much in answer to those reasons whereby you would prove Cards and Dice to be mere lots. N. N. I come now to prove that it is unlawful to use Lots in Gaming, or light matters. My reasons for it are these. First God's servants have never used it but it urgent, great, and weighty matters. As for example in the choice of Kings & Priests. 1. Sam. 10. in the division of lands. josh. 14. To know who was in fault that Israel fell before their enemies jos. 17. to know whether joses or Mathias were to succeed judas. Act, 1. DEFENCE. Unto this assertion I oppose the contrary, affirming that it is lawful to use Lots in gaming or light matters: nay farther that the most serious businesses are lest fit for lots, & the lightest most fit. For what thing is there in the world more uncertain than a mere Chance? What that less regardeth right or wrong, true or false, good or bad, fit or unfit? What matter soever be to be decided, the Lot is indifferent to either side, and cares not which way it fall. And hence it is that by lot neither doth the Church try the fitness of her Ministers, nor the Lawyer the right of his Client's cause, nor the Physician the state of his patient. Neither is it the manner of wise men to refer any thing unto a lot, until by their wisdom and providence they have so disposed of all things as it is not much material which way the lot fall. Were the question referred to a lot of any great consequence, of great consequence also must the fall of the lot be, and if it fall amiss great inconveniences must needs ensue thereof. But if wise men so order and cast their businesses as it is indifferent unto them howsoever the lot fall, that cannot be of any great moment which they refer unto a lot. But I forget that I stand rather in the place of an Answerer than Replier, and therefore I come directly to your Arguments. Your Argument standeth thus. That which the Servants of God never used but in urgent great and weighty matters is not to be used in gaming or light matters: But the Servants of God never used Lots but in urgent great & weighty matters: Ergo Lots are not to be used in gaming or light matters. The Major it seems you take for granted: for you go not about to prove it. The Minor you endeavour to confirm by certain examples out of holy writ, which we will by and by examine. In the mean season I answer by distinguishing of that term, the Servants of God. For by it you may understand either all those holy men of God who have been since the creation down unto this present instant, or only those few Saints of God whom the Scripture maketh mention of. If you take it in the former sense, the Assumption is manifestly false, that none of the Servants of God used lots in gaming at any time, but only in weighty matters. For I think there is no man so uncharitable as to say that all those who have or do sometime play at Cards & Tables are unregenerate and no servants of God. If you take it in the latter sense, then is the Major false, that what those few mentioned in scripture never did, we may not do. For as their actions without a precept bind us not to imitation: so their omissions without a prohibition lay not upon us an obligation of forbearance. If they did, then might we not play at Chess, or the Philosopher's game, or bowls, or the like, because those Servants of God for aught we know never used any of them. But let us see how you prove that God's Servants never used lots but in serious matters. Thus you prove it, They used lots in serious matters, Ergo, they used them only in serious matters. A silly Consequence, and near a kin to that protrite Enthymeme, The sun shines in heaven, Ergo, the staff stands in the bench corner. But to satisfy the reader more fully I answer three things. First, where to prove your Antecedent you affirm among other things, that Priests were chosen by lot, you are foully mistaken. For Aaron and his posterity without intervention of a lot by the immediate voice of God, were perpetually appointed to the Priesthood. Secondly, these lots here mentioned were all of them Extraordinary: whence if your reason be good it would follow that none but Extraordinary lots may be used, or rather that now adays no lots at all may be used, considering that God having not promised the like Extraordinary assistance, it would be but tempting of God to expect an Extraordinary working from him in a lot. Thirdly & lastly it followeth not, We read not in scripture that the Saints used lots in light matters, Ergo, they used them only in weighty. For it is a mere Fallacy, to dispute from authority negatively in a case of Fact. In a question of Faith the sequel is good, We read it not in scripture, Ergo, it is not a matter of Faith: the reason, because scripture containeth all matters of Faith. But in questions of Fact it is not so, because it was not the purpose of the holy Ghost to register down in the Scripture all whatsoever his Servants had done, much less their sports and recreations. Had it been his purpose so to do, he would never have said so often in the book of Kings, The rest of the acts of such or such a King, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of judah? For to understand these words of those two books of Chronicles written, as it is thought, 1. King. 11.41. so long time after by Ezra, were in the judgement of learned junius very ridiculous. N. N. But it may be objected, some matters of small moment have been determined by Lots, as for example who should be door keepers of the Temple of jerusalem. I answer that was no light matter. First it was Gods command expressly in his word which is never light or mean to God's servants. Secondly, David belike had a reverend respect of this office when he said that he had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of God then to dwell in the tents of wickedness. And is it nothing to be one of the King of England's Porters? Many a man if it should be tried had rather have that office than twenty pounds by the year, and that is a matter if it were of much less weight in which we may lawfully use a Lot. Now much more might the dore-keepers of God's house be warranted from reason (suppose they had no special command) to cast Lots, or to have Lots cast upon them to determine who should supply that worthy office. DEFENCE. As a pound compared to a scruple is weighty, but light compared to a talon: so the Porter's office in regard of the Nethinims hewers of wood and drawers of water, might be of some reckoning, but very mean in respect of the Priesthood. So that a man may safely say the Porter's office was but a low place, and the lots were used in no very high matter. But whether high or low it is not greatly material, seeing the sinews of your Argument are cut already. Yet let us hear what you say. First, it was Gods command, and his command is never light. True, yet this letteth not but God may give command touching light things: as he did when he took order for every petty and small matter that the hearing and determining of them should be referred unto the inferior officers. Exod. 18.26. And if his Providence reach even to the smallest matters, what impeachment can it be to his honour to give commandment touching them also? The Pins of the Tabernacle, and the beesoms of the Temple were no great matters, yet God disdained not to give order for them. And as in a building, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the great stones can never be well laid without the less: so also in the government of the world for the better ordering of the greatest things, God takes care of the smallest also. Secondly, say you, David so honoured the Office that he had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of God then to dwell in the tents of wickedness. But what if David in that place spoke not of Dore-keepers? What then is become of your argument? The words in the Original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I could wish rather to threshold it. junius translates it limans frequent are, often to pass over the threshold of God's house and to be conversant in the Church: which may belong unto any other of the people of God aswell as the Porters. But be it that he mean them, inasmuch as the Psalm is inscribed to the Korhites who were Dore-keepers, yet doth it not argue such dignity in the office. If a man should say, I had rather be a Sexton or Dog-whipper in the poorest parish in England, than the great Caliph of Egypt, or Pope of Rome: would any thereupon say he spoke reverendly of a Sextens or Dog-whippers place? Nay verily, but that he doth the more abase the Caliphat or Popedom. Even so David preferring a Porter's place unto the tents of wickedness, doth not so much intend to honour that as to avile these. And hence is it that the Septuagint renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be laid as an abject at the threshold: and the vulgar translation, Elegi abjectus esse in domo deimei. I have chosen to be an abject in the house of my God: and Calvin, Ad locum communem & ignobilem reijci, to be rejected unto a common and base place. Lastly, say you, it is something to be the King of England's Porter, for the place may be worth better than twenty pounds by the year: much more to be a Porter in God's house. Well then now I see that twenty pounds by the year is something: and I never thought till now that a Portership yearly worth so much had been such a worshipful preferment. But is it weighty enough for a lot? Yea marry is it, and so is a matter of much less weight too. If so, than games and recreations are not unfit for it neither: for there are many Gentlemen of good fashion who value their play in a far greater sum than that comes unto. Howbeit I must do you to wit, that it was not determined by lots who should be Porters, as you say, but only who should attend at what gate, Eastward, Westward, Northward, or Southward, which could be no great matter. N. N. Secondly, there is no necessity of Lots in light matters: Which being so, it may also be otherwise determined. And me thinks it is too much boldness to presume to trouble the King with every vain business when there be so many petty Courts and Officers to censure in matters of less moment. DEFENCE. A doughty Argument. That whereof there is no necessity may not be used: But there is no necessity of Lots in light matters: Ergo, in light matters Lots may not be used. The Minor which you knew no man would deny you prove, because such matters may otherwise be determined: but the Mayor which is palpably false you prove not at all, and I marvel with what forehead a man of understanding can affirm it. What? Nothing to be done but that is necessary? What then shall become of things indifferent? May not they be used neither? For necessary I am sure they are not. Why then do you eat flesh? For you may be otherwise fed. Why wear you linen, seeing you may be otherwise clothed? And why play you at Chess, at the Philosopher's game, at Bowls, seeing you have Ouranomachie, Metromachie, & the long Bow where with to recreate you? Yea but it is Presumption to trouble the King with every vain business. What of that? Forsooth it is more so to trouble the King of Kings. But how do we trouble him? By soliciting his Providence. What Providence? That which is Immediate and Extraordinary? Indeed so to do would be too presumptuous. But we do not so, for we consult not with God, nor look we for any Extraordinary work from him. Our business is not such as needs so special a presence and assistance of God: a casual event is sufficient to determine it. We inquire not what it is that God would have to be done or not to be done: that without special command or instinct were Sorcery or Divination by Lots. But we do that which God under himself hath enabled us to do, expecting no issue from him save only by Ordinary means: which as in other our actions so in this I hope we may do with out troubling the king, as you imagine. In a word, the main error is, you fancy in all lots an immediate & extraordinary providence, which is ever denied, and neither is nor even can be proved by you. N. N. Thirdly there is no warrant from God's word to meddle with Lots in sleight matters, neither from express command nor from any approved example, nor from any reasonable consequence from any part of God's word. And whatsoever is done not by virtue of one of these warrants is sin. Rom. 14.23. DEFENCE. This argument is thus to be form. That which is not warranted from God's word may not be meddled withal: Lots in sleight matters are not so warranted: Ergo, Lots in sleight matters are not to be meddled withal. The Mayor you confirm by that of S. Paul, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin: The Minor, for that it is not warranted, nor by express command, nor approved example, nor reasonable consequence. To all which I answer, and first to the mayor, by denying it, and withal affirming that S. Paul's words prove it not. For by Faith he means nothing but plerophory, or certain assuredness that what we go about is lawful to be done. Now this Assurance in many things may be gotten not only by the supernatural light of revelation contained in the Scriptures, but also by the natural light of reason imprinted in our hearts. For the Moral law is natural unto us, and was by the finger of God written in our minds, before it was graven in tables of stone. And the rule of this law is a sufficient warrant of our actions, as for example, of honouring our parents, and doing the works of justice by giving unto every one his due, although we never knew the Scriptures. Neither need we to seek any farther proof hereof then from our own Consciences, which naturally check and control us, whensoever we swerve and decline from it, and also clear us when we yield obedience thereunto. The Minor also I deny, for lots in sleight matters, and consequently in Gaming are warranted not only by the law of Nature, but also by Scripture. How so, will you say? By express commandment? Not so, for than they should be necessary: and if nothing should be lawful but that which is so commanded, neither should any thing be indifferent and left unto us free and arbitrary. By any approved example then? Nor so, for the Scriptures were not written to record the games and plays of men, but to a more serious end. How then? By just consequence, thus. That which in Scripture is neither commanded nor forbidden is indifferent, and consequently lawful. But lots in light matters as namely in games are neither commanded nor forbidden. Ergo they are indifferent and consequently lawful. N. N. Fourthly, we have no example that ever any good man used the Lot about any thing in which it was not lawful to pray God to direct and dispose of it. Now no man will say or think that it is lawful or convenient to pray to God so or so to direct or dispose of the Cards or Dice that such a man may have such a Card, or such a one throw such a cast at Dice, it being a matter at the best hand but of Recreation. For albeit there be warrant to recreate ourselves, yet we have neither command nor warrant to pray God to direct us in the determination of any thing about our Recreations by Lot. DEFENCE. Your fourth Argument standeth thus, That lot wherein it is not lawful nor convenient to pray God to direct it is unlawful: but in light matters, as Cards and Dice it is unlawful and inconvenient to pray God to direct the Lot: Ergo a lot in such matters is unlawful. The Mayor you prove because we read not of any good man that used the lot in any thing wherein he might not pray for direction of it: the Minor, because at the best hand Games are but matters of Recreation. I answer, and first to the Mayor negatively. For although in Extraordinary lots wherein there is an expectation of God's immediate providence for direction, it is fit by prayer to crave the same of God: yet in those Ordinary lots wherein it is not material which way they fall, and no notable inconvenience can ensue thereof, it is not necessary so to do. The confirmation which you bring for your Mayor, is authority negatively in point of Fact, which is a mere Sophistical Elench, & of no validity. Wherein also you take for granted that which cannot be yielded without much folly, nor demanded without much impudence, namely that whatsoever the Saints did, is recorded in Scripture, which we have showed to be far otherwise. Unto the Minor, and the proof thereof I say no more but this, that as all other our actions, so our Gaming also is sanctified unto us by Prayer. Not that at the commencement of every act a man is bound to put himself on his knees, and to make his particular addresses unto God: for the morning sacrifice through the acceptation of God is sufficient to that end, and stretcheth it sel●e to all the day's actions. Although I deny not, but as at our meals, so also in the beginning and closing up of our play, we may with short ejaculations both crave a blessing upon our recreation, and praise him for the same. But as touching the fall of the lot in our games, because it is like herb john in a pot of broth doing neither good nor harm, I hold it as inconvenient to pray for it as it is to pray for good success at a match of bowls. For as for those who adventure at play more than they can well spare without disabling themselves, they pass beyond their bounds, and offend against the rule of moderation in play. Yet if such a one finding his rashness, and sincerely resolving not to commit such an error again, shall in his heart entreat God to free him from the present danger, I think such prayer should not be unlawful to him. N. N. Fiftly, a Lot is a thing that belongs to the art of Divinity, and can be defined no where but there, nor handled by any other way. We may as I think sport ourselves with any thing that belongs to any other art, or recreate ourselves in jest by any rules of any other art. But thus we must not do with any thing or rule that belongs to Divinity, we may not meddle with Divine things in light matters, the Majesty of God and them requires more respect at the hands of Creatures. The King nor any of his Laws may not be dallied with by the Subject: how much more is the Creature being but sinful dust and ashes bound to his Creator being a consuming fire: which wicked men make light of, yea make sport with oaths, vows, prayer, the Sabbath, the Sacraments, and the Word of God. For they will swear, vow, pray, without serious consideration; they will for their pleasure's sake break the holy day of the Sabbath, they use the Sacraments as a matter of custom and fashion, not of Conscience, else the Dog would not so soon turn again to his vomit. And as for the Word of God, he is commended for the best wit that can break the most savoury jests in the repeating of some phrase of Scripture. We say it is no jesting with edgtooles, and all say, non est bonum ludere cum Sanctis: yet what is wicked men's practice else with any Divine thing? To follow whose example is far unbeseeming the humility and gravity of God's professed servants. DEFENCE. Your reason is to be reduced into this form or syllogism, That which belongs to the art of Divinity, and can no otherwhere be defined or handled, may not be sported withal, or meddled with in light matters: But a lot belongs to the art of Divinity, and can no otherwhere be handled or defined: Ergo, it may not be sported withal, or meddled with in light matters. In the proof of the Mayor you enlarge yourself very much, discoursing of the Majesty of God, and divine things, and what respect is due to them from the creatures. Then with many words you inveigh against all those wicked ones who make a Game of Oaths, Vows, Prayer, Sacraments, Sabbath, Scripture, and what not? In all which I readily join with you, and had you pressed it, much farther and with more vehemence you could never have offended me. The only thing that I dislike is, that you bestow so much pains in maintaining that which no man denies, and spare it there where it greatly needed, I mean upon the confirmation of your Minor. What? Did you think you should be taken for another Pythagoras? Or that your own bare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would be of sufficient authority? Verily, either it was great dimness of sight if you foresaw not the Assumption would be denied: or if you foresaw it, extreme negligence or weakness that you endeavoured not to prove it. Your Assumption therefore I deny, That a Lot belongs to the art of Divinity and is there to be defined & handled. If you ask a reason of the denial, you may know I am not bound to render it: your place is not to ask questions, but to prove what you affirm. Nevertheless the reason is this, because the terms of the definition belong not unto Divinity. Not the Genus which is a Chance or Casual event, for that belongs unto the Metaphysics, as also doth Necessity. Not the Form, which is the applying of the chance to resolve a doubt, for that belongs unto Policy or Morality. If you foist any other thing into the Definition, whatsoever it be it is superfluous and impertinent. But why should any man think that it pertains to a Divine to define a lot? Is it because there is in them a Divine providence? So is there also in Chess, & Bowls and all other things whether serious or lusory: yet are they not therefore Theological. Is it because there is in them an immediate providence? So indeed you dream, but we have already clearly demonstrated the contrary. Is it then because they have been used in holy and religious businesses? So is bread, and wine, and water also used: yet I hope you will not say that the Definition of these things is proper to Divinity, or that we may not play with them, and use them in light matters. Every applying of a creature unto a holy end, is not by and by an appropriating thereof unto that end: neither doth God by his Extraordinary using of a thing, bar us ever after from the Ordinary and natural use thereof. And thus you see, that as good reason may be rendered to the contrary, so just reason for it you can render none, why the defining of a lot should be so confined to Divinity. Yet one word more with you ere I leave this point. For I must entreat leave to pluck you by the ear, and to admonish you of Contradictions, which seem to have slipped from you at unawares. Tell me I beseech you how these sayings hang together, We may sport ourselves with things that belong to any art but Divinity, & The King & his laws may not be dallied withal? For if Kings & laws belong unto Policy and not Divinity, then may they be played withal: but if they may not be played with, then is your rule false, and we may not sport ourselves with all those things that belong to other arts. N. N. Wicked men are bold to cast Lots with wicked or vain minds, in wicked things, to wicked ends, without respect of God's disposition at all. For if they did but think that God were so powerful as from heaven to dispose, and so to show his special presence in a Lot, or so wise as to understand what they go about, with what intents, for what ends, and after what manner, they durst not be so bold, as the wicked soldiers were to cast Lots upon Christ's coat Mat. 27.5. nor as the jews were in as unconsiderate dealing. joel. 3.3. Obad. 11. nor as our foolish and filthy Gamesters who must have Games with Lots to make themselves sport and recreation. For mine own part I had rather hear of downright blasphemy, then to hear wise wicked men justify lusorious Lots. DEFENCE. To what end all this Deolamation against wicked men, with wicked minds, in wicked things, to wicked ends ferueth, I see not. Nor yet whether you esteem all those that use and allow these Lotgames to be foolish and filthy Gamesters, and wise wicked men: for certainly your words seem to incline that way, and I fear when you wrote this, you gave too much way to your passion. Be it known unto you that as learned, and reverend, and religious Divines as this Church yieldeth, and this Church yieldeth as many as any Church in Christendom beside, both use and approve these Games▪ whom therefore to censure as foolish and wicked men, argueth no less than extremity of arrogance and fury. But where are those wicked men who doubt whether God can dispose from heaven, and show his special presence in a Lo●▪ For that God can do so, not Scripture only, but the light of reason also teacheth, and few I think are grown to that height of impudence to deny it. It may be you are angry with some, who will not believe upon your bare word that God worketh immediately in every lot, and therefore you lay such imputation upon them. But it is one thing what God doth, another thing what God can do: and me thinks you should be ashamed with so much confidence to maintain a special presence & hand of God in every casualty, and never to make the least show of an argument to persuade it. He●e lies the knot of all, demonstrate this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the victory is yours. As for the lot which the soldiers cast upon our Saviour's coat, it was a Divisory lot, and that I trow you do not disallow. It seems as with us, so amongst them, the garment was the executioners fee, & Christ's being seamlesse, they would not part it with the rest, but draw cuts who should have the whole. In regard whereof if Christ had been a malefactor the lot had been lawful: but being an innocent it was no better than robbery. Those lots mentioned in joel and Obadiah were not, as you mistake it, cast by the jews, but by the enemies of God, and the Edomits upon the jews: and it was unlawful because they were wrong doers. Had the people of God in a just war cast the lot upon the Edomits and other of God's enemies, the case had been altered, and the Lot had been lawful. That last clause wherein you profess you had rather hear of downright blasphemy, then wise wicked men justify Lusorious lots, argueth more haste than advisedn●sse, and is not the speech of a sober Protestant, but of one frayed out of his wits. For no man in his right mind will say that that which so many worthies approve and allow, is no better than downright blasphemy which all Christian hearts detest and abhor. Dij mentem tibi dent tuam Philaeni. N. N. Sixtly, the Lot is one of God's names by which he is known. The King's wisdom, power, and justice, and so his name is made famous by the wise and just determination of business in which others want both justice, wisdom and discretion. Hence Mr Perkins on the 3d Commandment speaking of God's name saith, we ought not to use the Lot but with great reverence in that the disposition of them is only of the Lord, and their proper use is to decide controversies and to make partitions in great matters. DEFENCE. Thus you reason, To profane God's name is unlawful: To use lots in light matters is to profane God's name: Ergo, to use lots in light matters is unlawful. The Mayor I grant. The Minor you prove first by reason, then by authority. By reason for that a lot is one of God's names. I deny it, for than might we say, God is a casualty applied to decide a doubt. Yea but your meaning is that in a lot God's name is made famous. So is it also in every creature from the highest Seraphin to the smallest gnat: yet some of them I hope without profaning of God's name be used in light matters. That insinuation of God's just & wise determining businesses in a lot, shall anon in due place be answered: in the mean season thus I argue ab absurdo. Nothing wherein God's name appears may be used in light matters: In every creature God's name appears: Ergo, no creature may be used in light matters. But this conclusion is false: Ergo, one of the Propositions. Not the Minor, for in every creature God's name appears, Ergo, the Mayor, that nothing wherein God's name appears may be used in light matter: The authority you press upon us is of M. Perkins, who I confess was a very reverend and worthy Divine, yet being a party in this question, little reason have you to urge his authority, and I less to be swayed by it. Yourself reject it in mixed Games at Cards and Tables: pardon me therefore if I admit not of it here. Forcti sanatique idem jus, you have no better privilege for the one than I have for the other. Other authors of as great note are of another mind, and what in the passage by you quoted he affirmeth is already confuted. N. N. Seventhly, we argue against lusorious Lots from the dignity and worth of a Lot. A Lot doth equal an Oath in any thing: a Lot excels an Oath in many things. It equals an Oath thus. An Oath is of Gods ordaining, so is a Lot. An Oath is a means to decide controversies, so is a Lot. An Oath taken settles contentment amongst men, for a man will say, if such a man will swear it, let him take it: so it is or should be in a Lot, for God doth it. An Oath calls God to witness, so doth a Lot. An Oath must be in truth, righteousness & judgement, so it is in the Lot being disposed by him that is thus qualified. Thus and many another way it equals an Oth. DEFENCE. The form of your Argument is this, That which equals an Oath in any thing and excels it in many things may not be used in light matters: A lot equals an Oath in any thing and excels it in many things: Ergo, a lot may not be used in light matters. The Mayor I readily yield unto: but the Minor, pardon me if I speak plain English & call a spade a spade, is little less than blasphemy. For in an Oath there is a solemn appeal made unto God, both by attestation of his Omniscience, and obligation of ourselves unto the severest censure of his justice if we should swear falsely. But in Ordinary lots no such appeal is made unto him, but only to a Casual event merely considered as it is Casual▪ which being so petty a matter in regard of so sacred an Ordinance, I cannot but wonder how you durst so to compare them. But let us hear your reasons, and first wherein they are equal. An Oath, you say, is of Gods ordaining, and so is a lot. Nay so is not a lot. God indeed permitteth it, alloweth it, and if you will, adviseth it too: but commandeth it not, as he doth an Oth. All the power now it hath is only from humane institution and agreement. Again, an Oath, say you, is a means to decide controversies, so is a lot. True, but not such a means, nor of such Controversies. Not such a means, for an Oath is ordained by God to this very end: but a Lot howsoever it may be used to the same end, yet is it so by man's Ordinance not Gods. And an Oath straight bindeth to pronounce rightly: whereas a Lot is careless, as being but a Casualty. Nor of such controversies, for an Oath determines questions of right & fact, which a Lot cannot: and they that are wise never refer matters of so high a nature to so incompetent a judge. Thirdly, say you, an oath taken settles contentment among men, so it is or should be in a lot, for God doth it. It doth, but an Oath by virtue of that obligation wherein man stands bound unto God to speak nothing but truth: and a Lot only by reason of some compact formerly made between men. Neither doth God do it as you say, but without restraining the natural power of the Creature suffereth him to work and do as him listeth. Fourthly, an oath, you say, calls God to witness, so doth a lot. Nay so doth not a Lot: for he that casteth the Lot, respecteth not Providence but Casualty, and to expect Gods immediate hand therein is no better than tempting of him. But what if the Lot fall amiss, as it may do, shall God be a false witness? God forbid. Yet so it must needs be if in every Lot God be called to witness. Lastly, say you, an Oath must be in truth, righteousness, and judgement, so it is in the Lot being disposed by him that is thus qualified. As touching an Oath I grant, but how it may be done in a Lot, I for my part understand not. For a Lot is but a Chance, and Chance regardeth nor truth nor righteousness nor judgement. But he that disposeth the lot should be thus qualified. Who is that? God? The word qualified fits not him that is nothing but substance: and to God nothing is casual, and so no Lot. Man? That were to contradict your own self: for you have confidently affirmed again and again that God alone disposeth in a Lot, and man hath no hand therein. Sed magna est veritas & praevalet, error hath but a bad memory, & truth at one time or other will surely break forth. Many other ways there are, you say, wherein a lot equals an Oath: but what they are neither do you tell us, neither will I trouble myself to inquire. I come therefore to examine wherein a Lot excels an Oath N. N. Now it excels an Oath in these and other particulars. A Lot decides that which an Oath cannot. It's unlawful to use. a Lot if witness or Oath can decide it. It was an order in Israel that if the under-officers could not decide a controversy, they should bring it to the chief judge or high Priest to be determined. So fares it in this, which argues the hand of it. When all means used by us by prayer, inquiry, witness and oath, are not able to decide a controversy, bring it to me, saith God, the Lot shall do it, he will do it by a Lot. DEFENCE. Indeed there are some causes, wherein by reason of their indifference either way, an Oath is not fit to determine. For example, when things are as equally parted as man's wisdom can devise, and the question is who shall have which part, what can Oth or testimony do in this case? Nothing at all. But a Lot can, you will say. True, yet this advanceth not a Lot above an Oath, but rather abaseth it. For Oaths may not be taken but in weighty matters; and this is so small that an idiot or child may as easily determine it as a Lot. In matters of importance, such as concern right and fact, deposition of witnesses is of great force. What a Lot? Of none at all. For example, a murder is committed, Titius is arraigned for it, Sejus & Sempronius testify upon their Oath that Titius is the man: it sufficeth to convict him. Now suppose witnesses fail and cannot be produced: what can a Lot do? Can it infallibly find out the guilty person? If no, as indeed it cannot, how is it that you say, bring it to a Lot, and that shall decide it? For, if I mistake not your comparison, you make prayer, enquiry, witness, oath, and other means to be as the under officers in Israel: but a Lot as the chief judge, or High Priest, to whom was referred what else could not be determined, and from whom there might be no appeal. But good sir, you know that comparisons prove not, & I deny that a Lot is God's highest tribunal, or that his immediate Providence worketh therein. Were it so, I demand why questions of right and fact may not be tried thereby? For I presume no man knows what is to be done better than God, and he is not partial to accept the persons of any. If you say they may, than I demand farther, whether the Lot will always fall out right? If yea, then would the fall of the Lot be unalterable although it were cast a thousand times. But experience telleth us that every several cast varieth and altereth the Chance: and how then can we excuse God from mutability and inconstancy? If no, then must God pronounce an unrighteous sentence, and how then shall the judge of the whole world pass unblameable, or not stained in his honour with foul unjustice? To avoid all which inconveniences I would advise you to put on Christian ingenuity, & to acknowledge your error herein, that God may be justified in all his sayings, and clear when he is judged. N. N. Again, its possible, we wish it were not common that malice, ignorance, or bribes corrupt the Swearers sometimes so that we see it directly many times that in an Oath or by the Oath of an ungodly person great sin and great wrong is committed. But now in the Lot man's wit & will are so kerbed, the whole disposition of it being of God, it being Gods only pure act without any commixtion of any power, will, skill, or motion of any creature, I say man is so curbed that the most wicked and the most ignorant must needs say that it is of God. The very heathen that did vilify God's Providence and erected Fortune instead of it, they made a Goddess of Fortune being forced of their own Conscience to confess that there was a Divine thing in every Chance they met withal. DEFENCE. By an Oath, say you, great sin and great wrong is committed, but never by a Lot: Ergo, a Lot excels an Oth. I deny the consequence, and affirm that the contrary Conclusion would follow much better, Ergo, an Oath excels a Lot. For it is certain that the higher degree of perfection a thing naturally holdeth, the more dangerous is the corruption thereof when it degenerateth: as for example, Wine the more generous it is, when it waxeth eager, it turneth into the sharper vinegar. Were not Angels in their primitive state more noble and excellent than man, and Man again then the brute creature? Yet Man when he sinned grew thereby more detestable and mischievous than the brute creature, and Angels again then man. Is not Divinity architectonical, and sovereign mistress of all other Sciences? Yet being perverted and abused no other can do the like mischief. In like manner the Oath of an ungodly person may work more villainy and wickedness than a Lot can: yet is it not therefore inferior to it in the right use thereof, but rather superior. But what? is a Lot so privileged that there is no place for corruption therein? Whence cometh it then that the Dutch by way of Proverb use to say, In Lottery is Boverie, that is to say, cozenage and knavery? And that all Historians report of so much juggling and false play used in them? Those Lycian, Delian, Praenestine, Antiatine Lots, and those of ●ura in Achaia, and of Elis, and sundry others, were they not all Magical and of Satan's invention? And being so, do you think that the Devil never played the Devil by them? If every Lot be, as you say, God's pure act, without any commixtion of any power, will, skill, or motion of any Creature, why are not these esteemed the Oracles of God? And why do all Divines both ancient and modern ever in their writings call them the Oracles of the Devil? But how prove you that Lottery is Gods pure act? Forsooth it is enough for you to say it, and then what man so wicked or ignorant that dare gainsay it? Marry sir, many a one neither wicked nor ignorant but far more learned & religious than yourself. Neither will they be of other mind until you convince than with stronger arguments then confident asseveration. For I assure you, you have not yet gotten such authority among wise and understanding men, that all your words should pass for Oracles. How often have you now affirmed that God worketh immediately in every Lot? yet hitherto have you never gone about to prove it as you ought to do, it being the main foundation of all your building. That the Gentiles in deifying of Fortune acknowledged a Divine thing in every Chance, is but your own private Mythology. You might as well say they found I know not what divine thing in the hinges of a door, in the every, in lechery and bawdry, and the like, when they canonised for Gods and Goddesses Carna, and Laverna, and Cocytto, and Priapus, and others of that stamp more than a good many. Assuredly whosoever seeks or hopes to find divine things in all the Idolatry of the Heathen, either knows not, or remembers not, how much God in his just judgement infatuated them: that when they thought themselves most wise they proved the starkest fools, doing things clean contrary not only to the rules of Divinity, but of right reason also. For when they abused the very light of reason to the dishonour of God, he blew out the candle as it were, and cast upon their understanding such a palpable darkness, as they neither knew or whether they went or what they did. Had they been wise, and acknowledge a Providence, they would never have consecrated Fortune for a Goddess. Even the heathen Poet witnesseth as much where he saith, juven. Sat. 10. Nullum numen abest si sitprudentia, sed te nos facimus Fortuna Deam, as if he should say, It is our ignorance and folly that maketh Fortune a Goddess: for were we as wise and virtuous as we ought to be, we would never acknowledge any Deity or divine power at all to be in her. N. N. Again, it excels an Oath in this particular, God would not have one oath, or one man's oath to put any man to death, there must be two swear. But the Lot once cast must determine it. There never was an order from God, nor a practice amongst God's people to cast the Lot twice for the determination of the most weightiest matters, that ever were either of life, or of lands, or of office. DEFENCE. The life of man indeed is in all law, Divine, Natural, Civil, of so precious account, that it will by no means hazard it upon the bare testimony of one man. Hence the proverb, unus testis, nullus testis, one witness is as good as none. For one man may easily be mistaken, not so many: and therefore in ore duorum aut trium testium, 2. Cor. 15.1. in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. But what? Can a Lot once cast determine it, and suffice to put a man to death? It cannot, if you mean an Ordinary lot, no not though it were cast ten thousand times. And where is the state I pray you in which capital questions are divided by Lot? No where I think, unless happily in Utopia. For seeing God hath not promised it, neither do men believe that such a Lot can discover the truth. If you understand an Extraordinary Lot, I confess it is sufficient, but you dispute not to the purpose: for they are now out of use, and to argue from Extraordinary unto Ordinary is very ridiculous. You add, there never was an order from God, nor practice amongst God's people to cast the lot twice. What of that? Ergo the lot may not be cast twice about one thing? It is no difficult matter to allege many examples, wherein the first fall of the Lot hath been controlled not by a second casting only, but by suffrages also. But you will say you find them not in Scripture. I answer therefore that neither all the actions of God's people are recorded in the Bible, neither Lots of Divine but humane institution: so that they may be cast again and again, and either be of force or frustrate as men shall agree. N. N. Now I appeal to thy Conscience though never so much corrupted by Satan, whether thou canst think that a Lot so honourable & excellent an ordinance of God, that it equals an Oath, yea excels it diverse ways, that this was ordained by God to make men sport withal, or that any man hath any spark of grace, (I had almost said) of wit, who must have lusory lots for his recreation. None of us can abide a Blasphemer who makes himself sport by swearing, why should we not abhor a Gamester more, especially if he be a professor of religion, when he will have Cards and Dice used to sport withal. DEFENCE. And now I appeal also unto thy Conscience whosoever art author of this Pamphlet, how confident soever thou be in thine opinion, whether thou canst think that a Lot being so petty and slight a thing, not of Gods but man's ordaining, so far inferior to an Oath that it is not fit to determine questions of right or fact or the like importance, but such as a child or idiot might decide. Whether I say thou canst yet think that a Lot may not be used in light matters. All the arguments you have produced to the contrary are now throughly ●ifted and answered, that which you took for granted and never endeavoured to prove, namely that a Lot is God's pure act, and that his immediate hand worketh and disposeth all, plainly appears to be but a Paradox: wherefore unless you be resolved with him in the Comedy, Aristoph. Plut not to be persuaded although you be persuaded, I hope you will not hold it any disparagement to forgo your conclusion, and to yield to the truth not discovered unto you. But to answer a little more particularly, where you damaund, if a Lot were ordained by God to make men sport withal? I answer, no. It is not so much as ordained by him, much less to such an end. How then? It is permitted as a thing indifferent. Again, hath he any spark of grace or of wit, who must have lusorious lots for his recreation? I answer, that many grave and worthy Divines (to say nothing of other men) whose books you are not worthy to bear after them, use at times Lusorious lots for their recreation: whom yet if you have any spark either of wit or grace, you cannot but acknowledge to be full both of grace and wisdom. Lastly, where you say, a Gamester when he will have Cards and Dice used to sport withal, is more to be abhorred then a blaspeamer who makes himself sport by swearing: it is the speech of a frantic rather then sober man, and argues that you can swallow camels and strain at gnats. Had you had but the least dram of true wisdom or discretion, you would never have suffered such an unsavoury and ungodly word to escape your tongue. And farther answer than this I vouchsafe it not. N. N. Any of the forenamed arguments, much more all of them must needs breed doubt in every man's Conscience, whether this kind of the use of Lots be lawful or not, and so by Consequence it is Sin to him to use them, sith he that doubteth is condemned if he do otherwise. Rom. 14. ult. DEFENCE. I had thought these arguments had been canon shot at least, and able to throw down whatsoever should lift itself up against you. But now I perceive they are no better than popguns charged only with paper to stagger and affright the Conscience. Which effect if they have wrought on any, who formerly were otherwise persuaded; as I can but pity such wavering and unsettledness of judgement, so I cannot but condemn you of much uncharitableness for giving the occasion, and thus perplexing them with your doubtful disputations. But now I hope these arguments being all of them fully satisfied & assoiled, their Conscience will no longer hang in suspense, but rest throughly resolved. Howbeit if any out of weakness still doubt, let him in God's name abstain lest it be sin unto him. In the mean season, according to the counsel of Saint Paul, Rom. 14.3. Let not him that useth his liberty despise him that useth it not, neither let him that useth it not censure him that useth it: for God hath received him. N. N. I confess that vain men may count it vain to be so strict and curious in so small matters: yet the truth of God is, by how much it is less of moment wherein God is offended, by so much the greater is the Contempt and sin. Let no man think that I esteem this a small matter, which I have proved to be of such special worth and weight. DEFENCE. Est modus in rebus, Horat. there is a golden mean to be held in all things: which if either you exceed, or fall short of, you err and are out of the way. To stretch a man's liberty even to those things which are evil and forbidden by God, is to fault in the excess, and to turn the grace of God into wantonness. To condemn that which God hath made indifferent, and to restrain either ourselves or others from the lawful use thereof, is to offend in the defect through too much strictness and austerity. Happy is the man that knoweth the right bounds of his liberty, and walketh soberly and inoffensively within the compass thereof. Now if to use Lots in Games or light matters were an offence though never so small, he should be I confess a vain man that should tax you for overmuch strictness herein. And it is true which you say, the smaller the matter, the greater the contempt: which aggravates the contumacy of those precise ones, who refuse to conform themselves unto the orders of the Church. But in the use of Lotgames there is no fault at all committed nor small nor great, as is now plainly demonstrated: and therefore it cannot be avoided but the imputation of too much strictness and rigorousness must needs light upon you. Would to God men would at length leave off to affect a name of religion by their nice and scrupulous forbearing of such trifles: and seek it rather in the works of true humility and charity, which best conform unto the image of the Son of God, & therefore best beseem a true Christian. N. N. I say therefore to thee, as God sometimes said unto Peter in another cause, Count not thou that common or unclean which God hath cleansed: so I say, Count not thou that sleight or vain that God esteems so much, & hath ordained to such honourable ends and uses. DEFENCE. I grant, that what God much esteemeth of and hath ordained to honourable ends & uses, is not to be slighted or counted vain. But that God so much esteemeth of Lots, or hath ordained them to such ends and uses is not yet proved. And therefore you must give me leave to retort the same words back again upon you, that which God hath cleansed and given thee free liberty to use or not to use as thou shalt think good, count not thou that common or unclean, that is sinful or unlawful, if at any time thou use it. Tit. 1 15. For as the holy Apostle saith, unto the pure are all things pure: whereas unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure, but even their mind and conscience is defiled. N. N. He that is ignorant let him be ignorant still. DEFENCE. This is the Epiphonema wherewith you close up this your Pamphlet. And it is the saying of Saint Paul, concerning which St chrysostom hath this observation, that when he speaketh of gross and grievous sins, than he saith, ye are fallen from grace, Christ shall profit you nothing, they that do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God, & for these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of unbelief: but not, saith he, because it seemeth not to be so great a crime, if a man be ignorant that God commandeth a woman to be silent in the Church, therefore he rebuketh those that are otherwise minded after a more gentle manner saying, He that is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Which observation of his if it be of any weight, them have you not well applied this text unto your purpose. For the use of Lots in Gaming and light matters being in your judgement so heinous and enormous a sin, that it is more to be detested and abhorred then downright blasphemy and sporting with Oaths: you should rather have concluded with some terrible sentence threatening fire and brimstone, then with this gentle memento, He that is ignorant let him be ignorant still. But Theodore Beza, as I conceive, best expresseth the meaning of this saying thus, as if the Apostle had said, he that is endued with understanding amongst you, let him acknowledge that these things which I say proceed from the spirit of God, and so diligently observe these our precepts. But he that is ignorant let him be ignorant, that is, let him acknowledge this his ignorance, nor trouble the Church, but rest in the judgement of those that are more skilful; or rather, let him be contemned as one pleasing himself in his ignorance. For whence are troubles for the most part but from this, that ignorant men will not be ignorant, but take up the place of those that are more skilful. Thus he. Now if you had either the spirit or authority of Saint Paul, or had by solid and unanswerable arguments out of God's word demonstrated your intended Conclusion: no man could justly have excepted against you, but that you might freely take up these words of the Apostle, and oppose them against all gainsayers, He that is ignorant let him be ignorant still. For they that affect ignorance, and will not see the truth, how clear or evident soever it be made, deserve no other but to be neglected and contemned. But by your leave, sir, neither have you the one, nor have you sufficiently performed the other: and therefore I must entreat you yet a while to forbear this saying, until you have added more strength unto your arguments, and have made them good against this Answer. For to build castles in the air, and to despise the well grounded judgement of others, argues much arrogance and overweening of ourselves. One thing more have I to say before I leave you, and that by way of caution. Hora●. For as the Poet speaketh, Dum vitant stulti vitia, in contraria currunt: because I speak against the too much strictness & nicety of those who refrain these Lotgames as unlawful, it may be some will not stick to charge me as if I allowed the licentiousness of our loose Gamesters therein. But let these men know, that although I allow the Games themselves, notwithstanding the Lot used in them: yet I condemn and detest as much as they all those foul enormities wherewith they are abused. Lavishly to waste and consume that wealth wherewith our families should be maintained, and time which is far more precious than wealth, to blaspheme the sacred name of God, with horrible oaths, imprecations, and execrations, and upon every cross chance to fall out of our wits as it were, and to become outrageous in our passions, are fearful sins, odious and abominable both before God and man. But these are the faults of the Gamesters, not of the Games: & through the profaneness of man's heart may befall any other Game as well as these. They that are not Masters of their own affections, and cannot temper themselves: let them in God's name abstain, lest they entangle themselves in the snares of the Devil. But they who have the discretion to use them moderately, seasonably, and peaceably, why should the distemper and irregularity of others prejudice them in the free use of their liberty? In a word, I allow the right use, and condemn the abuse, neither through too much strictness barring God's people from the one, nor through too much remissness giving way unto the other. And so I conclude with that prudent saying of the wise Preacher, Eccles. 7. 16 Be not just over much, neither make thyself over wise: for why shouldst thou be desolate? 17 Be not overmuch wicked, neither be thou foolish: for why shouldst thou dye not in thy time? FINIS. THE REAL PRESENCE BY Transubstantiation unknown to the Ancient Fathers. OXFORD Printed by I.L. for E. F. 1633. TRANSUBSTANTIATION unknown to the ancient Fathers. SIR, the distance and disproportion between you & me being such as it is, I a professed scholar & Minister of Christ's Gospel, you a mere Laic and knowing little farther than your mother tongue can direct you: I see not how it could be any either disparagement to my person, or disadvantage to the truth of God, if I vouchsafed no answer at all unto the Schedule you sent me. For as in Duellos and single combats they say a man may without impeachment of honour refuse the Challenge, unless he that made it be in some sort his Peer: so I presume in controversies of Faith also, a man may without touch of reputation forbear the encounter, except he that provoketh be in some measure equal. Nevertheless, this disparity perhaps might otherwise easily have been dispended withal, were it not for the proud brags and insolences of your Priests and jesuits: with whom it is usual in their Pamphlets to trumpet out aloud, that even their ordinary Catholics are able, if not to gravel, yet to grapple with the better sort of our Divines. As if forsooth all Papists were gedeon's, judg. 8.20.21. and never a I●ther among them: or that not only their Anakims & Goliasses, but even their armour bearers and pages also were such redoubted and terrible warriors. Which intolerable arrogance and vanity of theirs, as we have little reason by descending so far beneath ourselves to cherish in any of you; so have we great cause to answer it even as it deserveth, with no other than equal disdain and contempt. For it hath abundantly been manifested to the world, that as in the goodness of our cause we are every way superior unto you: so in all kind of learning both Humane and Divine we are no way inferior to the best of you. Howbeit, seeing I am put in good hope by some of your best friends, that you carry a mind prepared to embrace the truth if at any time it shall be discovered unto you, and yourself have freely professed unto me, that your meaning is not any way to contest with me, but only to be instructed by me: I am content laying aside all advantages whatsoever, to enter the lists with you, & by framing up a short, yet full answer, to endeavour your best satisfaction. God grant that as it is intended, so it may redound, first to his glory, and then to the reducing of your straying soul from the servitude of Babylon into the liberty of jerusalem which is from above, and the right Mother of all true Believers. N. N. Catholic grounds for the Article of the Real Presence. I. D. This title prefixed unto your Writing intimateth that you crave resolution in the article, as you term it, of the Real Presence, and the Grounds thereof. For the better performance whereof, and to clear the way of all rubs before us, you may be pleased to know that we deny not either the Presence, or the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Not the Presence. For seeing therein his Body is delivered, received, eaten, as the Scriptures testify, and that can no way be delivered, received, eaten which is every way absent: we cannot but believe with the heart & confess with the mouth that Christ is present. Nor the Real presence. Eph 4.16. & 5.30 For seeing Eating betokeneth our Union and Incorporation with Christ, whereby we are so closely joined and jointed unto him, that we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones: certainly unless we will question either the power of Faith, or whether God be able to work such an effect, we cannot well doubt but that the Presence is True and Real, not Imaginary and Feigned. Hom. 6. ad pop. Ant. According hereunto S. chrysostom, Christ offereth himself unto us in these Mysteries not only to be seen, Tract. 1. in joh. but also to be touched and felt. And S. Augustin, We cannot with our hand feel Christ sitting in heaven, but by Faith we may touch him. Agreeing therefore in the Thing that there is a Real Presence, wherein lies the difference betwixt us? It lies partly in the Manner of Presence, and partly in the kind of Change whereby the Presence is wrought. As touching the Manner of Presence, we acknowledge it to be double, the one Sacramental, the other Spiritual. The sacramental is a Relative Presence of the thing signified unto the signs, partly for that they are significative & represent Christ unto us, even as the word spoken unto the ear represents the thing signified thereby unto the mind: and partly because they are Exhibitive, God in them offering us his Son upon condition of Faith. And in regard hereof it may also well be called a pactional presence. The spiritual is a presence of Christ unto the Faith of the Receiver, or (which is all one) unto the Receiver by Faith, whereby we seek him, not here on earth, in, with, or under the Accidents of bread, but aloft in heaven, where he sitteth at the right hand of his father. For where the carcase is, Mat 24.28. thither, saith Christ, will the Eagles resort. Hom. 24 in 1. Cor. 10. Whence S. chrysostom, He must climb up on high, Tract. 50. in. joh. whosoever cometh to this Body. And S. Augustine, How shall I convey my hand into heaven that I may hold him sitting there? Send thy faith thither and thou holdest him. Now if any farther demand how this sacramental and spiritual presence is wrought: I answer, it is done by a Change in the Elements of Bread and Wine. By a change I say, yet not of their Nature and Substance, but of their Use and Virtue. For they are now no longer common but consecrated Bread and Wine, ordained by Christ to be effectual symbols and Pledges of our Union and Communion with his Flesh and Blood. Dial. 2. So saith Theodoret, The visible symbols hath he honoured with the name of his Body and Blood, not changing their nature, but adding grace unto nature. And so the rest of the Fathers. But all this little contents you, except withal we yield you a Corporal and Local Presence of Christ under the Accidents of Bread and Wine, and that by way of Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation a term, as lately devised, so also inconvenient. Lately devised: for it is but four hundred years old, or thereabouts, b●ing forged in the Lateran council under Innocent the third. Inconvenient: for properly it imports a Productive kind of Conversion, by which one Substance is produced out of another, or whereby one Substance is turned into another, such as was the turning of Water into Wine by the power of Christ at Cana in Galilee. But you understand thereby an Adductive kind of Conversion, by which as Bellarmine defineth it, De Euchar. l. 3. c. 18. the Body of Christ which before was only in heaven, is now also under the Accidents of Bread. So that more fitly it might have been termed Session or Succession, or Substitution, or Translocation, or some such like rather than Transubstantiation: the meaning you give unto it being no other than a succeeding of Christ's Body into the room of Bread upon the abolishing of the Substance thereof. Yet is it not so much the Newness and Inconvenience of the term, as the Impiety of the Doctrine intended thereby which we condemn. For it crosseth the truth of Scripture, overturneth the Articles of Faith, destroyeth the Nature of a Sacrament, gainesayeth the perpetual consent of antiquity, and implieth in it innumerable contradictions: all which God willing shall in due place be demonstrated. In the mean season having thus briefly stated the Question, I come now to examine the particulars of your Writing: and whether the passages you quote in such abundance reach home to that Corporal and Local Presence which you hold, or pass no farther than that Sacramental and Spiritual Presence which we maintain. N. N. The first ground that Catholic men have for these and all their mysteries of Christian Faith that are above the reach of common sense and reason, is the Authority of the Catholic Church, by which they were taught the same as Points of Faith revealed from God. I. D. If by the first Ground you understand the first introduction unto Faith, I grant the Authority of the Catholic Church to be the first ground, & that by it we are taught the same. But if thereby you mean, as undoubtedly you do, that highest Principle into which all the Mysteries of Faith are finally resolved, and by which the Mind is stayed and freed from farther doubting, I deny the Catholic Church so to be the first ground. 〈◊〉 2.2. q. 1. a. 2. ad●●. 1. For as Bellarmine truly writeth, Faith beginneth from the preaching of the Church as touching the Proposition of things to be believed, but not as the reason of believing. For they who propound the doctrine of Faith, withal admonish that that doctrine is revealed from God, and that God not themselves is to be believed. And what? Is not the holy Catholic Church itself an Article of the Creed? If it be, why should the rest of the Articles need to be sustained by an higher Principle, more than it? For if you may be bold to question any of them until it be resolved by the Church's authority: I hope I may be as bold to question the Church's authority, until it be warranted by some farther Principle. I demand therefore why you believe the Church? Because forsooth her authority is infallible. And how know you that it is infallible? Here of necessity you must either vouch her own testimony, or betake you to some other thing. To stick upon her testimony without farther enquiry is absurd. For seeing her voice is not the first verity, that being the Prerogative of him only who is from all eternity: her veracity must needs be as doubtful as her infallible authority. And indeed this, as a very learned Divine exemplifieth it, Field Ch. l. 4. c. 2. were as if one whose authority is questioned, taking upon him to be a lawgiver, should first make a law, and thereby give himself power, and afterward by virtue of that power exercise authority over others. But if to establish the Church's authority, you seek out of her to some other thing, as suppose the Scriptures, for so I remember you answered me being demanded the same Question: then have I obtained what I would, namely that the Church is not the first ground of Faith, because by your own confession there is a former, to wit the Scripture. Neither is it true that Catholic men hold the Church's authority to be the first Ground. For although some pretended Catholics, those I mean who call themselves Roman catholics, may so conceive of their Church, understanding by the Church the Roman church: yet neither are they true Catholics, neither is the Roman church the Catholic church, neither do any true Catholics ground their Faith so. True catholics they are not because they hold a new Faith, not that which catholicly hath been held in all ages: as appeareth by those twelve new Articles lately added to the Creed, unknown unto the purer times of the Primitive church. Neither is the Roman church the Catholic Church. Not in regard of time; for Christ had his Church when Rome was not yet Christian. Nor in respect of place: for Catholic is Universal, Roman Particular, that the Church of the whole world, this of one City or Diocese only. Nor last in regard of her authority over all other Churches: for that which she challengeth is but usurped, the Church of afric in a Council of two hundred and seventeen Bishops, of whom S. Augustine was a principal, with much indignation rejected it, and the Greek church hitherto could never be drawn to acknowledge it. And as for those that are true Catholics, they build not their Faith upon so weak a Ground: but rest both it, and the Church herself upon the Scriptures. The Apostle S. Paul buildeth the whole Household of God upon no other foundation then that of the Prophets and Apostles. Eph. 2.19 20. Know thou, In Cantic. hom. 3. saith Origen, that Christ always appeareth on the mountains and hills, to teach thee that thou seek him no where but in the mountains of the Law and Prophets. And the Auhor of the imperfect work on Matthew, Hom. 49. The Lord knowing the confusion of things that would happen in the latter days, commandeth that such Christians as will receive assurance of faith, f●ie to no other thing but the Scripture. And Tertullian, Take from Heretics that which they have common with the heathen, Cont. Marc. l. 4. that they be content to stint all questions by the scriptures only, and they cannot stand. And S. Hierom, In Mich. l. 1. c. 1. The church of Christ hath for her cities, the Law, the Prophets, the Gospel, & Apostles: she passeth not beyond her limits, that is the holy scriptures. & S. Augustine, in the scriptures we learn Christ, Epist. 66. in the scriptures we learn the Church. Cont. lit. Pet l. 3. c. 6. And again, I say not if we, but if an Angel from heaven shall deliver any thing of Christ, or his Church, or of faith & manners besides that which ye have received in the Scriptures of the Law, and Gospel, let him be accursed. And again he affirmeth that the Church is to be proved by the Canonical books of Scripure and nothing else: De un. Ecc. c. 16. and that they only are the Demonstration of our cause, the very foundation and ground plot whereon we are to build. N. N. For proof of this ground, Saint Augustine handleth this matter in a special book to his friend Honoratus deceived by the Manichees, as himself also sometimes had been, and he entitleth his book De utilitate credendi. His discourse is this. Cap. 7. Suppose that we now first of all did seek unto what Religion we should commit our souls to be purged and rectified: Without all doubt we must begin with the Catholic Church, for that she is the most eminent now in the world, there being more Christians in her this day, then in any other Church of jews & Gentiles put together. And albeit among these Christians there be Sects and Heresies, and all of them would seem to be Catholics, and do call others besides themselves Heretics: yet all grant that if we consider the whole Body of the World, there is one Church among them more eminent than all other, and more plentiful in number, and as they which know her do affirm, more sincere also in the truth. But as concerning truth we shall dispute more afterward: now it is sufficient for them that desire to learn, that there is a Catholic Church, which is one in itself, whereunto divers Heretics do fain and devise diverse names, whereas they and their Sects are called by peculiar names, which themselves cannot deny. Whereby all men that are indifferent and not letted by passion may understand unto what Church the name Catholic which all parts desire and pretend is to be given. Thus St Augustine, etc. I. D. So main a point as is the last resolution of faith, aught to have been better warranted, then by the single authority of one Father: who how eminent soever he was in his time, yet is not his sole word of strength enough to bear up such a weight. Why did you not vouch the testimony of Saint Paul or Saint Peter, or some other of the holy penmen of God's book which cannot deceive you; then Saint Augustine or any other of the ancient Fathers, who both have erred themselves and may misled you. But thus it is with Papists, the more the shame, the bare name of a Father sways them more, than the clearest passage of holy writ. Howbeit this I say not as if we feared the trial of the Fathers, for be it known unto you, we have more cause to be confident upon them then yourselves▪ but only to vindicate the honour and dignity of the Scriptures, which of your side are too basely slighted and neglected. And as touching this particular place of Saint Augustine, notwithstanding all the flourish you make therewith, yet shall you never be able to prove what you intent thereby, as I come now to demonstrate. This book de utilitate credendi, I have now twice for your sake throughly read over, and with the best attention I could. In it I find the authority of the Catholic Church made the first motive or means unto Faith, by which we do believe: but not the first principle and reason of faith, for which we do believe. The occasion of writing it was this. Cap. 1. Saint Augustine having lately through God's grace, Con. ep. fund l. 10. escaped out of the toils of the Manichean Heretics, in which for the space of nine years he had been entangled: is very desirous to recover from them his friend Honoratus also, as yet continuing in his error, and held fast by them. This he doubteth not, through the same grace of God, soon to effect, may he but find him duly prepared and disposed. For until he be wrought from his heretical pertinacy and stiffness, unto a more Christian moderation and equability: he shall with all his arguments but wash a brick, as they say, and spend his oil and labour to little purpose. That which made him so untoward and hard to be wrought upon was, the fair and plausible insinuation of the Manichees, Cap 1. that they pressed no man to believe until they had first cleared and manifested the truth: whereas others terrified men with superstition, and commanded Faith before they tendered any reason unto them. Wherefore to remove this prejudice, and to frame him unto a more indifferent temper, he employeth in this book all his strength and skill: labouring to demonstrate the Utility of believing, Ibid▪ and how requisite it is to yield to authority, before with pure minds we can discern the truth. And this is the only drift and scope he aimeth at in this book, neither meddleth he therein with any of the Manichean heresies, Cap. 5. Retract. l. 1. c. 14. but reserveth the confutation & conviction of them until some other time, as appeareth by the very closing up thereof: where he willeth Honoratus to remember, Cap. ult. that he hath not yet begun to refute the Manichees, nor to se● himself against those toys, nor hath opened any great matter touching Catholic Doctrine. Whence thus I argue. If S. Augustin in this book dispute against Honoratus from the Church's authority as the last resolution of Faith: then hath he opened therein the greatest point of Christian religion, and confuted thereby the Manichean heresy, inasmuch as the Catholic Church utterly condemned it. But S. Augustin in express words affirmeth, that he hath not so much as begun to refute the Manichees, nor opened any great matter touching Catholic doctrine. Therefore he disputeth not from the Church's authority, as the last resolution of Faith. True it is he is much in commending authority, & setting forth the benefit of believing it. But what authority? What believing that authority which is grounded upon the General opinion, Cap. 14. Cap. 1. fame, and consent of people & nations: & that Believing which is Moral, and only prepares the mind to divine illumination. If so then certainly cannot St Augustins' authority be the last Principle of Faith. For this is infallibile, and absolutely necessary as well to the wise as unwise: that but an uncertain step or stair to raise us up unto God, Cap. 16. & not necessary to them that are wise. What then is it in S. Augustins' judgement? Surely the first inducement or Introduction to the search of divine Mysteries. Ibid. For, saith he, it is authority only which moveth fools to hasten unto wisdom. And again, to a man that is not able to discern the truth, that he may be made fit for it, and suffer himself to be purged, authority is at hand. Had he thought it to be more than so, he would never have considered it without certainty of truth. Yet so doth he even in the passage by you alleged, They, saith he, that know the Church affirm her to be more sincere in truth then other sects: but touching her truth is another question. In a word, as in other arts and sciences, He that will learn must believe his teachers: so in these heavenly mysteries also would Saint Augustine have all those that are not initiated, such as his friend Honoratus was, to begin with Authority. Not that it is a sufficient warranty for whatsoever we learn: but for that it is the readiest and likeliest way to bring us unto learning. N. N. Thus Saint Augustine, teaching his friend how he might both know and believe the Catholic Church, and all that she taught simply and without ask reason or proof. And as for knowing or discerning her from all other Churches that may pretend to be Catholic, we hear his marks, that she is more eminent, universal, greater in number, and in possession of the name Catholic. The second that she may be believed securely, and cannot deceive nor be deceived in matters of Faith, he proveth elsewhere, concluding finally in this place; If thou dost seem to thyself now, saith Augustine, Cap. ●. to have been sufficiently tossed up & down among Sectaries, and wouldst put an end to these labours and turmoils: follow the way of Catholic discipline which hath flown down unto us from Christ by his Apostles, and is to flow from us to our posterity. I. D. Out of that passage of St Augustine you observe two things, first what be the Marks by which the Catholic Church may be discerned: secondly that she may be believed securely, as one that can neither deceive nor he deceived. As touching the former, you say Saint Augustine's Marks are these four, Eminence, Universality, Multitude, and Possession of the name Catholic. Whereunto I answer, first that Saint Augustine maketh none of these things Notes of the Church. For three of them, namely Eminency, Universality and Possession of the name Catholic he doth not at all mention. Eminency I confess is foisted into your translation, but no where appears in the Original. Of the fourth, to wit Multitude, all that he affirmeth is this, that in his time there were more Christians then of any other religion: and that among all Sects of Christians there was one Church consisting of a greater number than all the rest: which is not enough to establish it for a mark of the Church. Where, by the way give me leave to demand, why whereas Saint Augustine saith Christians are more than jews and worshippers of Images put together, you render it, the jews and Gentiles put together? For what the reason should be I cannot conceive, unless it be the same for which you raze out of your Catechisms the second Commandment. But I answer secondly, that as St Augustine maketh none of them Marks, so neither are they Marks: for Proper they are not nor Perpetual, and the Church may be without them. So was it for some while after Christ's Ascension: for then neither was the Christian Church so Eminent as that of the jews, nor was it Universal as being confined within judea, nor great in number as consisting but of a very few, nor in Possession of the name Catholic, it being a word of a latter date, and such as could not well be given it until it was grown Catholic. So will it be also, if we may believe your own writers, Aquin. in Apoc. 9 Rhem. in 2. Thes. 2. Peter in Dan. l. 15. in the time of Antichrist. For then the Church shall be darkened, all external communion with it shall cease, there shall be no Sacrament in public places, all the glory and dignity of Ecclesiastical order shall lie buried, none shall come unto the solemnity of the Lamb, an innumerable multitude shall clea●e unto Antichrist, Accost. de ●em. nov. l. 2. c. 15. Riber. in Apoc. 13.3. & 7. even all besides the elect, and those whose names are written in the book of life. But lastly whether these things be Marks or no is not now much material: for it makes little to the purpose, & we have sufficiently proved that the Church is not the last Resolution of Faith. As touching the second point, that the Church may be believed securely, for that she can neither deceive nor be deceived: I demand what you mean by the Church? If the company of all true Believers that now are, and heretofore have been, including the holy Apostles together with them: then I grant it. For these were so lead by the Spirit into all truth that they could not possibly err in any matter of Faith that was either to be taught by them or known by us. But if you mean the Present Church in every age successively after the Apostles, as here Saint Austin doth, referring his friend Honoratus thereunto: then I distinguish. Either you must understand thereby the whole number of true believers who for the present life in the world: or the Society and Fellowship of those that in their time rule and sway most in the Church. If you take it in the former sense, I grant what you say to be true in Fundamental points, but not in such as are not absolutely necessary, nor prejudice the Foundation of Faith. If in the latter, than I affirm that the Church may both deceive and be deceived, even in Doctrines of highest consequence, neither can with such security be believed. Witness the time when the whole world groaned under Arianisme, and the greatest part of the Prelates, together with Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribed thereunto. Neither doth the passage you allege out of Saint Austin infer the contrary. For although the surest course to put an end to all labours and turmoils be, to follow the way of Catholic discipline, which hath flown down to us from Christ by his Apostles: yet the Authority that swayeth most in the Present Church doth not always either follow this way herself, or direct others unto it, as for example it did not in the time above mentioned of the Arian heresy. And thus much in answer unto your general ground. N. N. Now I will show first out of the old Testament how it was prefigured and prophesied, and in the new both promised again, exhibited and confirmed, by the intendment, & interpretation of the gravest and most ancient Fathers that have lived in the Church of God from age to age, who understand so the said Figures, and foreshowing of the old Testament. As for example, the Bread and Wine mysteriously offered unto almighty God by Melchizedek King and Priest who bore the type of our Saviour. Gen. 14. Psal. 109. The shewbread among the jews that only could be eaten of them that were sanctified. Heb. 7. Exod. 40. 1 Reg. 21. And the Bread sent miraculously by an Angel to Elias, whereby he was so strengthened as he traveled forty days by virtue only of that Bread. These three sorts of bread to have been express Figures of this Sacrament & of the true flesh of Christ therein contained do testify by one consent the ancient Fathers, L. 2. ep. 3. Strom l. 4. De Sacram l. 4. c. 3. as Cyprian, ●lemens Alexandrinus, Ambrose, Hierom, Chrysostom Augustine, Cyrill, Arnobius, Euseb. & many others, as my author fet●eh down. In Tit. 1. Hom. 35. in Gen. Three other figures not expressed in the form of Bread, but other things more excellent than Bread, as the Paschal Lamb, Con. Petil. l. 2. c. 37. the blood of the testament described in Exodus and to the Hebrews, Cat. Myst. 4. Ex. 24. and fulfilled by Christ when he said, This cup is the new testament in my blood, and again this is my blood of the new testament. Heb. 9 The Manna also sent by God from heaven was an express figure of this Sacrament, Ex. 12. Leu. 24. Luc. 22. as appeareth by the words of our Saviour and of the Apostle. Mat. 26. joh. 6. 1 Cor. 10. I. D. This Argument seemeth to be of great esteem among you: for who almost urgeth it not, and that with great confidence? It standeth thus, Melchisedec's Bread and Wine, the Shewbread, Elias his Bread, the Paschal-Lambe, the Blood of the Testament, and Manna, be Figure● of our Sacrament: Ergo Christ is corporally and locally present therein by way of Transubstantiation. The consequence you maintain in the next Section, the Antecedent in this. Whereunto I answer first, that the Legal sacraments and ceremonies, if we may believe Scripture▪ directly respected Christ, Col. 2.17. So saith S. Paul, They are a shadow of things to come, Heb. 10.5. but the Body is of Christ. And again Sacrifice and offerings thou wouldst not, but a Body hast thou prepared me. And hence is it that he doubteth not to call Christ our Passeover, 1. Cor. 5.7. & 10.4. or 〈◊〉 Lamb●: and to affirm that the Rock whereof the Israelites drank in the wilderness was Christ. Yea our Saviour himself plainly professeth that the Brazen serpent did prefigure him: joh. 3.14. & 6.50. and that he was the Bread or Manna that came down from heaven. But that those Sacraments and Ceremonies are Types & Figures of ours, otherwise then by representing the same Substance together with ours, I suppose if you searched every corner of Scripture never so narrowly, you should never find it therein. Add hereunto that our Sacraments are themselves Figures, Con. Max. Arr. l. 3 c. 22. being, as S▪ Augustine saith, one thing, and signifying another. Whence it would follow that the old Sacraments being Figures of the New, they should be Figures of Figures and Sacraments of Sacraments, which standeth not greatly with reason. For thus the Circumcision of the fore●kinne should figure the Water of Baptism, and water Christ: and curious heads might run on infinitely, Con. haer. l. 4. c. 32. and as Irenaeus sometime objected unto the Heretics of his time, might ever be devising of types upon types, and figures upon figures. Lastly, if the Sacraments of the old Testament were but Signs of ours, it would follow that they were ordained rather for the benefit of the Christian then the jewish Church, which is absurd. For of our Sacraments, which you say is the thing signified by theirs, benefit they never reaped any, as never being partakers of them: and to leave unto them no more but bare signs, that is empty shells without the kernel, how it might avail them I cannot conceive. Certainly all Sacraments without Christ are unprofitable, neither can they be fruitful at any time but only in Christ, who alone is the Substance and Foundation of them all. Whereupon I conclude, that those ancient Sacraments of the jews directly looked unto Christ's and prefigured him, but were not properly Figures of ours. No were? What say you then to the Fathers who affirm they were? I say two things, first that their Authority is not a sufficient ground to build our Faith upon, as we have elsewhere showed at large. Sum. p. 1. q. ●. ●. 8. ad 2. For it is but Humane testimony, and argueth, as your own Thomas saith, not necessarily, but only probably. Neither is it reason, seeing yourselves so often sleight and reject it, even in those points wherein many times they consent: that you should so peremptorily urge it upon us, and bind us absolutely to believe all they say. I say secondly, that the Father's calling the Sacraments of the old Law Figures of ours, mean not that they were bare and naked signs without the truth, but that in them the thing signified was more darkly and implicitly shadowed then in ours. Or rather, that they were Figures corresponding unto ours: in the same sense that the Apostle S. Peter intendeth it, when he calleth Baptism the Antitype of Noah's Ark. 1. Pet. ●. 20.21 For understanding whereof you are to know, that Types or Figures are sometimes compared with that truth or thing whereof they are Samplars: Heb. 9.14. as where the Holy place of the Tabernacle is said to be the Antitype of Heaven figured thereby. Sometime with some other Secondary sampler and Figure of the same thing: as in this place of Peter, where Baptism is made the Antitype of that deliverance which befell the Church by the Ark, in the general deluge of waters. So that the Ark properly was not ordained to be a Figure of Baptism: but both it and Baptism represent unto us our Salvation from the danger both of sin and death by Christ jesus, therein mutually respecting and answering one the other. The same may you also say of the Cloud and the Passing through the Red sea, of Manna, and the Rock, and all the rest. And that thus the Fathers, hear one for all, who, to use your own words spoke in the sense of them all. This Bread, saith S. Augustine, Tract in. joh. 26. which came down from heaven Manna signified, this Bread the Altar of God signified. They were Sacraments, diverse in signs, but in the thing signified alike. Hear the Apostle, I would not, saith he, have you ignorant Brethren, that all our Fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptised by Moses in the ●loud and in the sea, and all eat the same spiritual meat. The same spiritual I say, but another corporal, because they Manna, We another thing. But the same spiritual that we: yet our Fathers not their Fathers, to whom we are like, not to whom they were like. And he addeth, And they all drank the same spiritual drink. They one thing, we another, as touching the visible nature: yet the self same in the signifying spiritual virtue. For how the same drink? They drank, saith he, of the spiritual Rock following them, and the Rock was Christ. Thence the Bread, thence the drink. The Rock Christ in the sign, true Christ in the Word & Flesh. Thus S. Augustine. But if the Fathers serve not your turn, you have the Fathers of the Fathers, even Christ himself, and his holy Apostle S. Paul▪ who both affirm that Manna was an express figure of this Sacrament. And if Manna, why not by the same proportion other Sacraments also? Indeed now you dispute not Topically, but Apodictically; & you cannot but prevail, if it be true that you say. But what are the words I pray you wherein this may appear? Certainly none at all. For neither the one nor the other either expressly or implicitly make it a Figure of this Sacrament, but of Christ himself and his Flesh. For as for the sixth of john, it is clear that our Saviour speaketh not therein of the Eucharist or of Sacramental Manducation: but only of the Spiritual eating of his Flesh by Faith. joh. 6.35. ay, saith he, am the Bread of life: he that cometh unto me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. Where although to continue the Allegory, he might have said, He that eateth me shall not hunger, and he that drinketh me shall not thirst: yet he chose rather to use the words of Coming and Believing, to teach us that he speaketh not of an Oral eating and drinking by the Mouth, but only of a Spiritual by Faith. And this is so plain, that Bellarmine himself confesseth these words Properly not to belong unto the Sacrament, but to the faith of the Incarnation. De Euchar. l. 1. c 7. Again, that Eating is meant without which there is no life: Ver. 53. Except, saith he, ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his Blood, there is no life in you. But without Sacramental eating a man may have life in him. Lect. 84. in Can Miss. Epist. 7. ad Bohem. Spiritual eating therefore is meant. And thus also do sundry of your own Rabbis understand this place, as namely Gabriel, Cusan, Cajetan, Tapper, Hesselius, jansenius. and others. In p. 3▪ q 80. art. u●t. As for that place of S. Paul, it is evident that the Apostle putteth no difference between the old Sacraments and the New, A●t. 15. Louá. De comm. s●b vn a specie. Concord. c. 59 save only in regard of the external signs: for otherwise he affirmeth the same thing to be Signified and Exhibited in both, to wit Christ. And so doth S. Augustine understand it. They did eat the same spiritual meat, De util. Paen. c. 1. saith he, it had sufficed to have said, they did eat a spiritual meat, but he saith the same. I cannot find how we should understand the same, but the same that we do eat. And again, Whosoever in Manna understand Christ, Cap. 2. did eat the same spiritual food that we do. But whosoever sought only to fill their bellies of Manna, which were the Fathers of the unfaithful, they have eaten and are dead: so also the same drink, for the Rock was Christ. Therefore they drank the same drink that we do, but spiritual drink: that is, which was received by Faith, not which was drawn in with the Body. If happily you stand upon those words, These things are types unto us, 1. Cor. 10.6. you may know that he saith not, they were types of our Sacraments, but Examples to us that we sin not as they did. For as they perished in the wilderness, notwithstanding their Sacraments: so may we, doing as they did, notwithstanding ours. Which argument, if that you say be true, would be of no force at all. For the Corinthians might thus have replied, though their Sacraments availed not them, yet ours may us: because ours are Substance, theirs but Shadows. But enough of the Antecedent. Yet before I proceed to the Consequence, some of your By-speeches are also to be examined. First you say that Bread and Wine was mysteriously offered to Almighty God by Melchizedeck. Session. 3. can. 2. But both the Original and your Vulgar translation,, made authentical by the Council of Trent, say that he brought forth Bread and Wine, and not to God, as an Oblation, but to Abraham for his refection. If he had offered up Bread & Wine as a Sacrifice to God, how cometh it to pass that the Apostle comparing the Priesthood of Christ and Melchizedeck so particularly, Heb. 7. maketh no mention at all thereof? For certainly the point being so material, and the place so fit, it must needs be great ignorance or negligence to omit it. To say nothing that if your own reason be good, the Sacrifice of Melchizedeck shall be inferior to that of Aaron: Bread and Wine being of less value, and not so evidently representing the death of Christ as the slaying of Beasts doth. Secondly you say, that the true Flesh of Christ is contained in this Sacrament, and that the ancient Fathers with one consent testify the same: which in your sense and meaning is utterly false. For neither is the Flesh of Christ under the Accidents of Bread by Transubstantiation, neither doth any of the ancient Fathers testify it, as in the sequel (God willing) shall more plainly appear. Thirdly, where you say, and many others as my Author setteth down, it seemeth that in this point you believe but by an attorney, pinning your Faith unto the credit of I know not whom. The true flesh of Christ, say you, is contained in the Sacrament. How know you that? By the joint consent of Fathers. And how know you they consent therein? My Author tells me so. And what may he be? Peter or Paul, or one of them upon whom cloven tongues descended? I trow no, but some equivocating Priest or jesuit. A sure rock I promise you to stay your faith upon. You say lastly, that the Blood of the Testament described, Exod. 24. & Heb. 9 was fulfilled when Christ said, This cup is the new Testament in my Blood. False. For than he did but institute the Sacrament of his death: and fulfilled it the day following, when really he suffered death upon the Crosse. And what reason have you to think it was performed in a Commemorative sacrifice, wherein yourselves confess there is no effusion of Blood: rather than in the true Sacrifice upon the Cross, wherein the precious blood of the son of God was plentifully shed? N. N. Out of all which Figures is inferred, that for so much as there must be great difference betwixt the Figure and the thing prefigured, no less if we believe S. Paul, then between the Shadow and the Body, whose Shadow it is: it cannot be imagined by any probability, that this Sacrament exhibited by Christ in performance of the Figures, should be only creatures of Bread and Wine as Sacramentaries do imagine, for than should the Figure be either equal or more excellent than the thing prefigured itself. For who will not confess, but that Elias his Bread made by the Angel, that gave him strength to walk forty days upon the virtue thereof, was equal to our English Communion Bread, and that the Manna was much better? I. D. The Antecedent being, as we have showed, untrue, it is no matter what Consequence soever you deduce from it. Nevertheless let us for the present suppose it to be true: What infer you thereupon? The Real Presence and Transubstantiation. How so I pray you? Because otherwise the Figure would be either equal or more excellent than the thing prefigured: which is absurd, and contrary to the rule of S. Paul. This indeed I confess would be absurd: but how do you show it to be so in this particular? By a double instance of Elias his bread and Manna, whereof you say the one was equal, the other more excellent than our English Communion Bread. But still I deny the consequence; the weakness whereof if you see not in this, I hope you will in the like Argument. The Cloud, the Red sea, and Circumcision, were all as you say Figures of Baptism: and the Figure is ever inferior to the thing Figured. If therefore Baptism be only Water, and suffer no Transubstantiation at all, the Figure is equal or more excellent than the thing Figured. For the Water of the Cloud, & the Red sea was equal to the Water of Baptism: and the Foreskin in Circumcision is much better as being part of the Flesh of man. What say you now? Doth this Argument follow yea or no? If yea, then have we a Real Presence also in Baptism by Transubstantiation of Water, which I suppose you will not admit. If no, than neither doth it follow in the Eucharist, for the reason is exactly the same in both. Would you yet more plainly see your error? It is this, your Disjunction is not sufficient: either there is a Real Presence, or the jewish Figures equal our Sacraments. For there are diverse other ways wherein our Sacraments excel theirs although there be no such Presence at all. What ways will you say? Verily not in the worth or value of the outward Elements, for therein they may be exceeded: nor in the thing signified, for it is one & the same in both, even Christ jesus. Wherein then? Even in these particulars. First their Sacraments respected Christ yet to be exhibited in the flesh: our Christ already exhibited. Now as the Faith of things future is ever more languid and faint then of things past: so is the adumbration and shadowing of them unto Faith more obscure also. Secondly, although Flesh may perhaps seem better to express Christ's body then Bread, & the kill of the sacrifice his death then the breaking of Bread: yet in regard of the word annexed unto ours, plainly declaring what they are, to what end instituted, and what proportion there is between the sign and the thing signified, ours must needs be more evident and clear than theirs. Even as a Picture (to use S. Chysostomes' similitude) when it is perfected and set forth with lively colours, Hom. in 1. Cor 10. Nolite ignora●e. better representeth the person of the Prince, then when no more but the first lineaments thereof are drawn, or it is yet but darkly coloured. Thirdly in the Eucharist are figured two things, the Death of Christ; & our Communion with him. That without this avails no more to our soul's health, than the sight of meat without touching it to the nourishment of our bodies. That is shadowed by the breaking of Bread and pouring out of Wine. Not so expressly, will you say, as by the levitical sacrifices. Suppose it: though in regard of the Sacramental words, & the clear knowledge we have of this mystery it is far otherwise. Yet this, I mean our Communion with Christ, is as exactly represented by the Eating of Bread and Drinking of Wine, as nothing can be more. Finally seeing the jews were strictly commanded to abstain from Blood, and we on the other side are charged Sacramentally in the Wine to drink Blood, and in the Bread to eat Flesh: our Sacrament even in regard of the external ceremony is to be preferred to the jewish. And thus you see wherein our Sacraments excel theirs. Now where you affirm, that Sacramentaries imagine this Sacrament to be only the creatures of Bread and Wine: I would fain know whom you understand by these Sacramentaries. If the Church of England: it is a loud untruth. For we acknowledge that the Sacrament consisteth of two things, Cont. Haer. l. 4. c. 34. the one Earthly, the other Heavenly, as Irenaeus speaketh: that is of the outward Elements and the Lords Body. If there be any other who imagine as you say: spare them not, let them hardly be called Sacramentaries. But know withal that we detest both them & you: them for retaining no more than the signs, you for excluding them, and establishing nothing but Shows & Accidents instead of them. In regard whereof they may justly requite you with the name of Accidentaries. N. N. And if Protestants will say for an evasion as they do, that their Bread is not Common Bread, but such Bread; & being eaten and received by Faith, worketh the effect of Christ's Body in them, and bringeth them his Grace: Catholics answer that so did the Figures and Sacraments also of the old Testament being received by Faith in Christ to come, as the ancient Fathers and Preachers received them. And forasmuch as Protestants do farther hold that there is no difference between the virtue and efficacy of those old Sacraments and ours (which Catholics deny) it must needs follow that both Catholics and Protestants agree that the Fathers of the old Testament believed in the same Christ to come that we do now being come, their Figures and Shadows must be as good as our truth in the Sacrament that was prefigured, if it remain Bread still after Christ's institution and Consecration. I. D. Here lest we should escape your hands by some one Evasion or other: you endeavour very diligently to block up the passage against us. For whereas your Argument was, that unless Christ be really present in the Sacrament, the jewish Figures are as good as our truth: you bring us in answering thereto, that our Bread is not Common Bread but such as being eaten by Faith worketh the Effect of Christ's Body, and bringeth Grace. Indeed we say that our Sacramental Bread is not Common Bread: and we farther confess▪ that whosoever receiveth the same worthily, eateth withal the Body of Christ and receiveth Grace. But we never say it in answer to your Objection: neither can we with any reason. For we are not ignorant that the signs also in the old Sacraments were not Common or Profane things, but sanctified and set apart to holy uses: and that being received by Faith, they were thereby partakers of Christ and all his benefits as well as we. The right answer we give is, by denying the consequence: our Sacraments, as we have showed, many ways excelling those of the old Testament, though there be no Transubstantiation at all. So that this is not an Evasion, as you say of ours, but rather a fiction and device of yours▪ to the end you may seem to prevail in something, being not able to gainsay the true Answer. But Catholics, you say, deny the old Sacraments that Virtue and efficacy which they grant to the new. I know they do. For they hold that the new Sacraments justify, and confer Grace by the very work done, without any respect to the merit or Faith of the receiver, which the old Sacraments did not. But hereby you utterly overthrow your own Argument. For how doth this follow, unless there be a Real Presence, our sacraments excel not: seeing in your own opinion they are far more Virtuous and Effectual than those of the old Covenant. Howbeit this Tenent of yours is too palpably absurd: for it giveth unto the creature a divine virtue of piercing into the soul, and cleansing the sins thereof, which is proper unto God. And if the word preached profit us nothing, unless it be mingled with Faith, no nor the Flesh of Christ itself, except it be eaten by Faith: how can it be imagined that Water, or Bread, or any other Sacramental Element should avail unto justification, without any respect unto Faith at all? In Esa 4. Hereunto agree the Fathers. S. Hierom, Man only applieth water, but God the holy spirit: by whom ou● filthiness is cleansed, & the sins of blood are purged. And S. Augustine, Quaest in Leu. q. 84. Without this sanctification of invisible grace, what do the visible sacraments avail? That visible Baptism which wanted invisible sanctification nothing profited Simon Magus. Tract. in joh. 80. And again, Water cleanseth the heart, the word effecting it, not because it is spoken but believed. But of this enough. N. N. But Catholic Fathers did understand the matters far otherwise. And to allege one for all for that he spoke in the sense of all in those days, S. Hierom talking of one of those foresaid Figures, to wit of the shewbread, and comparing it with the thing figured and by Christ exhibited, saith thus. There is so much difference between the Shewbread and the body of Christ prefigured thereby, as there is difference between the shadow and the Body whose shadow it is, and between an image and the truth which the image representeth, and between certain shapes of things to come and the things themselves prefigured by those shapes. And thus of Figures and presignifications of the old Testament. I. D. To what end this passage of St Hierom? To prove our Sacraments to be of greater virtue & efficacy then those of old? This indeed should be your conclusion: but St Hieroms' words infer it not. For he compareth the Shewbread not with the bread in the Eucharist, but with Christ's body: betwixt which I confess there is as main a difference, as there is betwixt the Shadow and the Body. But I beseech you, is there not as great a difference between water in Baptism and the Blood of Christ, or bread in the Eucharist and the Body of Christ? Doubtless there is: for they are all but figures of the same Verity▪ namely Christ. Whereas therefore you argue thus, Hierom preferreth the body of Christ unto Shewbread as far as the substance exceedeth the shadow: Ergo our Sacraments are more virtuous than those of old, or if you will (for indeed I know not well what you would conclude) Ergo the body of Christ is really present by transubstantiation: it is a miserable non sequitur, and without either rhyme or reason. For upon the same ground I may aswell infer the contrary, thus, Christ's body excels Eucharistical Bread as much as the substance doth the shadow: Ergo Shewbread and the old Sacraments are more virtuous than ours. The main error is, that you tie the Body of Christ unto our new Sacraments, if not unto the Eucharist only: whereas indeed he is the Truth of all Sacraments both old and new, and therefore is alike present and powerful in them all, to all that believe, as contrarily to the incredulous and unbelievers his Grace is alike uneffectuall. And thus much of your first Argument. N. N. The opinion of the ancient Fathers grounded upon the Scriptures, as upon those speeches of our Saviour, This is my body that shall be given for you, My flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink, the bread that I shall give you is my flesh for the life of the world, and other like sentences of our Saviour. I. D. Your second Argument is drawn from the opinion of the ancient Fathers grounded upon the Scriptures. An invincible and irrefragable Argument if you be able to make it good. For who is he that dares withstand so great Authority as is that of the Fathers, backed with Scripture? But brag is a good dog, as they say: and it behooveth you to crack and boast of much, lest otherwise you be thought to be destitute of all. For I will be bold to affirm, that neither you nor your author shall ever be able to prove any one of the ancient Fathers whether with Scripture or without to be of your side in this present point. Those that you pretend to make for you, we shall examine as they offer themselves in order. And as for grounding their opinion upon Scripture, neither could they do so, seeing they never dreamt of your Real presence, neither do the particular places by you vouched import any such thing. The first place, This is my body, shall hereafter at large be unfolded: the rest, as is already demonstrated, speak not a word of the Sacrament, but only of Spiritual eating. If the Fathers either in their Homilies or Commentaries allege these words discoursing of the Eucharist, it maketh nothing against us. For seeing Christ is Spiritually eaten not only out of the Sacrament but in it also, and Spiritual eating cannot well be expressed but by terms borrowed from Bodily eating: no marvel if the ancient Fathers speaking of the Sacrament, accommodate these words, and the rest in the sixth of john thereunto. N. N. The Fathers do not only urge all the circumstances here specified or signified, to prove it to be the true natural Body of Christ, as that it was to be given for us the next day after Christ's words were spoken, that it was to be given for the life of the whole world, and that it was truly meat, and truly Christ's flesh: but do add also diverse other circumstances of much efficacy to confirm the same, affirming the same more in particular, that it is the very Body, which was borne of the blessed Virgin, the very same Body that suffered on the Crosse. Hom. 4. in 1. Cor. The selfsame body, saith St chrysostom that was nailed, beaten, crucified, blooded, wounded with a spear, is received by us in a Sacrament. Whereunto St Augustine addeth this particularity, that it is the selfsame that walked here among us upon earth. As he walked here in earth, saith he, among us, In Ps. 98. so the very selfsame flesh doth he give to be eaten: and therefore no man eateth that flesh but first adoreth it. In Levit. c. ●●▪ And Hesychius addeth, that he gave the selfsame Body whereof the Angel Gabriel said to the Virgin Mary, that it should be conceived of the Holy Ghost. And yet farther, It is the same body saith St Chrysostom, that the Major or learned men did adore in the manger: but thou dost see him, saith he, not in the manger but on the Altar, not in the arms of a woman, but in the hands of a Priest. In Ps. 33. The very selfsame flesh, saith St Augustine again, that ●ate at the table in the last supper, & washed his Disciples feet, the very same I say did Christ give with his own hands to his Disciples when he said, Take eat, this is my body, etc. and so did he bear himself in his own hands, which was prophesied of David, but fulfilled only by Christ in that supper. These are the particularities used by the Fathers to declare what Body they mean: and can there be any more effectual Speeches than these? I. D. Pliny in one of his Epistles adviseth him that would be a Writer, oftentimes to look back unto the title of his Book, and to consider what his drift and purpose is: lest ere he be aware he step aside and fall upon things impertinent. Which wise and prudent counsel of his had you duly regarded, I persuade myself you would not have spoken so little to the purpose, as in this section you have done. For out of all these sayings of the Fathers you conclude no more but this, that the true natural flesh of Christ, which was borne of the blessed virgin, conversed among us here on earth, and suffered on the cross, etc. is present in the Sacrament: which who denies? Certainly none of our side: for we all freely confess the same together with you. So that the difference betwixt you and us lies not in the thing itself, but in the Manner: nor whether Christ be present, but how and in what sort he is present. Two ways, say we, he is present, Sacramentally, Spiritually, as is above already declared. And this Presence we affirm to be so straight and near, that we are thereby bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh. But the Presence that you maintain is a Corporalland Local Presence of the Flesh of Christ under the Accidents of Bread and Wine, and that by way of Transubstantiation. And this is the point which you have undertaken to prove out of the Fathers, and to which you ought to speak: but in this place you perform it not. For how doth this follow? The Fathers say that true Christ is present: Ergo they say he is present Corporally, Locally, and by way of Transubstantiation. Certainly not at all: for he may otherwise be Present, namely Sacramentally, as we hold, and Spiritually. Neither shall your Author with all his wit and skill ever be able to make good this or the like consequence from the thing to the manner. And thus much for answer in general. Particularly, St chrysostom saith, the selfsame Body which was crucified, etc. is received by us. But how? In a Sacrament: that is Sacramentally, and by Faith. Even as in Baptism we are made partakers of the Blood of Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost; not by a Real presence, or Transubstantiation of Water into them, but only, as St chrysostom here speaketh, in a Sacrament. The which comparison I use the rather, because it is the Fathers own who elsewhere saith, Ad pop Ant. hom 60. that it is in the Lord's supper as it is in Baptism: wherein by the sensible element of water the gift is bestowed, In Mat. hom. 23. and that which is intelligible, to wit regeneration and renovation is performed. The Reddition whereof must needs be this, that in like manner by the sensible creatures of Bread and Wine the gift is given, & we are made partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ to the Spiritual nourishment of our souls. By which proportion it seemeth that as the one is effected without Transubstantiation, so is the other also. Your next Author is Saint Augustine, who saith, that the same Flesh which walked here among us doth he give to be eaten. True: but to be eaten by Faith, not by the mouth. For so doth Saint Augustine expound himself elsewhere, Tract in joh. 25. Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly? Believe and thou hast eaten. Whereunto St Cyprian also acordeth, calling the blessed Body of Christ, the food of the mind and not of the belly. But St Augustine farther addeth, No man eateth that flesh but first adoreth it. Adoreth I grant that flesh which is hypostatically and inseparably united to the Deity, but not the mystical signs in the Sacrament: for that were foul idolatry. Now if to eat the flesh of Christ be to believe in him, as the fame St Augustine oftentimes affirmeth, Tract. in joh. 26. and none adoreth but he that believeth: it necessarily followeth that neither judas nor any other Hypocrite partaking of the Sacrament, eat the flesh of Christ because they neither believe in him, nor adore him, which maketh strongly against Transubstantiation. The third Author you allege is Hesychius, who saith no more but this, that he gave the selfsame body which should be conceived of the Holy Ghost: which we readily yield unto you. For the selfsame Flesh is in the Sacrament truly offered and given unto our Faith. But that Hesychius never dreamt of your Real Presence may appear by these words, In Levit. l. 1 c. 2 His flesh, saith he, which before his passion was unfit to be eaten (for who desireth to eat the Lords flesh?) hath he after his passion made fit for meat. For if he had not been crucified, we had not eaten the sacrifice of his body: but now we eat that meat, receiving it in memory of his Passion. From Hesychius you return unto Saint chrysostom again, where he saith that Christ is seen on the altar and in the hands of a Priest. What literally, and with the eye of the body? I trow no. For though Transubstantiation were granted you, yet is it not the Body of Christ, but the Accidents only of Bread and Wine which we see. How then. Biblioth l. 6. am. 152. Surely, as your own Sixtus Senensis observeth, Saint chrysostom is full of hyperbolical speeches: which if they be rigorously interpreted cannot possibly be true. Such is this here, Ad pop. Ant. hom. 61. and such are those other of touching Christ, and feeling him with the hand, of fastening our teeth in his flesh, Hom. 83. in. Mat. of making our tongues red with his blood, that we receive not the body of God from a man, Ser. in Encaen. de Eucha●. but from the Seraphims themselves taking up fire with their tongues, such as Esaias saw, and the like. All which Phrases how they are to be understood, Saint chrysostom himself teacheth us, oftentimes adding an as it were unto them. As having said The spiritual blood floweth on the table: within a few lines after he saith, Think that the saving blood issueth as it were out of the divine and unpolluted side, and that thou dost as it were suck it from his side. In like manner doth Theophilact his Abridger interpret him. Tract in joh. 25. For whereas chrysostom saith, We are in this Sacrament mingled with Christ: In joh. 6. Theophylact for explanation addeth, after a certain manner. Whereby it is manifest that the meanin of your author in this passage also is, as if he had said, Thou seest him as it were on the Altar, and as it were in the hands of the Priest, that is Sacramentally, and by Faith▪ for with other eyes then those of the spirit he is not there to be discerned. Orat. de B. Philogon. But if we come with faith, according to that which elsewhere he saith, Without doubt we shall see him lying in the cratch: for this table is unto us instead of the cratch. Lastly you vouch Saint Augustine the second time where he saith, that Christ in his last supper bore himself in his own hands. Whereunto I might answer that Saint Augustine whether misled by a wrong translation, or upon some other mistake, was much overseen to allege that for Scripture, and to make it his ground, which is no where to be found in Scripture. 1 Sam. 21.14. For the text intended by him hath it far otherwise then so. The vulgar Bible saith, He fell down, or reeled between their hands: Saint Basil, In Ps. 33. He was carried by the hands of the servants: The Original, He played the fool or madman in their hand, or while he was in their power. All which is much differing from that of Saint Augustine, He was carried in his own hands. And no marvel if a feigned text which he understood not, drew from him such a violent interpretation. To say nothing how careless he is of the letter in his Enarrations upon the Psalms and how hardly it beareth his Mystical constructions. But this notwithstanding Saint Augustine, you will say, plainly delivereth his judgement touching the Sacrament, when he saith▪ Christ therein was carried in his own hands. Not so plainly for your purpose, if Saint Augustine who knew his own meaning best may be his own interpreter. For thus doth he expound himself. In Ps 33. conc. 2. How was he carried in his own hands? Because when he commended his very Body and blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful know, and after a sort carried himself when he said, This is my Body. He saith not Really, or Substantially, or Corporally, but after a sort: even as elsewhere also, The Sacrament of the body of Christ, Ep. 23. ad Boni●ac. is after a certain manner the body of Christ, that is to say, Sacramentally & Significatively. For if he had meant properly and literally, he would never have said after a sort: but speaking in that manner, it is evident he meant improperly and figuratively, He carried himself, that is, the Sacrament or Symbol of himself▪ N. N. But yet farther, Thou must know and hold for most certain, Catech. 4. mystag. saith S. Cyril, that this which seemeth to be Bread, is not Bread but Christ's body, though the taste doth judge it Bread. And again in the same Father, Under the form or show of Bread is given to thee the Body of Christ, and under the form or shape of Wine is given to thee the Blood of Christ. Hom. 60. ad pop. Ant. And S. chrysostom to the same effect, We must not believe our senses easy to be beguiled, etc. We must simply and without all ambiguity believe the words of Christ, This is my Body, etc. How many say now always, I would see him, I would behold his visage, his vestments, etc. But he doth more than this, for he giveth himself, not only to be seen, but to be touched also, handled, and eaten by thee. I. D. First, what if I should except against this Cyril as an unsufficient witness? For perhaps he deserveth it, and so doing I shall not at all wrong him. That there was an ancient Father of that name Bishop of Jerusalem I confess: & that he wrote Catechisms is testified by S. Hierom: Cat. script. Eccles. but withal that he wrote them in his youth, and long before he was Bishop, which much elevateth the weight of his testimony. Howbeit you are father to know that those catechetical books now entitled unto him, are but of a very late edition. Con. jewel. a 10. Parag. 6. For your own Harding acknowledgeth that in his time, namely about sixty years since, they were only manuscript and known but to a few learned men. Since which time they have been published in print: and perhaps to win more authority unto them mis-fathered upon Cyril of Jerusalem. For if we may believe Gesner, Bibl. Con. Molinaeum. or Simler, or your own Gretzer a jesuit, sundry written copies entitle them to john Bishop of Jerusalem, one who lived well near eight hundred years after Christ, Vignier. Ec. hist. ann. 767. even then when the quarrel about Images and relics was on foot. Whence happily proceeded that overlashing speech, Cat. 4. &. 10. that the wood of the Cross was so multiplied as the whole world was now full of it. Howsoever, seeing they are come to our hands from no better places than Trent, the Pope's Vatican, and Cardinal perron's Library: you cannot blame us if we vehemently suspect that they have passed through Purgatory, and suffered much addition and substraction. For we are not ignorant of your Pious frauds, and holy couznages in purging of books: not permitting them to speak what their Authors wrote, but what maketh most for your own advantage. But let it be supposed for the present that your author is the right Cyril of Jerusalem, and free from all corruption, and if you will also, that he wrote his Catechisms in his elder years: what then is the testimony that begiveth for Transubstantiation? Forsooth, that which seemeth to be Bread is not Bread but Christ's body, though the taste judge it Bread. And again, Under the show of bread and Wine, the Body and Blood of Christ is given. Whereunto I answer, and first to the former, that the common Latin Translation reads it otherwise, thus, This bread which we see is not bread: so denying it to be Bread, that yet he affirmeth we see Bread. Which seeming contradiction is easily accorded by Cyril himself, where he saith, it is not simple, Cat. mist. 3. &. 4. or naked, or common bread: as if he should say, Bread it is, yet not only bread, but something else beside. Even as when we deny Christ to be mere man, we mean not that he is no man, but that he is Man, and besides that God also. It is not then bread, that is, Profane, or Unsanctified bread: but the Body of Christ, that is, bread sanctified to be a Type or Sacrament of Christ's Body. And although our taste judge it to be no more than bread: yet Faith teacheth us not to stay on bread, but to mount higher even unto the Body of Christ. I beseech you, when Pachymeres saith, In Dionys. E● hier. c. 4. The holy oil is no longer called oil, for the oil is Christ, doth he mean, it hath lost its nature and is transubstantiated into Christ? I trow no. In like manner might Cyril say, The bread we see is not bread but Christ's body, and yet never dream of your Real Presence. For in his opinion there is the like reason of both. Cat. myst. 3. Even as, saith he, the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost is no more common bread but the body of Christ▪ so also this holy ointment is no more bare or common ointment after it is now consecrated, but a grace which worketh the Presence of Christ and the holy Ghost. To the second passage I answer, that your Author, whosoever he be, hath rendered it captiously, under the form, or show, or shape of Bread and Wine, as if he had meant your Accidents without substance: whereas indeed Cyrils own words are, in the Type or Figure of Bread and Wine. And this we acknowledge to be most true. For in the receiving of the Bread and Wine which typically are the body and blood of Christ, we truly and really after a spiritual manner receive his very body and blood also. In regard whereof as he calleth bread & winetypes: so he maketh the body & blood of Christ their Anti-types. They are commanded, Cat. myst. 5. saith he, to taste, not of bread and wine, but of the Anti-type, the body and blood of Christ. The body therefore and the blood is in the bread and in the wine, as the Anti-type is the type, or the thing figured in the figure: which I hope may be done without any Transubstantiation. Certainly if wheresoever you read of Forms, shows, or shapes, you by and by conceive of nothing but Accidents without substance: it cannot be avoided but you must needs fall into dangerous errors. When Saint Paul saith, Phil. 2.9.7.8. that Christ being in the form of God counted it no rapine to be equal with God: Nevertheless emptied himself taking the form of a servant, made after the similitude of men, and being found in figure as a man humbled himself, etc. What will you conclude hence, that Christ is only show without substance, and neither true God nor true Man? I know you will not. And seeing you dare not do it in this: I would advise you to beware how you conclude so in the like. As for the testimony of S. chrysostom, I answer unto it briefly. We must not believe our senses, saith he. True, for they discern nothing else but bare bread and Wine, and are not capable of the mystery signified and exhibited by them. To apprehend that belongeth unto Faith, and not sense. Yet is not sense every way to be discredited: for we believe it is Whiteness which we see, and savour which we taste, yea we may safely believe it is bread which we take and eat. Wherein then may we not believe sense? That it is mere bread. For it perceiveth not that it is sanctified and sacramental bread. But of this more hereafter. Again, We must, saith he, simply and without all ambiguity believe the words of Christ, saying, This is my body. Questionless we must: and he that believeth them not is an infidel. But seeing, as yourselves confess, bread in proper signification is not the body of Christ: neither was it Christ's meaning we should believe it to be so. To believe Christ's words than is to believe them in Christ's meaning: which because it is not literal, as we have said, it must needs be Figurative, thus, This bread sacramentally is my body. But of this also more hereafter. Lastly, saith he, He giveth himself not only to be seen, but also to be touched, handled, and eaten. This is sufficiently answered already: whether to avoid tautology I refer myself. Only I add, that if properly we see, touch, taste Christ, them may we believe our senses, contrary to that which chrysostom saith. But if we may not believe them, than neither do we see, nor touch, nor taste him properly, but, as himself interpreteth himself, after a manner, that is, in a sacrament, spiritually and by Faith: which importeth not your Real Presence. N. N. Nor only do the Fathers affirm so asseverantly that it is the true natural Body of Christ, though it appear to be Bread in form and shape, and that we must not believe our Senses herein, but do deny expressly that it is Bread after the words of Consecration, De Sacram: l 4. c. 4. & l. de Imetand. as appeareth out of S. Ambrose, in his book de Sacramentis & Imetandis. Before the words of consecration it is bread, saith he, but after consecration of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. And again, before the words of Christ be uttered (in the consecration) the Chalice is full of Wine and Water, but when the words of Christ have wrought their effect, there is made the blood that redeemed the People. I. D. Whether those books of the Sacraments here cited by you under the name of Ambrose be his or no, is not agreed upon by all. Possevine the jesuit affirming that all almost together with Cardinal Bellarmine hold them to be legitimate, plainly insinuates by the word almost that some are of another mind. Their reasons are, first because the style much differeth from that of Ambrose; his being clear, Sixt. Sen. bibl. l. 4: perspicuous, florid, and elaborate, this oftentimes negligent, harsh, rude, & savouring of Monkish barbarism. Secondly, Lib. 1. c. 6. & l. 3.2. because no writer before Lanfrank & Guitmund, who lived six hundred years after Ambrose, quote them: which were strange if they be his, especially considering the matter of these books, and how commonly the rest of his writings were alleged. Lastly, because repeating the Lords Prayer, he delivereth the sixth Petition in these words, And suffer us not to be led into temptation; Lib. 6. c. 5. whereas the words of Christ are, And lead us not into temptation, which it is not to be thought that S. Ambrose either was ignorant of, or meant to amend. As touching the other book de Imitandis (you should say de mysterijs initiandis) the same judgement have they as of the former. But if you will, let them be Saint Ambroses: For I mean not to be peremptory herein. What would you conclude out of him? That he denies it expressly to be bread after consecration. Certainly in express terms he doth not. All he saith is, that after consecration bread is made flesh, and wine blood: out of which it followeth not that it ceaseth to be bread and wine: for S. Ambrose himself affirmeth that this notwithstanding they still remain what they were. De Sacram. l 4 c 4 If, saith he, there be so great power in the word of the Lord jesus, that they should begin to be that which they were not: how much more effectual is it, that they be what they were, & yet be changed into another thing. But how may this be will you say, that it should remain bread and yet be made flesh? Let S. chrysostom resolve you. The grace of God, saith he, sanctifying the bread, it is freed from the name of bread, and counted worthy of the name of the Lords body. Yea and S. Ambrose himself also. The Lord jesus himself, De mist. init. c. 9 saith he, cryeth, this is my body. Before the blessing of the heavenly words, it is named another kind: after consecration the body of Christ is signified. He saith, his Blood. Before consecration it is called another thing: after consecration it is called blood. Where by the way I cannot but marvel at the forehead of your Cardinal Bellarmine, De. Euchar. l, 4. c. 13. who vouching this place, changeth that clause, the body of Christ is signified, into this, it is the body of Christ. Happily he did not brook the word signify, because it cleareth this point of the Real Presence more than willingly he would. But hereby it is evident how bread may be made flesh, and yet still remain bread: namely, because it is made so only typically and in a signifying mystery. N. N. Whereas Christ hath said of the Bread, This is my Body, who will dare to doubt thereof? Cyrill. Hier. cat. Myst. 4. And whereas he hath said of the Wine, This is my Blood, who will doubt or say, it is not his Blood? He once turned Water into Wine in Cana of Galilee by his own will, which Wine is like unto Blood. And shall we not think him worthy to be believed when he saith he hath changed Wine into his Blood? Our Lord jesus Christ doth testify unto us that we received his Body and Blood: Ambr. l. 4. de Sacerd. c. 4 and may we doubt of his credit or testimony? Those things that are written let us read, Hilar. de Trin. cont. Arr. l. 4. and what we read let us understand: so shall we perfectly perform the duty of Faith: for that these points which we affirm of the natural verity of Christ's being in us, except we learn them of Christ himself, we affirm them wickedly and foolishly, etc. Wherefore whereas he saith, My Flesh is truly Meat, and my blood truly drink, there is no place left to us of doubting concerning the truth of Christ's body and blood, for that both by the affirmation of Christ himself and our own belief there is (in the Sacrament) the flesh truly and the blood truly of our Saviour. Emis hom. 5. de Pasch. Eusebius bringeth in Christ our Saviour speaking in these words, For so much as my flesh is truly meat, and my Blood truly drink, let all doubtfulness of infidelity depart, for so much as he who is the author of the gift is witness also of the truth thereof. Ser. 8. de. ●eiun. 7. mensis And Saint Leo to the same effect, Nothing at all is to be doubted of the truth of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament: and those do in vain answer Amen (when they receive it) if they dispute against that which is affirmed. In Auchorato And finally St Epiphanius concludeth thus, He that believeth it not to be the very Body of Christ in the Sacrament, is fallen from grace and Salvation. I. D. Your Argument, Christ saith, This is my Body, This is my Blood. True, no man denieth it. The Fathers say, He is worthy to be believed, and we may not doubt of his testimony. True also: and he is an infidel whosoever questioneth any thing he saith. What then? Ergo by the judgement of the Fathers, the flesh of Christ is Really and by way of Transubstantiation present in the Sacrament? It followeth not. For Christ saith not so: and his Flesh without Transubstantiation may be present Sacramentally and Spiritually. Saint Paul expressly saith, 1 Cor. 10.4. The rock was Christ: and he is worthy to be believed, neither may we doubt of his credit. Yet I hope you will not infer thereupon, Ergo in S. Paul's judgement the Rock was transubstantiated into Christ. No more can you conclude the like Change out of Christ's words: for the case is exactly the same. In a word, to argue from the Thing to the Manner, It is, Ergo it is so, or so, is merely ridiculous. With this general answer might I at once quit all your authorities: but to three of them I have somewhat more to say in particular. Christ, saith Cyril, hath said of the bread, This is my Body: and who will dare to doubt thereof? Verily no true believer. De Cos. dist. 2. Parag. pani● est in altari. Gloss. ib. Yet Papists dare. For that Bread should be Christ's Body tropically & figuratively, they jest & flout at: and that it should be so literally and properly they flatly deny. De Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. It is impossible, saith your law, that Bread should be the Body of Christ. And Bellarmine, which sentence, this is my body, either must be understood tropically that bread is the body of Christ significatively, or it is altogether absurd and impossible: for it cannot be that bread should be the body of Christ. Now if bread neither tropically nor literally be Christ's Body, then do not Papists believe Christ, who according to Cyril saith of the bread, This is my body. Yea but Cyril farther saith Christ hath changed wine into his blood. I grant: but every change is not Transubstantiation. Whatsoever the holy Ghost toucheth is sanctified and changed, Cat. myst. 5. saith Cyril. So is Water in Baptism changed: and so is Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, yet neither by substraction of substance, but addition of Grace, as saith Theodoret. Dial. 1. To Saint Hilary I answer, that in the place by you quoted he speaketh not of the Eucharist. and that therefore those words: in the Sacrament, inserted by way of Parenthesis into the text, are but a Gloss not expounding but corrupting it. Had he meant it of the Sacrament, he would never have said, De Trin. l. 8. No man shall be in him, but he only in whom himself is, having only taken his flesh into him who hath taken his. What? No man to be in him, but he only in whom himself is by the Sacrament? God forbid: for then all are out of Christ that receive not the Eucharist, and yourselves hold not such an absolute necessity thereof. Of the Mystical Union therefore between Christ and us doth he speak, as also of the Spiritual eating of his Flesh and Drinking of his Blood whereby it is wrought: and which, as you know, is as well done out of the Sacrament as in it. Lastly to your Eusebius Emissenus I answer, that if it be that ancient Bishop of Emesa in Syria, mentioned by Saint Hierom in his Catalogue, Catal. Scrip. Eccl. he who flourished under the Emperor Constantius, and wrote many short Homilies upon the Gospels: then is his authority of no value. For your own Bellarmine and Possevin have observed out of Hierom, Recognit. p. 64. that he was a ringleader of the Arian faction. But indeed it is not the same Emissenus, Appar. to. 1. tit. Ens. Emis. De Euchar. l. 2. c. 30. as the foresaid Bellarmine and Possevin together with Baronius and Canisius testify. Ibid. For the one wrote in Greek, the other in Latin: Anno. 341. Sect. 10.11. & 441. Sect. 5.6.7.8. the one died a good time before the Pelagian heresy sprang up, the other writeth against it. If it be not he, who is it then: It is uncertain, saith Bellarmine. Some Latin writer, Chronolog. in 500 saith Sixtus Senensis, who stitched these Rhapsodies together out of the Latin Fathers, Biblioth. l. 4. and whose style savoureth of Bede or Rabanus, or some one like unto them. A Frenchman, saith Canisius and Possevin, and others: yet can they not find either in France, or any part of Europe, a place whence he should be? called Emissenus. One suspecteth him to be Faustus Rhegiensis, another Caesaries Bishop of Arles, a third ascribeth some of his Homilies to Eucherius, some to Maximus, and some to others. Friar Walden citeth this very Homily here by you quoted under three several names, Isidore, Eusebius Emisenus, & Anselm. All which are but mere conjectures, and there is no certainty either of his name, or the time when he lived. So that for aught we know, he may be some Monk or Friar, who finding Emissenus to be an ancient writer, thought good for the gracing of his doings to set them forth in his name: a practice not unusual among them. Howbeit, be he never so Orthodox, never so ancient, that which he saith is little to your purpose. For all he saith is but this, we may not doubt that Christ's flesh is truly meat, and his blood truly drink forasmuch as himself affirmeth it. So saith Ambrose, so Leo, so Epiphanius: and it is already answered in the general to which I refer you. N. N. And the Father's farther affirming, that not by Faith only, or in figure, or image, or spiritually alone the flesh of Christ is to be eaten by us, but really, substantially, and corporally. Hom. 87 in Mat. 21. Not only by Faith, saith chrysostom, but in very deed he maketh us his Body, reduceing us as it were into one mass or substance with himself. And Saint Cyril, In joh. 17. l. 10. not only by faith and Charity be we spiritually conjoined unto Christ (by his Flesh in the Sacrament) but corporally also by communication of the same flesh. And Saint chrysostom again, Not only by love, but in very deed are we converted into his flesh by eating the same. And Saint Cyril again, we receiving in the Sacrament corporally and substantially the Son of God united naturally unto his Father, we are clarified and glorified thereby, and made partakers of his supreme nature. Thus they. I. D. That which you would or should prove is that Christ's body is in the Sacrament after a corporal manner; and by way of Transubstantiation. That where by you endeavour to prove it is the testimony of those Fathers, who affirm that Christ's flesh is really, substantially, and corporally conjoined unto us by the Sacrament. But between these two there is great distance: neither doth that any way follow upon this. ● Cor. 12.13. We all, saith the Apostle S. Paul, are by one spirit baptised into one body. Whereupon Saint Augustine, baptism availeth to this, that they which are baptised be incorporated into Christ. De Passio. Ser. 14. And Leo, he that is received of Christ and receiveth Christ, is not the same after washing that he was before baptism: but the body of the regenerate man is made the flesh of him that was crucified. In regard whereof the foresaid Apostle sticketh not to say we are Christ. 1 Cor. 12.12. Tract. in joh. 21. And accordingly Saint Augustine, Let us rejoice and give thanks that we are made not only Christians, but Christ. By all which it is evident that we are as really, substantially, and corporally united unto Christ in Baptism, as we are in the Lord's Supper. And yet I hope you will not thereupon infer a Real presence in Baptism. If not, why should you presume to do it in the Lord's Supper? For there is no more reason for the one Sacrament then for the other. Certainly, if the only way of uniting us really unto Christ be by receiving this Sacrament: then woe unto all those who being Baptised died before they could receive it. For it is impossible for any man to be saved by Christ, unless first he be really made one with him. But let us briefly examine your witnesses. Saint chrysostom saith, Not by faith only, but indeed he maketh us his body: and Not only by love, but indeed are we converted into his flesh. What? literally, and in proper signification, so as we are reduced into one mass or lump with him? Or that by receiving the Communion we are really, substantially, and corporally transubstantiated into the very Body of Christ? I know you cannot conceive so rudely and grossly of him: and lest you should, he himself qualifieth and tempereth the vehemence of his speech with an as it were, reducing us as it were into one mass. 1. Cor. 10.17. In 1 Cor. hom 4. In which words alluding to that of the Apostle, we are one loaf, and one body, and explicating the same, What speak I, saith he of communication? we are that selfsame body. For what is bread? The body of Christ. And what are they made that receive it? The body of Christ: not many Bodies, but one Body. Whence I argue, as we by receiving the Sacrament are made Christ's Body, so is the Bread.▪ But we are not made his Body corporally by way of Transubstantiation. Ergo neither is the Bread: nay much less is the Bread. But Saint chrysostom saith, Not by faith only, but in very deed. True. Yet not as if he that is joined to Christ by Faith were not indeed joined: for as Saint Augustine saith, Eph. 3.17. The Apostle deceiveth us not, who saith that Christ dwelleth in our hearts by faith. De verb. Ap. Ser. 16. He is in thee, because faith is in thee. Nor as if he would exclude Faith, and that a man might be united unto Christ by some other means without Faith. How then? His meaning plainly is this, that we are joined unto Christ by Faith, and by charity: and that this conjunction is not only imaginary, as some may foolishly conceive, by the apprehension of the mind and fantasy, or by participation of the spiritual gifts and graces of Christ, but true and Real by communication of his very Flesh unto us. Of which more in the next testimony. Saint Cyril saith, that we are conjoined unto Christ corporally by communication of his flesh: and again that in the Sacrament we corporally and substantially receive the Son of God. Whereunto I answer that Saint Cyril disputeth against a certain Heretic who held that we are one with Christ by Faith in his Deity, and not by conjunction with his Flesh: and to this purpose wrested that saying of our Saviour, wherein he calleth himself a Vine, joh. 15.1. us the branches, and his Father the Husbandman. To refute this he endeavoureth to show that we are joined unto him not only by that Faith whereby we believe him to be the Son of God, and that Charity whereby we love him and spiritually embrace him, but also in our Flesh to his very Flesh: and that therefore Christ not only in regard of Deity is the Vine and we his Branches, but also in respect of his Body. May it not, saith he, conveniently be said, that his humanity is the vine and we the Branches by reason of the identity of nature? And to prove this he draws his argument from this Sacrament, for that by it not only the gifts and graces of his Deity, but also his true real Body is after an inscrutable and unspeakable manner communicated unto us. True it is he useth the word corporally: but he saith also by the participation of the same flesh. Whereby he insinuateth that he intendeth not by that word to express the Manner how we are united, but the Thing whereunto we are united after a Bodily manner, but unto the Body. Else this absurdity will follow that we by the Sacrament are after a Bodily manner in Christ as well as Christ is in us: for Saint Cyril affirmeth both, that we are corporally in Christ, and Christ corporally in us. Whereas therefore Cyril saith, not only by Faith and charity, but also corporally, he doth not exclude the one but admitteth both: as appeareth by that he saith both spiritually and corporally are we the Branches and Christ the Vine. And the plain meaning is, that not only in regard of the Spirit or Deity of Christ, and our faith & charity, but also in respect of his very Flesh are we truly joined unto him. More briefly, we are united not to his Divinity or Humanity alone, but unto both. N. N. In cap. 10. Marc. Whereunto for more explication addeth Theophilact, When Christ said this is my Body, he showed that it was his very Body indeed, and not any Figure correspondent thereunto: for he said not, This is the figure of my body, but this is my body. By which words the bread is transformed by an unspeakable operation, though to us it seem still bread. In cap. 6. joh. And again in another place. Behold that the Bread which is eaten by us in the mysteries is not only a figuration of Christ's flesh, but the very flesh indeed, for that the Bread is transformed by secret words into the flesh. Arcanus verba. And another Father more ancient than he above twelve hundred years past, Magnes l. 3. ad Theostmen. handled these words of Christ, This is my Body, saith. It is not the figure of Christ's Body and Blood as some blockish minds have trifled, but it is truly the Body and Blood of our Saviour indeed. I. D. The testimonies of Theophilact I might safely if I would pass over in silence, for that he lived some nine hundred years after Christ: and therefore is too young to be reckoned among the ancient Fathers. Nevertheless let us hear what he brings. Christ saith not, This is the figure of my body, but this is my body. True: neither was it fit to speak otherwise. Gen. 17.10.11 For in the institution of a Sacrament what form can be more fit than that which is proper to a Sacrament? Ex. 12.11. That form is to give unto the sign the name of that whereof it is a sign. Mar. 26.18. Rom. 6.4. Hence is circumcision called the covenant, Col. 2.12. and the Lamb the Passeover, and Baptism our Death and Burial with Christ. Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. The reason, because of the resemblance that is between the Sacraments, and those things whereof they are Sacraments as Saint Augustine saith. As also to raise our thoughts from settling on that which is earthly and elemental in them, Dial. 1. to the contemplation of that heavenly grace which is signified and exhibited by them, as Theodoret saith. But of this what doth he collect? That it is his very body indeed and not any figure thereof. Not any Figure? Those that are both his ancestors and betters say otherwise. Con. Marc. l. 4. Tertullian, The bread that was taken and given to the Disciples Christ made his body saying, Con. Adim. c. 12. This is my body, that is, the Figure of my body. Augustine, The Lord did not stick to say This is my body, Enarr. in Ps. 3. when he gave the sign of his body. And again, The Lord at his supper commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his body and blood. De Sacram. l. 4. c. 5. Amhrose, The new Testament is confirmed by blood, In Marc. c. 14. in a Figure of which (blood) we receive the mystical cup. Hierom, jesus took bread, and giving thanks broke it, transfiguring his body into the bread. Finally (for it would be infinite to allege all) what more frequent in the writings of the Fathers, than Signs, Sacraments, Figures, Symbols, Types, Anti-types, Mysteries, Samplars, Images, Similitudes, Remembrances, and the like? Against all whose yea Theophilacts Nay is not worth a straw. Yet for all this, if you will give him leave to interpret himself, I see not but his Nay may easily be reconciled to their Yea. For in the next passage by you vouched he faith It is not only a Figuration: as if he should say, A figure it is, but it is not only so, not a bare and naked Figure, but a Figure endued from on high with the efficacy of the Spirit, according to that of St Cyprian. The truth is present to the sign and the spirit to the Sacrament. As for the Transformation of Bread into Flesh, which he speaks of, though still it seem Bread, it is plain he means not that of Transubstantiation: for in this Bread ceaseth to be, but in that he confesseth it still to remain, and that it is Bread, which is eaten by us in the Mysteries. Which yet he more plainly expresseth where he saith, God in mercy condescending to our infirmity, In Marc. c. 14 preserveth the Species or Nature of Bread and wine: but trans-elementeth or changeth it into the virtue of his flesh & blood. where it is farther to be observed that he saith not into flesh and blood, but into the virtue thereof: intimating a Change, not of Substance, but of Operation and Efficacy. Your next witness is Magnetes, an author to me utterly unknown, save that Gesner in his Bibliotheca reporteth that he was very ancient, and that about thirteen hundred years since he wrote in the Greek tongue certain books in defence of the Gospel unto Theosthenes against the Gentiles that flandered it, and that he is quoted by Fr. Turrian. By which words it seems that he never yet saw the Press, and what is alleged out of him is warranted only by Turrians testimony. But Turrian is one that deserves no credit at our hands, as being a jesuit, and known to have played many foul tricks this way. Yet if to make your author agree with the rest of the Fathers, you will give the same construction to his words, that above is given unto Theophilact, you may Otherwise his authority is as easily rejected as alleged. N. N. De Trin. l. 9 St Hilary useth this kind of argument, If the word of God were truly made flesh, then do we truly receive his flesh in the Lord's supper, Lib. 11. in joh. 6.26. and thereby he is to be esteemed to dwell in us naturally. St Cyril proveth not only a Spiritual but also a Natural and Bodily union to be between us and Christ by eating his flesh in the Sacrament. I. D. That Hilary speaketh of the Lords Supper, or of our Conjunction with Christ by Eating thereof I think it will hardly be proved. Had he so meant, how cometh it to pass that he never alledgeh those words of the Sacrament, This is my body, which would have made more for his purpose: but ever voucheth the sixth of john which maketh little to the Sacrament? Howbeit if you will needs understand him so, I will not strive. Know then that in those books St Hilary disputes against the Arians. To them he objected that saying The Father and the Son are one. One, answered they, as we are with Christ, by Will, not by Nature. whereunto he replied, that we are even by Nature one with Christ. And this he proves, first because both in Christ and us there is the same Humane nature by the Incarnation of the Son of God, which he calls the Sacrament of perfect union. Secondly, because the Faithful are joined unto him by his Spirit dwelling in them, which regenerateth, quickeneth, sanctifieth them: and not only conformeth them unto him, but also transformeth them into him. And for proofs hereof he allegeth diverse passages of St john's Gospel, joh. 6.56.14.20.17.11.21. such as yourselves confess, no way to belong unto the Sacrament. Thirdly, for that by Baptism we are joined unto Christ, and that not only by consent of will but naturally, according to that of Saint Paul, As many as are baptised into Christ have put on Christ. Whereunto lastly, if you please, you may add, for that also in the Lord's Supper we are united unto him by Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood. All these ways, saith Hilary, are we Naturally joined unto Christ. If so, than not only by the Eucharist. And if for the establishing of the other means there needeth no Transubstantiation at all, as of the Son of God into Man, of Faith into the Spirit of Christ, or of Baptismal water into the Blood of Christ: neither is it necessary for this that bread be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. Or if to bring Christ into us and our mouth, you will needs transubstantiate the bread into his body: I wonder what Transubstantiation you will devise to bring us into him and his mouth? For Hilary affirmeth that by the same Mystical conjunction not only is Christ in us, but also we are Naturally in him. The same Answer may serve for Cyril also, whereunto for farther explication of the word Naturally and Natural so often used both by Cyril and Hilary, I add, that in them Naturally signifieth Truly, & Natural True, if we may believe him who best knew their meaning even Cyril himself. In Apolog. Anath 3. For thus he, Not according to natural unity, that is true unity. By nature we are the children of wrath: where by nature we are to understand truth. So that Natural union is true union, and naturally to be united is truly to be united, which I hope may be without Transubstantiation. N. N. Dial. 2. in confut. Theodoret doth prove that Christ took Flesh of the blessed virgin and ascended up with the same, and holdeth the same there, by that he giveth to us his true flesh in the Sacrament: for that otherwise he could not give us his true Flesh to eat, if his own flesh were not true, seeing that he gave the same that he carried up and retaineth in heaven. I. D. I marvel much, not one of the Father's being more express against Transubstantiation than Theodoret, that yet you durst to praise him in the maintenance thereof. Even for this cause doth the Preface to the Roman Edition go about to weaken his authority: and Gregory of Valentia flatly condemneth him. Lib. 2. de. Transub. c. 7. It is no wonder, saith he, if one, or two, or more of the Ancients have thought or written of this matter not so considerately and rightly. Add hereunto that Theodoret was noted by the Council of Ephesus for some other errors beside. But how much Theodoret maketh against Transubstantiation you shall hear hereafter. Now you may be pleased to know that in the place by you cited he disputeth against an Eutychian Heretic, who held that the Humanity of Christ was abolished and absorpted by his Deity. This he would prove by the Eucharist, that as the Symbols before Consecration are one thing, but after it, are changed and become another: even so the Body of Christ after the Assumption thereof is changed into the Divine Substance. Now if Theodoret had been Transubstantiator he had been finely taken: for Transubstantiation abolisheth the substance of Bread, and turneth it into the substance of Christ's Body. But he taketh the Heretic in his own nets, affirming the Mystical signs after their sanctification do not depart from their nature: and that therefore Christ after the Assumption thereof retaineth his Humanity still. Whereby you may see, that although it be yielded that Christ giveth us his true Flesh in the Sacrament, yet in the judgement of Theodoret he so giveth it, that the Mystical signs retain their Nature still: which utterly overturnes your Transubstantiation. N. N. Cont. haer. l. 4 c. 3. S. Irenaeus, S. justin, and S. chrysostom, do prove not only this, Apol. ad Anton. Pium Imp. but the Resurrection also of our Bodies by the truth of Christ's Flesh in the Sacrament; for that our Flesh joining with his Flesh which is immortal shall be immortal also. Hom. 60. &. 61 ad pop Ant. I. D. The truth of Christ's Flesh in the Sacrament, and the Conjunction of our Flesh with his Flesh, neither is nor ever was by us denied. And therefore to heap up Fathers for the proof thereof is but to spend your labour to no purpose. That you should prove, is, the Presence of Christ by Transubstantiation: Which hitherto you have but little aimed at. In the Sacrament, say these Fathers, our Flesh is joined to Christ's Flesh, Ergo our Flesh shall rise again. The Antecedent is true, and the sequel is good. But what joining do they mean? The taking of Christ's flesh into the mouth. They never dreamt of it. And if it were so, it would follow that all they that eat Christ Sacramentally (among whom how many Reprobates are there?) shall rise again unto life everlasting. For I hope you will not say that the sacred Flesh of Christ doth quicken any unto everlasting death. How then is it? By eating him not only Sacramentally, but also spiritually and by Faith. For by this means Christ becomes the food of our souls, which redounding upon the Flesh by making it the Temple of the Holy Ghost, and an instrument of righteousness, fitteth and prepareth it to a glorious Resurrection. Hence our Saviour, joh. 6.54. He that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood hath life everlasting, and I will raise him up at the last day. Rom. 8.10.11. And the Apostle S. Paul, If Christ be in you, the Body indeed is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the spirit of him that raised up jesus Christ from the dead dwell in you▪ he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you. And that this is the meaning of the Fathers appears by that they say, Iren. l. 4. c. 34. Our bodies come not into corruption but partake of life by being nourished with the body & blood of the Lord. For that our bodies in literal sense should be nourished with Christ's body, De Euchar. l. 2. c. 4. is to make it the food of the belly not of the mind, than which, saith Bellarmine, nothing can be devised more absurd. And what I pray you is Nourishment properly? Only to take meat into the mouth? No, but the alteration and conversion of the substance thereof into the substance of that which is nourished: which to affirm of the Body of Christ is horrible impiety. Of force therefore must the Fathers be understood to speak of such a Nourishment by the body of Christ as is spiritual. Now if the Nourishment be spiritual, such is the Eating also: and it is as absurd to say that the soul is nourished by bodily eating as that the body is nourished by spiritual eating. Will you have all in a word? The things that we eat with our mouth in the Sacrament are not the causes, but the pledges of our Resurrection. So saith the great Council of Nice, We must believe these things to be the symbols or pledges of our Resurrection. Conc. Nic. 1. N. N. And the same S. Irenaeus doth prove farther that the great God of the old Testament Creator of heaven & earth was Christ's Father. For proof whereof he allegeth this reason, that Christ in the Sacrament did fulfil the Figures of the old Testament, and that in particular wherein bread was a figure of his Flesh, which he fulfilled, saith Irenaeus, making it his Flesh indeed. I. D. Lib. 1▪ 28. The Marcionites, whom Irenaeus confuteth, taught that the God of the old Testament was not the Father of our Lord jesus Christ: and that the Creator was known, but the Father of Christ was unknown. Against this he endeavoureth to prove that the Father of our Lord was he who created the world. That this he intendeth manifestly appeareth by those words where he saith, Others saying that another besides the creator is his Father, and offering unto him those creatures that are here amongst us, show that he is greedy and covetous of that which is another's. And among other arguments this he useth for one, Bread and Wine are the creatures of the Creator of the world, which creatures jesus Christ useth in the Sacrament, the one to be his Body, and the other to be his Blood, and therein are they offered to his Father: Lib. 4. c. 57 Ergo the Creator is his Father. Were he not his Father, he would never have taken that which belongs unto another, or whereunto he had no right, and convert it to his own use. So that here your Author hath notably deceived you. For Irenaeus proveth Christ to be the son of the Creator, not by his omnipotence in turning Bread and Wine into his Flesh and Blood (a thing that never came into his thought) but from his right and title to the Creatures, which maketh nothing for Transubstantiation. Touching the Figures of the old Testament, and how they prefigured our Sacraments, we have spoken enough already. N. N. What is so sacrilegious, Con. Don. l. saith Optatus Milevitanus, as to break down, scrape, and remove the altars of God on which yourselves have sometimes offered, and the members of Christ have been borne. etc. What is an altar but the Seat of the Body and Blood of Christ? And this monstrous villainy of yours is doubled, Iren. cont. haer. l. 6. for that you have broken also the chalice which did bear the Blood of Christ himself. When the mixed chalice and the Bread broken taketh the word of God, the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ is made. Id. l. 3. c. 34. Bread receiving the calling of God is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things one earthly, another heavenly: the earthly thing is the old form of bread, the heavenly is the body of Christ newly made under that form. Id. l. 5. c. 32. Let us now consider also the persons to whom this Commandment was given: they were those twelve Apostles whom Christ at his last Supper taught the new Oblation of the new Testament, giving them authority by this precept to consecrate, to make present, and to offer to God his body and blood. I. D. Where little or nothing is objected the answer is soon made. Optatus saith, that the altar is the seat of Christ's body and blood, and that the chalice beareth his blood. Irenaeus saith, that after consecration the Eucharist of the body and blood is made, that in it there is a heavenly thing, and the Apostles had authority to make present the body of Christ. Ergo the body and blood of Christ is really, corporally, locally, and by way of Transubstantiation present in the Sacrament, A poor and silly consequence, which all the witty our author hath, will never be able to make good. For those words of the Fathers may be salved and verified if Christ be Present any other way. And Present he is Sacramentally to the signs, and spiritually to the Faith of the worthy receiver. Neither are the Fathers always literally to be understood, when they use the names of the Body and Blood of Christ. For it is the common practice of them all writing of the Sacraments, specially of the Lords Supper, to call the sign by the name of the thing signified: following therein the custom of Scripture, and the example of our Saviour, who as Theodoret saith, changed the names, Dial. 8. and called the sign by the name of his Body. So that when they say, the Body is on the altar, the Blood is in the Chalice, and so of the rest: the meaning by this rule is, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood is there, or the Body and Blood is there Sacramentally. But in vouching Irenaeus what is the reason you curtal one place, and add unto another? Meant you to play the Giant Procrustes, and to shorten the one because it was too long for your bed, and to stretch out the other because it was too short? For whereas to those words, the Eucharist of the Blood and Body of Christ is made, Irenaeus addeth immediately, by which the substance of our flesh is augmented and consisteth: this you thought good to omit because it maketh directly against you. For it is not the natural Flesh and Blood of Christ, whereby our Bodies are nourished and increased. Yet in the Sacrament by his Body & Blood they wax and grow. Ergo by his Symbolical Body and Blood, the Bread and Wine still remaining. Again whereas Irenaeus saith, The Eucharist consisteth of two things, one earthly, another heavenly: you add, the earthly thing is the old form of bread, the heavenly is the body of Christ newly made under that form. But this is your own Gloss, and no part of the Text: and such a Gloss as corrupteth the Text. For Irenaeus never dreamt of your Forms and Accidents without substance: and his plain meaning is, that whereas before Consecration there was but one thing, and that earthly, namely Bread, now it is made the Eucharist consisting of two things, the one Earthly, namely Bread, the other Heavenly, to wit, the Body of Christ. N. N. For we do not take these as common Bread & Wine, justin. Apol. 2. but like as jesus Christ our Saviour incarnated by the word of God had Flesh and Blood for our salvation, even so we be taught that the food wherewith our Flesh and Blood be nourished by alteration, when it is consecrated by the prayer of his word, to be the Flesh and Blood of the same jesus Christ incarnated. I. D. It is not common bread saith justin. What of that? For he that denies it to be common bread, doth not deny it to be bread: nay he confesseth it to be so, though not only so, by virtue of the addition of Grace unto it. If every thing that ceaseth to be common lose its nature, and cease to be what it was; than whosoever comes to Rome must not believe his eyes, but think he is in Fairy land, where things are not what they seem to be. For there doubtless all things are hallowed, nothing Common. justin saith farther, As the word became flesh, so is bread made the body. What after the same manner? Then farewell Transubstantiation. For the Word became Flesh by uniting it unto himself hypostatically, not by Transubstantiating himself into it. In like manner therefore is bread made Body, not by a substantial change of Bread into body, but by a Sacramental union of the body with bread. Nay saith he, but the same powerful Word that wrought the one, worketh also the other. Yet this enforceth no Transubstantiation. For no power is able to make a Sacrament, & by earthly creatures to convey unto us heavenly Graces, save only that which is Divine. But would you see a pretty trick of legerdemain, and how your author juggles with you. The words of justin run not in the same order as they are set down, but thus, Even so are we taught that the food blessed by the prayer of the word of God, whereby our flesh by conversion is changed, etc. Then which nothing maketh more against that which you intent. For the consecrated Food as justin says, nourisheth our Flesh and Blood. But the Body of Christ, nourisheth them not, neither to that end is converted into our substance. Wherefore of necessity it must be Bread: and if bread after Consecration, what is become of your new found Transubstantiation? N. N. Hieron ad Hedib. 2. Neither hath Moses given us the true Bread, but our Lord jesus Christ, himself the Feaster and the Feast, himself the Eater and he that is eaten. I. D. Christ indeed is the Feast, and is eaten: but eaten as he is the Feast not of the Body but the Soul: eaten therefore is he by the mouth of the Soul not of the body. For a Spiritual meat must spiritually be received. And more than this Saint Hierom understands not. For as for that he saith Manna was not the true bread, it cannot be denied. For our Saviour affirmeth it, and in itself it was no more than the food of the belly. Yet was it made a Sacrament both Significative and Exhibitive of Christ: though generally to the jews it was fruitless, because they considered it carnally, and understood not the mystery thereof. Enarr. in Ps. 39 So all the Fathers. Hear one Augus●●● for them all. The ancients, saith he, while as yet the true sacrifice which the faithful know, was foreshowed in Figures, did celebrate the figures of the thing figured, some of them with knowledge, De V●i●. Paen. c. 1. but more ignorantly. And again, Your Fathers did eat Manna in the Wilderness and are dead: for they understood not that▪ which they did eat. Therefore not understanding they received nothing else but corporal meat. And yet again, The same meat & the same drink, Ibid. but to them that understand and believe: but to those that understand not, only Manna, only water. Neither can we conceive of this otherwise, unless we will leave Christ and Saint Paul at variance; the one denying that Moses giving Manna gave the true bread, the other affirming that they all ate the same spiritual meat. Which being so, it seems strange to me how you can hammer your Real Presence from hence. For to reason thus is very ridiculous, Moses gave not the body of Christ: Ergo bread in the Eucharist is transubstantiated into Christ's body. Yet this is all I can see, and until you show me better reason, farther answer you may not look from me. N. N. Damasc de orthod. fid. l. 4. c. 14 If you ask how it is made, it is enough for thee to hear, that it is made by the Holy Ghost, even as our Lord made for himself a Body out of the Virgin mother of God: and we know no more but that the word of God is true, strengthfull and almighty. And again, Not as the Body of Christ came down from heaven, but because the Bread and Wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. I. D. An. 740. This Damascen lived upward of seven hundred years after Christ, and hath not years enough to be numbered among the ancient Fathers. In regard whereof, as also because of those many shameful errors, and fabulous narrations every where appearing in his writings, he is one of little or no authority in the Church of God. He was the first that removed the bounds of the ancient Doctors in this matter, bringing in sundry new & strange terms never heard of in former times: the misunderstanding of which by little and little prepared a way to that deformed monster of Transubstantiation. Nevertheless it is certain, that howsoever many of his speeches may seem harsh and inconvenient, and great advantage hath been taken of them that way: yet himself was clean of another mind. Let us therefore hear what he saith, It is made saith he, by the Holy Ghost, even as our Lord made for himself a body out of the Virgin mother. If so, then is it not made by Transubstantiation: for Christ assuming a body turned not his Deity into it. Yet was the work of the Holy Ghost necessary: for he alone is able to sanctify the Natural element, and to invest them with Supernatural graces. Lib. 4. c. 14. The same saith he of Baptism. He hath joined the Grace of the Holy Ghost to oil and water, and hath made it the washing of Regeneration. And Leo yet more fully, De nativ. Ser. 4. using the selfsame comparison, Christ gave unto water that which he gave unto his mother; for the power of the most high, and over shadowing of the holy Ghost which made that Mary brought forth the Saviour, hath made water to regenerate the believer. Whereby you see that the same power of God's Spirit, by which the blessed Virgin conceived, may be employed in a Sacrament, without that change and conversion that you imagine of. And that Damascen, though he aknowledged a change of the Bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, yet was not acquainted with your change, may appear by these words, Lib. 4. c. 14. Because it is the manner of men to eat bread, and to drink wine with water, he hath conjoined his divinity with them, and made them his body and blood, that by usual things and which are according to nature, we might be settled in these things that are above nature. Here you see he conjoineth the Divinity with bread and wine. Now conjunction is only of those things that are, and have a being. Bread and Wine therefore still are. If they be, then are they not abolished. And if they be not abolished, then is Transubstantiation gone. Add hereunto, that Accidents without Substance are, not Usual things, nor according to Nature: and therefore not they, but true bread and true Wine are the things which in Damascens judgement raise us up to those things that are above Nature. But of him enough. N. N. Ignat. ep. ad Rom. The perishing meat and pleasures of this world please me not. I long for God's Bread, the heavenly Bread, the bread of life, which thing is the flesh of Christ the Son of God. I. D. That Ignatius wrote an Epistle to the Romans, both Eusebius and Hierom testify: Hist. l. 3. c. 30. Hieron. in Catal. and that this which now passeth under that title may be the right Epistle I deny not. Howbeit it is confessed of all that those Epistles which are granted to be his, are not come unto our hands perfect. For some passages are cited out of them by some of the ancients, as Hierom, Theodoret, and others, which now are not found in them: and some are manifestly corrupted and depraved as appeareth. So that if Baronius and Bellarmine might challenge them of corruption in those places which make for Saint Paul's marriage and against half Communions: Ad ann. 57 Sect. 54. De Euchar. l. 4. c. 26. I hope I have as much liberty to challenge the place by you alleged, if it made any thing against us. But it needs not: for Ignatius speaketh not there of the Sacrament, and therefore it maketh nothing to the purpose. Neither doth it follow, The bread is flesh, Ergo by Transubstantiation. N. N. Leo Sir de ieiun. mensis 7. We ought so to communicate with our Lord's table, that we doubt nothing of the verity of his Body and Blood, seeing he said, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, etc. I. D. Leo disputeth in this place against the Eutychians who denied the truth of Christ's body: and thus he argueth, The Eucharist is a symbol of the body of Christ, Ergo Christ hath a true body, and whosoever will rightly communicate, must nothing doubt thereof. Dia. 2. So reasoneth also Theodoret. For Orthodoxus demanding, whether Bread and Wine were Symbols of the true body & blood of Christ, or no, and being answered yea: he thus concludes, If the divine mysteries be samplars of the true body, than the body of the Lord is now also true, and not changed into the nature of the Divinity. Hence may you see the weakness of your Argument, Communicants may not doubt that Christ hath a true body, or if you will, that the true body of Christ is in the Eucharist: Ergo bread is transubstantiated into body. Ridiculous. N. N. As therefore our Baptism is made by real washing with water, Euth. in panopl. l. 3. hom. 21. and real renewing of the Holy Ghost: so now in the Supper of Christ it behooveth we be really fed with the fruit of the tree of life which is none other thing besides the flesh of Christ. I. D. If we yielded Euthymius unto you the matter were not great. An. 1180. For he lived upward of eleven hundred years after Christ: and your own Chronologers place him after Gratian and Peter Lombard. Yet what saith he? It behooveth that in the supper we be really fed with the flesh of Christ. Really fed? Who doubteth of it? But you are to know that Real doth not necessarily import your Carnal manner. For Spiritual is also Real: unless you will say a spirit is no thing. N. N. It is a remembrance of Christ's death by the presence of the body which died. Niceph. l. 1. c. 18. It is the Body and Blood of Christ covered from our eyes, revealed to our Faith, feeding presently our body and soul to everlasting life. I. D. This Nicephorus also lived eleven hundred years after Christ, and therefore is none of the Fathers, nor of any great authority. Neither doth that which he saith conclude your purpose. For Christ's Body may be and is present Sacramentally and to our faith, and presently feed both souls and bodies to everlasting life, and yet Bread and Wine remain still in the Sacrament. Else where he calleth the outward Elements symbols and signs of the Passion of Christ. Lib. 7. c. 40. If symbols and signs, than not the Body itself. N. N. They receive not the fruit of Salvation in the eating of the healthful sacrifice. Greg. in 1. Reg. l. 2. c. 1. They eat the healthful Sacrifice which surely is nothing else but the natural body of Christ, but the fruit they receive not. As many men take an healthful medicine, but because their bodies be evil affected it proveth not healthful to them. I. D. Thus you reason, The healthful Sacrifice is the natural body of Christ, Ergo Bread by Transubstantiation is made the body of Christ. How these things hang together for my part I cannot see. Would to God yourself had taken the pains to show it. But this is your solemn fault, you quote the sayings of the Fathers, and leave me to gather your Conclusions: I may well think, because you saw no great force or strength in them. And whether Gregory did favour Transubstantiation or no, let it be tried by these words. De consecr. dist. 2. c 73. As the Divinity of the word of God is one which filleth all the world: so although that body be consecrated in many places & at innumerable times, yet are there not many bodies of Christ, nor many cups, but one body of Christ, and one blood with that which he took in the womb of the Virgin and which he gave to the Apostles. For the Divinity of the word filleth that which is every where, and conjoineth and maketh that as it is one, so it be joined to the body of Christ, and his body be in truth one. Here according to Gregory the body of Christ doth not succeed and fill up the room of bread, after the substance thereof is abolished: but the fullness and virtue of the Divinity which filleth the bread, maketh it ●o pass into the body of Christ: and so to be one body of Christ. Which how it can stand with your Transubstantiation judge you. N. N. These Heretics admit not the Eucharists and oblations, Dial. 3. because they will not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour jesus Christ, which hath suffered for our sins, which the Father hath raised up again by his goodness. These words alleged by Theodoret are reported by him to be the words of St. Ignatius the Apostles scholar written in an Epistle ad Smyrnenses, and therefore of greater antiquity. I. D. These words are not found in that Epistle ad Smyrnenses which is now extant. Whereby you may perceive it is true that I said, the Epistles of Ignatius are not come perfect to our hands. Lib. 3. c. 30. Dial. con Pelag. l. 3. Of this Epistle saith Eusebius, Ignatius when he wrote to them of Smyrna, used words I know not whence taken. And Hierome; If you use not his testimonies for authority, at least use them for antiquity. And the Abbot of Spanhe●m reckons it not among the rest of his Epistles as being doubtful. Yet for all this the credit of this Epistle shall not be questioned by me. I answer therefore, the Heretics which Ignatius means were Menander and the Disciples of Simon. These denied that Christ was come in the Flesh, and consequently that he had Flesh. Whereupon they rejected the Eucharist also, lest thereby they should be constrained to confess that he had true Flesh. For granting the sign of a body, you must also grant a true body▪ Figure and Truth being Correlatives, whose Relation is to figure and to be figured. And thus they added aloes unto wormwood, one error unto another: first denying the truth of Christ's body, and then that the Eucharist was the Sacrament of his body, or that it was Sacramentally his body. More than this cannot be meant. For I presume Theodoret would not allege this to cross himself; who holdeth that Bread and Wine still remain▪ and argueth from them for the verity of Christ's body, because they are symbols of his body, as is above declared. N. N. Doth not the Evangelist john say in the Apocalypse, If any man shall add unto these things, Rupert. in joh. Apoc. 22.16, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall minish of these words of the book of this Prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy City, and the things which are written in this book. Is this malediction or curse less to be feared here, that we diminish not, or put any thing to the words of him that said, This is my body which shall be delivered for you, this is my blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many in the remission of sins. For when he saith, This is my body, we shall put to an understanding, saying a Figurative Body, or that it is spoken by a similitude, when I say he saith, this is my Body, we shall say, this signifieth my Body, is it not much that we put to his words, or by an evil change take from them, and make a sense which so great an author, God & man in no place hath spoken, nor at any time did ascend into his heart. This man especially with many of the rest answereth M. Downe and all Protestants fully. I. D. In this Authority I cannot but greatly pity you, to see how miserably you are gulled and beguiled by your Author. For what was this Rupertus, but a man of yesterday? one that lived towards twelve hundred after Christ and a very Heretic in this point of the Sacrament. Ann. 1140. For he maintained that the Eucharistical Bread is hypostatically assumed by the Word, just after the same manner that the humane nature was assumed by the same Word. This he expresseth in words as clear as the noon day. For expounding that of our Saviour, The Bread which I will give, is my Flesh, he saith, That the eternal word by incarnation was made man, Lib. 6. in joh. not destroying or changing, but personally assuming the humanity: and after the same manner by consecration of the Eucharist, the same word is made Bread, not destroying or changing, but personally assuming Bread. This he declareth elsewhere very largely, De office divin. l. 2. c. 2. showing that Bread is made the Body of Christ, not by turning it into his Flesh, but because it is assumed by the Word. Whence it followeth that Bread is the Body of Christ, yet not his Humane or Carnal but Bready Body, much differing from that which he took of the Virgin. That yet these two bodies may be said to be One, because the Person is but one, or Christ is one who assumed them both. so that the same Christ above, that is in heaven is in the Flesh, and beneath that is on the Altar is in Bread. De Sacram. l. 1. c. 6. This gross error Algerus, who lived in the same time with Rupertus, confu●ed, calling it as it justly deserved, a new and most absurd heresy. What say you now to this, good sir? Is this the man who especially among the rest fully answereth Mr● Down and all Protestants? Doth he not as fully answer you Papists, who clean contrary to his Tenet destroy and change the bread to make it Christ's body? Yea but we add unto the Text, understanding it to be a Figurative body. That is a shameless slander: for we place no Figure in the word body, but literally interpret it of Christ's natural body. At least we say bread signifieth his body. So we say indeed: and so say the Fathers also. And to give the true sense unto a Text, is not to add unto it. Neither can I conceive why it should be counted addition in us to say This is my body Sacramentally, or by way of signification, more than in you to say it is so by way of Transubstantiation, or in Rupertus himself by way of Impanation. N. N. Let us therefore believe God always and not repine against him, Chrysost. in Mat. ho. 83. although that which he saith seemeth absurd to our sense and understanding. Let his words surmount and pass both our sense and reason, which thing we ought to do in all things, but chiefly in the mysteries, having more regard unto his words, then to things which lie before us. For his words are infallible, but our sense may very easily be deceived: they cannot possibly be false, but this sense of ours is many and sundry times beguiled. Seeing therefore he said, This is my Body, let us have no doubt, but believe and behold it with the eyes of our understanding. I. D. Whatsoever Christ saith must be believed, although to our sense and reason it seem never so unlikely. This I grant: for he is truth itself, and can neither deceive nor be deceived. But Christ saith This is my body. And this also I grant: for they are part of the words of Institution, Ergo these words must be believed. And let them be esteemed as Gentiles and Publicans that believe them not. But what meaneth he when he saith, Let us behold it with the eyes of our understanding? In the words immediately following he declareth it thus, Christ delivered no sensible thing unto us, but by sensible things things intelligible. And this he illustrats by the Sacrament of baptism. So also in baptism, saith he, by water a thing sensible the gift is given. but that which is wrought namely Regeneration and Renovation is intelligible. By all which you may easily see what St chrysostom intendeth, namely to draw our eyes from the sensible Object unto the spiritual and Intelligible Grace exhibited to our understanding by it: as knowing that Water and bread are now become instruments in the hand of Christ of the spiritual Renovation and Refection of our souls. Which as it is effected in Baptism without the Transubstantiation of Water: so for aught St chrysostom says it may be done in the Lord's supper also without Transubstantiation of bread. N. N. Id. ad pop. Ant. ho. 2. What will you say then if I show you that so many of us as be partakers of the holy mysteries, do receive a thing far greater than that which Elias gave. For Elias left unto his Disciples his cloak, but the son of God ascending into heaven left with us his Flesh. And again, Elias went himself without his cloak: but Christ left his flesh with us, and ascended having with him the selfsame Flesh. I. D. Here Christ ascending into heaven, and carrying his true flesh with him, is compared to Elias who also ascended and carried his flesh thither with him. But the flesh that he left here with us, is compared to Elias cloak which he left with Elizeus. And the comparison standeth thus, that as the Cloak which Elias left was a symbol of the spirit and Virtue which fell from him upon Elizeus: so the mystical elements in the Sacrament are pledges and tokens unto us of the true flesh of Christ in the Church. Thus therefore is St chrysostom to be understood, as if he had said, Christ ascending carried his true flesh with him corporally into heaven: and left his mystical flesh here unto us spiritually in the Sacrament. N. N. The supper then being prepared, Cypr. de coen. Dom. both old and new ordinances met together at the Sacramental and mystical delicates: and the Lamb being consumed which the old tradition did set forth, our Master setteth before his Disciples a meat which cannot be consumed. Neither is the people invited now to sumptuous, costly and artificial banquets, but the food of immortality is given, which differeth from common meats, keeping the outward form of the corporal substance, but proving & declaring that there is present by an invisible and secret working the presence of a divine power. I. D. Th● book of the Cardinal works of Christ, divided into twelve Tracts, among which this De coenâ Domini is one, is none of Cyprians that was Bishop of Carthage. Pamelius staggers. For although the Words and phrases, and figures, Annot. in Praef●t. and the like, seem unto him to make for Cyprian: yet he professeth that of certainty he hath nothing to say. Apparat. Biblioth. l. 4. De omisl. great. l. 6. c. 2. & de script. Eccl. in Cyp. But Possevine is peremptory that it is falsely fathered on Cyprian. So is Sixtus Senensis also: and Cardinal Bellarmine. And they render reasons. For that Cyprian never refused to set his name to his books which this Author doth. Neither would he have called his writings Childish toys: or have said that the sublimity of Cornelius ought to be delighted with his stammering tongue. Nor finally would he have used so many barbarismes: nor have written things contrary to himself. As for this particular Tract de coenâ Domini, Bellar. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 9 Bellarmin ingeniously acknowledgeth, that not Cyprian, but some one later than he wrote it. Howbeit they all conclude that the Author of these Tracts is ancient. Annot. in Praefat. How ancient? It is clear, saith Pamelius, that this book was written in the time of Cornelius and Cyprian, and therefore deserveth the same authority with Cyprian. De Amiss. Great l 6. c. 2. Nay not so, saith Bellarmine, for the Author thereof is later than Cyprian, yea without doubt later than S. Augustine, that is, a hundred and fifty years younger than Cyprian at least. And who certainly knoweth but he may yet be much younger than so? james de spuriis sub Patron nomine scrip. ●ag. 12. In the Library of All Souls College in Oxford there is a Manuscript, very ancient of all these Tracts under the name of Arnoldus Bonavillacensis, dedicated not to Cornelius (as it is now falsely inscribed) but to Hadrian the fourth, the which Arnoldus lived not much less than twelve hundred years after Christ. An. 1150. Which inscription if it be true, as it is not unlikely, then is not this author the man you took him for, namely that grave Father and Martyr, as in the next Section you term him, to wit St Cyprian. If false, yet because it is uncertain who he is, and in what age he lived, his authority cannot be of of any great value. Nevertheless whatsoever he be, let us in a word or two examine his testimony. And first be it observed, that all the Presence he speaketh of in these words is but the Presence of divine virtue, or power: which falleth short of that Real Presence of the natural Body of Christ which you intent. But after the Lamb, saith Cyprian, was consumed, our Lord set before his Disciples an inconsumptible meat, which cannot be Bread. Indeed it cannot: and who saith it is? For the meat that cannot be consumed is the Body of Christ offered and exhibited in the Sacrament together with Bread. And this is also that food of immortality which he speaketh of, represented and figured unto us by Bread: it being so truly, Bread sacramentally. But it followeth, differing from common meats, and keeping the form of bodily substance: and these happily are the words which you think strikes all dead. What? for Transubstantiation? Suppose then your Author had said, The water in Baptism differeth from common water, & retaining the form of bodily substance, by invisible working proveth the Presence of God's power to be there: would you from hence conclude Transubstantiation? I know you would not. No more can you from this. And indeed the word species which you translate. Form, yea and outward Form too, though the word outward be not in the text, doth not signify show without substance, or Accident without subject; but in the writings of the Fathers usually it signifieth the truth, De Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. nature, or kind of a thing. So Ambrose, I see not speciem the truth of blood, speaking of the Lords Cup, but it hath the resemblance: Ib. l. 6. c. 1. which afterward repeating, I see the resemblance, saith he, but I see not veritatem the truth of blood. Again, the word of Christ changeth the species of the Elements. Id. de mist. init. c. 9 What is that? The Forms or Accidents of the Elements? No: for they you say, remain. What then but the Elements or things themselues? Enar. in Ps. 77 And St Augustin, Their meat was the same with ours, but the same in signification, not in specie, that is, in kind. So that when your Author saith, it keepeth the species of bodily substance, it is not necessary to render it by Form, that is Accident, or Show void of substance: for you may as well turn it thus, it still retaineth the nature or truth of its bodily substance. N. N. This grave Father and Martyr doth plainly show, how Mr Down hath wrested Pope Gelasius. For the Popes and the Doctors of the Church did agree always in matters of Faith, notwithstanding the great show M. Down hath made to the contrary. For here S. Cyprian showeth you that this food of immortality keepeth the outward form of the Bodily Substance, but proving that there is present a divine power, which is confessed by Gelasius. And therefore when Gelasius saith, the nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not to be, his meaning is, the outward form of the corporal Substance. And with this agree many of the Fathers, which are also wrested from their true meaning, as appeareth manifestly by the manifold plain places of the Fathers by me here set down. I. D. If to neglect the Premises, and to contradict the Conclusion by the right way of answering arguments, then have you taken the right course, and made up my mouth for ever replying upon you. For whereas M. Downe, as you say, hath made a great show, to prove that the Fathers disagree among themselves in some points: you passing by all the proofs, think it sufficient to affirm the contrary, that the Popes and Doctors of the Church do agree. Whereupon you farther infer that M. Downe hath wrested Pope Gelasius. For although he have proved by the express words of Gelasius, that the Bread is not transubstantiated because the substance thereof still remaineth: yet is the conclusion false. For Popes and Doctors, Gelasius and Cyprian must needs agree. But questionless if Cyprian (for for the present we will suppose him to be the right Cyprian) do by Form of bodily substance understand nothing else but show without Substance: it is impossible to make him agree with Gelasius. For Gelasius saith, The Substance or nature of Bread and wine cease not to be: and Substance cannot possibly be show without substance. So to interpret is to expound white by black, and light by darkness: and would argue extreme either stubborness against the truth, or brutishness. But Cyprian by Form understandeth not, as we have showed, Accidents miraculously subsisting without Subject: but them together with the Subject, or the verity and truth of the thing. And so he perfectly agrees with Gelasius, and the rest of the Fathers, and all of them against Transubstantiation. For as for those manifold plain places by you here set down, I hope by this time they appear not so plain unto you: but are all of them fully answered, and that without wresting any one of them, from his true meaning. N. N. Therefore though the Fathers do sometimes call the Sacrament a Figure or Sign, Representation or Similitude of Christ's Body, death, passion, and blood, they are to be understood in the like sense as those places of St Paul are, wherein Christ is called by him a Figure, the substance of the Father, and again an image of God, and farther yet appearing in the likeness of man: all which places as they do not take away from Christ that he was the true substance of his Father, or true God, or true man indeed (though out of every one of those places some heresies have been framed by ancient heretics against his Divinity or Humanity) so do not the foresaid Phrases sometime used by the ancient Fathers, calling the Sacrament a Sign, Figure, Representation or Similitude of Christ's Body exclude the truth or Reality thereof. I. D. That the Sacraments by the Fathers are called Signs, Figures, Representations, Similitudes, and the like, is so clear that you cannot deny it: and I fear it grieveth you much to read it in them, because it maketh so directly against you. Wherefore to salve all, some pretty shift or colour must be devised: & those terms must be understood as St Paul meaneth, when he saith Christ is the Figure of his Father, the Image of God, and appeared in the likeness of man. For as here they deny not either the Godhead or Manhood of Christ: so neither in the Fathers do they exclude the Body or Blood of Christ from the Sacrament. And do they not indeed? Why then when Cyprian ere while said, Retaining the form of Corporal Substance, did you so hastily exclude Substance, and fancy to yourself shows subsisting of themselves without it? But let us examine this a little farther. In Dionys. A●eop. A Symbol, saith Maximus, is some sensible thing assumed instead of that which is intelligible, as Bread and Wine for immaterial and divine nourishment and refection. And again, These are Symbols not the truth. Con. Maximin. l 3. c. 22. In Gen ho. 35 Sacraments, saith Augustine, are signs of things, being one thing and signifying another. It were no figure, saith chrysostom, if all things incident to the truth were found in it. Epist. 23. ad Bonif. And Saint Augustine again, If Sacraments have not a resemblance or Similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments, they are not Sacraments. These sayings of the Fathers plainly show, that in Sacraments they never conceived the Figure and the Truth to be one and the same thing: but that the sign is one thing, and the thing signified clean another. And hereupon in express terms they affirm that they are two not one. Lib. 4. c. 34. De cons. dist. 2. parag. hoc est. The Eucharist, saith Irenaeus, consisteth of two things, an earthly and an heavenly. And Saint Augustine, The sacrifice of the Church is made of two and consisteth of two things, the sacrament or sacred sign, and the thing of the Sacrament. And it is to be noted that they speak generally of all Sacraments: so as in the Lord's Supper the Figure is no more the same with the Truth, than it is in Baptism. And indeed, unless you can make Sensible and Insensible, Corporal and Spiritual, Earthly and Heavenly, Corruptible and Immortal to be all one: neither shall you ever be able to make the sign and the Thing signified in any Sacrament to be the same. Add hereunto that the Fathers not only say that Bread is a Figure of Christ's body: but also that when we are commanded to eat his Body or drink his Blood, the speech is Figurative. De doct. Chr. l. 3. c. 16. For as Saint Augustine saith, He seemeth to command an evil and wicked act: it is a figure therefore, instructing us to communicate with his passion, etc. Now to understand a Figurative speech literally is very dangerous: for the letter killeth, Id. ib. l. 3. c. 5. and it is the Death of the soul. If therefore Figurative and Proper cannot be the same, and in Sacraments when the thing signified is affirmed of the sign, the speech be Sacramental, that is Figurative: it followeth necessarily that the sign and the thing signified are not the same. And if not the same, then have you wronged the Fathers, saying they are so to be understood, as if they were the same. N. N. I will now conclude with two authorities more. The first Counsel of Nice, Ti●. de divin. mens. ult edit. one of the four Counsels allowed by Protestants for sound. The words of the Counsel are these. Let us faithfully believe with an exalted mind that there lieth on the holy table the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, which is sacrificed by the Priests. I. D. This Canon here by you alleged came but very lately to light: for it is found neither in Ruffian, nor in Balsamon, nor any of the Tomes of the Counsels heretofore published, except those of the newest impression. And in them it is set forth in a different letter, signifying that it was but newly found, and that in the Pope's Vatican Library, under the name of one Gelasius Cyzicenus. All which cannot but breed great suspicion, and much weaken the authority thereof. But what saith the Canon? There lieth on the Table the Lamb of God. What? Corporally and Really? No, but Symbolically and Sacramentally. Neither doth it say as you translate, Let us faithfully believe with an exalted mind that the Lamb of God lieth on the table: But thus, Let us not basely attend the Bread and the Cup set before us, but lifting up our mind, by Faith understand the Lamb of God upon the table. which rather maketh against Transubstantiation then for it. For first he plainly telleth us, it is Bread that is there: then secondly it commandeth us to lift up our mind, which needed not if Christ himself were there Really on the table (where observe by the way that it is a table, not an altar) And thirdly, that we are to conceive Christ Sacramentally to be on the table, though Really he be there whether we are to advance our thoughts. The last clause of the passage is cut off by the waist, and mangled by you: I think to intimate that the Mass is a Sacrifice truly and properly so called. But the words at full are these, which is sacrificed by the Priests without being sacrificed: manifestly insinuating that it is not Properly a Sacrifice, but Representively, and by way of commemoration. Not much unlike to these words, is that of Saint chrysostom, which may serve instead of a commentary unto them, & teach you that all which the Fathers say speaking of this Sacrament, is not always literally to be understood. Serm. de Euchar. What dost thou o man, saith he, at the hour of the mystical table? Didst thou not promise to the Priest who said, lift up your hearts, saying, we lift them up unto the Lord? And fearest thou not nor blushest that in that very hour thou art found a Liar? The table is furnished with mysteries, and the Lamb of God is sacrificed for thee, the Priest is troubled for thee, a spiritual fire flows from the sacred table, the Seraphins stand by covering their faces with six wings, all the incorporeal virtues together with the Priest, make intercession for thee, a spiritual fire comes down from Heaven, the Blood in the cup is drawn out of the immaculate side for thy purification. Thus he. N. N. Saint Cyril saith that in this mystery we should not so much as ask how it can be done: Lib. 4. in. c. 13.53. for it is a jewish word, and cause of everlasting torment. From which good Lord deliver us. I. D. In this mystery we may not inquire How. What of that? Ergo Christ is present by Transubstantiation? Indeed, if the doubt had been how Bread might be made the body of Christ, or how the substance of bread might be turned into substance of his body, and then resolving that it is so, Cyril had advised in any case not to inquire How, as being derogatory to God's omnipotence: here you had a pregnant testimony for Transubstantiation. But Cyril handling those words. The bread which I will give is my Flesh, exagitateth the jews for demanding How he could give his flesh to eat. For seeing Christ by his miracles had demonstrated himself to be God: it was their duty simply to believe his words, and to know that he who had spoken them, was able to find a means by which to make them good, and that without such immanity and anthropophagy as they imagined. Now if in these Mysteries we may not be so saucy & malapert as to demand How▪ how cometh it about that yourselves take upon you so magistrally to define it, that it is done after an Oral manner, and by way of Transubstantiation? Your Cuthbert Tonstall saith, De Euchar. l. 1. Perhaps it had been better, as touching the manner how it is done, to have left every one that would be curious to his own conjecture, even as it was free before the counsel of Lateran. Yet I must do you to wit that the Question how, is not always evil and forbidden. The blessed virgin herself demanded of the Angel, Luc. 1.34. How may this be seeing I know not man? And Saint Ambrose, De Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. Serm. ad Inf. This therefore we say, How can that which is bread be Christ's body? & Saint Augustine, some may think with himself, how is bread his body? Neither did they offend in ask How, because firmly believing the thing, it was only out of admiration or desire of learning that they moved that Question. That How▪ Which is forbidden is that which is demanded ou● of Incredulity. Such as was this of the jews, who believed not Christ, but rejected his saying as requiring some savage or inhuman thing to be done. In john. l. 4. c. 14. Hence Cyril, It had been meet that they had first set the roots of Faith in their minds, and then to have enquired those things that are to be ●uquired: but they before they believed enquired out of season. For this cause our Lord did not expound how that thing might be brought to pass, but exhorteth that it be sought by faith. By all which you may perceive that these words of Cyril are objected to little purpose. For your words are not Christ's words, neither hath he taught us any such Real Presence by Transubstantiation. His words we steadfastly believe: and ask not How, as if we doubted of the truth of them. Nay we constantly adhere unto them though we think it impossible to know the manner How. But your words unless you demonstrate them we are not bound to believe: and we may without offence, as I think, demand How that may be which you affirm, yea & reject it too if we find it repugnant to the rule of Faith, or of right reason. N. N. I forgot to set down this place of Saint Paul in his due place, 1 Cor. 11. which is a clear confirmation of S. Paul, who for resolving doubts as it seemed had conference with Christ himself, after his ascension (for before he could not being no Christian when Christ ascended) the matter will be more evident. His words are these to the Corinthians. For I have received from our Lord himself that which I have delivered unto you about the Sacrament. And do you note the word, For, importing a reason why he ought specially to be believed in this affair, for as much as he had received resolution of the doubt from Christ himself: and then he setteth down the very same words again of the institution of this Sacrament, that were used by Christ before his Passion without alteration or new exposition, which is morally most certain that he would have added for clearing all doubts, if there had been any other sense to have been gathered of them, than the plain words themselves do bear. I. D. Omitting your amplifications, of Paul's conference with Christ, of his learning thereby to resolve all doubts, of rendering it as a reason why he is to be believed in this matter of the Sacrament (although I for my part know of no such conference as you speak of, but only of an immediate inspiration into him by the Spirit of Christ of all truths wherein he was to inform the Church, which why you should call a Conference I cannot guess) Omitting I say all these Circumstances, and by talks, the substance of your argument is this, If the words had had any other sense then the plain words themselves do bear, then certainly S. Paul would have cleared it. But this he endeavoureth not: for he doth but repeat the words of institution, and that without alteration or exposition. Ergo the words have no other sense then the plain words themselves do bear. I answer, the plain words are, This, namely This bread is my body. Which Proposition taken precisely and according to the letter cannot possibly be true. The best of your own side, as hath already and shall again be showed, confess so much. Why therefore did not S. Paul more plainly expound it? He needed not: for it was a Sacramental speech. And whosoever knew the nature of a Sacrament could not but understand it Sacramentally, thus, This is the Sacrament of my Body. But where you say St Paul added nothing for clearing of doubts, you are much deceived. For the sixth, seventh, and eight and twenty verses are added to that end. In which among other things, three times he calleth that Bread which we eat in the Lord's Supper. And if that which we eat, then that which is consecrated. And if that which is consecrated, than Bread remains after consecration, which utterly overthroweth your Transubstantiation▪ And it is farther to be noted that Saint Paul coming after our Saviour Christ, it is to be presumed that he meant rather to clear and enlighten his words, then to obscure & darken them. Yet he darkens them if that which we eat ●ee truly and properly Christ's Body and not Bread. Ye● he enticeth people into error and diggeth a pit for them to fall into. For it appearing Bread unto the Sense, and man naturally yielding credit to the report thereof● he should rather have called it as it is, Flesh if it be Flesh, and not feed us in error by calling it so often Bread. But to this you reply as followeth. N. N. I was the more willing to set down those words of S. Paul although not in their due place, because M. Down i● his writing seemeth to take so much ●old of S. Paul's words in calling it Bread in diverse places wherein S. Paul mean● no other Bread then that Christ declared it to be 〈◊〉 his l●st Supper, and as one of the Fathers before cited calleth it, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of life. I. D. What hold soever M. Downe took of S. Paul's words, this answer is not able to remove it. By Bread say you the Body of Christ is meant. If so, then have we found that which hitherto you could not endure to hear of, a Figurative speech in the Sacrament: for Christ's body properly is not Bread. But why doth he call it Bread? Because before consecration it was Bread, as some say? No● so, for it was never Bread. Or because it seemeth to be Bread, as others say? No● so, for Christ's body nor is nor seemeth Bread. Why then? because in Scripture all nourishment is called Bread? Nor so, for in that sense under Bread Drink is comprehended, whereas our Apostle distinguishes them as diverse things: 1. Cor. 11.28. Let him eat, saith he, of that Bread, and drink of that Cup. Is it lastly because Christ's body lies hid under the shows of bread? Absurd, for by the same reason you may call the Casket by the name of a Diamond, because it contains it. The truth is, S. Paul understands by bread, not Christ's body, but that which in proper speech is so. For Christ's true body cannot be broke, but this bread even after consecration is broken. For so he saith, 1. Cor. 10.16. The bread which we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? N. N. All which laid together, and the uniform consent of expositions throughout the whole Christian world concurring in the selfsame sense and meaning of all these Scriptures about the Real Presence of Christ's true Body in the Sacrament, you may imagine what motive it is end aught to be to a Catholic man who desireth to believe and not to strive & contend. Besides this Protestants have not one authority, nor can produce any one at this day that expressly saith that Christ's Real Body is not in the Sacrament, 〈…〉 only a Figure, Sign, or token thereof, though diverse impertinent pieces of some Father's speeches they will now and then pretend to allege. So on the contrary side the Catholics do behold for their comfort, the whole ●●nke of ancient Fathers throughout every age standing with them in this undoubted truth. I. D. Indeed if you have the Uniform consent of expositions throughout the whole Christian world concurring with you and the whole rank of Fathers throughout every age standing with you in this (as you suppose) undoubted truth: I must needs confess it both is and aught to be a sufficient Motive unto you, to persuade assent unto the truth thereof. But if upon due examination you find that not one of them all doth so expound as you do, and that your Author hath presented you with a list of names only, instead of the Whole rank of Fathers bearing witness and giving evidence for you: I hope as it ought so it will prove a sufficient Retentive against your Motive. This that it may yet more plainly appear, give me leave before I conclude, to recapitulate what hath been said, and as it were in a brief Synopsis to lay before your eyes the weakness and impertinence of all your allegations. First you vouch the authority of some who are vehemently suspected even by your own Rabbis not to be the men whose names they bear, and therefore cannot be very authentical. Such are Ignatius, Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechisms, Ambrose de Sacramentis & my sterijs initiandis, Eusebius Emissenus, Cyprian de coenâ Domini, the Canon of the Council of Nice, and Magnetes. Again, some you allege, who by reason of their nonage deserve not to be reckoned in the number of the Fathers, and so are too young to bear witness in these businesses. Such are Damascen, Theophylact, Euthymius, Nicephorus, and Rupertus, who besides his minority, was also in this point little better than an Heretic. Thirdly, among the true Fathers some affirm the Sacraments of the old Testament to be Figures of ours. Yet thereby they acknowledge no more Transubstantiation of bread into the Eucharist then of Water in Baptism. Fourthly, others affirm that Christ's true body is in the Sacrament: and we affirm the same also. But that he is there corporally in such sort as you imagine, they affirm not. Fiftly, they say that the bread is changed and made the body of Christ: & we say the same with them. But that it is done by a substantial change of bread into body they say not. Sixtly, they forbid us to doubt of Christ's words, & to inquire the manner How. We doubt not of them, & think the manner to be inexplicable. But they say not that to reject your gross and Capernaitical manner is to doubt of Christ's truth. Seaventhly, some of them say it is not common Bread, nor only a Figuration of Christ's body: and we readily yield unto it. But they say not that whatsoever is sanctified, and more than figureth, is therefore transubstantiated. Lastly, some say that the Union and Conjunction between Christ and us is real, natural, and bodily. We hold the same, that we are bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh. But they say not we are so united by receiving Christ's flesh into our mouths, nor deny but that it may be done by Faith without ever partaking of the Sacrament. And this is the full sum of all whatsoever your witnesses testify for you: besides which they say nothing at all. Whereby you may now easily perceive how sleight and impertinent your Motives are, and how little cause of comfort your Catholics have in beholding them. Rather you have great cause to be ashamed & confounded that have suffered yourself thus to be deluded by your Author: who to prove the subsistence of Accidents without subject, hath brought you nothing else but mere Shows without substance. But alas, we poor Protestants are so far from having the consent of all expositions, and the whole rank of Fathers standing by us, that we have not so much as one authority, nor can produce any one at this day that expressly saith that Christ's Real body is not in the sacrament, or that it is only a Figure, Sign, or Token thereof. I beseech you Sir, and can you Papists produce any one of the Fathers that expressly saith Bread is transubstantiated into Christ's body? If you cannot, and yet think it sufficient to vouch that which you conceive to be equivalent: why do you so urge the word Expressly upon us, & do not leave us that liberty which you assume unto yourselves? But to leave this advantage, we freely confess we cannot produce any one Father who either expressly or by consequence saith so. Nay we farther say that they affirm the clean contrary, namely that Christ's Real body is in the Sacrament, and that it is not only a Figure, Sign, or Token thereof. But be it known unto you that we affirm the same together with them, and it is but your dream to imagine otherwise. For as oftentimes you have heard, we deny not the Presence of Christ's Body, but that manner of Presence which you obtrude unto us. Neither do we say that it is only a Figure: for besides signification, we acknowledge that it also exhibiteth Christ jesus himself, and sealeth up all his Promises unto us. As for those impertinent pieces of some Father's speeches, which, you say, we now and then pretend to allege, I hope you shall by & by find them so pertinent and direct, that your Author who ever he be, with all his learning and skill, shall never be able to satisfy them. For now having fully answered and dispatched all what you have said for yourself in behalf of Transubstantiation: it remaineth that I perform the promise made you in the beginning, and demonstrate that this Doctrine of yours, first crosseth the truth of Scripture, secondly overturneth the Articles of Faith, thirdly destroyeth the nature of a Sacrament, fourthly gainesayeth the perpetual consent of antiquity, and lastly implieth in it infinite contradictions. I will finish all in as few words as I can. First it crosseth the truth of Scripture. I instance only in the words of institution which you so often urge against us, This is my body. Wherein I demand what that is whereunto the article This hath reference? For it must either be something or nothing. 2 De consecr. can. Timo●●. If nothing, as some of you say, then is the Proposition thus to be supplied, Nothing is my Body, than which what can be more palpably absurd? Bell. de Euch. l. 1. c. 10. If something, I demand what? Your common sort of Catholics answer, that which is contained under this. But so the speech would be Tropical, the Continent being put for that which is contained, which hitherto you could never endure. And I think neither in Scripture, nor in any other writer whether sacred or profane, shall you be able to show the like example, where This is put for that which is under This. Yet he it so. Then I again demand, what that is which is under this? If you know it not, then neither do you know what it is that is turned into Christ's Body. If you know it, let me entreat you to express it. Certainly it must either be Christ's Body or Bread. Christ's Body it is not: for that is not made until the last syllable of those words be spoken, and therefore not as soon as the word This is uttered. To say nothing that then the Proposition would be very ridiculous, This is my Body, that is, My body is my body. It is bread therefore: and though your side for the most part will not have it so, yet will they nill they the meaning is and must be this, This Bread is my Body, for they cannot name at hird. This may yet farther be demonstrated by the circumstances of the Text. For it is said in express words that he took Bread, and what he took he blessed, & what he blessed he broke, and what he broke he ga●e to his Disciples, and what he gave he bid them take and eat, & of what they took and eat he said This is my body. Of bread therefore he said it, there being nothing before spoken of, nor nothing else present whereof it could be spoken but only Bread. And if our Saviour himself made no scruple at all to call his Body bread: why should you think it strange if he vouchsafe also to call bread by the name of his body. Add hereunto the testimony of the Fathers. Apol. 2. justin Martyr, We be taught that the sanctified food which nourisheth our flesh and blood (and what is that but Bread?) is the flesh and blood of that jesu. Lib. 4. c. 34. Irenaeus, How shall it appear to them that the bread on which they give thanks is the body of their Lord, and the cup his blood if they grant not Christ to be the son of the Creator of the world? Advers. judae. Tertullian, So Christ taught us calling bread his body. Con. Marc. l. 3. c. 19 And again, Why doth Christ there call bread his body? Lib. 1. ep. 6. Cyprian, Christ called bread made of many grains his body, and Wine pressed out of many grapes his blood. Ad Hedib. q. 2. Hierom, Let us learn that the bread which the Lord broke and gave to his Disciples is the Lords body, himself saying to them, Take ye eat ye, this is my body. In 1. Cor. ● 11 In Anco●ato. Athanasius, or the Comment under his name, What is the bread? The body of Christ. Epiphanius, Of that which is oblong or roll figure, and senseless in power, the Lord would say by grace, Cat. myst. 4. this is my body. Cyril, Christ thus avoucheth and saith of bread, Di●l. 1. this is my body. Theodoret, In the very giving of the mysteries he called bread his body. Thus the Fathers. To whom I may add some of your own men also: Con. Floret. l 4. as Gerson. We must say that the article This doth demonstrate the substance of bread. And Stephen Gardiner, Con. diabol. Sophist. Dist. 2 de Consecr. Christ manifestly saith▪ This is my body, demonstrating bread. And the Canon, Qui manducat, bread is the body of Christ. This being so, I assume, but bread properly and without Figure is not Christ's body. The reason, because Disparates cannot be so predicated or affirmed one of another. An egg is not a stone, nor a stone an egg. Besides if Bread properly be Christ's body, then is it of the seed of David, conceived of the Holy Ghost, and borne of the blessed Virgin: then was it also crucified, and died, it was buried and descended into hell, it rose again and ascended into heaven, and now sitteth at the right hand of God: for all these things are truly affirmed of Christ. The gross absurdity, or rather horrible impiety whereof your men well perceaving, De consecr. dist. 2. pani● est in altati. S●m: p 3. q. 75 ●. 8. they are driven of force to grant us our Assumption. For saith your Canon Law, It is impossible that bread should be the body of Christ. Thomas of Aquin, It cannot properly be said that of bread the body of Christ is made. De Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. And Bellarmine. It is altogether absurd and impossible: for it cannot be that bread should be the Body of Christ. Out of which Premises thus I argue, That which Christ saith is undoubtedly true, But Christ saith Bread is his body, as we have showed, Ergo it is undoubtedly true. But it is not literally and in proper signification true, as we have also demonstrated. Ergo after some other manner. What manner? Let Bellarmine himself tell you. Ibid. Either saith he, it is to be understood tropically, that Bread is the Body of Christ significatively, or it is altogether absurd and impossible. Now certainly it is absurd and impossible that bread literally should be Christ's body; Ergo it is so Tropically and Significatively. And this may yet farther appear by that which Christ immediately added, 1 Cor. 11. ●4. This is my body which is broken for you. Whence I thus reason, As Christ's body is broken in the Sacrament, so is bread his body: But Christ's body is broken therein Sacramentally not literally, Ergo so is bread Christ's body. It is farther added, Do this in remembrance of me. If the Breaking of Bread be the Remembrance of Christ & of his Death, then is not bread properly Christ himself: for nothing is the Remembrance of itself. Figuratively therefore. Hereunto the Fathers agree, Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrose, Hierome, as is already declared. With whom I could easily join many others, but that it is needless, seeing yourself confess that the Fathers call the Sacrament a Figure, Sign, Representation, Similitude of Christ's Body. If any yet demand, why our Saviour then did not rather choose to say, This signifieth my body, I answer two things. First the language in which he spoke knoweth not the word Signify, but always instead of it useth the word is, as appear by these places, Gen 41.26.27. The seven fat kine and the seven full ears of corn are seven years of plenty: The seven lean kine and the seven empty ears are seven years of Famine. Ez. 37.11. These bones are the whole house of Israel. It is thou o King that art the head of Gold. Dan. 2.38.4.20.22.7.17.24 8.20.21. The tree which thou sawest is thou o King. The four great beasts are four Kings. The ten horns are ten Kings. The Ram with two horns are the Kings of Media & Persia. The goat is the King of Grecia. The like Hebraisins have we also in the new Testament. 1 Cor. 10.4. The Rock was Christ. Agar and Sara are two Covenants. Gal. 4 22.24. Ap. 17.9.18. The seven Heads are seven hills. The woman is the great city. Secondly being about to institute a Sacrament, Sacramental speech was best: in which it is usual to call the sign by the name of the thing signified, as is above declared. To sum up all, the Article This either demonstrateth bread, or doth not. If not, then can you not hence prove Transubstantiation thereof: for that only is Transubstantiated whereof he spoke. If yea, then is the speech Figurative, and Bread remains. For if it be Sacramentally Christ's body, than it is: and being, it is not abolished by Transubstantiation. I conclude with the determination of your own law. De consecr. d. 2. can. hoc est. Gloss. The Heavenly Sacrament which truly representeth the flesh of Christ, is called his Body, but improperly, not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery. Secondly, it overturneth the Articles of Faith: particularly the verity of Christ's Humanity. A point so material & Fundamental, that the razing thereof draweth with it the ruin of the whole Christian Religion. For this is the only ground of that great mystery of godliness, God manifested in the flesh. 1 Tim. 3.16. And if Christ be not as well true Man as true God, then hath he not suffered for us, nor redeemed us, then are we yet in our sins, and stand liable unto the eternal wrath of his Father. Wherefore according to the counsel of Saint Augustine, Ad Dard. ep. 57 We must carefully beware that we do not so maintain the Divinity of the man Christ, as to take from him the truth of his Body. And we are steadfastly to believe, that the Humane nature was so assumpted by the Deity, that although they both constitute but one Person, yet they still remain two distinct Natures, and each of them retaineth its Essential Properties. Heb 2.17.4.15. If then, as the Apostle saith, Christ be made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, and our Bodies cannot be without Dimension of length, breadth, and depth, together with circumscription, proportion, and Distinction of parts one from the other, and the like: then neither can the Manhood of Christ be without them. Nevertheless, you fancy unto Christ in the Eucharist such a Body as is utterly deprived of them all. For thus saith your Angelical Doctor, and what he saith is the general Tenent of the Church of Rome, Sum. p. 3. q. 76. v. 30. In the Body of Christ in the Sacrament there is no distance of one part from another, as of the eye from the eye, or the head from the feet, as it is in other organical bodies. For such distance of parts is in the true Body of Christ, but not as it is in the Sacrament, for so it hath not dimensive quantity. O miserable Christ that art driven into such narrow straits, that the whole bulk of thy Body should be emprisond and as it were frapt together in every little crumb and point of the host! And more true and seasonable may the complaint now be than it was of old, that the Son of man hath not so much as a place wherein to rest his head. But seeing as Thomas saith, The true body of Christ hath distance of parts, and the Body of Christ in the Sacrament hath not distance of parts: I marvel what should let but that I may boldly infer the conclusion, Ergo the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is not his true body. Again it is an Article of the Faith, that Christ being ascended into Heaven, hath quitted the earth, and now sitteth at the right hand of his Father. This the Scriptures testify. joh. 12.8. The poor, saith Christ, ye shall have always with you, Ib. 16.28. but me ye shall not always have. And I levae the world and go unto the Father. E● 17.11. And again, Now am I no more in the world, but these are in the world and I come unto thee. Act. 3.21. Hence saith St Peter, The heavens must contain him until the time that all things be restored. And then as the Angel said, Ib. 1.11. This jesus that is taken up from you into Heaven, shall so come again as you have seen him go into Heaven. Tract. in Mat. 33. The Fathers saith the same Origen, According to his divine nature he is not absent from us, but he is absent according to the dispensation of the Body which he took. As man shall he be absent from us, who is every where in his divine nature. For it is not the manhood of Christ that is there wheresoever two or three be gathered together in his name, neither is it his manhood that is with us at all times to the end of the world, nor is his manhood present in every congregation of the faithful, but the Divine virtue that was in jesus. De resur. carnis. Tertullian, In the very palace of Heaven to this day sitteth jesus at the right hand of his Father, Man though also God, flesh and blood though purer than ours, nevertheless the same in substance and form wherein he ascended, In Luc. 24. l. 10. Ambrose, Neither on the earth, nor in the earth, nor after the flesh are we to seek thee if we will find thee. Tract. 50. in joh. Augustine, Me shall you not always have. He spoke this of the presence of his Body. For touching his Majesty, providence, unspeakable and invisible grace, it is true that he said, I am always with you to the end of the world. But as for the flesh which the word took, which was borne of the virgin, fastened to the cross, laid in the grave, you shall not always have me with you. And why? Because he is ascended into heaven and is not here: there he sitteth at the right hand of the father. In joh. l. 11. c. 3. Cyril of Alexandria, He could not be conversant with his Apostles in the Flesh, after he was once ascended to his Father. Ib. c. 22. And, notwithstanding he be absent in the flesh, yet by that only means (the power of his Godhead) he is able to save his. In Evang. c. 30. Finally Gregory the Great, The word incarnate both remaineth and departeth; he departeh in Body, and remaineth in his divinity. Thus the Fathers. And hence is it that so often in their writings they exhort us not to settle our thoughts here on earth, but to send up our Faith into heaven, and thither to follow him in heart, whither we believe him to be ascended in body. Now, what you? The clean contrary: that the Body of Christ is still present with us here on earth, and as ordinarily as he is above in heaven. Nay more than so. For there he is confined & circumscribed to one place, as also he was here in the days of his Flesh, when he lived among the jews: but now by your Doctrine he may be and is in more than a thousand places at once, even when and where you will. For you have power to reproduce him as often as you list, & then to keep him with you as long as you please, at least until the mouse devour him, or he begin to corrupt and putrify. But is it impossible, will you say, for the Manhood of Christ to be present in many places at once? Impossible if we may believe the Fathers: neither can you produce any one of them that saith the contrary. If the argument of the Fathers above quoted be good, He is in heaven, Ergo he is not in earth: then can he not at one time be both here and there too. And doth not St Cyril expressly say, In joh l. 11. c. 3. he could not be conversant with his disciples in the Flesh after he was once ascended to his Father? St Augustine likewise, Christ according to his bodily presence could not be at once in the Sun and in the Moon and on the cross. Con Faust. Man. l. 20. c. 11 And again. Tract in joh. 30. The Body of Christ in which he rose again can be but in one place, but his truth is every where diffused. Vigilius a blessed Martyr and Bishop of Trent, Con Eurych. l. 4. c. 4. The flesh of Christ when it was in the earth was not in Heaven, and now because it is in haven, certainly it is not in earth. And by and by. Forsomuch as the word is every where, and the flesh of Christ is not every where, it is clear that one and the same Christ is of both natures, that is, every where according to the nature of his divinity, and contained in a place according to the nature of his humanity. Finally Fulgentius. One and the same son of God, Ad Tarasymund. l. 2. c. 5. having in ●●m the truth of the divine and humane nature, lost not the properties of the true Godhead, and took also the properties of the true Manhood, one and the self same, local by that he took of Man, a●d infinite by that he had of his Father: one and the very same, according to his humane substance absent from heaven when he was in earth, and forsaking the earth when he ascended to heaven. And a little after, how could he ascend but as a local and true man: evidently employing that he cannot be a true man, who is not Local and circumscribed in one place. And indeed if the Body of Christ be above in Heaven, and in many places here on earth at one time, as at London, Paris, Rome, elsewhere, and not in the several spaces between: either it will follow that there are as many distinct bodies of Christ, as there are places wherein it is, or that his Body is many hundred miles off and separated from itself, either of which is most unreasonable and absurd. 1 Cor. 8 6. For as Saint Paul saith, Eph. 4.5. there is but one Lord, and heaven and earth are many miles asunder. Besides it would follow that the Body of Christ is out of that which containeth it, & consequently that that which containeth it containeth it not, which is a mere contradiction. Nay if that Mathematical principle be true, as undoubtedly it is, that those bodies which touch the same point do also touch one the other: it will necessarily follow that the Priests fingers which touch the Body of Christ in London; must needs at the same time touch his fingers who holdeth the same in Rome. And so shall not only the Body of Christ be in diverse places at once, but by virtue thereof those things also that are many hundred leagues a sunder shall actually touch one the other. Unto these and the like absurdities, for the saluing of them you have nothing to oppose save only the Omnipotence of God, to whom nothing is impossible. But withal you forget that this hath been the ordinary refuge of the heretics, Adversus Prax. who, as Tertullian saith, fain what they list of God, as if he had done it because he could do it: whereas we should not because he can do all things therefore believe he hath done it, but rather, search whether he have done it or no. De Civit. Dei l. 5. c 10. True it is God is omnipotent: but by doing what he will, as Augustine saith, not by suffering what he will not. Whence also some things he therefore cannot do because he is omnipotent. 2 Tim 3021 ... He cannot deny himself, saith Saint Paul, Heb. 8. and it is impossible that he should lie. Lib. 6. ep. 37. And This impossibility, saith Ambrose, is not of infirmity but of majesty: because his truth admitteth not a lie, nor his power the note of inconstancy. So that whatsoever is repugnant to the Nature and Truth of God, because he is Almighty he cannot do. And such are all contradictions, both the parts whereof cannot possibly be true at once: but if the one be true, the other must needs be false. Hence it is held for an undoubted Maxim in Schools, that God cannot do those things that imply contradiction: the reason, because so he should be false himself. Now this Doctrine of yours implies in it innumerable contradictions, as by and by shall be demonstrated: among the rest this, that the same Body at the same time shall in heaven have shape, quantity, distinction of parts, circumscription, and all other essential properties of a Body, and yet in the Sacrament shall be destitute of them all. Both of which if upon presumption of God's Omnipotence you will needs still believe, I must plainly tell you, that to build on his Power with impeachment of his Truth is not Faith but Infidelity. Thirdly it destroyeth the Nature of a Sacrament. For proof whereof I will use no other grounds than those which your own men, and Bellarmine in particular have laid for me. To the constitution of a Sacrament of the new Testament, three things among sundry other, saith he, De Sacram. in gen l. 1. c. 9 are necessarily required. First there must be a Sign, that is, De Doctri. Christ. l. 2. c 1. as Saint Augustine defineth it, a thing which besides that shape or kind that it offereth unto our senses of itself causeth some other thing to come into our mind. Whence it followeth both that the Sign is something known, and that it is a thing differing from that which it signifieth, or whereof it is a sign. Secondly that this sign must be sensible or visible. For a Sacrament is intrinsically and essentially a ceremony of Religion: and a Ceremony is an external act. Wherefore the Father's everywhere teach, Dionys. ●c. hier. c. 1. that Sacraments are certain Footsteps or Manuductions unto things spiritual & Invisible. Aug. cont. Faust. l. 19 c. 16. Thirdly, that the sign must hold due analogy and proportion with the thing signified: Chrysost. in Mat. ho. 83. according to that of S. Augustin; If Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments, Ad bonifac. ep. 23. they were altogether no Sacraments. And hence is it that the Fathers call them Anti-types, that is, things of like Form, and lively expressing that which they present. These things being thus granted, out of them I frame this argument. That which destroyeth the sign in the sacrament by confounding it with the thing signified, making it invisible and insensible, and holding no analogy or proportion with that whereof it is a sign, destroyeth the nature of a Sacrament: But your doctrine of the Real Presence by Transubstantiation doth all this: Ergo it also destroyeth the nature of the Sacrament. The Major or first Proposition is by you, as we have now showed, yielded unto us, and cannot be denied. The Minor or second Proposition I thus prove in every particular. And first that it destroyeth the sign. For if any remain, either it is bread, or the Accidents of bread, or the body of Christ: for there is not a fourth. But bread it cannot be: for the Element is not a sign until it be consecrated, and bread is no sooner consecrated but forthwith it ceaseth to be. And if it be not, than neither is it a sign: for of that which is not, nothing can be affirmed. Again, the Accidents of bread, as Colour, Savours, measure, and the like, are not it. For besides that it is impossible, that Accidents should have any subsistence without their subject, the Being of an Accident being to be in its subject: it is very strange and unconceavable, if they could, how the mere Accidents of bread should represent and signify the body of Christ. The rather, because the sign was ordained by Christ to be a help unto our Faith, and to lead us as it were by the hand unto the thing signified. Whereas the Accidents of bread without the substance thereof are rather lets and hindrances unto us, and with no more reason can be called signs of Christ's body, than a dark cloud that keepeth off the light of the Sun from our eyes, may be called a sign or Representation of the Sun. Add hereunto that such a sign is required as is material and elemental: according to that of S. Augustin, Tract 80. in. joh. The word being added to the element it is made a Sacrament. Lib. 1. p. 9 c, 2. So Hugh, De Sacr. in Gen. l. 11. so Bellarmin, so the rest. Now to call Accidents by name of Elements is a new strain of philology, uncouth and unheard of until this time, and example whereof you cannot find in any writer. Neither finally is the body of Christ it. For that is the thing signified: and by your rule the sign and the thing signified must be two differing and distinct things, not the same. Which also perfectly agreeth with right reason. For seeing nothing is opposite unto itself, & the sign and the thing signified are opposed one unto another by way of Relation, they being Relative terms: it cannot be that the thing signified should be one and the same with the sign, and consequently that Christ's body should be a sign of itself. The conclusion of all is, that if neither bread, nor the Accidents of bread, nor the body of Christ be the sign in the Eucharist, than there is no sign at all therein: and if no sign, then is the Nature of the Sacrament destroyed, a sign being necessary to the constitution thereof. Secondly, the sign, as you say, aught to be visible and sensible: which is very true. For the Sacrament being a Representation of the Death of Christ: it can no more be expressed by Insensible signs, than a Picture be drawn with Invisible colours. But in the Eucharist there is no sensible sign. Not the bread: for ceasing to be, it ceaseth also to be visible. Not the Accidents of bread: for though they be visible, yet are they not signs, as we have showed, but only of their proper subject. Nor the body of Christ: for that being covered from our sight under the Accidents of bread, cannot be seen of us. What Seraphical and piercing eyes some of your Illuminates may have I known not: but sure I am ordinary men see it not, and what they see seems to them rather bread than flesh. Your own men confess so much: and therefore the more shame against their own rule to make it a sign, that I say which is Invisible and cannot be seen, so that which is visible and may be seen. Thirdly & lastly, you acknowledge that in every Sacrament there ought to be a Proportion and agreement between the sign and the 2 signified 1 thing. But in the Eucharist, as you order it, there is no such Proportion. For there is nothing that resembleth unto us either the Passion of Christ, or the nourishment of our souls by his Flesh and Blood, or our mutual Union and Conjunction in his mystical body. Wherein the Analogy and agreement principally standeth. Bread indeed would every way be answerable thereunto, if according to Christ's institution you would suffer it to be there. 1. Cor. 16.16.17. For the Breaking of the one resembleth the Suffering of the other, and the nourishing of our bodies by the one the nourishment of our Souls by the other, and our Participation of one Bread our Union and Communion in the same mystical body. But you have banished it out of the Sacrament, and therefore this Analogy also together with it. Besides it there remaineth nothing but Christ's body and the Accidents of bread. Christ's body is one and the same: for he assumed not more Bodies. And to seek a similitude in an Identity, or between the same thing and it own self is mere frenzy. It resteth therefore to make up the Proportion that the Accidents be broken, that they be composed of diverse grains and grapes, and that they are able to feed and nourish our Bodies: or else neither is Christ's passion, nor our mystical conjunction, nor the spiritual nourishment of our souls by his body resembled by them. But this is a foul heresy in Philosophy: and whosoever affirms it, deserves to have his brain purged with a good quantity of Hellebore. For if Accidents nourish, then are they turned into our substance: and if so, then have we here a stranger Transubstantiation then of bread into Christ's body, for that is of one substance into another, this of Accidents into substance. If your Monks for trial hereof might for a while be fed with nothing else but Accidents, I think the swaging of their fat paunches would soon put an end to the controversy, and force them to confess that nothing but substance can keep them from starving. It may be you will say, though the Accidents of bread feed not, yet they seem to feed, which is sufficient. Whereunto I answer, that God useth not to mock his Church with vain shows and illusions: but as he truly and really feedeth our souls with the body and blood of his Son, so hath he ordained true and real Symbols and resemblances thereof. Thus have we learned Christ and no otherwise. Fourthly, it gainesayeth the perpetual consent of Antiquity. And here to avoid tautology, I omit all those passages of the Fathers already quoted, wherein is affirmed either that bread is the body of Christ, or that it is the Figure of his Body. Out of both which as we have showed, it necessarily follows that bread remains, and that the words of Institution, This is my body, are to be understood, not literally, but tropically. Neither will I allege such frivolous, broken, and impertinent sentences, as your Author furnished you with for your Real Presence, and Transubstantiation. But among many I will select a few choice ones, such as shall be pregnant and direct to the purpose. For I desire to be brief, and to bear you down, not so much with the number as the weight of them. Apol. 2. 2● Ant. Pium. justin Martyr affirmeth that by the sanctified food of the Eucharist our Flesh and blood is nourished by the change thereof: L. 5. c. 2. and Irenaeus that the substance of our flesh is nourished and augmented thereby. It is bread therefore: for the true bread of Cstrist neither nourisheth our bodies, L. 3. c. 33. nor is converted into them. The same Irenaeus saith that the Eucharist consisteth of two things, the one earthly the other heavenly. Take away bread, and there remaineth no Earthly thing therein: unless you will say that the Accidents are Earthly. Paed. l. 2. c. 2. Clemens of Alexandria proveth against the Encratites, who abhorred wine, that our Saviour himself drank it, because he drank of the blessed cup. But the argument follows not if there were only blood in the cup and no Wine. Con. Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Tertullian, What then he would have bread to signify he sufficiently declared calling bread his body. If bread signifies his body then is it not his body. In Mat. c. 1●. Origen, That meat which is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer, as touching the material part thereof goeth into the belly, and is cast forth into the draught. This cannot possibly be understood of the Accidents, for they are not material, nor of the Body of Christ, for that were too unworthy: of bread therefore, which in the same place he calleth the Typical and Symbolical Body of Christ distinguishing it from his true Body. Lib 2 ep. 3. Cyprian, The Lord offered Bread and the cup mixed with Wine. That which is offered is Consecrated: Ergo after Consecration it is Bread and Wine. Ibid. Again, We find it was a mixed cup which the Lord did offer, Ibid. and that it was wine which he called his blood. What words can be more plain? And yet again, the Blood of Christ cannot seem to be in the cup when wine is wanting to the cup, whereby the blood of Christ is declared. Ser. in illud Quicunque diverit verbum. Athanasius, He distinguished the spirit from the flesh, that we might learn that the things he spoke are not carnal but Spiritual. For how many men would his Body have sufficed, that it might be the food of the whole world? But therefore he made mention of his ascension into heaven, that he might draw them from corporal understanding, and then might understand his flesh whereof he spoke to be meat from above, the Heavenly and spiritual food which he would give. Here expressly he rejecteth the Corporal eating of Christ's Body, and acknowledgeth none other but that which is spiritual. De demonst. Euang l. 5. c. 3. Eusebius Bishop of Cesa●ia, Our Saviour and Lord first, and then all the Priests that have followed in all nations celebrating the spiritual divine service according to the ordinances of the Church, signify unto us by the Bread and Wine the mysteries of his body and blood. If they signify them, they are not the same. Hom. 27. Macarius, They knew not that in the Church Bread and Wine was to be offered as the anti-type of his flesh and blood, and that those who partake of the visible bread spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord. A knot of arguments. Bread & Wine are offered, they are Anti-types of Christ's Flesh and Blood, Cat. Mystag. 3. they are received of us, and the eating of Christ's flesh is spiritual. Your Cyril of Jerusalem, As the Bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more common bread but the body of Christ: so this holy ointment is no more bare and common ointment after it is consecrated, but the gift of Christ. Not common bread, saith he, yet bread▪ and the body as the Ointment is the Grace of Christ. But Grace it is, not by conversion into it, for it remaineth ointment still, De Myst. init. c. 9 but by accession of Grace unto it. Ambrose, speaking of the miracles of the Prophets who changed the Nature of things, and comparing therewith that which is done in the Sacrament as being nothing less, at length concludeth, It is no less to give new natures unto things then to change their natures: plainly intimating that in the Sacrament Nature is not changed, but some thing is added above Neture. Wherefore else where he saith in express terms, De Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. If there be so great force in the word of the Lord, that they should begin to be what they were not: how much more operative are they that they be what they were, and yet be changed into another thing. Lo bread and Wine are changed, yet remain what they were: changed therefore not in substance, but in use and signification. Saint Basil in his Liturgy, In Liturg. seu a●aphora. for him you make the author thereof, He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of thy Majesty on high, who shall also come to render unto every one according to his works. But he hath left these Memorials or monuments of his healthful passion, which we set forth according to his commandment. He is gone, and hath left us Memorials of himself: Ergo himself is not here. For remembrance is of things past, not present. Orat. de Pasch. 2. Gregory Nazianzen, Now we shall be partakers of the Passeover, but as yet in a figure, though more clear than in the old Law: for the passover of the Law (I will not be a afraid to say it) was but a more obscure figure of a figure. The Passeover therefore in proper speech is not a figure of the Lords Supper: but both of them are Figures of the death of Christ. Orat de sanct. B●p●. Gregory Nyssen, declaring the change of Water in Baptism, expresseth it by three similitudes, of an Altar which being dedicated unto God's Worship, of a common stone is made a holy table, of Bread in the Eucharist which by Consecration is no longer common bread but the Body of Christ, and of a Priest who of a vulgar and ordinary man, is by the blessing made a teacher & Prelate of divine mysteries. Bread therefore is no more transubstantiated, than Water in Baptism, the stone of the Altar, or the Priest. Cyril of Alexandria, Dost thou say that our Sacrament is the eating of a man? In expos. 11. anath. and dost thou Urge our mind unto the gross thoughts that believed so? and dost thou attempt with humane thoughts to handle those things which cannot be received but only with a pure and exquisite faith? The Flesh of Christ therefore is not eaten with the mouth, for that were to eat a man: but only with a pure Faith. Epiphanius, After he had given thanks he said, In Anchorato This of me is that and we see that it is not equal nor like neither to the incarnate image, nor the invisible Deity, nor to the lineaments of his members. For this is oblong or of roll fashion, senseless as concerning power. If it be unequal to Christ and void of Sense, Epist. ad Caesar. then is it not Christ. Saint chrysostom, before consecration we call it bread, but Divine grace through the ministry of the Priest sanctifying it, it is freed from the name of bread, and counted worthy of the appellation of the Lords body, although the nature of bread continue in it. Behold the nature of bread remaineth after Consecration, and yet it is called the Body of Christ. And again, If therefore it be dangerous to convert unto private uses these sanctified vessels, In mat. 5. hom. 12. in which the true body of Christ is not, but the mystery of Christ's body is contained: how much more the vessels of our body which God hath prepared to be an habitation for himself, ought we not to give way unto the Devil to do in them what he pleaseth? Not the Body but the mysteries are contained in the vessels: & if so, In Esa. 66. & jer. 22. what becomes of your Real presence. Hierom, The wicked nor eat the flesh of jesus, nor drink his blood. But they eat and drink the Eucharist: Ergo it is not the Flesh and Blood of Christ. Dear. dist. 2. de Consecr. Can. De hac. Again, We may eat of that Sacrifice which is wonderfully made in commemoration of Christ: but of that which Christ offered upon the Altar of the Cross no man may eat. The Sacrifice then of the Sacrament is not that of the Cross: and the Body offered on the Cross is not eaten in the Sacrament. Tract. 59 in▪ joh. Saint Augustine, The Apostles ate the Bread the Lord, judas the bread of the Lord against the Lord. Sentent. Again, He that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth the Flesh of Christ nor drinketh his Blood, although he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a thing to judgement. Observe the Bread of the Lord, not that which is the Lord: and the Sacrament of Christ's Flesh and Blood, Enar. in Ps. 9 8. not his Flesh and Blood. So again, you shall not eat this body which you see, nor drink that blood which my crucifiers shall shed: I have commended unto you a Sacrament, which spiritually understood shall quicken you. And yet again, Ep. 23. & Decr. dist. 2. de Consecr. Ca Hoc. est. As the heavenly bread which is the Flesh of Christ, after its manner is called the Body of Christ, being in truth the Sacrament● of Christ's Body. Mark, that which is called Body is not so in truth but only in sign and after a manner. Serm. 2. de ascens. Pope Leo, Christ being lifted up into heaven, set an end to his Bodily Presence, being to abide at the right hand of his Father, until the times appointed by God for the multiplying of the Sons of the Church be accomplished. If till then he have set an end to his Bodily presence, then till that time he is no more here. Apud ●at. l. de corp. & sang domini. Fulgentius, the holy Catholic Church throughout the whole world ceaseth not to offer unto Christ the sacrifice of Bread and Wine in Faith and Charity. If a Sacrifice of bread and wine, then is it bread and wine after consecration. De duab. nat. con. Eu●. & Nestor. Pope Gelasius, certainly the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receive is a divine thing: wherefore by them are we made partakers of the divine nature: and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine cease not to be. And verily the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in these mysteries. Ibid. And, They pass by the work of the holy Ghost into a divine substance, continuing notwithstanding in the propriety of their nature. Lo the Substance and Nature of bread remain, and the Sacrament is but an image and Similitude of Christ's body. What can be more plain? Dial. 1. Theodoret, Himself hath honoured the Visible Symbols with the name of his body and blood, not changing their nature, but adding grace unto nature. And again disputing against an Eutychian Heretic, who to overthrow the Humanity of Christ had thus argued, that as the signs in the Eucharist are after Consecration changed, so the body of our Lord after the assumption thereof was changed into the Divine substance: he bringeth in Orthodaxus thus answering, Dial. 2. Thou art taken in thine own nets, for the mystical signs after consecration depart not from their proper nature. For they remain in their former substance, and figure, and form, and are visible and tangible as formerly they were: but are understood to be thee things they are made and believed, and are honoured as being the things they are believed. These passages of Gelasius and Theodoret are the very rack & gibbet of you Papists: whereunto the best of you know not what to answer, but only that by substance Accident is meant. An incredible obstinacy and madness, and needing rather a Physician to cure it then a disputer to confute it. For with as good reason may you say that by white black is meant, and by Heaven Hell, and any thing by whatsoever. Lastly Gregory the Great, Moral. l. 14. c. 31. proveth the truth of Christ's body against Eutychius by those words of our Saviour, Handle me and see. Can you prove the truth of Christ's body in the Sacrament by the same argument? Verily if that which is neither felt nor seen be not Flesh & Bone, neither is the Flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, for it is neither felt nor s●ene. And if bread be transubstantiated only by virtue of those words, This is my body, then in the Apostles time there was no Transubstantiation at all. For as Gregory saith, Lib. 7. ep. 64. The manner of the Apostles was only by the Lord's prayer to consecrate the host of the Oblation. And thus have you a full grand jury of the ancient Fathers, all of them living within six hundred years after Christ, and with joint consent crossing your new upstart fiction of the Real Presence. To these I might easily add a long list of those who succeeded in after times, as Bede, Rabanus Maurus, Walafridus, Strabo, Bertram, Waleram Bishop of Medburg, Druthmarus, and others, not one of them in their times taxed for error in this point. But I will only relate what the Doctrine of the Church of England was about seven hundred years after Christ, as appeareth by those Homilies that then were publicly read unto the people. The holy Font water that is called the wellspring of life, Ser. Sax. for Easter. is like in shape to other waters and is subject to corruption: but the holy Ghosts might cometh to the water through the Priest's blessing, and it can after wash the body and soul from all sin through Ghostly might. Behold now we see two things in this one creature. After true nature that water is corruptible water, and after ghostly mystery hath hollowing might. So also if we behold that holy housel after bodily understanding, then see we that it is a creature corruptible and mutable: if we acknowledge therein ghostly might, then understand we that life is therein, and that it giveth immortality to them that eat it with belief. Much is betwixt the invisible might of the holy housel, & the visible shape of his proper nature. It is naturally corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine, & is by might of God's word truly Christ's Body and his blood: not so notwithstanding bodily but Ghostly. Much is betwixt the body Christ suffered in, and the body that is hallowed to housel. The body truly that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary with blood and with bone, with skin and with sinews, with humane limbs, with a reasonable soul living: and his Ghostly body which we call the housel is gathered of many corns, without blood and bone, without limb, without Soul. And therefore nothing is to be understood therein bodily, but all is Ghostly to be understood. Thus the Homily: and thus much thereof have I thought good here at large to set down, to the end you may know, that our Ancestors in this Island, notwithstanding your loud craks to the contrary, have not always at leastwise in this point, been Papists. Besides these testimonies of antiquity we have their customs also against you. In 1 Cor. 11. St Hierom reporteth that in the Primitive times, after the holy Communion was ended, they were wont to feast together in the Church, In Levit. l. 2. c. 8. and to spend the residue of the Eucharist that remained. Hesychius saith that it was the custom, not to reserve till the morrow, as your manner now adays is, but to burn what fragments soever remained of the consecrated Elements. Hist. l. 4. c. 35. Evagrius and Nicephorus both do testify that the ancient custom of the Church of Constantinople was to send for little children from the school, Lib. 17. c. 25. such as otherwise were barred from the Communion, & to give the remainders of the Sacrament to them. Had the Church in those days verily believed that it had been the true and Real body of Christ: do you think they would so have profaned it by feasting upon it, and bestowing it on children? Or that they would with such impiety and sacrilege have burned and consumed it in the fire? It is altogether incredible. As incredible therefore that they held it to be the Lords Body. But of Antiquity enough. Fiftly and lastly it implieth in it innumerable contradictions: which according to the rule of Logic, cannot possibly be true at once. For truth evermore agreeth with truth, and never crosseth it: and whatsoever resisteth or contradicteth truth is Falsehood. Hence the rule, and the infallible rule of your own School, that God cannot do those things that imply contradiction. For contradiction is not in the bosom of God, seeing he is essentially Truth itself. And being, not yea and nay, but yea and Amen, he cannot say yea is nay or nay is yea. And if he cannot say it, neither can he will it to be so. If he cannot will it, neither can it be so. For what God cannot will cannot be done. Neither do we herein derogate from the Power of God: for whatsoever is against his Truth is against his Power, and therefore as St Augustine saith, Powerfully he cannot do it. Which being so, let us see whether this Doctrine of yours imply such contradictions or no. First you say that Bread is made the Body of Christ, and yet that the Body of Christ was before Bread was made his Body. Now if to unmake that which never was, imply contradiction, by the same proportion to make that which already is implies it also. That which is not made as yet is not, and that which is already made is, and is, and is not, be direct contradictories. Is it possible to kill a dead man? Or to beget the child that is already borne? As impossible is it to make him of Bread, who was long before he is pretended to be made. Secondly, to be locally in a place and not locally in a place is a contradiction. But that Christ's Body is locally in heaven you all confess, and that at the same time he is not locally in the Sacrament you likewise acknowledge. Can you reconcile this contradiction? Besides what confusion of speech is this, Christ is in a place but not locally, or as in a place? As if a man should say, such a one is reasonable but not reasonably or as reasonable, and learned but not learnedly or as learned. How then? Certes as unreasonable and unlearned. Thirdly, I hope you will not deny unto Christ as much power as you grant to every petty Masse-Priest. But you grant power unto them to reserve the consecrated Host until the next day, yea until it begin to corrupt and putrify. If then our Saviour instituting his supper the even before his Passion had delivered unto his Apostles any part of the Eucharist to be kept unto the end of the next day: I demand whether the Body in the Pixe should have been scourged, crucified, thrust through, and slain, together with that which was fastened to the Cross? If no, as your Church concludeth: then have we here another contradiction. Christ's Body is at the same time scourged and not scourged, crucified and not crucified, thrust through and not thrust through, slain and not slain. Fourthly, you say that the Body of Christ is contained under the Accidents of Bread, yea that the whole Body is in every the least crumb of the Host. Yet you say it is much greater than that which containeth it, and elsewhere besides the Accidents. You say also that Christ at his last supper ate himself and swallowed down his own body into his stomach: so that his stomach containing himself, he was both within and without himself. Which in effect is a mere contradiction, the Accidents, the stomach containeth and not containeth, Christ's Body is contained & not contained. Fiftly, you confess that the Body of Christ then when he celebrated his Supper did see and hear, and move, and breath, was weak and passable and subject unto death. Yet you say that the same time the Body of Christ in the Eucharist could neither see, not hear, nor move, nor breath, but was utterly insensible, impassable, and without infirmity. And is not this a manifest contradiction? If you say he is passable in the Sacrament, but after an impassable manner: you shall pardon us if we answer it with no other than laughter. For it is as if you should say the crow is black after a white manner, or that the world is square after a round manner. Sixtly, before Transubstantiation was invented it went for currant in Philosophy that the very essence and being of an Accident is to be in the subject. Yet you say that in the sacrament the Accidents of Bread are in no subject. But for an Accident to be and not to be is a contradiction: for not to be in is not to be. As well may you say a substance subsisteth not, or the shining shineth not, or the living liveth not, as that the Accident doth not accidere or befall the subject. Seaventhly, every creature is measured by time and place. If therefore it be a contradiction to say such a thing is and yet is in no time: it is as clear a contradiction to say such a thing is and yet it is limited in no place. Nevertheless you say that the body of Christ in the Sacrament occupieth no place. Again, if it be a contradiction to say that a man at the same instant of time liveth in the fifteenth and sixteenth hundred year of Christ, because there is a great distance between them, and they are not the same number: as palpable a contradiction is it to say the Body of Christ is at once both in Heaven and Earth, seeing earth is not heaven nor heaven earth, and there is such a vast space betwixt them. Phys. l. 4. c 6.7.8 Eightly, Aristotle maintaineth that vacuity or emptiness is impossible, & if you should grant it, infinite contradictions would follow. But your doctrine establisheth it. For what is vacuity but a space unfilled by a Body? I ask then when the Cup is consecrated, wherewith is it filled? With wine? So indeed it seemeth: but after consecration you say it is not Wine, & that which is not there filleth it not. With blood then? Nor that. For that which filleth the Cup must every way be as large as the hollow surface of the Cup. But the blood is not so: for it wanteth Dimensive quantity. Unless therefore the Accidents help (and they cannot being no Bodies) the Cup must needs be empty and void: which cannot but imply contradiction. For voidness, as the Philosopher saith, is the root of infinite contradictions. Ninthly and lastly, if one and the same Body may be in more places than one at once, why not in a thousand? And if in a thousand, why not in a thousand thousand millions? If so, than a little point or drop continuing still in the same Quantity, may occupy as much space as the greatest mountain or the whole Ocean. For so many may the several places be that all put together may make a greater space: than which what plainer contradiction? Unto these few, I might easily add six hundred other as gross absurdities: as that Christ at the same time is to himself both near and far off, above & beneath, within and without, before and behind, at his right and at his left hand, that he is also elder and younger, sooner and later, shorter and taller, broader and narrower, thicker and thinner, greater and lesser than himself, and such like of the same garb. But I study to be brief, & it is high time to remove my hand, as they say, from the Table. Only I must forewarn you, that if being unable to untie these knots, you shall attempt to cut them asunder with the sword of God's Omnipotence, you shall but lose your labour. For if they be contradictions (as undoubtedly they are) your Angelical Doctor can tell you, Sum. p. 1. q. 25. a. 2.3. that they fall not within the compass of Divine Power. So that of force you must either demonstrate that these things are not contradictory, which I am sure you can never do: or as becometh Christian ingenuity, you must for ever bid farewell to Transubstantiation, and yield unto the truth discovered unto you. And thus at length by God's assistance have I finished the task you have laid upon me, & fully answered whatsoever here you have alleged in maintenance of your Real Presence. My desire now is that laying aside all prejudice, you will but with indifference read what I have replied thereunto. Which if you shall vouchsafe to do, I persuade myself it will make you to remit much of that confidence you had in this cause, when first you sent this Schedule unto me. Especially if withal you consider that the wittiest and subtlest heads amongst you could never find it so clearly and strongly grounded either upon Scripture or Fathers, as you pretend. Scotus surnamed the subtle Doctor affirmeth, In 4. dist. 11. q. 3. that there is extant in Scripture no place so express, as without declaration of the Church can evidently constrain a man to admit of Transubstantiation. And this, saith Bellarmine, is not altogether unprobable. For although the scripture may seem unto us so clear, De Euch. l. 3. c. 23. as it may constrain a man that is not froward: yet it may justly be doubted whether it be so, seeing most learned and witty men, such as Scotus specially was, have thought the contrary. The same Scot farther saith, that were it not for the authority & determination of the Roman Church, the words of Christ and of the Fathers might more simply, plainly, & truly be understood and expounded. Ibid. Nay he yet farther addeth, and your Cardinal Bellarmine confesseth it, that before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was not a doctrine of Faith: and he wondereth that being no principle article, and such as exposeth the Christian Faith to contempt, it could be received and believed. 4. q 6. a. 2. f. The Cardinal of Cambray also doubteth not to avouch that that manner which supposeth the substance of Bread still to remain is possible, neither is it contrary to reason, or the authority of scripture. Nay it is easier to conceive and more reasonable, then that which saith the substance doth leave the accidents. And of this opinion no inconvenience doth seem to ensue, if it could be accorded with the Church's determination. And he addeth, that the opinion which holdeth the substance of Bread not to remain, doth not evidently follow of the Scripture, nor to his seeming of the Church's determination. Cardinal Cajetan is as peremptory, In p. 3 q. 75.2.1. that there appeareth nothing in the Gospel that can force a man properly to understand these words, This is my body: and that (were it not for the interpretation of the Roman Church) they might very well admit another sense, as that of the Apostle, the Rock was Christ. To these Cardinals may we join another Cardinal, though happily he never ware the Cap, I mean Fisher Bishop of Rochester, who expressly averreth, that in that place of Matthew (where the institution of the Sacrament is recorded) there is never a word whereby it may be proved, Cont. Capt. Bab. c. 1. that there is made in the Mass the true presence of the flesh and blood of Christ. Lect. 41. in can. miff, Gabriel Biel also, The Scriptures may be salved and expounded after a more easy understanding. And Occam, This doctrine that the substance of bread remaineth is subject to lesser inconveniences, and is not so repugnant to reason, L. 4. d. 11. q. 1. & the Scriptures. And Durand, It is great rashness to say that the body of Christ cannot by divine power be in the Sacrament but by converting bread into it. Howbeit if that way which supposeth bread to remain were indeed true, many doubts which meet us holding it not to remain, L. 4 d. 11.2. were dissolved. The Master of the Sentences also freely confesseth, that if it be demanded, what that conversion is, whether formal, or substantial, or of another kind, he is not sufficient to define. From these your jesuits swerve not very much. De praes. in Euch. l. 1. c. 10 Gregory de Valentia saith, that the Fathers spoke of Transubstantiation somewhat obscurely & simply, as thinking they could not be understood of Catholics but catholicly, and lest they should have exposed the mystery to be laughed at of Infidels if in their popular Sermons they should have unfolded their minds. Modest. discourse. Your Secular Priests affirm that it was concluded among the Fathers of the Society (and what Catholic would not believe them?) that the Fathers have not so much as touched the point of Transubstantiation. Des. mon. ep. con. Bell. Finally, not to muster up any more, it is well known, that diverse of your Priests being demanded, if after sentence of death pronounced upon them, that very morning when they were to be executed, they might have leave to say Mass, to the intent they might be certain of their own intention to consecrate, and not doubtfully depend upon another's, whether after consecration for the confirmation of our Faith in the point of Transubstantiation, they durst to say thus unto the multitude, Unless that which is now in this Chalice, whose Accidents you see, be the very self same blood which issued out of the side of Christ hanging on the cross, let me have no part either in the blood of Christ, or in Christ himself for ever, and so with these last words bid farewell unto the world: being I say demanded whether they durst adventure to do so, they all with one voice denied it. And Father Garnet in a conference with the Deans of the Chapel, Paul's, and Westminster, being in particular asked the like, answered very perplexedly, not daring to hazard his salvation thereupon. All these testimonies duly pondered and considered, you must needs acknowledge, unless you see better than these quicksighted Eagles, that you have not so strong hold either in Scripture, or Fathers, or right reason as you imagined: and that not only the name, but the Doctrine also of Transubstantiation, hath been but of late created an article of your Faith. It remaineth that I entreat you, these things undoubtedly being thus, that you suffer not yourself any longer to be beguilded with novelties under pretence of antiquity: but rather that you open your eyes, and stretch forth your arms to embrace the truth, now that she offereth herself so manifestly unto you. And this I entreat the more earnestly, because of the great danger that followeth upon this error. For if Christ be not present in the Sacrament in such sort as you hold, there was never either seen or heard the like Idolatry unto yours, as your own Coster confesseth. For, saith he, it is a more tolerable error to worship Images of silver, or gold, or other stuff with the Gentiles, or a red cloth on a pike with the Lieflanders, or living creatures with the Egyptians, then to adore a morsel of bread. Oh therefore let me yet again beseech you, and that by the dearest name of jesus Christ, to pity your own soul, and with all speed to retire yourself from Babylon, the mother of all spiritual whoredom. Heretofore happily your ignorance might in part excuse you: but now that the light hath shined upon you, if wilfully you close your eyes against it, you are altogether unexcusable, and these papers one day will appear in judgement against you. Oh how glad would the blessed Angels in heaven be, might they once behold your conversion? How readily and lovingly would the true Church of Christ entertain you? and how humbly thankful would my poor self be unto the Divine Majesty, if through his blessing these endeavours of mine might be a means to reclaim you? For my part I have done what belonged unto me, that truth I have both propounded and demonstrated unto you. To turn the heart is not in my power: that I leave unto God whose office it is. Yet will I never cease to address my vows unto him for you, if at any time he may be pleased in jesus Christ to have compassion upon you. FINIS. A DEFENCE OF THE FORmer Answer against the Reply of N.N. OXFORD Printed by I.L. for E. F. 1633. A DEFENCE OF THE FORMER ANSWER AGAINST the reply of N. N. SIR, I perceive would I follow the tract you seek to set me in: I might travel long enough, and be never the nearer my journey's end. All the Passages alleged by you in maintenance of Transubstantiation, I have fully answered: adding thereunto sundry arguments, clearly demonstrating the impiety thereof. Whereupon I expected either that you should yield being convinced by the evidence of truth: or particularly acquaint me wherein I had not satisfied you. Now what you? Forsooth neither the one nor the other. But instead thereof you send me a fardel of idle Generalities, picked out of I know not what blind author: all making no more to the matter in hand, Hora●. in Art●. then, as he saith, a Cypress tree doth to a table of shipwreck. In regard whereof I could not hitherto persuade myself to rejoin unto it. For why should I stray with him that will needs out of the Way? Nevertheless fearing least by holding my peace I might seem either to prejudice my cause, or to disable myself, and knowing what clapping of wings and crowing there useth to be amongst you upon every the least show of advantage: I have at length resolved to vouchsafe you one encounter more, and then if you still persist in your outlopes and impertinences, to waste no more oil or paper upon you. Tit. 3.10. For it is St Paul's advice to avoid an heretic after one or two admonitions, knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth being condemned of himself. To proceed therefore in order, let us begin with your Preamble. N. N. Musing why your kinsman delivered me not your papers, you suppose it was because he conceited not well of them, or thought they would not pleasure. I. D. You conjecture not amiss. For being demanded the reason, he answered, because you had written nothing to the purpose, and yet continue obstinated in your error. Which how could it be welcome to either of us? But take heed I beseech you how you close your eyes any longer against the light of truth. 2 Thes. 2.10.11. For to them that receive not the love of truth that they may be saved, God threateneth to send them the efficacy of error to believe lies. N. N. The passages now sent are taken out of your Papers. These again out of your author. Yet truly. And all to show you build not upon any one man's opinion. I. D. You might have done well to name your Author, that we might know his worth, and whether your Papers have wronged him: and if not, whether your Author's self have not wronged those, out of whom he hath taken his collections. But suppose neither You nor your Author fail, yet is your inference ridiculous. For though the writers you quote be many, yet is your Author but one. And alleging them upon his sole credit, without any particular knowledge of your own: you build herein but upon one man's opinion. N. N. No nor on Lutherans, Anabaptists, Protestants, Puritans, or termed Papists, farther than they agree with the authority of the Catholic Church. I. D. Lutheran is a name not chosen by us, who in point of Faith depend upon no man, but by you thrust upon us. Anabaptists we detest as much as you. Puritan is the ancient name of the Novatians, and better fitteth you then us. For we hold not as you do, that we can eschew all sin all our life, and perfectly fulfil the law, yea supererogate, and merit heaven by our works. The name of Protestant was first given unto the Princes and Free cities of Germany, Protesting their Faith at a Diet in Spire Ann. 1529. neither do we disclaim it. But who I pray are those termed Papists? For relying on the Omnipotency of your Lord God the Pope, you are Papists indeed: and your betters approve the term. 3 conver. p. 1. c. 12. Parson's saith that it importeth no more hurt than if in a sedition they that side with the King be called Royalists. Lib. 7. c. 12. parog. 12. De not. Ecc. l. 10. c. 6. Florimond Raimond, that it is a name of honour and whereat none should take offence. Tho. Bozius, that you have good reason to glory in it. And an old Catholic, Search into mat. of rel. as Walsingham reports, that it was a most honourable thing for men to stand with their Head, and to have their denomination from him. Thus they. But nor Papists nor others shall move you farther than they agree with the Catholic Church. And reason if thereby you understand that of all times, including the Apostles. Iren. l. 3. c. 2. For they erred not. And what they Preached, they left in writing, ever after to be the rule and ground of Faith. But if you mean as I doubt you do, the Now-Roman Church, besides that it is not Catholic, there will be but little salt found in your speech. For it will be as if you had said, you will not rely on Papists or any other farther than they agree with Papists: of which only that Church consisteth. N. N. Succession, continuance, visibility, unity are notes of the Catholic Church: and only found in her. I. D. These Notes are not Proper, agreeing only and always to the Church. Certain therefore and infallible they are not. Not Personal Succession. For in the beginning of the Church it was not: and in the time of Antichrist you say it shall not be. It hath also been continued in the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople: which yet you esteem no true Churches. The consideration whereof forced from Bellarmine this confession, De not Ec. c. 8. that it followeth not necessarily, where succession is, there is a Church. Nor Continuance. For the malignant Church hath lasted hitherto, and will yet longer: and many of the Churches planted by the Apostles are now failed, which yet were true Churches, Nor Visibility. For the Church of Greece, which you count Heretical, hath ever since the first founding of it been, and is still Visible. And such Persecutions, and Scandals may arise in the Church, as may much eclipse the glory thereof, reducing the Saints to a small number, scattering the Ministers, suspending the exercise of Ecclesiastical discipline, and interrupting the public service: so as the true Professors seeking shelter from the storm shall hardly be discerned. 1 King. 19.10.14. So was it under the old Testament in the days of Elias, so under the new when the whole world groaned under Arianisme: and so shall it be in the time of Antichrist: as out of your writers in the former treatise I have already declared. Nor last Unity. For as the Church of God is one, so the Devils Babylon is also one. And who knows not what jars and dissensions sometimes were among the Corinthians and Galatians, and between the East and West Churches about the celebration of Easter, which nevertheless were true Churches. And thus you see how uncertain and deceivable your notes be. If this yet be not enough to persuade you: I hope being backed with authority of your great Cardinal Bellarmine it may suffice, De not. Ec. c. 3. who maketh them in themselves to be but probable. N. N. If it could be proved that these notes belong to the Protestant Church, it would much alter your opinion. I. D. It seems you take for granted that these notes are to be found in the Roman Church. But you presume too far. Was never a more broken Succession in any Church then that. Who at the first succeeded whom is uncertain: namely in what order, Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus should stand. About thirty Schisms have been therein, some of them continuing scores of years together: in which have been two Popes, Bell. de Pont. l. 4. c. 14. Genebrard. three Popes at once, neither could it easily be discerned which was lawful Pope. Fifty of them in a row were Monsters rather than Men, Apotacticall and Apostatical rather than Apostolical. How many have intruded themselves into that See by Simony? How many have been intruded at the pleasure of harlots? Yea a Whore hath sitten in the Pontifical chair. So saith Sigebert, Marianus Scotus, Bergomensis, johannes Stella, Nauclerus, johannes Lucidus, Baptista Ignatius, Balaeus, Sabellicus, Ranulphus, Petrarch, Boccace, Matthew Palmer, Trithemius, and Martinus Polonus: all which it will be hard for your new upstarts of yesternight to outface or control. As for the rest of your Notes, if the present Church of Rome be much degenerated from its Primitive purity, and nothing resemble that which Saint Paul first planted there, as I am ready to prove whensoever you shall call upon me for it: then are they not to be found therein. For neither hath it continued the same, nor is the profession by which it is Visibly the same, nor is it One with itself. For of other differences and dissensions among you, you shall hear more anon in the due place. But can we find them in the Protestant Church? Let us try. That the Succession of Bishops in the Church of England until Archbishop Cranmers' time was lawful, I know you will not deny. That he, and all the Bishops in the time of K. Edward, and Q. Elizabeth, and so downward, were Canonically called and consecrated: what stronger proof can you desire, than the public Registers of every See? By Fr. Mason. Out of which so much as concerns this business is now published to the view of the whole world, designing both the time when, & the place where, together with the names of those Bishops that imposed hands. And this is so clear, that your own Cudsemius coming into England, De desp. Cal. causa c. 11. of purpose to observe the state of our Church thus writeth, concerning the state of the Calvinian sect in England, it so standeth, that it may either endure long, or be suddenly changed and in a trice, in regard of the Catholic order there, in a perpetual line of their Bishops, and the lawful succession of Pastors received from the Church: for the honour whereof we use to call the English Calvinists by a milder term, not Heretics but Schismatics. Touching your other three Notes, I presume it will not be denied that a Church professing to believe in the Lord jesus, and by him in the holy and blessed Trinity, and confessing all the Doctrines contained in the Scriptures, together with the three Creeds, of the Apostles, the Nicene, and of Athanasius, hath hitherto continued Visible and in Unity from the Apostles times. And such is the Church of the Protestants: for all this we both profess and confess, and whatsoever we affirmatively hold, the same in a manner do you affirm with us. For as for the Negatives, they are but novelties, nor can you prove them out of any Antiquity, Succession therefore, Continuance, visibility, unity belong unto our Church: I must entreat you to remember your promise, and according thereunto to alter your mind. And so much for your preamble. N. N. Your treatise was not intended to me. Howbeit you thank me for my reply: acknowledging your inability to answer, and hoping I expect it not from you. I. D. Whether your Treatise were intended to me or no, is not much material. Sure I am it was delivered me as from you: and thereupon did I return you that reply: which had it taken due effect, I should have had more cause to thank God, then now you have to thank me. Answer from yourself, I confess I expected none● for I knew your insufficiency. But I hoped you would have taken counsel of some more sufficient than yourself: and upon conference with them, have sent me your common Answer. Which because you have not done, being conscious to your own inability: it is a manifest argument of wilful obstinacy, and that you will not be persuaded though be persuaded. N. N. Notwithstanding you have no reason to believe me, seeing other Divines not Papists only but Protestants also seem to understand the Fathers as you do. I. D. It is a foul untruth that Protestants understand the Fathers as you do, as shall by and by to your shame appear. In the mean season know that what I have said, I have not barely affirmed but sound proved: and neglecting demonstrative reasons merely to be swayed with humane authority, is no other than to put off common sense, and to forget that we are reasonable creatures. N. N. I except only against two or three passages: the rest therefore are truly related, and the letter of them is for the real Presence. Which how it can be, and yet no Transubstantion you understand not. The word Transubstantiation was indeed devised in the counsel of Lateran: but the thing was always believed of the ancient Fathers, as appeareth by their words, Conversion, Mutation, and the like. I. D. Had you attentively read my Answer, you would never have said I excepted to two or three Passages only. For I excepted to all the passages of Ignatius, Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechisms, Ambrose de Sacramentis, and Mysterijs initiandis, Eusebius Emissenus, Cyprian de caena Domini, the Canon of the Nicen counsel, and Magnetes, as suspected by your own Rabbis not to be the men whose names they bear. Again of Damascen, Theophylact, Euthymius, Nicephorus, and Rupertus, as being Punies and too young to be Fathers: besides those many Passages which are miserably either curtailed or racked or falsely alleged. Neither are their words so plain for you as you pretend. For I have made it to appear, that some of them say nothing at all for you, some speak rather against you then for you: and to those that seem to say any thing, I have opposed a whole grand jury, speaking far more plainly on our side. For what words can be more plain than these, This is my body, that is, the figure of my Body; that Christ said This bread is my body, which your own men grant cannot be true unless figuratively understood: that Bread and Wine still are what they were, that the Nature of bread continues, that the nature of bread and wine cease not to be, but continue in the propriety of their nature, that the signs after consecration depart not from their proper nature, but remain in their former substance, figure, and form, and suchlike many. But perhaps your Fathers speak as plainly. Let us try that. They say that the Body, flesh, and blood of Christ is truly in the Sacrament: Ergo, a Real Presence. Who denies it? Transubstantiation is that which you should prove, which Real Presence infers not. This, you say, you understand not. The more is your dulness. For Really and Corporally are not all one: and that which is Spiritually present is Really present, unless you will say that a spirit is Nothing. Is not the Blood of Christ really present in Baptism to the washing away of sin? Is he not Really also present to the Faith of every true believer even out of the Sacrament? Doubtless he is: and none will deny it, but he that never felt the virtue and efficacy thereof. What should let then but the Flesh of Christ may be present in the Eucharist Really, and yet not after the Corporal manner? Nay what if I should yield you a corporal presence? Would that necessarily infer a Transubstantiation? Nothing less. For it may be by consubstantiation: the flesh being there together with the Bread, without turning the Bread into Flesh. Neither may you deny this to be possible, unless you will deny the Omnipotency of God, and your Transubstantiation withal: for thereupon do you build it. Transubstantiation therefore and the Real presence are not all one. Yea but the Fathers use the terms of Conversion & Mutation. What then? Ergo Transubstantiation? A pitiful consequence. For this is to argue from the General to Special: as if you should say, It is a colour, therefore it is black, there being many colours besides black. Learn then that Change is a general word, and there are diverse kinds thereof: of Substance by Generation and corruption, of Quality by Alteration, of Quantity by Augmentation and Diminution, of Place by Lation. Now he that affirmeth a Change, doth not presently affirm Change of Substance: for it may be some other, either of Quality or Quantity, or Quantity, or Place. The Fathers therefore speaking of a Change in the Sacrament, may as well mean a Change of Alteration in the Use and Virtue of the Elements, as of Substance by way of Transubstantiation. And so for aught the Fathers say, Transubstantiation may still be a brat of the Lateran Counsels: disputed of perhaps before, but never believed as an Article of Faith till then. N. N. I allow no authority after 600. years: Ergo I acknowledge the next 1000 to be contrary in this and all other controversies betwixt us. I. D. To speak plainly, I allow no Authority at all as Infallible, but only that of Christ and his Apostles. Those that afterwards succeeded, were all of them subject unto error, and cannot be the ground of our Faith, as I have elsewhere answerably demonstrated. Howbeit those of the first 600 years we reverence more, and rather admit, than those of the 1000 following, because they were freer from error, as living nearer the Apostles times, and before the first discovery of Antichrist: which was about the year 607. when Boniface the third purchased of that bloody tyrant Phocas the title of Universal Bishop, and with it the supremacy over all Churches. Whereof his predecessor Gregory the great seemed to prophecy, when writing against john B. of Constantinople for usurping that title, Lib. 4. ep. 34. he gathereth from thence that the times of Antichrist are at hand. After which discovery, although errors every day crept in apace: yet we yield you not that all your opinions instantly and at once leapt into the Church. For as Rome itself was not built in a day: so neither was that huge heap of Romanish impieties raised in one age. It was a good while after this before Transubstantiation began to appear. Damascen in the East not contenting himself with the old language of the Church, fell a coining of new Phrases, yet reached not home to Transubstantiation. A hundred years after Amalarius in the west maintained in plain terms, that the simple nature of Bread and wine is turned into a reasonable nature, De Eccl. office l. 1. c. 24. to wit, of the body and blood of Christ. And herein was he seconded by Paschasius Radbertus, and others. Yet could they not carry it so clearly, but that they were mightily opposed by the most famous writers in their times, whose names you have in mine Answer. But specially by Bertram under Carolus Calvus, of whom Turrian the jesuit thus, De Euch. con. volan. l. 1. c. 22 to cite Bertram what is it other then to say, the heresy of Calvin is not new. And a good time afterwards again by Berengarius, on whose side many disputed both by word and writing, and those not of one nation only, Flor. hist. an. 1087. but English, French, and Italians, as Matthew of Westminster saith. But all these Antichrist (who was now in his height) bore down: and at length anno 1215. under Innocent the third in the Lateran Council, was the Idol set upon its base, and adored. So lately, & with so much ado was your doctrine of Transubstantiation brought in and established. N. N. For 900. years was no outward face of a Church in England but the Catholic. In which it were uncharitable to say that none knew the meaning of Scriptures and Fathers as well as we, or all lived in ignorance till the true light came in with Luther. Yet in this last age England hath yielded many learned men: among others an uncle of yours, and Master of Arts, who left all his hopes for his conscience, and would not be persuaded to return to his great possibilities, which much strengthens and confirms you. I. D. By Catholic you still mean Roman: for Catholic & Roman are now grown convertible terms, a mystery that the Primitive Church never so much as dreamt of. But what? No outward face in England for so many hundred years together but Roman? What face then I pray, was it which it bore some 650 years since, when the Saxon Homily of A●lfrick Abbot of Malmsbury, not only agreeing with Bertram in this matter of the Sacrament, but also for sundry passages expressly translated out of him, was publicly appointed to be read unto the people upon Easter day before they received the Communion? Or when the Bishops at their Synods delivered unto their Clergy the same doctrine out of two other writings of the same Aelfrick, the one whereof saith thus That housel is Christ's body, not bodily but spiritually. Not the body which he suffered in, but the body of which he spoke when he blessed the bread & wine to housel the night before his suffering, and said by the blessed bread this is my body, and again by the holy wine, this is my blood, etc. The other likewise saith thus, The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering, and saith that the bread was his own body, and the wine was truly his blood, halloweth daily by the hand of the Priest, bread to his body, and wine to his blood, in spiritual mystery, as we read in books. And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so, nor the selfsame body that Christ suffered in: nor that holy wine is the Saviour's blood which was shed for us in bodily thing, but in spiritual understanding. Both be truly, that bread his body, and that wine also his blood, as was the heavenly bread which we call Manna, that fed forty years' Gods people, and the clear water which did then run from the stone in the wilderness was truly his blood, as Paul wrote in one of his Epistles. Thus he. Tell me now, good Sir, was the face of the English Church Roman, when such doctrine, so cross unto Transubstantiation, was by public authority delivered to the Clergy, and commanded to be read unto the people: or was it at that time other than a Roman face, truly Catholic and Orthodox? You have heard I suppose of those Christians, whom anciently they termed W●ldenses and Leonists. Contra Haeret. c. 4. Your Ranerius saith of them, that they had been of very long continuance, even from Pope Sylvesters time, or as some say, ever since the Apostles: so Universal also, that there was scarce any country wherein they abounded not: finally, that where other Sects most fearfully blasphemed God, these made fair show of religion, lived honestly among men, believed all things rightly touching God, and all the Articles contained in the Creed, only they blasphemed & hated the Church of Rome. What? Was the face of this Church also Roman? How so, being so opposite unto it? Certainly it was rather the face of our Church. Hist. Fran. l. 1. For as your Poplinerius testifieth, they differed very little from us: and in this point of the Sacrament they perfectly agreed with us. It is true, they were charged with many foul opinions: but enviously and maliciously, as appeareth by the public Confessions of their Faith, Thuan▪ ●om. 1. p. 1. and by the testimony of Cardinal Sadolet, & others who by commission were commanded to examine it. It is true also that they were most barbarously and bloodily persecuted by the Roman Synagogue. But what saith Michael Cesaenas who flourished some 250. years since? There are two Churches, the one of the wicked flourishing, in which the Pope doth reign: the other of the godly afflicted. Whence it plainly appeareth, that there hath heretofore been another face of the Church besides Roman: if not visibly glorious, yet at leastwise visibly persecuted. You add, it is uncharitable to think that all this time there was no knowledge of the meaning of Scriptures and Fathers until Luther brought in the true light. True: neither is there any man that saith so. Nevertheless, be it spoken to the glory of God, and the honour of the present times, the meaning both of Scriptures and Fathers was never better known (shall I say, never so well known?) as now. This I have elsewhere proved both by the causes thereof, and the testimony of your own men. As for your nine hundred years, questionless they were not the learned'st times. The knowledge of languages quickly decayed, and blindness and barbarism crept in apace: insomuch as by the testimony of Genebrard, Bellarmine, Bel. de Pont. l. 4. c. 12. & Baronius, there was never age more Unlearned and unhappy than the ninth Century, Gen. Chron. l. 4. wherein were no men famous either for wit or learning, Bar. tom. 10. an. 90 §. 2. and whosoever studied the Mathematics or Philosophy was presently counted a Magician. Neither were some of the after times over much amended, when the chiefest of their Schools scarce knew whether Saint Paul wrote in Greek or in Latin, In civ. Dei l. 2. c. 21. as Ludovicus Vives saith: and to have skill in Greek was suspicious, but in Hebrew almost heretical, as Espencaeus. In 2. Tim. 3. digres. 17. But blessed be God, who in the midst of these blindest times hath still preserved the light of his truth: and, though envy burst and split at it, blessed be his holy name for that greater light of his Gospel which we have received both by Luther and since Luther. He was a noble champion of Christ jesus, and got so much ground of the Papacy, as I hope will never be recovered again until by the brightness of our Lords coming it be utterly destroyed. If England in these latter times have yielded such learned men of your side: you may be pleased to know that it hath afforded on our side also as learned Clarks in the knowledge of tongues, & all kind of literature whatsoever, as any in your Church wheresoever, if not excelling them. Yea but yours were content to forgo all their means and hopes for their conscience. And did not ours trow you do so also in Q. Mary's days? Nay did not Archbishop Cranmer, and sundry other Bishops (to speak nothing of those of inferior rank) choose rather to lose their present honours and estates, and themselves cruelly to be martyred in the fire, then to perish their consciences by subscribing unto the Romish Apostasy? As for your uncle, whose domestical example so much confirms you, I think he was a man of no great note, sure I am of no great fame either at home or abroad. Yet were his deserts far greater, I am not unprovided of a domestical example, able every way to match him, yea and over-match him too. My mother's Brother I mean, that unvaluable jewel, whose name is renowned throughout all the Churches. Who being Fellow of Corpus Christi College in Oxford, and Bachelor in Divinity, possessed also of a Benefice near the University, and by reason of his eminence in learning, as likely to rise as any: yet he readily forsook Fellowship, Friends, Benefice, Hopes and all for Christ's sake, and put himself into a voluntary exile all the reign of Q. Marry, until Q. Elizabeth of blessed memory being advanced to the Crown, he returned into England, where he was according to his worth soon after preferred to the Bishopric of Salisbury. Now if so obscure a man as your uncle living but as a serving Priest beyond seas, do so much strengthen you: I hope the example of so profound a Clerk, and so reverend a Bishop and Confessor as my uncle, may much more confirm and settle me. But it is high time to hear the reasons why you cannot believe the Father's meaning to be as I say. N. N. Your first reason, some of our writers give the same sense to the Fathers that you do, as Mason, Perkins, Field, Covel, Sir Edwin Sands, Midleton, Morton, the now Archbishop of Canterbury. I. D. Suppose all this were true: yet seeing the sense I give, I have by sundry plain arguments demonstrated to be the right sense, the bare saying of others cannot be a sufficient reason why you should forbear assent. But what? Do all these indeed interpret the Fathers as you do? A vast untruth, & utterly incredible: save only to those whom the Romish Circe hath turned out of their wits. For would any man think that they who so confidently allege the Fathers against Transubstantiation▪ should notwithstanding in their writings acknowledge, that their meaning is clean contrary to that they allege them for? Were it not that you have bound your Faith absolutely to believe what every Popish shaveling tell● you, how unlikely soever it be, and never to believe us with what strength of reason soever we speak: so absurd a thought as this could never have entered into your mind. Let us yet examine the Particulars. N. N. Mason is forced to these Words, St Ambrose testifieth that imposition of hands is certain mystical words whereby he that is elected into the Priesthood, is confirmed, receiving authority, his conscience bearing him witness that he may be bold to offer sacrifice to God in the Lord's steed. S. chrysostom saith, in many places there is offered, not many Christ's, but one Christ, every where being full and perfect. S. Augustine saith, that Christ commanded the Leper to offer sacrifice according to the law of Moses, because this sacrifice the holy of holies, which is his Body, was not yet instituted. And elsewhere, what can be offered or accepted more gratefully, than the Body of our Priest being made the flesh of our sacrifice. And Cyril, Leo, Fulgentius, and other Fathers have commonly the like. I. D. First, these words are altogether impertinent to the matter of Transubstantiation, being vouched for the Sacrifice of the Mass; and therefore no way opening the meaning of the Fathers for you in that point. Secondly, these are not the words of Mason, but the Objection of a Papist. For you are to know that this book of Mason is written Dialogue-wise, as a conference between Philodoxus the Papist, and Orthodoxus the Protestant. Now these words are by Mason put into the mouth of Philodoxus, De Missa l. 1. c. 15. and are indeed objected to us by Bellarmin, whom he calling himself Orthodoxus undertaketh in that place to answer. Whereby you may easily perceive what credit is to be given unto such cheating companions as your Author is: who bear you in hand that the Objection of a Papist is the resolution of a Protestant. Which that it may yet more plainly appear, Lib. 5. c. 8. take Masons Answer also. S. Ambrose elsewhere expoundeth himself saying, What therefore do we? In ep. dd Heb. c. 10. Do we not offer daily? Truly we offer, Ibid. but so, that we make a remembrance of his death. And again, We offer him always, or rather we work a remembrance of his sacrifice. In ad Heb. hom. 17. S. chrysostom expoundeth himself in the same place, We offer him, or rather we work a remembrance of the sacrifice. What S. Augustine's meaning was let himself declare, Was not Christ once offered or sacrificed in himself? Epist. 23. And yet he is offered in a Sacrament, not only at all the solemnities at Easter, but every day to the people. Neither doth he lie that being asked doth answer, that he is offered. For if Sacraments have not a certain resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments, they should not be sacraments at all. And for this resemblance they take the names commonly of the things themselves. Therefore as after a certain manner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ: so the sacrament of Faith is Faith. Cont Faust. l. 20. c. 21. And elsewhere, The flesh and blood of the sacrifice of Christ, was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before he came, was performed intruth and indeed when he suffered, is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance since he ascended. Thus he. Whereof nothing maketh for your sense, but every thing rather for the contrary. N. N. Mr Perkins writeth thus, the ancients when they speak of the supper, have many forms of speech which show a conversion. S. Ambrose useth the name of conversion and mutation. S. Cyprian saith it is changed not in shape but in nature. Origen saith that bread is made the body. Gaudentius saith, Christ's body is made of bread and his blood of wine. Eusebius Emissenus, that the Priest by secret power changeth the visible creatures into the substance of Christ's body and blood, and that the bread doth pass into the nature of our Lord's body. I. D. Here Mr Perkins only reporteth the words of the Fathers, but declareth not the sense of them. That he doth by and by in the words following, Probl pag. 154. The ancient Doctors, saith he, when they speak of the conversion and changing of bread, understand the change of use and condition not substance. In the reading of them therefore the Sacramental change in signification and obsignation is to be distinguished from substantial. And we are to know that for 800 years, at least they knew not Transubstantiation, but condemned it rather. And all this he proves by the sayings of Cyprian, Ambrose, Theodoret, Gelasius and others, which I forbear here to set down, because you have them already in my answer. Now if your meaning accord with this of M. Perkins, I am the gladder. If not, it was too great boldness to say, he understood the Fathers in the same sense you do. N. N. D. Morton, the Centuriators, and others are plentiful in such citations, and so manifest for the verity, that D. Field writeth thus, that the Primitive Church thought the sanctified and consecrated Elements to be the body of Christ. D, Covel saith, the Omnipotency of God maketh it his Body. I. D. Quote the sayings of the Fathers they may and that plentifully. But Transubstantiation, or your sense, they do not, nor cannot find in them: for they never dreamt of it. Of the Ch. l. 3. c. 34. The words of Dr Field are these, The manner of the Primitive Church was, as Rhenanus testifieth, if any parts of the consecrated Elements remained so long as to be musty and unfit for use, to consume them with fire, which I think they would not have done to the Body of Christ. This showeth they thought the Sanctified Elements to be Christ's Body no longer than they might serve for the comfortable instruction of the faithful by partaking in them. Here we have a plain argument against Reservation, and that the Fathers thought not the Elements properly to be Christ's body. For had they so thought they would never have burnt them. He intimateth indeed that they thought the Elements to be the Body: neither doth any deny it. For, as I have showed in my Answer, they all understood Christ as if he had said, De Euchar. l. 1 c. 1. This bread is my Body. But Bread in proper sense is not Christ's Body, nor cannot be, as your own Bellarmine confesseth. How then? Tropically only: as Circumcision is the Covenant, and Water in Baptism Regeneration. And so, Epist. 23. as St Augustine saith, the Sacrament of Christ's body is after a manner Christ's body: to wit Sacramentally, the outward sign putting on the name of the thing Signified. And whereas Dr Covel addeth that God's Omnipotency maketh it his Body: neither doth this import Transubstantiation. For, as you might have learned out of my Answer, no power is able to make a Sacrament, and by earthly Creatures to convey unto us heavenly graces, save only that which is Omnipotent and Divine. N. N. Sir Edwin Sands, With Rome the Greek Churches concur in the opinion of Transubstantiation, and generally in the Service and whole body of the Mass▪ in offering of sacrifice, and prayer for the dead: their liturgies be the same that in the old time, namely S. Basils, S. Chrysostoms', S. Gregory's translated. And another, among all these nations (Greece, Asia, Africa, Ethiopia, Armenia, etc.) all places are full of Masses, there be seven Sacraments, etc. I. D. Ergo what? That the Knight understands the Fathers as you do? Ridiculous: For the now Grecians are not the ancient Fathers. Or thus, therefore you are in the right? Absurd: for they are in your opinion but Schismatics and Heretics. Yet saith the Knight, they hold Transubstantiation. He saith so indeed: but by his leave I much doubt thereof. For the Patriarch jeremy expressly saith, Resp. 1. c. 10. that when our Saviour said, take eat, this is my body and my blood, the flesh of the Lord which he carried about him, was not given to the Apostles to eat, nor his blood to drink, nor is now in the divine celebration of those mysteries. What then? Surely an extraordinary bread, which yet is his Body: but how, saith he, a thousand tongues are not sufficient to utter. As far as I can conceive, this they hold, that the matter of the Bread still remaineth, and the Body of Christ still continueth in Heaven: but yet the form, or hidden qualities and properties of his body are after an unspeakable manner derived to the Bread. And because as the same Patriarch saith, the better things have the preeminence, therefore is it not from thence Bread but Body. And even as Iron united with fire becometh fire, and yet the matter of Iron remaineth, and Christ's Body united with us changeth us into it, not it into us, our nature still continuing: so the secret properties of Christ's flesh being imparted to the Bread, by putting on this new form it becometh Flesh, and yet still retaineth the matter of Bread. This in my shallow understanding is the meaning of the Greek Church in this point: which as you see no way suits with Transubstantiation. But to put the matter out of all doubt, the Council of Florence held some two hundred years after that of Lateran, Sess. ult. plainly declareth, that that Church flatly refused to yield unto them therein. And if so, then neither do they admit of your Sacrifice, which hath no other ground than Transubstantiation. Prayer also for the relief of souls tormented in Purgatory how can they hold, not believing that there is a Purgatory? The rest that followeth is little to the purpose: and your other author is so misnamed both in your text and margin, that I cannot imagine whom you should mean. Transeat Ergo. N. N. Midleton witnesseth, that the Dead were prayed for in the public Liturgies of Basil, chrysostom and Epiphanius, that the Sacrifice of the Altar and unbloody Sacrifice were used in the Primitive Church, that to pray, make doles, and offer Sacrifice at the Altar for the Dead was a tradition of the Apostles and Fathers. I. D. Still you wander out of the way. For how doth it appear from hence that Protestants understand the Fathers in point of Transubstantiation as you do? But as you lead, so must I follow. There are two Liturgies that pass under the name of St Basil, the one in Greek, the other lately translated out of Syriake by Andreas Masius. Between which there is such difference that they seem not both to have had one Father. Of these the Greek is the prolixer, and as the said Masius censureth, neither doth Possevin the jesuit mentioning it disprove thereof, hath suffered much change by many alterations and additions, and those superstitious too: so that whosoever be the Author, it is not now the same it was at first. That which goes under the name of St Choysostome either is supposititious, or in process of time much corrupted. In it Prayers are made for Pope Nicholas and the Emperor Alexius: whereof the one lived almost five hundred, the other about seven hundred years after chrysostom. De 〈◊〉 var. r. 220. And that many things are added, your Claudius Espencaeus freely doth confess. So that these Liturgies cannot be of any great authority. For as for Epiphanius, I cannot yet find that ever he composed any. But what saith Midleton of them? That the Dead were prayed for in them. Sect. 7. Ans. What dead? Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Confessors, Bishops, Anachorits, and the blessed Virgin Mother. And for what? Not to relieve them, but to glorify God in his Servants, and to profit the Church by commemoration of their virtues. Thus he. which I trow is not according to your meaning. He saith farther, the sacrifice of the Altar, and unbloody sacrifice were used in the Primitive Church. Suppose so: yet he saith withal, that the sacrifice of the Altar hurts us no more than the Sacrifice of the Table doth you: Sect. 15. Ans. and the Unbloody sacrifice hurts you more than us. For in your Sacrifice Blood is offered: and there is no more reason why you should call it Unbloody then Vnfleshy. If you say, because Blood is not shed therein: I say neither is Flesh broken therein. Lastly he saith that Prayers, Doles, and Sacrifices at the altar for the Dead is a tradition of the Apostles and ancient Fathers. But here your author overlasheth: for he saith expressly, Sect. 6. Ans. from the Fathers not from the Apostles. And addeth, yet notwithstanding prayer was then made, not after the Popish fashion to ease the dead of the pains and torments of Purgatory: but to persuade the living that they are not vanished into nothing, but live and have their being with the Lord, which knocks out the brains of Purgatory. And by and by, This tradition of the Fathers was no more but Memoriam facite, keep the memory, as we may see evidently in Cyprian. Lib. 1. ep. 9 & l▪ 3. ep. 3. Nothing of all which I trow maketh any whit for your meaning. N. N. Dr Morton citeth out of Bibliander, that it was a most common opinion among the jews, that at the coming of the Messias all the legal sacrifices should cease: but the sacrifice of Thoda in Bread and Wine should not cease. Whereupon he is forced against Mason and his directors to say, The Protestants acknowledge in the Eucharist a sacrifice Eucharistical. He might as well have acknowledged with those of Basil, Frankford, and Stancarus, what this Sacrifice should be. For they cite these words of the Rabbins, the sacrifice that shall be made of wine, shall not only be changed into the Substance of the blood of the Messias, but also into the substance of his Body. And in the sacrifice that shall be made of bread, notwithstanding it be white as milk, the substance shall be turned into the Substance of the body of the Messias. Thus R. Cahana who lived long before Christ, and so R. juda, R. Simeon and others: whose testimonies, saith Dr Morton, are so direct for Transubstantiation, as no Romish Doctor for a 1000 years after Christ is so express: yea they are more pregnant than the sayings of Transubstantia●ors themselves. I. D. I am very sorry that I have not Dr Mortons' book now at hand by me. For I am very confident that where your Author found his Objection, there I should also meet with a full solution. In the mean season till I have procured it, which I hope will be ere long, briefly thus. First the Passage cited out of Bibliander maketh against you, not us. For if it be Bread and Wine which is sacrificed, than they remain after Consecration, which overthroweth Transubstantiation. If they do not remain, and the Body and Blood of Christ only be offered: then were those jews false Prophets, and foretold nothing but lies. Secondly, the Doctor acknowledging an Eucharistical Sacrifice, neither is forced thereunto by any such testimony, nor is against Mason or any other Protestant: for they all acknowledge the same together with him. But I think you knew not that Eucharist signifieth Thanksgiving: or else you would never have thought it strange he should acknowledge a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving. Lastly, I am strongly persuaded that when these testimonies of R. Cahana, R. juda, R. Simeon, and the rest shall come to the ripping, they will prove Hippocentaurs and mere fictions. For (supposing you are in the right) is it likely that such fellows as these should either know or speak more clearly of the mysteries of our Faith, than any of the ancient Prophets, inspired of the holy Ghost, and sent of purpose to foretell to them? Or is it probable that your greatest Rabbins, and among them Cardinal Bellarmine, searching curiously into every corner, to find witnesses of all sorts, would yet carelessly omit these, if they were so plain and pregnant for you as you pretend? Verily when the Doctor saith, that no Doctor for a 1000 years after Christ, no nor Transubstantiator almost, ever spoke more plainly: it is a mere flout, and argues how lightly he esteems of the authority. But of this enough until I be more certainly informed. Only thus, to allege jews, is not to approve your sense of the Fathers. N. N. The now Archb. of Canterbury saith, and with him Midleton agreeth, that Berengarius was called into question for denying Transubstantiation, and he yielded once or twice to recant and abjure the Doctrine he held: Ergo he assureth us Transubstantiation was the Doctrine of the Church constant and general hundreds of years before the Lateran council defined it, yea farther, he assureth us, that to deny it was Heresy to be recanted. I. D. Had not your Author wanted, or forehead, or brain, or both, he would never have made such a shameless & senseless inference. If he had said, Ergo many believed Transubstantiation before the Lateran council, he had kept his tongue within compass: but saying, Ergo it was the constant and general doctrine for hundred of years before, his mouth overfloweth, & it is a lie with a latchet. For be it known unto you, the Church of England held it not, as I have already proved out of the Homily of Abbot Aelfrick. Neither did the Waldenses hold it: whose number yet was very great, and they dispersed through all the countries of Christendom. And if you think that Berengarius stood single & by himself in this point, you are much deceived: for he had as many for him as were against him, and it was nothing but the tyranny of the B. of Rome that bore him down. Howbeit the French Churches still resisted both him and his Synods, & diverse meeting together in Anjow and Turon, resolve against him, and subscribe unto Berengarius. But to put the matter out of all doubt, Benno in vit. Hild. it is reported of Pope Hildebrand, that he appointed a Fast of three days together with a solemn Procession, to entreat of God some sign from heaven, whereby he might be assured what he was to determine in this business. If at that time the head of the Church himself staggered, and doubted which way to resolve: is it credible that the rest of the body could be so settled therein, as generally & constantly for hundreds of years to maintain it? Apellas the jew may believe it if he list, not I Briefly, Transubstantiation might well be disputed of some while before the Lateran Council: but held for an Article of Faith it was not until then, as I have elsewhere showed out of Tonstal and Scotus. N. N. The same Bishop and Dr Field tell us that the Greek Church is a true Church. Yet their Patriarch jeremy saith. It is the judgement of the Church, that in the holy supper after consecration and benediction the bread passeth and is changed into his Body, and the Wine into his Blood. I. D. Yet the same Bishop and Doctor tell you also, that a true Church may err: so that Transubstantiation might be an error though the Grecians held it. But the truth is that the Greek Church never held it, as I have above showed out of the same jeremy & the Council of Florence which you are bound to believe. For though the Patriarch say Bread is changed into Body: yet he addeth by and by, the flesh of the Lord which he carried about him was not given to the Apostles to eat, nor his blood to drink, nor is now in the divine celebration of those mysteries, which directly overturneth your Change by Transubstantiation. But of this see more above. And thus much in answer unto your first reason, which before I pass unto the next I must crave leave to retort upon you. If you may not yield unto the sense I give the Fathers, because some Protestants allow your sense: neither may I yield to the sense you give, because many Papists allow mine. For there is the same law for Titius as well as for Seius. I assume, but many Papists allow the sense I give. This if I would follow your course, I might easily prove by all those Popish writers, who acknowledge those words of the Fathers which we object against you, without mentioning any of their Answers. But so doing I should show myself as ridiculous and unconscionable as your Author. Thus therefore, Scotus, Cameracensis, Caietan, Roffensis, Biel, Occam, Durand, Peter Lombard, with some jesuits, and the Canon Law, profess, some of them that they could not find Transubstantiation in the Scriptures, and some that they could not in the Fathers. Their express words you have in mine Answer, whether I refer you: for it would be too long to transcribe them. If so, and all these were grand Papists, I have no reason to believe you or your Author rather than them: nay great reason have I to cleave the faster unto my opinion, as better according both with Scripture & Fathers. N. N. Your second reason, There are amongst us differences even in many essential and fundamental points, as namely between Protestants and Puritans, whatsoever D. Abbat, Dove, Willet, Powel, Sr Edward Hobby, Rogers, & others say to the contrary. And this you prove by Rogers, Covel, Ormrode, Parks, Willet, Powel, and sundry others. I. D. That there are differences and dissensions amongst us is too true and cannot be denied. This therefore we grant. But the Consequence which you infer thereupon, Ergo you may not yield unto my judgement or any of our side, I deny. For to make this follow, you must of necessity hold, that where there are dissensions, there you may not hearken to any side. A dangerous and desperate Position: and the very Objection of the jews against Christianity, Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. We may not believe because of your distractions. By which reason, as you may not hear us, so may not we you, nor Turks and Infidels any of us all how Orthodox soever, because the Christian world is still full of contentions. A man would think that diversity of opinions, especially in matters concerning soul and Salvation, should rather quicken and stir up the mind diligently among all to search which is the truest: then to cause it sit still, and forbear assent until all sides be accorded. Neither let any pretend inability: for as chrysostom saith, Seeing we acknowledge the scriptures, which are so true and plain, Hom. 33. in Act. it will be an easy matter for to judge. And tell me, hast thou any wit or judgement? For it is not a man's part barely to receive whatsoever he heareth. Say not, I am a learner and may be no judge, I can condemn no opinion: this is but a shift, etc. And Gerson rendereth the true reason hereof, De Exam. doct. pag. 1. con. 5. The trial and examination of doctrines concerning Faith belongeth not only to the Council & Pope but also to every one that is sufficiently learned in the scriptures, because every man is a sufficient judge of that he knoweth. But o ye miserable servitude and slavery of you, the common sort of Papists! your eyes are pulled out of your heads, neither are you allowed the use of common sense and reason. The Scriptures by which you should see are wrested out of your hands as a dangerous book. If you will see, it must be by another man's eyes. Your Faith must depend upon the warrant of some equivocating Priest. And whatsoever is said to the contrary though never so sound proved, you may in no case hearken to it: for why, there are dissensions among you. This reason being thus fully answered, I might without more ado pass on to the next, but that I see by your spinning it to such a length you make great store of it. Let us therefore bestow a word or two more upon it. There are, say you, dissensions amongst us. True. And was there ever, or will there ever be a Church so happy as to be altogether free of them? If not: why do you upbraid them unto us? Is it because notwithstanding them we count one another brethren & members of the same Church. That is an Argument of our charity, and that we dare not cut off, and condemn as Heretics every one that differeth though never so little from us in opinion: whereas you presently condemn to the pit of Hell all Christians whatsoever, wheresoever, and how many soever that will not veil bonnet unto the Pope's Mitre, and believe all to be true that he resolves upon. But what? May not brethren disagree and yet continue brethren? Or doth every quarrel exclude out of the Church of God? I trow not. For then Paul and Barnabas, Peter and Paul, Victor and Polycrates, Cyril and Theodoret, chrysostom and Theophilus, Epiphanius and chrysostom, Hierome and Ruffin, and sundry others should not be brethren. Nay the East and West Churches dissenting about Easter, and the Roman and African about Rebaptization should be no true Churches. Yea but our differences are not in petty matters, but essential & fundamental points. And such were also in the Churches of the Corinthians and Galathians: for in the one they differed about the Resurrection of the dead, in the other about the necessary observation of the law of Moses together with the Gospel. De not. Ec● c. 2. And yet saith Bellarmine, they were true Churches, and they that so erred if they were ready to learn the truth, and to believe it being taught, were true members of them also. But by your leave sir, your Author overlashes when he saith we differ in points Essential and Fundamental: neither do our Divines only say it, as you bear us in hand, but clearly demonstrate it also. And indeed all the quarrel is rather about the shell than the kernel, that is, the outward government & ceremonies of the Church rather than the Faith of the Church: or at the most, it is rather about some deductions and conclusions in Divinity, than the Principles themselves, and those truths that are necessary unto salvation. For as for the Article of Christ's descent into Hell, though your Author would insinuate the contrary, yet there is not one of us but willingly subscribes unto it: and acknowledgeth that Christ hath spoiled Hell, and triumphed over Principalities and Powers, Eph. 2.15. and all the enemies of our salvation. But whether he did this by descending locally in soul into the Hell of the Damned, or Virtually and by the power of his Godhead, is all the Question amongst us: whereby for ought I see, we neither overturn the Article, nor dissolve brotherhood. And yourself must needs confess so much, unless you will disclaim brotherhood with Durandus, and condemn him of a Fundamental error together with us. For he held that the soul of Christ descended into Hell, not in the substance thereof, In 3 dist. 22. q. 3. but by certain effects. And hear the resolution of Suares the jesuit touching this Article, Tom. 2. in par. Tho. d. 43 §. 2. If by an article of faith, saith he, we understand a truth which all the faithful are bound explicitly to know and believe: so I do not think it necessary to reckon this among the Articles of Faith, because it is not a matter altogether so necessary for all men, and because for this reason peradventure it is omitted in the Nicen Creed, the knowledge of which Creed seemeth to be sufficient for fulfilling the Precept of Faith. Lastly, for this cause peradventure Augustine, and other of the Father's expounding the Creed, do not unfold this mystery unto the people. Thus he. But perhaps your Author hath reason for what he says. Certainly none at all. Only he rakes together all the vehement and passionate speeches, whatsoever he can find to have passed from any of our pens in heat of contention, to work all the disgrace he can upon us. And if any of us for proof of his Conclusion draw his Argument from an Article of Faith, & then shall say (as sometimes through too much eagerness men use to do) the Controversy is about such an Article: lo, saith your Author, by and by, a difference in matters Essential and Fundamental, whereas notwithstanding we all agree in the Article, and the difference lies only in the Conclusion. And seeing in all disputations it is the manner to fetch proofs from common Principles assented unto on all sides: what folly is it, leaving the Question in debate, to make that the matter of controversy wherein we all perfectly accord? If any in pursuing their quarrels have suffered themselves to be transported with passion farther than becomes Christian charity: I acknowledge humane infirmity, & undertake not to defend them. Yet you may know that others have proceeded much farther. For in that of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria; and Epiphanius B. of Cyprus against chrysostom, Niceph. l. 13. c. 13. they grew to such violence, that Epiphanius and he cursed one the other, many were slain in taking of parts, Socrat. l. 6. c. 17. the Cathedral Church of Constantinople and the Senate house were burned to the ground, Sozom. l. 8 c. 2●. & chrysostom himself lost both his Bishopric and life in banishment. Which made Baronius beginning to entreat thereof to use these words. Socrat. l. 6. c. 21. A shameful contention in the Church, Annal to 5. 2● 40●. nu. 51. the lamentable narration whereof I now take in hand: wherein shall be described the bickering and cursed persecution, not of Gentiles against Christians, or Heretics against Catholics, or wicked men against good & just men, but (which is monstrous and prodigious) of Saints and holy men one against another. But what? is there all peace in the Romish Church? no quarrel, no contention at all? So would your lying Masters have all their credulous scholars to believe, though all the world know to the contrary. For have there not been therein about thirty Schisms, and some of them continuing many years together, wherein Pope hath been against Pope, one thundering excommunications against another, and by their factions renting the whole Christian world asunder? Have there not been long quarrels between the Franciscans and Dominicans about the Conception of the blessed Virgin Mary? Doth the Church of France at this day admit of the Council of Trent, which you count the chiefest stake in your hedge? Was there not of late a foul bickering between the state of Venice and the Pope about the power he would have usurped over them? I suppose you are not such a stranger in England but you may have heard of the infamous dissensions between the Secular Priests and jesuits. Watson in Quoth lib. Which themselves were not ashamed to publish to the world. For a taste, thus say the Seculars of the jesuits, and you may assure yourself they were repaid in their own coin. Howsoever jesuits talk of their perfections, holiness and meditations, & exercises, yet their platform is heathenish, tyrannical, satanical, and able to set Aretine, Lucian, Machiavelli, yea & Don Lucifer in sort to school. It seemeth impossible for Antichrist to invent a more slighty, plausible, and colourable devise, nor with greater art & more cunning tricks bring it about to make him be credited, than the jesuits have invented and put in practice. jesuits teach that the Catholic Church must now hang upon the Monarchy of K. Philip and his heirs. A jesuit maintained that a man that is no Christian may be Pope. There is not a jesuit nor a jesuits fautor any where to be found but hath a foul taste of Atheism. jesuits impudence to deny all truths against them as lies, & object any slanderous lie as a truth. The Pope said of them, that on the one side they pretended piety and zeal, and on the other showed the very spirit of the Devil in pride, contumacy, and contradiction, etc. They have three maxims, times are changed and we are changed in them, all for the time and nothing for the truth, divide and rule. Of Father Parsons also thus in particular, A bastard unhonestly begot, basely borne, a Wolsey in ambition, a Midas in Mundicity, a traitor in action. The villainy of this bastardly Renegade Parsons: cursed be the hour wherein he was borne, the son of sin, of iniquity, of sacrilege, of the people of the Devil. The great Emperor illegitimate, irregular, abstract, quintessence of all coins, coggeries and forgeries, Parsons the bastard of Stockersey. O monster of mankind, fitter for Hell then middle earth. Thou givest occasion to diverse to think thou art not a mere man but some Fairy-brat, begotten by an Incubus or Aërish spirit, upon the body of a base woman. I might be infinite in this kind: but this is enough to let you see, that all the distemper lies not on our side, but that your very ringleaders can outrage one another, and far exceed us in bitterness and tartness. And lest you should think that all your quarrels are rather about by matters then in points of Doctrine: know that herein also you are miserably distracted and divided. Your ancient Schoolmen, Thomas, Scotus, Durandus, Occam, and the rest, what almost doth any one of them say, but is strait gainsayed by another? Is it not ordinary also with your new writers, Bellarmine, Suares, Gregory of Valentia, Mother. def. of oath. of Alleg. Stapleton, and others, one to control and confute the others opinions? Bozius, saith Warmington, blameth many excellent Divines, & namely Bellarmine, calling them new Divines, and teachers of false Doctrine. The Vulgar translation of the Bible I suppose is made Authentical by your Trent Fathers, yet, saith the jesuit Mariana, Lib. pro edit. vulgat. there hath been of Late especially in Spain, such disputation moved about it among Divines, and pursued with such heat and eagerness, and implacable hatred on each side, that from reproaches and contumelies wherewith they disgraced one the other, they came at length unto the tribunals: and that side which was most confident, vexed their adversaries most greevously, accusing them in point of religion, as wicked, proud, arrogant, such as boldly elevate the authority of the books of God, and the credit of that interpretation, which the Church every where useth, and is termed Vulgar, preferring and bringing in new interpretations contrary to the Laws both of God and man, and the decrees of the Tridentine Council not long since published. And now at this instant, what deadly wars are there, and how many battles have there been fought between the jesuits and Dominicans about no meaner matters than Gods free Grace, and man's free will? To be brief, there is scarce any thing wherein you descent from us, that you agree in amongst yourselves, as our Divines have at large proved. Hugo de sancto victore, Richardus de sancto Victore, Petrus Cluniacensis, Liranus, Dionysius Carth●sianus, Hugo Cardinalis, Thomas Aquinas, Waldensis, Richardus Armachanus, Picus Mirandula, Caietan, and others, reject all those books as Apocryphal which we do. Scotus, Gerson, Occam, Cameracensis and Waldensis, Contro. 3. q. 3. affirm the Scriptures to be sufficient in all matters of Faith. Stapleton confesseth that the infallibility of the Pope's judgement is yet no matter of Faith but of opinion only, because so many famous and renowned Divines have held the contrary, as Gerson, Almain, Occam, almost all the Parisians, with ●undry others. The same Divines together with Adrian the sixth, Durandus, Alfonsus à Castro, and many beside hold that a Council is above the Pope. That a man 〈◊〉 not justified by any inherent quality, but only by faith in the merits of Christ. Gerson, Contarenus, Albertus Pighius, the Canons of Cullen, the authors of the book offered by Cesar to the Protestant Collocutors at the assembly of Ratisbon, Stapulensis, Peraldus, Ferus, and others do justify. That we may be assured we are in the state of Grace, Alexander of Hales, john Bacon, Ambrose Catharin, Andreas Vega, with others do clearly testify. That all sins are in their own nature Mortal, Gerson, Almain, and Fisher B. of Rochester, even by the testimony of Bellarmine do confess. De amiss. gr. & stat. pec. l. 1. c, 4. That there is any merit of Condignity, Scotus, Cameracensis, Arminiensis and Waldensis utterly deny. That Matrimony is no Sacrament Durandus affirms. Alexander of Hales saith there are no more but four Sacraments. That one body should be locally in more places than one at once implieth contradiction, saith Thomas of Aquin. and with him agreeth Aegidius, Godfrey de Font, Alanus, and Henricus. The conversion of bread & wine into Christ's body & blood, all of us saith Caietan do teach in words, but in deed many deny it, thinking nothing less. Finally Peter Lombard, Thomas, and the other Schoolmen, hold not a real and proper Sacrifice in the Mass, De missa l. 1. c. 15. as now you do, as your own Bellarmine is forced to acknowledge. It were easy for me to instance in divers points beside: but this may suffice for the present to stop your mouth, and to teach you this lesson, that you be not so busy to upbraid others with their warts or freckles, yourselves meanwhile being so full of ulcers and botches. For it is fowl indiscretion to object that to another, whereof ourselves are more deeply guilty: as here you have done to us, taxing us for our petty quarrels, while yourselves like Amalekits are nothing but stabbing and killing one the other. N. N. Your third reason. D. Field saith the Church of Rome hath continued a true Church even till our time: held a saving profession of truth: by it converted nations: and diverse of that Church, even learned are saved. D. Covel, they of Dome were and are the Church: and they that live and die in it may be saved. Willet, Kings and Queens of the Roman faith are Saints in Heaven. Yea, saith your author, Many Kings and Queens of Great Britain have forsaken their Crowns and Kingdoms to become Monks and Nuns. I. D. Append. p. 3. That which you object out of D. Field, D. Field himself hath long since at large answered. I will contract it as briefly as I can. The Sum is, the Roman Church is not now the same it was before Luther. His reasons. First, the then Church was the whole number of Christians subject to the Papal tyranny, of whom many desired to be free of the yoke, and as soon as Luther began to oppose shaken it off: but the now Church is the multitude of those that adore the plenitude of Papal power, or are content to be under the yoke still. Secondly, the Roman Church then consisted of men not having means of information, and so not erring pertinaciously: but the now Church consisteth of those who obstinately resist the truth, or at least consent in outward communion with them. So that they might be saved in their simplicity, and these perish in their contradiction. Thirdly, the Roman Church then had in it the same abuses & superstitions it hath now, and those that erred the same errors: but it had also those that disliked them, and thought right in those points wherein the rest erred. These were true living members of the Church: those a faction in the Church. In regard of those it was truly a Church, that is, a multitude of men professing Christ and baptised: in regard of these a true Church, that is, a multitude of men holding a saving profession of Christ. Lastly, the errors then taught in the Church, were not the Doctrines of the Church: but now they are the Doctrines of that Church. That they were not then the Doctrines of the Church appeareth thus. The Doctrines then taught were either those which all consented unto, such as are the Articles of the Creed, or those errors which many then taught, or the contrary truths opposed to those errors. The first were absolutely the Church's Doctrine. So were the third though all received them not, because they were theirs, who were so in the Church that they were the Church. But the second were not, because they were taught by the faction in the Church, and not consented unto by them that were the Church. Thus far the Doctor: who at length concludeth, that whatsoever it hath been, the present Romish Church is not that true Church of God, whose communion we must embrace, whose directions we must follow, and in whose judgement we must rest. Yea but D. Covell in the name of all the rest affirmeth that it is still a true Church, and Salvation may be had in it. In the name of all the rest? Why, who gave him that commission? and how comes he to be the mouth of us all, more than any other of his brethren? Certainly your Author much wrongs the Church of England, and abuses his reader, to make the private sayings of this man or that man to be the common voice of all. If he have spoken more largely than can be justified, he must answer for it himself, no reason the whole Church should be charged with it. You will not endure it amongst yourselves: and why should you then obtrude it upon us? To the words themselves I answer with D. Field. Ibid. Some will say, De bapt. con. Don l. 1. c. 8. & 10. is the Roman Church at this day no part of the Church of God? Surely, as Augustine noteth, that the Societies of Heretics, in that they retain the profession of many parts of heavenly truth, and the ministration of the Sacrament of Baptism, are so far forth still conjoined with the Catholic Church of God, and the Catholic Church in and by them bringeth forth children unto God: so the present Roman Church is still in some sort a part of the Visible Church of God, but no otherwise then other Societies of Heretics are, in that it retaineth the profession of some parts of Heavenly truth, and ministereth the true Sacrament of Baptism, to the salvation of the souls of many thousand infants, that die after they are baptised, before she have poisoned them with her errors. Thus he. Whereunto I add that of St Hilary, Contra. Auxent. God in the Churches of the Arrians called many by the word and Sacraments to the knowledge of the truth, whose ears were more pure than were the mouths of their teachers. The issue of all is this. You are a Church: but neither the Catholic Church, nor a sound member thereof. What then? An Heretical and impure Church. And if Salvation may be had therein: it is only by those truths you have common with us, and not the Papacy. wherein notwithstanding there can be no more security had thereof, then of life in a pesthouse▪ of which though there may be a possibility, yet the danger is such, that a thousand to one if a man escape the infection. And what folly is it to leave that Church wherein there is security, and to clea●e unto that wherein there is no hope but only of a poor possibility. Willet remains, for whom what better advocate than himself? Antilog. That many Kings and Queens of this land are Saints in Heaven is not by any protestant denied. For they might be carried away with some errors of the time, than not revealed, yet holding the foundation, through God's mercy they might be saved. It is a diverse case when a man sinneth of infirmity or simplicity, and when he offendeth willingly and of obstinacy. To stumble in the dark craveth pity: to grope at noone-days is great folly. I say therefore in this case as our Saviour to the Pharisees, joh. 9.41. If ye were blind ye should not have sin, but now ye say we see, therefore your sin remaineth. Act. 17.30. And as St Paul, the time of ignorance God regarded not. God therefore might show mercy to them that erred of Simplicity, which is no warrant for them that should now be seduced willingly. And such are you Recusants, to whom we can promise nothing but fearful things, though of our forefathers we hope all good. That which your Author farther adds of himself, let the same Willet answer. Though diverse saith he, of those ancient Kings became Monks, yet neither was the Monastical life so far out of square as now it is, they made it not a cloak of idleness and filthy living, a nursery of idolatry and gross supertitions: but they desired that life as fittest for contemplation, and free from the encumbrances of the world. Neither doth this one opinion of the excellency of Monastical life show them to be resolute Papists: for it followeth not because they were Monks, that consequently they held Transubstantiation, worship of images, and the more gross points of the Romish Catechism. Will you have any more? In few words thus. Anciently Monks, some of them were lay-men, some were married, they bound themselves with no vows, they made no distinction of meats, they laboured with their hands, and lived not in Cities but remote places. By all which you may see Polydor Virgil had reason to say, Hist. Ang. l. 6. It is incredible how much nowadays they are degenerated. N. N. Your fourth and last reason, the quarrels and bitter speeches of Luther, Melancthon, Zuniglius, Beza, Carolus Molniaeus, Amsdorfius, Hosiander, Protestants of Zurich, of England, etc. I. D. This reason differeth not in substance, but only in quotations from the second. Which quotations whether they be true or false, neither will I spend time to search, neither is it any whit material. And therefore neither will I vouchsafe it any farther answer, then that which already I have given to the second. The best Churches have seldom been without their quarrels, and usually are managed with two much passion. The malice of Satan is the cause of the one, and humane infirmity of the other. Which infirmity seeing we cannot altogether put off while we live here in the flesh, Christian charity would rather pity it then upbraid it. Nevertheless that which is amiss may not be defended: neither mean I to go about it. Only I persuade myself that if we understood one the other better, our quarrels would never be so vehement. For what was it that set Luther and Zuinglius so far asunder, but misprision? And what caused such hard censures to pass upon Hosiander, but his own inconvenient speeches, and other men's mistake? These are the two principal quarrels here mentioned by you: give me leave therefore to show so much in them, but briefly. The quarrel between Luther and Zuinglius was about Christ's presence in the Sacrament, which as you hold to be by way of Transubstantiation, so did Luther by way of Consubstantiation. Which how it could be unless the body of Christ were every where, Zuinglius & others could not conceive, and being pressed therewith, he and his followers not being able to avoid it, maintained that also. But how? by reason of the Hypostatical union and conjunction thereof with the word. For the Word being every where, and the Humane Nature being no where fevered from it, how can it be, say they, but every where? And hence the distraction, and thereupon all those passionate speeches. Misc. jud. de dissid. caen. dom. Now saith Zanchy, if they mean that the body of Christ is present according to his personal being, they say true, & contradict not those who speak of his Natural being or being of Essence. Lib. 3. c. 35. of ch. D. Field thus expresseth it. The humane Nature of Christ hath two kinds of being, the one natural, the other personal: the first limited & finite, the second infinite & incomprehensible. For seeing the nature of man is a created nature and essence, it cannot be but finite: and seeing it hath no Personal subsistence of it own, but that of the Son of God communicated to it, which is infinite and without limitation, it cannot be denied to have an infinite Subsistence, & to subsist in an incomprehensible and illimited sort, and consequently every where. Thus than the body of Christ according to his Natural being is contained in one place: but according to his Personal being, may rightly be said to be every where. So Field whereby you may easily perceive, that the wars betwixt hony-bees are not such, but the casting up of a little dust will soon stint them. For if this distinction had well been conceived: this Ubiquitary strife had quickly been ended. If any notwithstanding have been so gross as to maintain an ubiquity according to Essence or Natural being (which I can hardly believe) I must profess I know no excuse for them. The second quarrel is against Hosiander, who seemeth to define justification by a transfusion of the Essential righteousness of Christ into us, and a confusion, as it were, and mixture of it together with us. And against this diverse have written very vehemently, as justly they might if this were his Tenet. Smidelin. Brentius. Others. But there are who defend him, affirming that it was but out of a mistake. For acknowledging in Christ a threefold Righteousness, Active, passive, & Essential of the Word (for the Righteousness of God is not Accidental, but his very Essence) he holdeth that we are justified, not only by the imputation of the Active and Tassive Righteousness of Christ unto us, but also by the admission of us unto the participation of the Divine nature, as St Peter speaketh, that is of his Essential Righteousness: to the end that receiving of his fullness, we might be replenished with all divine qualities and graces. The reason why he so much urged this doctrine was, because he had observed that many out of a persuasion they had to be justified and saved by the merits and obedience of Christ imputed to them, cared not to have any righteousness in themselves, and utterly neglected the practice of holy duties. Wherefore he taught that the Active and Passive Righteousness of Christ imputed, availed not either to the remission of sins, or the purchasing of God's favour, unless they were also made partakers of the divine nature, for the avoiding of sin, and the leading of a holy and virtuous life. This as it seems was all Hosiander held. If he held farther than this, and his adversaries understood him aright, I am no Patron for him. The last quarrel is touching our English translations of the Bible. Wherein that diverse things were amiss, it was never denied of us. For being an humane act, and humanity being subject unto error, it could not be avoided but that some faults what through ignorance, what through negligence, what through other infirmities, might pass unheeded and unobserved. If the former translations had been faultless: the Church of England would never have thought of setting forth a new, as now it hath done. Which it did not, as if those aberrations were so dangerous and prejudicial unto the substance of Faith: but out of a holy desire that our English streams, as near as may be, might run with the same purity that is found in the Hebrew & Greek fountains. So that her meaning was not, Praef. ad lect. as our late learned Translators say, of a bad Translation to make a good (for this had been in a manner to acknowledge that our people hitherto had been fed rather upon husks and acorns, than the flower of wheat) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones to make one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against. But tell me in good sooth, you that so busily object unto us our quarrels in this point, is your Vulgar translation, even that which your Trent Council hath made authentical, and is every where read in your Churches, free from error? Or are there no bicker and contentions among you concerning it? If it be faultless, what needed other translations, as that of Pagnine, Vatablus, and Arias Montanus? How cometh it to pass that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, Vives, Budaeus, others, find so great fault with it, wishing it were amended, or another made in room of it? Nay that Isidorus Clarius, a Spanish Monk should find to the number of eight thousand faults, and every one as he professeth changing the meaning of the text? Pope Sixtus the fifth did not think all was well, when he went about to correct the faults thereof with his own hand. And who would have thought but all had been well, when he set it forth so corrected, charging that none should afterwards be published with any change, addition, or detraction of the least particle? And yet some two or three years after this Pope Clement the eight finding all not perfectly amended, altars, adds, detracts, yea & contradicts his predecessors edition. For example, where Sixtus saith, jos. 11.19. there was not a city which did not yield, Clement saith, 1 Esd. 3. which did yield. Again, where Sixtus hath, They built upward to the horse-gate, Clement hath, from the horse-gate. Sap. 2.11. And where Sixtus reads justice, Clement reads Unjustice. This for a taste: whereof whosoever will have his fill, let him see Doctor james, who hath written at large of this argument. Whereunto I might add the barbarismes and solecisms of that translation, together with those known and manifest faults, which yet they suffer to pass in every print: Luc. 15.8. as, Evertit for Everrit, she overturned ●he house, Ib. 10.14. for; she swept the house: consume masset, had perfected, for consumpsisset had wasted or consumed: Prov. 16 11. Saeculi of this world, for Sacculi of the bag: praescientiam foreknowledge, 2 Pet. 1. 1●. for praesentiam presence, & six hundred like or worse errors. But I forbear for brevity's sake: only I cannot but acquaint you with the reasons hereof, for they are feriall and pleasant. Faults saith the jesuit Mariana, De vulgat. ed. c. 21. are still left in the vulgar edition, first because there is no danger in them to faith and good manners: Secondly lest the novelty of an exact amendment should offend the ears of them that were enured unto them: Lastly, that they might reverence the old edition, and tread in the steps of their Ancestors, who out of a holy kind of piety tolerated those errors▪ Ib. c. 1. Hear also what the same Mariana saith, touching your bicker about this matter. Some Catholics, and those also in Spain, tax the vulgar edition as defiled with many foul faults, appealing every foot unto the fountains, whence those rivers have issued unto us, contending that as often as they differ from them, they are to be corrected by comparing them with the Greek and Hebrew books: men puffed up with the skill of languages, making a mock of Ecclesiastical simplicity, whose boldness and temerity in pronouncing deserveth to be kerbed. On the contrary side, others more in number, through the hatred of their adversaries, think it great sin once to touch the vulgar edition, and count them in the number of impious ones, who adventure to correct the least word, or to expound any place otherwise then the vulgar interpretation will bear: whom certainly we are not to follow, men of little spirit filled with darkness, conceiving too narrowly of the Majesty of our religion, who while they defend the blockhouses as it were of opinions, as articles of faith, seem to me to betray the chiefest tower itself, & most shamefully to violate brotherly charity. Therefore avoiding these extremes and byways which lead unto a downfall, we have resolved to hold the middle way, etc. Thus you see that there are as violent contentions among yourselves about translation, as there is amongst us: and that we may justly say unto you, Physician heal thyself, before you have to do with the diseases of others. N. N. Good Mr Downe calling to mind that you told me, craving some certain rule to know the true sense of Scripture, that the true sense of Scripture is easy to be understood as much as appertaineth to Salvation. I demand then if the doctrine of Baptism be necessary? If so, then is some part hard: else would not Calvin have cavilled at those words, Unless a man be borne again of Water, etc. Is not the doctrine of the blessed Sacrament necessary? Yet how many expositions of, this is my Body? So is that of justification: yet twenty expositions of Scripture about the formal cause thereof. So also is the doctrine of the Trinity, and of Christ's Divinity and humanity: yet Ebionits', Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Valenti●ians, Monothelites, and Apollinarists, holding heresies against them, prove them all to their thinking out of Scripture. Ergò, Scripture is not so easy as I make it. For where all things are plain, there men commonly agree. I. D. The truth is, being demanded the rule of Faith, I named the Scripture: and being farther demanded a rule whereby to know the sense of Scripture, I answered two things. First that all things necessary to salvation are so expressly and plainly set down, that there needs no farther rule: secondly, that those places which are more obscure are to be expounded by those that are more plain; and that sense which disagreeth is to be rejected, that which agreeth may safely be admitted. Safely I say: for although haply it may not be the right, yet dangerous it cannot be, as long as it accords with the Analogy of Faith. This I declared somewhat at large in the writing sent to Mr Bayly: which I perceive hath come to your hands also, yet satisfies not. Otherwise you would not thus dispute against it. But know you against whom you dispute? Certainly, not against me only, but the ancient Fathers, who affirm the same that I do. For touching the Perspicuity of Scripture in things necessary, thus St Augustine, De doct. Chr. l. 2. c. 9 In those things which are openly laid down in Scripture, are to be found all things which contain Faith and manners of living, to wit, Hope and Charity. And St chrysostom, In 2 Thes. hom. 3. All things necessary are open and manifest, so that there needed not homilies or Sermons, were it not through our own negligence. Contr. jul. l 7. And Cyril of Alexandria, To the end they might be known to all both small and great, he hath delivered them unto us in such familiar speech, that they exceed no man's capacity. So the rest. And this is so true that your Gregory of Valentia confesseth it. Anal. Fid. p. 100L. Such verities, saith he, concerning our faith as are absolutely and necessarily to be known and believed of all men, are plainly taught in the Scriptures themselves. Bibl. l. 6. ann. 151. So Sixtus Senensis also, Ascet. q. 267. and others of your side. As touching the interpretation of darker places by the plain, thus Saint Basil, those things which seem to be ambiguous and obscurely spoken in some places of holy writ, are enlightened by those which in other places are open and perspicuous. De doct. Ch●. l. 2. c. 6. And St Augustine, There is nothing almost among these obscurities, but in other places one may find it most plainly delivered. And St chrysostom, In 2 Cor. hom. 9 The Scripture every where when it speaketh any thing obscurely, interpreteth itself again in another place. And this is the common voice of all the rest. So that the answer I gave you being no other than that which I had learned of the Fathers: you cannot reject it, but you must reject the Fathers with all. But let us hear your reason. The Doctrine, say you, of Baptism, of the Eucharist, of justification, of Christ's two natures are necessary: yet some texts upon which they are grounded be litigious. Grant it be so: yet some again are clear and evident. That Christians are to be baptised, what more plain than that Go teach all nations Baptising them? That the Eucharist is to be administered and received, is clear by the institution of our Saviour, and the practice of his Apostles. That we are justified by Faith without the works of the law, we have the evident testimony of Saint Paul. That Christ is God, the very first words of Saint john's Gospel testify, joh. 1.1. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and that word was God. And lastly that he is Man also, 1 Tim. 2.5. what more express than those words of Saint Paul, There is one God, and one Mediator between God & men, the Man Christ jesus? If other places be not so plain, they are to be expounded by these or the like. But it may be your Doctrine of Baptism is the absolute necessity thereof unto salvation. If so, then certainly that place of S. john is not clear enough for it. For it is not necessary it should be understood of Christian Baptism, which was not yet instituted: or it must be meant of those that are Adulti, such as Nicodemus was to whom our Saviour spoke. In like manner if your doctrine of the Eucharist be Transubstantiation, neither is that other place plain enough for it. For it is manifest both by the circumstances of the Text, and the testimony of the Fathers that the Relative This hath reference to Bread. Now Bread in proper speech cannot be Body, as your own men confess. Then is it so tropically: and consequently no Transubstantiation. The same do I say of the errors about justification, which should particularly have been showed, if you had quoted any particular place. Esa. 6.9. As for those Heretics, they were such as the Prophet speaketh of, who in seeing saw, and yet perceived not, having closed their eyes that they might not see. And therefore it is a foul fault in you to excuse their obstinacy, by charging the Scriptures with obscurity. That Rule is sufficient which is able to convince the Conscience, and satisfy all those who love the truth, and are ready to acknowledge it when it is made known: though it stop not the mouths of refractory & stubborn Heretics. This perhaps your living judge by virtue of fire and faggot may be able to effect: but the other if evidence of Scripture cannot, nor he, nor his Church will ever be able to perform. More of this see in the Treatise sent to Mr Bailiff. N. N. If as I write to M. Bailiff, you may not rely too much on the authority of the Fathers, because of their differences in opinions: much less may you upon the authority of our men being worse divided. For they differ not in essential points, we do. They wrote not so bitterly one against another, as we do. Lastly, they differed in matters as yet undefined by a general Council, and so not dangerous: but we have no Counsels, nor any other means to decide our causes. So that you cannot know which of us giveth the true sense of Scripture. I. D. That the Fathers are no way a sufficient ground of Faith, I have so strongly proved unto M. Bailiff, that me thinks none of you is in haste to answer it. Among the rest of my reasons, this I confess was one, that they varied so much in opinion one from another: yea and are now made to vary from themselves through your intolerable abusing of them. This I declared at large: whereunto for farther evidence, I now add an example or two. S. Ambrose, Lib. 4. c. 4▪ or whosoever is author of the books de Sacramentis, was wont to say thus, If there be so great force in the speech of our Lord jesus, that the things which were not began to be: how much more operative is it, that things still be what they were, and yet be changed into another things? But now, because that clause, that things still be what they were, make sore against Transubstantiation, in the Roman Edition, and that of Paris, a 1603. that clause is clean left out, and S. Ambrose must no longer say so. S. Chrysostom, or the Author of the imperfect work upon Matthew, Hom. 11. was wont to have these words, If it be so dangerous to transfer unto private uses those holy vessels, in which the true body of Christ is not, but the mystery of his body is contained: how much more, etc. But what is become of them now? In the edition printed at Antwerp by joannes Steelsius, anno 1537. at Paris by joannes Roigny, 1543. and by Audoenus Parvus 1557. not a syllable of those words, in which the true body of Christ is not, but the mystery of his body is contained, appears. Why? Because they make so strongly against your Real Presence. So likewise where he used in the elder impressions to say the sacrifice of bread and wine: Hom. 19 now in these latter editions he is forced to change his language and to say the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. More examples I might easily produce: but these are sufficient to show that Vincentius Lirinensis had good reason when he gave this Caveat, But neither always nor all kind of heresies are to be impugned after this manner, De Haer▪ c. 39 but such only as are new, and late, when they first arise, while by straightness of time itself they be hindered from falsifying the rules of the ancient Faith, and before that their poison spreading farther they attempt to corrupt the writings of the Ancient. But far spread and inveterate heresies are not to be set on this way, forasmuch as by long continuance of time a long occasion hath laid open unto them to steal away the truth. But return we again to the matter from which we have a little digressed. The Fathers, say you, differed not in points essential. True. Neither do we, as is above showed, yet by your leave their differences were not always in petty matters, unless Rebaptization, Communicating of infants, the Pope's universal jurisdiction, and the like, be of small consequence with you. Supra. Their differences were not so bitter as ours. No were? When they proceeded not only to curse one another, but to fire, bloodshed, and banishment also? And when casting off the rule of piety, Euseb. hist. l. 8. c. 1. they did nothing but increase strife, Asser. prooe. de ●ud. dei. threats, envy, and quarrels, every man with all tyranny pursuing his ambition: whereby as S. Basil saith, the Church of God was unmercifully drawn in sunder, and his flock troubled without all care or pity. Lastly say you, they differed in matters undecided by a general Council. What then? No danger. No danger? Then belike a man may safely believe all he lists before a Council determine it. The very high way to Atheism. For so the very Articles of the Creed during the first three hundred years after Christ, should be but disputable points, and not necessary. For until Constantine the great there were no general Counsels. By the same reason your Adoration of Images was no matter of Faith till the second Council of Nice about 800 years after Christ, nor Transubstantiation till the Council of Lateran some 1200 years, nor Merit, nor justification by works, nor the most of your Tenants till the Trent Council above fourteen hundred years after Christ. If they were, I require you to show what general Council had before determined them. If you cannot, then are you but novellers, and hold not the ancient Faith. The truth is, Counsels cannot make that an Article which was not: but whether they decree or not decree, whatsoever God affirmeth in his word, as soon as it cometh to our knowledge, is absolutely and upon pain of damnation to be believed. And it is horrible sacrilege and impiety to think, that it is not necessary to believe God, unless a Council of the Pope say Amen unto it. Yea but, say you, we nor have, nor can have general Counsels. No more can you, nor any Church in Christendom, without the general consent of Christian Princes. Synods of our own Churches we may have, and have had by the indulgence of our Princes. More than this you cannot have. For you are but a handful of the Christian world: and the greatest part thereof neither is nor will be subject unto you. When you can get the Greek Church and that in Prester john's country, with the Armenians, and others, to submit themselves unto the Pope's omnipotent and ubiquitary power, then may you peradventure have hope to call a general Council. But that I think will be at the Greek Kalends, that is in plain English at Nevermasse. Howsoever, say you, if you may not rely on the Fathers because of their differences, neither may you on us because of ours. If this be a sound reason, as I confess it is, neither may you rely on the Church of Rome, because of theirs. But you mistake the matter much if you think we require men to rely on our bare authority. That privilege belongs unto Christ only, and under him to those holy Penmen of the Bible that wrote by inspiration. To us appertaineth to prove what we say by their authority: and when we have so done to require assent and not before. If Scripture, and sound deduction from it according to the art of reasoning, together with the proof of the sense thereof by the circumstances of the place, and the analogy of Faith, will not move you: we can but pity your wilfulness, and leave you unto God till he turn your heart and have mercy upon you. For certainly miserable is the case of that man, who knowing the Scriptures to be God's word, and having the use of right reason, shall refuse trial both by the one and the other preferring thereunto the authority of man which may err itself, and lead others into error. N. N. Your conclusion is, you mean not to forsake the religion taught in that Church which is descended from Christ and his Apostles by succession, but with Litinensis to prefer it before all things: That you will follow universality, Antiquity and consent in your belief, & that faith which hath been held from time to time in all places, in all seasons, by all or the most Doctors of Christianity: That Church which as S. Augustine saith, had her beginning by the entering of nations; got authority by miracles, was increased by charity, and established by continuance: and hath had succession from S. Peter's chair to our time: That church which is known by the name of Catholic both to friends and foes, even Heretics terming her so, calling themselves for distinctions sake, Reformers, Illuminates, Unspotted brethren. In this you will remain during life, and then if your life hinder not (as you hope it will not) you shall enjoy everlasting life. I. D. What you profess you will not do, that you have already done. Very weak & wavering have you showed yourself in forsaking that religion, which is descended unto us by succession from Christ and his Apostles, and hath always been taught and maintained in the Catholic Church: to embrace a new upstart superstition, utterly unknown to the Primitive times, and grown out of the earth, but some two or three nights ago. What Motives you then had for your revolt, I know not: They that knew you well, speak of some other thing rather than Conscience. The best construction I can set upon it is this, you had been but badly informed in the truth. And now lest you should incur the imputation of levity and inconstancy if you returned to us again, I fear you have obstinately resolved to close your eyes, and not to see the truth how brightly soever it shine upon. So that the saying which I think I have some where read in Tertullian, is verified upon you, Miserable is the case of that man, who was persuaded before he was instructed: and afterward refuseth to be instructed, because he is persuaded. The sayings of Vincentius Lirinensis and S. Augustin we well allow of: but the application of them to yourself hath more face than forehead in it. For as of old Dioscorus the Heretic cried out in the Council of Chalcedon, I am cast out with the Fathers, I defend the doctrine of the Fathers, I pass not beyond them in any point, and I have their testimonies not barely but in their very books: even so you, and wish no more modesty nor truth than he, I follow universality, antiquity, and consent in my Belief, I stand to the Faith that hath been held in all places, in all seasons, by all or the most Bishops, Priests, Doctors in Christianity. I follow a Church begun by entrance of nations, authorized by miracles, increased by charity, established by continuance, in which is succession from Saint Peter's Chair, and known of all by the name Catholic. But soft good sir, how is all this proved? For you cannot be ignorant that we deny all these things, affirming the clean contrary, that the Romish Synagogue is not the Church S. August. speaks of, but altogether degenerated from it: & that the points in difference betwixt us were neither Universal, nor Ancient, but sprung up of late, & ever as they rose up mightily opposed by the most famous Clerks of their times. If you would persuade us otherwise, you may not think to prevail with your strong imaginations, but you must convince us with sound demonstrations, wherein God wot, the best of you all are as weak as water. For as for yourself I cannot but wonder, that knowing no more than you have picked out of the writings of two or three sneaking Friars, you yet talk so confidently and presumptuously of Universality, Antiquity, and consent, in all places and seasons, of all Bishops, Priests, and Doctors: as if either yourself had lived all the while to see it with your eyes, or had read all the story of the Church, and whatsoever monuments they have left behind them. If you think you may be so bold and confident upon your Author, tell us I pray you why we may not be as bold and confident on our? The rather seeing your writers are open maintainers of Equivocation and I know not what pious frauds and lies, which our men even from their hearts detest & abhor. But why should either we or you trust so much unto deceitful man? The safest course would be with the wise ●ereans to search the Scriptures whether these things be so or not. He that shall do this with an honest heart and out of the love of truth, cannot but find satisfaction, unless he fail that hath promised, seek and ye shall find. Verily one testimony from the mouth of God, and his sacred word, will be of more force to settle the Conscience, than ten thousand of those Topical arguments & probabilities, wherewith your Author gulleth and beguileth you. But where you say that the Roman Church is by all both friends and enemies known and called by the name Catholic, you show yourself to be a pleasant and merry man. It may be some of us at some times may have called some Recusants Catholics. What then? Do we therefore indeed count you so? Nothing less: for we call you not so in earnest, as if you were so: but only in jest and by way of Irony, because you affect to be called so. Otherwise then thus, we never either count or call you or your Church Catholic Why Should we, seeing you yourselves, howsoever in word you retain it, yet in effect seem to disclaim it, calling yourselves Roman Catholics. For Catholic is Universal, Roman Particular: that is of the whole world, this of one City. So that Roman Catholic is as much as to say Particular Universal, that is, Not catholic Catholic. Whence it followeth evidently that while you restrain your Faith to Roman, you utterly cut it off, and yourself withal, from being Catholic. Having therefore lost the kernel, why are you so greedy of the shell? Of the name I mean, being destitute of the thing? Content yourself with Roman, leave Catholic unto us. For we are indeed the true Catholics, holding all that Faith, and only that Faith which the Apostles preached, and was generally believed throughout the World. An ancient friend of mine, and a worthy Scholar, being demanded in a Stationer's shop in Venice, while there he followed the Lord Ambassador, what was the difference between us here in England and the Catholics, answered, None at all, for we count ourselves good Catholics. But the party being loath to be put of so, pressed him again to know the difference betwixt us here and them there: and was answered, This, that we believe the Catholic Faith contained in the Creed, but believed not the thirteenth Article which the Pope had added to it. But it being replied that he knew none such, the Extravagant of Pope Boniface was brought, where he defines it to be altogether of necessity to salvation to every humane Creature, to be under the Bishop of Rome. The belief of this thirteenth Article thus patched unto the rest by your thirteenth Apostle, may perhaps make you Bonifacian or Roman: but the belief of the other twelve makes us I am sure true and perfect Catholics. Whether you allow us the name or not, it matters nothing: as neither whatsoever nicknames you impose upon us. For by the grace of God we are what we are: and it is neither the one nor the other that can make us other then we are. As neither can you by assuming the name of Catholic, or any other Sectaries by calling themselves Illuminates, or Unspotted Brethren, make yourselves to be that which indeed you are not. For as for Reformers, although such Corruptions were crept into the Church as needed Reformation, and many worthy men that feared God, earnestly wished and longed for it; yet because it could not be obtained at the hands of those that then swayed in the Church, it is true some Heroical spirits of our side, not without the singer of God attempted it, and by God's blessing effected that which the Saints of God rejoice to see, and none but Superstitious and Idolatrous Papists grieve and repine at. Howbeit they never took unto themselves the name of Reformers, but ascribed the whole work unto God, and we bless his holy name for using them as instruments therein. In regard whereof I see no reason, why we having rejected and pared off all those errors wherewith you had corrupted the true religion, may not term ourselves Reformed Catholics: as well as you still retaining them, and resolving to settle upon your dreggs, call yourselves by the name of Roman Catholics. But a Roman Catholic, you say, you mean to keep yourself during life: and it is likely you will do so indeed. First to avoid the imputation of inconstancy if you should return to us again: secondly because I see how obstinately you refuse to believe whatsoever we say, though never so strongly proved. You add that so doing if otherwise your life hinder not, as you hope it shall not, you shall enjoy everlasting life after this. Wherein I Will not be your judge. You are servant unto another: and for me you shall stand and fall to your own Master. Only I would advise you not to be too confident. For first, whatsoever your life be, as I have said, it is as hard for you to attain everlasting life in a Church so fearfully infected with so many pestilent and deadly heresies; as it is for a man to escape with his life in a pest-house. Secondly, adhering unto the Church of Rome, & conforming yourself unto the practice thereof: you must needs make yourself guilty of horrible idolatries many ways. Whereof unless you timely repent, it cannot be but such a life must needs hinder your salvation. Lastly, although perhaps to many simple people that live in Spain or Italy, where such means of knowledge cannot so well be had, it may please God to be merciful and gracious, if they hold the Foundation and be willing to know if they had the means: yet I fear much of our English Recusants, who live in the bright sunshine of the Gospel, and have the means daily offered unto them, lest their obstinacy in rejecting thereof, and refusing to see, work unto them in the end everlasting destruction. Certainly if any of you be saved, it is not by those doctrines wherein you differ from us: but those only which you hold in common with us. Especially for that when you lie upon your deathbeds, and perceive that shortly you must yield an account of all whatsoever you have done in the flesh: you then think it good with all speed to turn Protestants, that is, to renounce all your own works as insufficient to justify you before God, and to put your whole affiance upon the mercies of God, through the merits and obedience of Christ alone both for justification and Salvation. For indeed this is a sure, and a safe way even by the confession of Bellarmine himself. By reason saith he, De justify. l. 5. c. 7. of the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and the danger of vainglory: it is the safest course to set our whole affiance on the mercy and goodness of God alone. And the like safety do others of your side yield us in other things also: as namely, in forbearing to make any image of God, in worshipping none but the holy Trinity, in praying unto none save only God in Christ, in the marriage of Ministers, and other such things; as it is easy to demonstrate, but that it is now high time to come to a conclusion. Only I would have you carefully to observe, that even they who persuade you to stick close unto the Popish Faith, stick not themselves to acknowledge the Protestants Practise both in life and death to be many ways the more safe. And thus much in Answer unto this second Schedule. It remaineth that I earnestly entreat you in the name of the Lord jesus, and as you tender the everlasting salvation of your soul, that you would please to bethink yourself a little better of your present estate, than heretofore you seem to have done. You have suffered yourself now a long time to be lead up and down in the mist of I know not what generalities: a path which they that love to deceive, use much to tread in. They tell you of Universality, Antiquity, Succession, Consent, and the like: and you presently believe them. But what security have you in so doing? for infallible they are not. If they be matters of so great consequence, it were good you knew them yourself, that you need not trust the uncertain reports of others. Know them yourself you cannot, unless you acquaint yourself with all the records of former times, and search into them with much diligence and attention: for otherwise you may herein also soon be deceived. But this would prove too long and tedious a course for you: and alas the well is deep and you have not wherewith to draw. What then? Surely you have a shorter way if you would follow it. Deut. 30 11.12.13.14. For as Moses saith, The commandment is neither too high for you, nor far off. You need neither to mount up into heaven, nor to pass beyond the seas for it. It is very near unto you. For you have at hand the Scriptures of God: joh. 5.39. search them, and therein shall you surely find eternal life. By them, and no other did the ancient Fathers confute all the heresies of their times: unless happily they had to deal with such Heretics as rejected the Scriptures. 2 Tim. 3.15.16.17. And to this end were they written, that the man of▪ God might be made perfect and wise unto salvation. Yea but they are obscure, dark, equivocal, ambiguous, subject to diverse constructions, and each sect pretendeth to confirm their errors by them. Strange, that they should be the testament of our Father, and the instrument of contract between Christ and his Spouse: and yet they should be drawn up so perplexedly and doubtfully, that by them neither can the children certainly know what legacies are bequeathed to them, nor the Spouse what conditions are agreed upon betwixt her and her husband. But mark what farther followeth hereof. For if the Scriptures be indeed such as you say, then have not Papists any certain ground at all for their Faith. Yes, will you say, the Church. But she speaketh not by herself, but her heralds and particular messengers: and I would fain know what assurance you can have that they pass not beyond their commission, or deliver not some other errant besides that they are charged withal. The Authority also and Unerring power of this Church had need to be most sound demonstrated. I doubt of it: how can you warrant it? By Scripture? You have barred yourself from all hope of succour thence. For it is obscure, equivocal, ambiguous, every way uncertain. By Natural Reason? The Articles of Faith are above Reason: and the Natural Man is not capable of them. By the Spirit then? That is the thing you so much jest at in others. And if by your doctrine you cannot assure yourself that you are in the present state of Grace: neither can you know whether you have the spirit of God or no. What then may be your last refuge? The testimony of the Church touching herself? Ridiculous: for no man's testimony may be admitted in his own cause. And what a reasoning is this? You believe the Articles of Faith? Why? Because the Church biddeth you do so. How followeth this? Because she cannot err. And how prove you that? Because she saith she cannot err. If this be not to expose the Christian Faith unto the laughter of Atheists and profane men, I know not what it is. Will you, nill you, when you have said all you can say, either you must have no certain ground at all for your Faith, or you must rest upon the Scriptures as the final resolution thereof. Return therefore, I beseech in the fear of God, return unto the sure anchorhold of your salvation. Abandon those frothy generalities of your seducing authors, which at the best are but conjectural: and labour to establish your Conscience upon the testimony of him that will not, that cannot deceive you. Pray unto him fervently and proceed in a sincere love of the truth: and you shall surely find, that if you be not defective to yourself, God will never fail you. For my part I have done what belongs to me. I have planted, I have watered: it is God that must give the increase. And to his mercy in Christ jesus I commend you. An advertisement to the Reader. Unto the Section of Pag. 27. I there freely confessed I could not certainly answer for want of Doctor Mortons' book. Since that time I have met with it, and thereby I perceive that though I answered only by con●ecture yet I conjectured not amiss. Yet now farther be pleased to understand, first that the Doctor citeth not Bibliander, as my adversary untruly chargeth him: but only answereth a passage quoted by his adversary Breerly out of him. And he answereth in effect as I do: save that he bringeth in Bellarmine confessing that which to my good man seemeth so strange, De Mis●. l. 2. c. 1. namely that all Protestants acknowledge in the Eucharist a Sacrifice Eucharistical or of thanksgiving. Secondly, touching those Rabbins R. Cahana, R. judas, and R. Simeon, he belieth the Doctor: it is Breerly that cities them not he. Neither doth he Positively say that their testimonies make directly for Transubstantiation: But conditionally, if they were such. Now that they are not such he proveth. For consulting with D. Smith, D. Layfield, and M. Bedwell, very learned Hebricians about this matter: they after their painful and industrious search into the cited places, returned under their hands this answer. R. Cahana in that book on the 49 of Gen. is not cited, nor hath he there any thing to that purpose. R. judas in that book on the 25 of Exod. hath no such thing, nor in the whole Parasha Terumah. R. Simeon wrote no book carrying the title of Revelatio Secretorum. And thus you see, while simple Papists will believe nothing but what their guides tell them, what pretty tales of Robin Hood they devise for them. O that God would be pleased to soften the seared consciences of the one, and to open the blindfolded eyes of the other. Farewell. JOHN DOWN. FINIS. A Testimony taken from M. Perkins on Heb. 11. v. 7. to be added to those annexed to the first Sermon. But how doth God work this faith? By his word: For as God is the author and worker of Faith, so God hath appointed a means whereby he works it, and that is his word; which word of God is the only ordinary outward means to work faith. And that word of God is two ways to be considered: either as revealed by God himself (as to Noah here) or else, being written by God; is either preached by his Ministers, or read by a man's self in want of preaching: and these are all one, and are all means ordained of God to work faith; and that not only to begin it where it is wanting, but to augment it where it is begun. END