DIATRIBAE. DISCOURSES ON DIVERS TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE: Delivered upon several occasions,  
BY JOSEPH MEDE, B. D. late Fellow of Christ's College in CAMBRIDGE.  
Printed by the Authors own Copy.  
The Contents you shall find in the next leaf.  
LONDON, Printed by M. F. for JOHN CLARK, and are to be sold at his Shop under S. Peter's Church in Cornhill.  
M DC XLII.   

The Contents of the several Texts of Scripture, delivered in this Treatise.  

S. MATTH. 6. 9 Thus therefore pray ye, Our Father, etc. pag. 1.  
MATTH. 6. 9 LUKE 11. 2. Sanctified, or, hallowed be thy Name. p. 17.  
ACTS 17. 4. There associated themselves to Paul and Silas of the worshipping Greeks a great multitude. p. 82.  
2 PETER 2. 4. For if God spared not the Angels which sinned, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgement, etc. so we translate it: To which of S. Peter, answers that of S. jude, (as almost that whole Epistle doth, to this) verse 6. And the Angels which kept not their first estate [or principality] but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgement of the great Day. p. 99  
1 COR. 4. 1. Let a man so account of us, as of the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God. p. 108.  
S. JOHN 10. 20. He hath a Devil, and is mad. p 120.  
PROVERBS 21. 16. The Man that wandreth out of the way of understanding, shall remain in the Congregation of the Dead. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in coetu Gigantum. p. 132.  
GEN. 49. 10. The Sceptre shall not depart from judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet, until SHILOH come, and unto him shall the gathering of the People be. p. 144.  
PSALM 8. 2. Out of the Mouth of Babes and Sucklings, thou hast ordained strength, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest quell the Enemy, and the Avenger. p. 155.  
ZACH. 4. 10. These seven are the Eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth. p. 172.  
S. MARK 11. 17. Is it not written, My House shall be called a House of Prayer, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to all [the] Nations? p. 187.  
S. JOHN 4. 23. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; For the Father seeketh such to worship him. pag. 197.  
S. LUKE 24. 45. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures. 46. And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. p. 210.  
EXOD. 4. 25. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone; and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sponsus sanguinum tu mihi es. pag. 222.  
EZEKIEL 20. 20. Hollow my Sabbath, and they shall be a sign between me and you, to acknowledge that I jehovah am your God. pag. 234.  
1 COR 11. 5. Every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head. p. 246.  
TITUS 3. 5. By the washing of Regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. p. 262.  
JOSH. 24. 26. And (Iosh●…ah) took a great stone, and set it up there (viz. in Sichem) under the Oak, which was in the Sanctuary of the Lord: Alii, by the Sanctuary. Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. pag. 274  
1 TIM. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour: especially they that labour in the Word and Doctrine. p. 296.  
ACTS 2. 5. And there were [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] sojourning at jerusalem jows, devout men, out of every Nation under heaven. p. 311.  
1 COR. 9 14. Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 324.   

Three other Treatises by the same Author formerly Printed, which may be added, viz.  
1. The Name ALTAR, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. CHURCHES, that is, Appropriate Places for Christian Worship. 1 COR. 11. 22. Have ye not houses to eat and drink in? [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Or despise ye the CHURCH of God?  
3. The Reverence of GOD'S HOUSE. ECCLESIASTES 5. 1. Look to thy foot [or feet] when thou comest to the House of God; and be more ready to obey, then to offer the sacrifice of fools; for they know not that they do evil.    

Errata.  
FOlio 9 line 10. testimonies, in, r. testimonies. In. fol. 24. l. 16, 28. the Hebrew words are false printed, and misplaced. fol. 87. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the words inverted, fol 88 line 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. fo. 125. line 19 the Hebrew words are inverted. line 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. fol. 130. line 14. siqui r. siquis. fol. 150. line 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. fol. 162. ult. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fol. 184. in the margin the Hebrew is amiss. fol. 229. the Hebrew is transposed, and misprinted. fo. 273. line 14. imitation, r. initiation. so. 284 line 3. Act● 21. r Acts 16. fol. 334. line 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

DISCOURSES 
Mat. 6. 9  ON DIVERS TEXTS of SCRIPTURE.  
S. MATTHEW 6. 9 Thus therefore pray ye, Our Father, etc. 
IT was well hoped, after the question about the lawfulness and fitness of a set form of Prayer had been so long debated in our Church, that the sect of those who opposed it, had been ere this well-nigh extinguished; but experience tells us the contrary; that this fancy is not only still living, but begins, as it were, to recover and get strength afresh: In which regard, my discourse, at this time, will not be unseasonable, if, taking my rise from these words of our Saviour, I acquaint you, upon what grounds and example this practice of the Christian Church hath been established, and how frivolous and weak the reasons are, which some of late do bring against it. To begin therefore; You see by the Text I have now read, that our blessed Saviour delivered a set form of prayer unto his Disciples, and in so doing hath commended the use of a set form of prayer unto his Church; Thus therefore (saith he) pray ye, Our Father which art in heaven, etc.  
Is not this a set form of prayer? and did not our Saviour deliver it to be used by his Disciples? They tell us, No. For Thus, say they, in this place is not thus to be understood, but for, in this manner, to this effect or sense, or after this pattern; not in these words and syllables. To this I answer; It is true, that this form of prayer is a pattern for us to make other prayers by; but that this only should be the meaning of our Saviour's Thus, and not the rehearsal of the words themselves, I utterly deny; and I prove it out of the eleventh Chapter of S. Luke, where the same prayer is again delivered in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, When you pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven— that is, do it in haec Verba. For what other phrase is there to express such a meaning, if this be not? Besides, in this of S. Luke, the occasion would be considered. It came to pass (saith he) as jesus was praying in a certain place, that when he ceased, one of his Disciples said unto him, Lord teach us to pray, as john also taught his Disciples. From whence it may not improbably be gathered, that this was the custom of the Doctors of Israel, to deliver some certain form of Prayer unto their Disciples, to use, as it were a Badge and Symbolum of their Discipleship; at least john Baptist had done so unto his Disciples; and thereupon our Saviour's Disciples besought him, that he also would give them in like manner some form of his making: that they might also pray with their Master's spirit, as john's Disciples did with theirs. For that either our Saviour's, or john's Disciples knew not how to pray till now, were ridiculous to imagine; they being both of them Jews, who had their certain set hours of prayer, which they constantly observed, as the third, sixth, and ninth. It was therefore a form of prayer of their Masters making, which both john is said to have given his Disciples, and our Saviour's Disciples besought him to give them.  
For the fuller understanding whereof, I must tell you something more, and the rather because it is not commonly taken notice of; and that is, That this delivery of the Lords prayer in S. Luke, is not the same with that related by S. Matthew, but another, at another time, and upon another occasion: That of S. Matthew in that famous Sermon of Christ upon the Mount, whereof it is a part; that of S. Luke upon a special motion of the Disciples at a time when himself had done praying: That of S. Matthew in the second; that of S. Luke in the third year after his Baptism: Consider the Text of both, and you shall find it impossible to bring them into one and the same: whence it follows, that the Disciples, when it was first uttered, understood not that their Master intended it for a form of prayer unto them, but for a pattern or example only, or it may be to instruct them in special, in what manner to ask forgiveness of sins: For if they had thought he had given them a form of prayer then, they would never have asked him for one now; wherefore our Saviour this second time utters himself more expressly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven— Thus their inadvertency becomes our confirmation; For as joseph said to Pharaoh, The dream is doubled unto Pharaoh, because the thing is established by God; so may we say here; The delivery of this prayer was doubled unto the Disciples, that they and we might thereby know the more certainly, that our Saviour intended and commended it for a set form of prayer unto his Church.  
Thus much of that set form of prayer, which our Saviour gave unto his Disciples, as a precedent and warrant to his Church to give the like forms to her Disciples, or members; a thing which from her infancy she used to do. But because her practice is called in question, as not warranted by Scripture, let us see what was the practice of the Church of the old Testament, than whose example and use, we can have no better rule to follow in the New.  
First therefore, we find two set forms of prayer or invocation, appointed by God himself in the Law of Moses: One, the form wherewith the Priests were to bless the people; Num. 6. 23. On this wise, saith he, shall Aaron and his sons bless the children of Israel, saying unto them: The Lord bless thee and keep thee, the Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. Is not this a set form of Prayer? For what is to bless, but to pray over or invocate God for another?  
The second, is the form of profession and prayer to be used by him, who had paid his Tithes every third year, Deut. 26. 13. O Lord God, I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house, and also have given them unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, to the Fatherless and unto the widow, according to all thy commandments, which thou hast commanded me: I have not transgressed thy Commandments, neither have I forgotten them. 14. I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I taken away ought thereof for any unclean use, etc. 15. Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the Land which thou hast given us, as thou swarest to our Fathers, a Land that floweth with Milk and honey.  
But what need we seek thus for scattered Forms, when we have a whole book of them together? The Book of Psalms was the Jewish Liturgy, or the chief part of the vocal service wherewith they worshipped God in the Temple; This is evident by the Titles of the Psalms themselves, which show them to have been commended to the several Quires in the same, to Asaph, to the sons of Korah, to jeduthun, and almost forty of them to the Magister Symphoniae in general. The like we are to conceive of those which have no titles; as for example, of the 105 and 96 Psalms, which, though they have no such Inscription in the Psalme-booke, yet we find 1 Chron. 16. 7. That they were delivered by David into the hands of Asaph and his Brethren for forms to thank the Lord. This a man would think were sufficient to take away all scruple in this point; especially, when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 solve●, and all the reformed Churches, use to sing the same Psalms not only as set forms, but set in Meeter, that is after a humane composure. Are not the Psalms set forms of Confession, of Prayer, and of Praising God? And in case there had been no prayers amongst them, yet what reason could be given, why it should not be as lawful to pray unto God in a set form, as to praise him in such a one? What therefore do they say to this? Why, they tell us, that the Psalms are not sung in the Church unto God, but so rehearsed for instruction of the people only; namely, as the Chapters and Lessons are there read, and no otherwise. But, if either we do, aught, or may sing the Psalms in the Church, with the same end and purpose that the Church of the old Testament did, (and it were absurd to say we might not) this exception will not subsist: for what is more certain, then that the Church of Israel used the Psalms for Forms of praising and invocating God? What mean else those forms, Cantemus Domino, Psallite Domino, and the like so frequent in them? But there are more direct and express testimonies: In the 1 Chron. 25. it is expressly said of Ieduthu● and his so●●es, that their office was, to prophesy with a Harp, to give thanks and to praise the Lord. In the second of Chron. 30. 21. we read, that the Levites and Priests praised the Lord day by day, singing with loud Instruments unto the Lord. And as ye heard even now out of 1 Chron. 16. that David, at the time when he brought up the Ark unto Jerusalem, than first delivered the 105. and 95 Psalms into the hands of A●… and his sons, to confess or give thanks unto the Lord. And lastly, to leave no place for farther doubt, we read Ezra 3. 11. That the Levites the sons of Asaph were set with Cymbals to praise the Lord, after the ordinance of David King of Israel. And that, they sung together by course, in praising & giving thanks unto the Lord, because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever. For this reason, the four and twenty Courses or Quires, into which the singers of the Temple were divided by King David to serve in their turns, consisted each of them of twelve, according to the number of the tribes of Israel; that so every Tribe might have a mouth and voice, to praise and to give thanks unto God for him in the Temple.  
Thus we have seen, what warrant to pray, and call upon God in a set form hath from the practice of the Church of God in the old Testament; And, if reason may have place, in the public service of God, where one is the mouth of many, there is none so proper and convenient. For how can the Minister be said properly to be the mouth of the Congregation in prayer unto God, when the Congregation is not first made acquainted, and privy to what he is to render unto God in their names? which in a voluntary and extemporary Prayer they are not, nor well can be. I am sure neither so properly, nor conveniently, as in a set form, which both they and the whole Church have agreed upon, and offer unto God at the same time, though in several places, in the selfsame form and words: And this may be a second reason; I mean from Uniformity, For how can the Church, being a mystical Body, better testify her unity before God, then in her uniformity in calling upon him? especially our Saviour telling us, that if but two or three shall agree together on earth, as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done unto them of his Father which is in heaven; So prevailable with Almighty God is the power of consent in prayer.  
Let us now, in the last place, see what reasons they bring, who contend altogether for voluntary prayer, and would have no set forms used. First, they say, it is the ordinance of God, that the Church should be edified by the gifts of her Ministers, as well in praying as preaching. Ergo, their prayers should be extemporary or voluntary; because in reading a set form this gift cannot be shown.  
To this I answer: First, that there is not, in this point, the same reason for Prayer, and for Preaching; for in prayer (I mean Public) the Minister is the mouth of the Church unto God, and therefore it were convenient, they should know what he puts up to God, in their names; but in preaching, he is not so. Secondly, Why should not the Pastors and Ministers of the Church, edify the Church by their gift of prayer, as well in composing a set form of prayer for her use by general agreement, as in uttering a voluntary or extemporary prayer in a particular Congregation? Thirdly, Are not the members of the Church to be edified, as well by the Spirit of the Church, as the Church or some part thereof by the Spirit of a member? But how can the Church edify her members by her gift of prayer, otherwise then by a set form agreed upon by her consent? Fourthly, Ostentation of gifts is one thing, but edification by them another. Ostentation of the gift of prayer is indeed best shown in a voluntary or extemporary prayer; but the Church may be edified as well by a set form; Yea, such a form in the public service of God is more edificative, than a voluntary. And that, both because the Congregation is first made acquainted therewith; and secondly, because they are better secured from being engaged in aught that might be unfit to speak unto God, either for matter or manner, or such as they would not have given their consent to, if they had been aware of it. For, now that extraordinary assistance of the Holy Ghost, which was in the Primitive and Apostolical times, is long since ceased; And all men, to whom that office belongeth, to speak to God for others, are not at all times discreet and well advised, when they speak to him at will, and extempore, but subject to miscarriage. Lastly, I answer, That the Church is to be edified by the gift of her Ministers in voluntary prayer, loco & tempore, in fit place and upon fit occasions, not in all places, and upon all occasions. And thus much to this objection.  
But they object secondly; that the Spirit ought to be free and unlimited, and that therefore a Book or set form of prayer, which limits the spirit in praying, is not to be tolerated or used.  
To this I answer: it is false, that the acting of the Spirit in one Christian, may not be limited or regulated by the Spirit of another; especially, the spirit of a particular man in the public worship, by the spirit of the Church, whereof he is a member. For doth not the Apostle tell us, 1 Cor. 14. that even that extraordinary spirit of Prophecy, usual in his time, might be limited by the spirit of another Prophet? Let the Prophets, saith he, speak two or three, and let the other judge: If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. Is not this a limiting? He gives a reason: For the spirits of the Prophets, saith he, are subject to the Prophets. Besides, are not the spirits of the people, as well limited and determined by a voluntary prayer, when they join therein with their Minister, as they are by a set form? True; the spirit of the Minister is then free; but theirs is not so, but tied and led by the spirit of the Minister, as much as if he used a set form. But to elude this, they tell us, that the Question is not of limiting the spirit of the people, but of the Minister only; For, as for the people, no more is required of them, but to join with their Minister, and to testify it by saying Amen; but the spirit of the Minister ought to be left free, and not to be limited. But where is this written? that the one may not be limited as well as the other. We heard the Apostle say even now, The spirit of the Prophets, is subject to the Prophets; If in prophesying, why not in praying? And what show of reason can be given, why the spirit of a particular Minister in the public worship of the Church, may not, yea ought not to be limited, and regulated by the spirit of the Church representative, as well as the spirit of a whole Congregation, by the spirit of a particular Minister? For every particular Minister, is as much subordinate to the spirit of the Church representative, as the spirit of the Congregation is to his; So much for this objection.  
There remaineth yet a third, which may be answered in two or three words. No set form of prayer, say they, can serve for all occasions: What then? Yet why may it not be used for all such occasions as it serves for? if any sudden and unexpected occasion happen, for which the Church cannot provide, the spirit of her Ministers is free: Who will forbid them to supply in such a case, that by a voluntary and arbitrary form, which the Church could not provide for in a set form? And this is what I intended to say of this argument.   

THE 
Mat. 6. 9 Luke 11. 2.  SANCTIFICATION OF GOD'S NAME.  MATTH. 6. 9 LUKE 11. 2. 
Sanctificetur nomen tuum.  
Sanctified, or hallowed be thy Name.  
ALthough I make no question, but that which we so often repeat unto Almighty God in our daily prayers, is for the general meaning thereof, by the most of us, in some competent measure understood: Yet because by a more full and distinct explication, the knowledge of some may be improved, and the meditations of others occasioned to a further search: I hope I shall not do amiss, nor be thought to have chosen a theme, either needless, or not so fit for this Auditory; if I shall inquire what that is we pray for, in this first Petition of the prayer our Lord hath taught us, when we desire, That God's Name may be sanctified: For perhaps we shall find more contained therein, then is commonly taken notice of.  
The words are few, and therefore shall need no other Analyse, than what their very number presents unto us, viz. God's Name, and the sanctifying thereof; Sanctificetur Nomen tuum. I will begin first with the last in order, but first in nature, Nomen tuum, God's Name. By which, according to the style of holy Scripture, we are to understand in this place, first of all, God himself, or his sacred Deity, to wit, abstractly expressed, according to the style of eminency and dignity; 〈◊〉. Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Divine Majesty; as we are wont for the King, to say His Majesty, or the King's Majesty, and of other persons of honour and eminency, Their Highness, Their Honour, His Excellency, and the like; So of God His Name, and sometimes with the selfsame meaning, His Glory, as jer. 2. 11. Hath any Nation changed their Gods, which yet are no Gods? but my people have changed their Glory (i. their God) for that which is good for nought. So Psalm 106. 20. of the Calf made in the Wilderness: They changed their Glory into the similitude of an Ox that eateth grass. And S. Paul, Rom. 1. 23. They changed the Glory (i. the Majesty) of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man, etc. Such is the notion; but much more frequent, of God's Name. In a word, Nomen Del, in this kind of use, is nothing else but Divinum Numen. Whence it is, that in Scripture, To call upon the Name of God, To blaspheme the Name of God, To love his Name, To swear by his Name, To build a Temple to his Name, for his Name to dwell there: And in the New Testament, To believe in the Name of the Lord jesus, To call upon the Name of the Lord jesus; these I say, and the like expressions, have no other meaning, then to do these things to the Divine Majesty, to the Lord Jesus, whose is that Name above every Name, where at every knee must bow. Accordingly here, Sanctificetur Nomen tuum, Hallowed be thy Name, is as much as to say, Sanctificetur Numen tuum, Sanctified be thy Divine Majesty.  
Secondly, under the Name of God here to be sanctified or hallowed, understand, besides the Majesty of his Godhead, that also super quod invocatum est Nomen ejus, whereupon his Name is called; or that which is called by his Name, (as we in our Bible's commonly express this phrase of Scripture;) that is, all whatsoever is Gods, or God is the Lord and owner of by a peculiar right; such as are things sacred, whether they be persons, or whether things by distinction so called, or Times, or Places, which have upon them a relation of peculiarness towards God. For such as these are said in Scripture, To have the Name of God called upon them, or To be called by his Name; that is, To be His. Thus we read in Scripture, of an House which had the Name of God upon it, or which was called by his Name, that is, of God's House, (1 Kings 8. 43. jer. 7. 10. etc.) Of a City upon which the Name of God was called or named, to wit, the Holy City, Jerusalem the City of the great King, the Lord of hosts, (jer. 25. 29. Dan. 9 18.) Of an Ark upon which the Name of God the Lord was called (1 Chro. 13. 6. 2 Sam. 6. 2.) that is, the Lords Ark, or the Ark of his Covenant, as it is elsewhere named. Of a people upon which the Name of the Lord was called, or which were called by his Name (Deut. 28. 10. Dan. 9 19 and elsewhere) that is, were his peculiar and holy people; as is said in like manner, and with like meaning of the Church of the New Testament; james 2. 7. Acts 15 17. I represent not these places of Scripture at large, because I know that every ear that is acquainted with Scripture, can bear witness unto them. And for the meaning of this expression of God's Name to be called upon a thing, or a thing to be called by his Name, that it is all one as to say it to be His, (besides the evidence of the matter wherabout it is used) appears by the same phrase used in two other places, of the like relation of men to that which is theirs, as Gen. 48 16. Where jacob blessing Joseph's sons saith The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads, and let my name be called upon them; That is, let them be mine, namely, as Reuben and Simeon are mine, as he saith a little before; for they are words of adoption. Again in the fourth of Esay, where it is said, That seven women should take hold of one man, and say, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let thy Name be called upon us to take away our reproach; That is Do thou own us, or let us be thine, that it may not be a reproach unto us, that we have no husband. The Ancients were wont to set the Names of the Owners upon their houses, and other possessions; wh●ch they called Tituli, Titles: Chrysologus Serm. 145. Sicut dominos praediorum liminibus affixi Tituli proloquuntur. S. Augustine in Psal. 21. Quando potens aliquis invenerit Titulos suos, nun jure rem sibi vendicat, & dicit, Non ponere● titulos meos, nisi res mea esset? Whether this phrase of Scripture, of God's Name to be called or named upon a thing, hath reference unto any such custom, I cannot affirm, but surely the meaning is the same; to wit, that God is the Lord and Proprietar of them. And thus ye have heard what is this Name of God we pray here to be sanctified; to wit, a twofold Name: First, His Name and Majesty which we call upon; Secondly, that also which is called by his Name: The first we may call his Personal, the other his Denominative or participated Name.  
Having learned what Nomen Dei importeth, and so cleared the object of what we pray for, let us next inquire, What that is, which the word Sanctify, or To be sanctified, implieth, being that which our vote witnesseth, aught to be done thereunto. And this I intended for the main and principal Argument of my present Discourse, being a matter not so well traced as the former, and perhaps not altogether freed of obscurity and difficulty to be understood. For our more certain and assured discovery whereof, we will first examine the abstract thereof, Sanctity, & find out the notion of it; namely, what is the ratio formalis, the formal state, or nature of that which the Scripture entitleth in the general, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Holy; not regarding what notion the Greeks or Latins had respect to in their Languages; but what the holy Scripture properly intendeth under that name: For because to be Sanctified can have but these two senses, either To be made holy, or To be used and done unto according to, or as becometh its Holiness; and that the Majesty of God, which is the prime object of this Act, is not capable of the first sense (viz. to be made holy,) but of the second only: if we therefore once rightly understand what is the condition and property of Sanctity, according to the notion of Scripture, we shall not be long ignorant, what it is either for the Name or Majesty of God, or that which is called by his Name to be hallowed or Sanctified, namely, to be done unto according to their Holiness.  
Now R. David Kimchi upon the 56 of Esay, ver. 2 [Blessed is the man that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it] hath these words, The sanctification of the Sabbath (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to separate or distinguish it from other days: because every word of Sanctity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports a thing separated or divided from other things, by way of preeminence or excellency. Thus the Rabbi. And that this which he saith is true, namely, that sanctity consists in discretion and distinction from other things, by way of exaltation and preeminence, may appear by these instances and examples, which I shall now produce out of Scripture.  
And first from that Law touching the holy oil, Exod. 30. 31. where, after the composition thereof described; This (saith the Lord) shall be an holy anointing oil unto me. what is that? it follows, Upon man's flesh shall it not be poured, neither shall ye make any other like it, after the composition thereof. It is Holy, therefore it shall be Holy unto you: that is, As this Oil is Holy and discrete from other Oils, so shall it accordingly by you be used with difference and discrimination: For the Text goes on; Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or putteth any of it upon a stranger, (that is, upon any besides those it was appropriated to) shall be cut off from his people. What else means all this, but that this Oil should be a singular or peculiar Oil, set apart and distinguished from all other Oils, both in its composition and use, and that to be such, was to be Holy or Sacred?  
The like we shall find in the 35. verse of the same Chapter, concerning the Holy perfume there described: Thou shalt make it, saith he, (to wit, with the the ingredients he afore mentioned) a perfume, a confection, after the art of the Apothecary, tempered together, pure and Holy. verse 37. You shall not make to yourselves (i. not for your own use) according to the composition thereof. It shall be unto you holy for the lord ver. 38. Whosoever shall make the like unto it, to smell thereto, shall be cut off from his people.  
But above all others this notion of sanctity or holiness is most expressly intimated and taught us in those divine periphrases or circumlocutions, which the Lord himself more than once makes of an Holy People, as Leu. 20. 24. speaking on this manner; I am the Lord your God which have separated you from other people.— And ye shall be Holy unto me: for I the Lord am Holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine. Mark here, that to separate is to make Holy, and that to be Holy is to be separated from others of the same rank. Again, Deut. 26. 18, 19 The Lord hath avouched thee (to wit, Israel) this day to be his peculiar (or appropriate) people, as he hath promised thee.— And to make thee high above all Nations, which he hath made, in praise, in name, and in honour; namely, that thou mayst be an Holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken. What is this but Rabbi Kimchi's definition almost verbatim? That to be sacred or Holy is to be separated or set apart from other things by way of excellence; or which is all one, To be set in some state of singularity, or appropriatednesse, whereby it is advanced above the common condition of things of the same order. He that will, may compare also two other passages, Deut. 7. 6. & 14. 2. parallels to those I have produced; where to be an holy, and to be a peculiar people, are made one and the same, or the one expounded by the other.  
It may be yet further confirmed by comparing Deut. 19 2, 7. with joshuah 20. 7. For whereas in the former of these places it is said, concerning the Cities of refuge: Thou shalt separate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, three Cities for thee, in the midst of thee: In joshuah, where this commandment is put in execution, we read in stead of separated, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they sanctified three Cities, Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron. Where that the one is equivalent to the other, the Septuagint so well understood, that even in this place of joshuah, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is, Sanctificarunt, they rendered 
* By which they are wont otherwise to render the verb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, separarunt, or discreverunt.  
The same notion of Holiness may be gathered also from the Antithesis, or opposite thereunto, to wit, unholy, or unclean, which the Scripture is wont to express by the name of Common. So S. Peter in his Vision, Acts 10. Lord, saith he, I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For know, because that which is Holy aught to be kept pure and clean, or rather, because cleanness imports a separation from filth, as Holiness doth from common, thence clean and holy, & so also unholy and unclean are used the one for the other: whence 1 Cor. 7. 14. Unclean and Holy are opposed. But to go on; The voice from heaven answers S. Peter in the same language: What God hath cleansed (that is, sanctified) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, account not thou common. So in 1 Mac. Chap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are unclean beasts, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to eat unclean things.  
The like Antithesis of holy and common is to be found Heb. 10. 29. where the Apostle saith of a Believer or Christian that lives an ungodly and wicked life; He hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as a common thing; that is, he hath profaned it. Our translation rendereth it an unholy thing, the opposition thereof to sanctified, witnessing that to be the meaning. Now then, if to be unholy or unclean be to be common, surely it follows by the Law of opposition, that to be holy, is to be separated from the common, and to be singular and appropriate in some manner or other.  
Lastly, it is to be observed, that whereas in the Law given Numbers 6. concerning the Vow of Nazarisme (which signifies separation, of Nazar, to separate) the words, To separate, and separation come very often in 
As the 70. once or twice in this place, and elsewhere sometimes render the same word.  the Text; the vulgar Latin renders for them above ten times, Consecrare, consecratio, sanctificare, and sanctificatio: which shows, that this notion, namely, that Holiness consists in a state of separation, is no new conceit, but such as Antiquity took notice of.  
The nature of Holiness, wherein it consisteth, according to the idiom of Scripture being thus found out and cleared, that which was aimed at in this inquisition, to wit, what the same meaneth by To sanctify, and to be sanctified, will be no hard matter to resolve. For sanctity, and to sanctify being Conjugates, or Denominatives, as Logicians call them, the one openeth the way to the knowledge of the other. If therefore Sanctity or Holiness be a condition of discretion and distinction from other things, as we have showed it to be; then To sanctify must either be to put a thing into that state, which we call, To consecrate; or if it be such already, To use, and do unto it, as becomes the sanctity thereof; that is Habere cum discrine, to put a difference between it and other things by way of excellency, or in a dignifying wise, by appropriating and severing it in the use thereof from things of ordinary and common rank: or, which is all one, To use it singularly, appropriately, and in a word, uncommonly. For not to use it so, it being such, were to abuse it; which the Scripture calls to profane; to sanctify, and to profane being opposites. Whence Ezek. 22. 26. To profane, is expounded by not putting a difference: The Priests (saith the Lord) have violated my Law, and have profaned my holy things, they have put no difference between the holy and profane.  
This to be to sanctify, all the places almost which I have alleged out of the Law, for the notion and nature of sanctity, do apparently proclaim: for the one is so nearly linked to the other, that they could not well be separated. Thus was Israel, God's holy people, to sanctify themselves by a discriminative manner of living, or usance, because the Lord their God had discriminated or separated them from other people. So Leu. 20. 24, 25, etc. I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls, and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. But ye shall be holy unto me; for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.  
After the same manner were the Holy Ointment, and Holy Perfume or Incense to be sanctified by a discriminative, singular, appropriate usance of them, and not to be used as other Ointments and Perfumes: to wit, the one not to be poured upon man's flesh, nor the other used for man's smelling unto; yea none of the like composition to the one or the other, to be made for any profane or common use, upon pain of his being cut off from his people, who should dare to do it. That is, not the particular or Individuum only, but even the whole kind of that composition was to be accounted sacred; otherwise this caution needed not, since for the Individual, all sacred things ought to be appropriate and incommunicable in their use.  
And to this notion it is not altogether improbable, but the Apostle may allude, 1 Cor. 11. 29. when he expresseth the profanation of the Holy Supper in coming to it, and using it as a common banquet, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by not differencing the Lords body; i. not sanctifying it, or using it, as became so holy a thing.  
HITHERTO I have considered the words of my Text apart: but now let us put them again together, and see, how the Name of God ought to be Sanctified, in the manner now specified, both in itself, and in the things which it is called upon; as in the beginning I distinguished. For the better understanding of which, we are to take notice of a twofold Holiness; One original, absolute and essential in God; the other derived or relative in the things which are His, properly (according to the use of the Latin) called Sacr●, Sacred things. Both these have their several and distinct Sanctifications belonging unto them: for whatsoever is Holy, aught to be sanctified, according to the condition and proportion of the Holiness it hath.  
To speak of them distinctly; The first, original or absolute Holiness is nothing else, but the incommunicable eminency of the divine Majesty, exalted above all, and divided from all other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Eminences whatsoever. For that which a man takes to be, and makes account of, as his God, (whether it be such indeed, or by him fancied only) he ascribes unto it, in so doing, a condition of eminency, above, and distinct from all other eminencies whatsoever, that is of Holiness. Hence it comes, that we find the LORD the God of Israel, and the only true God, in Scripture so often styled Sanctus Israelis, The Holy One of Israel, that is, Israel's most eminent and incommunicable one, or which is all one, His God: as namely Psal. 89. 18. The Lord is our defence, the HOLY ONE of Israel is our King. Esay 17. 7. At that day shall a man look unto his MAKER, and his eyes shall have respect to the HOLY ONE of israel. Habak. 1. 12. Art not thou from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine HOLY ONE? Agreeably whereunto the Lord is said also now and then, To swear by his HOLINESS, that is, by himself: as in the Psalm before alleged v. 35. Once have I sworn by my HOLINESS, that I will not lie unto David, etc. Amos 4. 2. The Lord God hath sworn by his HOLINESS, that lo, the days shall come upon you that he will take you away with ●ooks, etc. According to this sense I suppose also that of Amos 8. 7. is to be understood: The LORD hath sworn by the Excellency 
See Es●y 24. 14. Micah 4. 3.  of jacob, (that is, jacob's most eminent and incommunicable One, or by Jacob's HOLY ONE) Surely I will never forget any of their works, etc. For indeed the Gods of the Nations were not properly and truly Holy, because but partially and respectively only; Forasmuchas the Divine eminency, which they were supposed to have, was, even in the opinion of those who worshipped them, common to others with them, and so not discriminated from, nor exalted above all. But the God of Israel was simply and absolutely such, both in himself and to them ward who worshipped him, as who might acknowledge no other; and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by way of distinction from all other Gods called Sanctus Israelis, The Holy One of Israel; i. That sole, absolute, and only incommunicable One, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as the Author of the Book of Wisdom calls him chap. 14. v. 21.) that God exalted above all, and divided from all, without pareil, there being no other such besides him. There is none Holy as the Lord (saith Hannah) for there is none besides thee, [The Septuagint, none Holy besides thee] neither is there any ROC● like our God. Wherefore it 
1. S●m. 2. 2  is to be observed, that although the Scripture every where vouchsafes the Gentiles Daemons the name of Gods, yet it never, I think, calls them Holy Ones, as indeed they were not. Thus you see that as Holiness in general imports a state of eminency and separation, so this of God, as I have described it, disagrees not from that general notion, when I affirm it to consist in a state of peerless or incommunicable Majesty: for that which is such, includes both the one and the other. But would you understand it yet better? Apply it then to his attributes whereby he is known unto us, and know that The Lord is Holy, is as much to say. He is a Majesty of peerless Power, of peerless Wisdom, of peerless Goodness, and so of the rest. Such a one is our God, and such is his Holiness.  
Now then to Sanctify this peerless Name or Majesty of his, must be by doing unto him according to that which his Holiness challengeth in respect of the double importance thereof: namely, To serve and glorify him; because of his eminency; and to do it with a singular, separate and incommunicated worship, because He is Holy. Not to do the former is Irreligion and Atheism, as not to acknowledge God to be the chief and Sovereign eminency: not to observe the second is Idolatry. For as the Lord our God is a singular and peerless Majesty, distinguished from, and exalted above all things and eminencies else whatsoever; so must his worship be singular, incommunicable and proper to him alone. Otherwise (saith joshuah to the people) You cannot serve the Lord. Why? For (saith he) He is an Holy God: he is a jealous God (that can endure no corrival,) he will not forgive 
josh. 24. 19  your transgressions nor your sins, if ye forsake the Lord and serve strange gods, etc.  
Whence in Scripture, those who communicate the worship given unto him with any besides him, or together with him, by way of Object, that is, whether immediately, or but mediately, are deemed to deny his incomparable Sanctity, and therefore said to profane his Holy Name: See Ezek. 20. 39 43. 7, 8.  
In a word, all that whole immediate Duty and service, which we owe unto God, whether inward or outward, contained under the name of Divine worship, (when either we confess, praise, pray unto; call upon or swear by his Name) yea all the worship both of men and Angels, is nothing else but to acknowledge in thought, word, and work this peerless pre-eminence of his power, of his wisdom, of his goodness and other attributes, that is, His Holiness; by ascribing and giving unto him that which we give and ascribe to none besides him, that is, To sanctify his most Holy Name: This is that the Holy Ghost would teach us, when describing how the Seraphims worship and glorify God, ●sa. 6. he brings them in crying one unto another Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory; that is, Sanctifying him. From whence is derived that which we repeat every day in the Hymn: To thee all Angels cry aloud, the heavens and all the powers therein; To thee Cherubin and S●raphim continually do cry. Ho lie, Holy, Holy Lord God of Sabaoth; Heaven and earth are full of the Majesty of thy Glory.  
And because the pattern of God's holy worship is not to be taken from earth, but from heaven; the same Spirit therefore in the Apocalypse expresseth the worship of God in the new Testament with the same form of hallowing or holying his Name which the heavenly Host useth. For so the 4. Animalia representing the 
Apoc. 4.  Catholic Church of Christ in the four quarters of the world, are said when they give glory, honour and thanks to him that sitteth upon the throne and liveth for ever and ever, to do it by singing day and night this Trisagium; Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come: that is, the sum of all that they did was but to agnize his Sanctity or Holiness, or which is all one, to Sanctify his holy Name. When therefore the same 4. Animalia are afterwards brought in chanting; Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, riches, wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing And again; Blessing, honour, glory and power be unto him that sitteth upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever: all is to be understood, as comprehended within this general Doxology, as being but an exemplification thereof; and therefore the Eulogies or blazons 
As Gen. 31. 42, 43. Psal. 76. 11. So the Chaldee uses their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and more than once ●enders I A H the name of God by it  mentioned therein to be taken, according to the style of Holiness, in an exclusive sense, of such prerogatives as are peculiar to God alone.  
And according to this notion of sanctifying God's name which I contend for, would the Lord have his Name Sanctified Esa. 8. 13. when he saith; Fear ye not their Fear; (that is, the Idolaters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gods; for so Fear here signifies, to wit, the thing feared) neither dread ye it: But Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself, and let him be your Fear, and let him be your Dread; that is, your God. Again chap. 29. 23. They shall sanctify my Name, (saith he) even Sanctify the holy One of jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel. The latter words show the meaning of the former.  
The like we have in the first Epist. of S. Peter ch. 3. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 OBON 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i. Gentilium) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Fear ye not their Fear, nor be in dread thereof, that is, Fear not nor dread ye the gods of the Gentiles which persecute you) but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, that is, Fear and worship him with your whole hearts. For that this passage (howsoever we are wont to expound it) ought to be construed in the same sense with that of Esay 8. before alleged, and the words to be rendered suitably; I take it to be apparent for this reason, because they are verbatim taken from thence, as he that shall compare the Greek words of S. Peter with the Septuagint in that place of Esay, will be forced to confess.  
Besides this evident and express use of the word Sanctify, in the notion of religious and holy worship and fear of the Divine Majesty; there is yet another expression sometimes used in holy Scripture, which implieth the selfsame thing: that namely, to worship God with that which we call holy and divine worship, is all one with to agnize his holiness, or to sanctify his Name. Those speeches I mean, wherein we are exhorted to worship the Lord, because he is Holy. As Psal. 99 5. Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at his footstool, for he is holy. Again, in the end of the Psalm: Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at his holy hill, for the Lord our God is holy. The same meaning is yet more emphatically expressed by those that sing the song of victory over the Beast, Apoc. 15. Great (say they) and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty, just and true are thy ways, thou King of Nations. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy Name? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
* So Editio Complu. Andrea's, & exempl. 15.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (for that I believe is the true reading, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for thou only art Holy; therefore all the Nations shall come and worship before thee: i. they shall relinquish their Idols and plurality of Gods, and worship thee as God only. For this was the Doctrine both of Moses in the Old Testament, and of Christ Jesus the Lamb of God in the New; That one God only, that made the heaven and the earth, was to be acknowledged and worshipped, and with an incommunicable worship: In respect whereof, as I take it, these Victors are there said to sing the Song of Moses, & the Lamb; that is, a gratulatory Song of the worship of one God; After that his 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●●ra.  Ordinances were made manifest. For otherwise the Ditty is borrowed from the 86. Psalms, the 8, 9, & 10. verses, where we read, Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord, neither are there any works like unto thy works. All Nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, and shall glorify thy Name. For thou art great, and dost wondrous works: Thou art God alone; that is, Thou only art Holy. Compare jer. 10. ver. 6, 7.  
I have one thing more to add, before I finish this part of my Discourse, lest I might leave unsatisfied that which may perhaps seem to some to weaken this my explication of the sanctification of God's Name. For the word, to sanctify, or be sanctified, is sometimes used of God in a more general sense than that I have hitherto specified, namely, as signifying any way to be glorified, or to glorify; as when he saith, He will be sanctified in the destruction of his enemies, or in the deliverance of his people, and that before the Heathen, and the like; that is, he would purchase him glory, or be glorified thereby. I answer, it is true, that to be sanctified is in these passages, to be glorified; but yet always to be glorified as God, and not otherwise. Namely, when God by the works of his power, of his mercy, or justice extorts from men the confession of his great and holy Godhead; he is then said to sanctify, or make himself to be sanctified amongst them; that is, to be glorified and honoured by their conviction and acknowledgement of his power and Godhead. For although men may be also said to glorify, or purchase honour unto themselves, when by their noble acts they make their abilities and worth known unto the world: yet, for such respect, to be said to be sanctified, is peculiar unto him alone, whose Glory is his Holiness; i. unto God.  
THUS we have learned how the Name or Majesty of God is to be sanctified personally, or in itself; which is the chiefest thing we pray for, and aught so to be in our endeavour; namely, to worship and glorify him incommunicably, according to his most eminent & unparallelled Holiness: and so, O Lord, Hallowed be thy Name. But there is another sanctification or hallowing of God's Name yet behind, which must be joined therewith; which is, To sanctify him also in the things which have his Name upon them; that is, be separate and dedicate to his service, or in a word, which are His, namely, by a peculiar relation. For otherwise it is true: The whole earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof, the World and those that dwell therein. But there are some things his, not as other things are, and so as they are no longer ours, such as according to the style of Scripture (as I have already noted) are said, to be called by his Name, or to have his Name called upon them. These are things sacred. Therefore I told you before of a twofold sanctity or Holiness: The one original, absolute, and essential in God: the other derived, or relative in that which is set apart to be in a peculiar and appropriate manner His. For whatsoever belongeth unto him in this manner, is divided from other things with preeminence, whether they be things or persons which are so separated. For in such separation we showed the nature of sanctity in general to consist. Now as the Divine Majesty itself is separate and holy, so know, it is a part of that honour we owe unto his most Sacred Name, that the things whereby, and wherewith he is served, should not be promiscuous and common, but appropriate and set apart to that sacred end. It is an honour which in some degree of resemblance we afford unto Kings, Princes, and other persons of dignity, (of infinite less eminency than God is) to interdict the use of that to others, which they are wont to use; sometimes the whole kind, sometimes the individual only. As we know in former times, to wear purple, to subscribe with the Ink called Encaustum, of a purple colour, and other the like, which the diligent may find, were appropriate to the use of Kings and Emperors only. In the Book of the Kings, we read of the King's Mule, so appropriate to his use, as to ride upon him was to be made King, 1 Kings 1. 33, 34. In the Book of Esther, Chap. 6. v. 8. of the Horse that King Ahasuerus used to ride upon, put in the same rank with the Crown and royal apparel, which none but the King might wear. And of individual Utensils thus appropriated, and as it were dedicated to the alone use of persons of eminency, our own times want not examples. Whence natural instinct may seem to prompt unto us, that such appropriation is a testimony of honour and respect. Sure I am, that Almighty God hath revealed it to be a part of that honour we owe unto him. Thus all the Utensils of the Tabernacle and Temple were sacred and set apart to that use; and not the Utensils of the Altar only, but even the instruments of music, which David ordained to praise the Lord with in the Temple, were not common, but consecrated unto God for that end, whence they are called, 1 Chron. 16. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instrumenta musica Dei, The musical instruments of God; that is, sacred ones: And 2 Chron. 7. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The musical Instruments of the LORD. Agreeably whereunto those who sung the fore-alledged song of victory over the Beast, are said to have had in their hands, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The harps of God, that is, not profane or common, but sacred Harps, 
Apoc. 15.  the Harps of the Temple, for there they sung this their Anthem, standing upon the great Laver or Sea of glass which was therein.  
Nay, our blessed Saviour, Mark 11. would not suffer a profane or common vessel to be so much as carried through his Father's House, accounting it as great a profanation, as to buy and sell there. And yet was not this abuse (which is a thing well to be marked) within those Septs of the Temple, which the Jews accounted sacred, but in the outmost. Court called Atrium gentium & immandorum, the place in which together with such as were unclean, the Gentiles, and uncircumcised were admitted to pray; as that of the Prophet cited by our Saviour, rightly rendered, intimates, My house shall be called a house of prayer, to (or for) ALL NATIONS. Consider Esay 56. 6, 7. This Court therefore the Jews made no other account of, then as of a profane place; but our Saviour proved by Scripture, that this Gentiles Oratory was also part of his Father's house, and accordingly not to be profaned with common use. Lastly, there was never any age of the Christian Church (till of late) wherein it was not commonly believed, that God was to be honoured by such appropriation or consecration as we speak of; that is, that God's Name was in this manner to be sanctified. But are there any (will you say) now that deny it? Yes, there are some in our age so far carried away into a contrary extreme to that they fly from, that they hold that no oblation or consecration of things unto God, by the devotion of men, in the New Testament, whether of Utensils, goods, times, or places, aught to be esteemed lawful; but that all distinction between sacred and profane in external things, by virtue of such consecration (excepting only the Sacraments) is flat superstition: Yet to him that seriously considers it, it cannot choose, me thinks, but seem strange and absurd to affirm, (as this assertion doth) that men now in the time of the Gospel, are exempted and freed from agnizing God to be Lord of the creature, by giving some part thereof unto him; than which no part of Divine Worship is more natural, and which hath been used by mankind ever since the beginning of the world. Yea, in the state of Paradise, among all the trees in the Garden, which God gave man freely to enjoy, one tree was Noli me tangere, and reserved to God as holy, in token he was Lord of the Garden. So that the first sin of Mankind, for the species of the fact, was Sacrilege, in profaning that which God had made holy.  
They say, It is true, that in the Old Testament, this way of honouring and acknowledging God was warranted by the Divine Law: but in the New we find no precept given concerning it nor confirmation of that which was before. Now God is not to be worshipped with any worship, but what he hath himself prescribed in his Word. I answer, What though there be no particular precept in the New Testament for this, no more then for divers other duties, which a Christian is bound to; yet if a general warrant be, the particular needs not. But our Saviour saith in his Gospel, in that evangelical Sermon he preached upon the Mount, That he came not to dissolve the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfil or perfect them. Think not (saith he) that I am come to dissolve the Law and the Prophets [that is, to take away the obligation of that rule of the duty of man to God and his neighbour, given first by Moses in the Law, and afterwards repeated and inculcated by the Prophets; for so Prophets are here to be 
According as in that Mat. ●2. 40. On these two Commandments [viz To love God above all, & our neighbour as ourselves] hang all the Law & the Prophets; and in that Luk. 16. 29 They have Moses and the Prophets.  understood, and not of predictions] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ but to fulfil them, that is, to supply, accomplish, or perfect those rules and doctrines of just and unjust contained in them, by a more ample interpretation, and other improvement befitting the state of the Gospel. For surely, this must be the meaning of this speech of our Saviour, if we be more willing (as we should) to take a sense from Scripture, then to bring one to it. Doth not the whole context following evince it? Indeed the Law, that is, the Legal Covenant, or Covenant of works (as Law is oft taken in the New Testament) together with all the rites depending thereon, is dissolved by the coming of Christ; and a better Covenant with new rites established in stead thereof: But the Law, that is, the Doctrine and Rule of life given by God contradistinct from those ordinances, which were only appendages of that Covenant, (though these were also in some sense perfected by bringing the truth and substance, in stead of the figure and shadow thereof) is not disannulled, but confirmed and perfected by him, in such manner as became the condition of the Covenant of the Gospel. For that this confirmation is not to be restrained to the Decalogue only, is manifest; because our Saviour in the following words, insists upon other precepts besides it. If it be said, they are reducible thereto; this will not serve the turn, for so are all the rest of God's Commandments. Unless therefore it can be shown, that to honour God by an oblation of his creature, is no part of the Law here confirmed by our Saviour: Let no man be so daringly bold, as to exempt himself and others from the obligation thereof; unless he means to be one of them of whom our Saviour speaks immediately, saying, Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these Commandments, and shall teach men so to do, (mark it) he shall be called (i. he shall be) the least in the Kingdom of heaven. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i loose, or dis-binde, as he doth, both that abrogates, and that observes it not; much more, he that affirmeth it unlawful to be observed.  
Nay how dare we disbind or lose ourselves from the tie of that way of agnizing and honouring God, which the Christian Church from her first beginnings durst not do? Irenaeus, witness of that age which next succeeded the Apostles, is plain. Lib. 4. c. 34 Offer oportet Deo (saith he) primitias creaturae ejus; sicut & Moses ait, Non apparebis vacuus ante conspectum Domini Dei tui.— Et non genus oblationum reprobatum est: oblationes enim & illic, (sc. in V. T.) oblationes autem & hic; sacrificia in populo, sacrificia & in Ecclesia: sed species immutata est tantum; quip cum jam non à servis, sed à liberis offeratur. Vnus enim & idem Dominus; proprium autem character servilis oblationis, & proprium liberorum, uti & per oblationes ostendatur indicium libertatis.— It behoveth us (saith he) to offer unto God a present of his creature; as also Moses saith, Thou shalt not appear before the Lord thy God empty.— For offerings in the general are not reprobated: there were offerings there, (viz. in the Old Test.) there are also offerings here in the Church: but the specification only is changed; For as much as offerings now are not made by bond, but free men. For there is one and the same Lord still; but there is a proper character of a bond or servile offering, and a proper character of freemens; that so even the Offerings may show forth the tokens of freedom.— Now where in Scripture he believed this doctrine and practice to be grounded, he lets us know in the XXVII. chap. of the same Book: Et quia Dominus naturalia legis, per quae homo justificatur, (quae etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant, qui fide justificabantur, & placebant Deo) non dissolvit, sed extendit, sed & implevit, ex sermonibus ejus ostenditur. i. That our Lord dissolved not, but enlarged and perfected the natural precepts of the Law, whereby a man is just, which also before the Law was given they observed, who were justified by faith and pleased God, is evident by his words. Then he citys some of the passages of that his Sermon upon the Mount Mat. V. 20. etc. And a little after adds: Necesse fuit auferre quidem vincula servitutis, quibus jam homo assueverat, & sine vinculis sequi Deum, superextendi verò decreta libertatis, & augeri subjectionem quae est ad Regem, ut non retrorsus quis renitens indignus appareat ei qui se liberavit.— Et propter hoc Dominus, pro eo quod est, Non moechaberis, nec concupiscere praecepit; & pro eo quod est, Non occides, neque irasci quidem; & pro eo quod est Decimare, omnia quae sunt pauperibus dividere. i. It was needful, that those bonds of servitude, which man had before been enured to, should be taken off, that so he might without Gives follow God: but that the laws and ordinances of freedom should be extended, and his subjection to the King increased, lest that drawing backward he might appear unworthy of him that freed him.— And for this reason, our Lord in stead of, Thou shalt not commit adultery, commands not so much as to lust: in stead of, Thou shalt not kill, not so much as to be angry: in stead of to tithe, to distribute all we have to the poor, etc. All which saith he, in the same place, are not solventis legem, sed adimplentis, & extendentis & dilatantis, not of one that dissolves the Law, but fulfils, extends and enlarges it: alluding still to that in our Saviour's Sermon upon the Mount.  
Besides, those who are acquainted with Antiquity can tell, that the Primitive Christians understood the holy Eucharist, to be, A commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ's death upon the cross, in an oblation of bread and wine. 'tis witnessed by the Fathers of those first ages generally. Whereupon the same Irenaeus also affirmeth, That our Saviour by the institution of the Eucharist had confirmed oblations in the new Testament. Namely, to thanksgive or bless a thing in way to a sacred use, he took to be an offering of it unto God. And was not David's Benediction and thanksgiving at the preparation for the Temple an Offertory? Where note well that as he, upon that occasion, blessed the Lord, saying: Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, the power and the glory— all that is in heaven and earth is thine, thine is the Kingdom— Both riches and honour come of thee— Ergo, because all things come of thee, of thine own have we given thee. So do Christ's redeemed in their evangelical Song, Ap●●. 5. ascribe no less unto him, saying, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive Power, and Riches, and Wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and ●…g. Yea, the 24. Elders, which are the Christian Presbytery, expressing (ch. 4. ult.) the very argument and sum of that Hymnology which the Primitive Church used at the offering of bread and wine for the Eucharist, worship God, saying: Thou art worthy, O Lord▪ to receive glory, and honour, and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are, and were created.  
TAKING therefore for granted, that which the practice of the Church of God in all ages; yea, I think, I may say the consent of mankind from the beginning of the world, beareth witness to; that among those duties of the Sanctification of God's Name, wherewith his Divine Majesty is immediately and personally glorified (of which I have before spoken) this is one, and a principal one; to agnize and confess his peerless Sovereignty and dominion over the creature, by yielding him some part thereof toward his worship and service, of which we renounce the propriety ourselves; and that accordingly there are both things and persons now in the Gospel (as well as were before the Law was given) in this manner lawfully and acceptably set apart and separated, by the devotion of men, unto the Divine Majesty, and consequently relatively Holy (which is nothing else, but to be Gods by a peculiar right:) I say, that these are likewise to be done unto according to their degree of sanctity, in honour of him, whose they are: Not to be worshipped with divine worship, or the worship which we give unto God, communicated to them, (far be it from us, to defer to any creature the honour due unto the Divine Majesty, either together with him, or without him;) but yet Habenda cum discrimine, To be regarded with a worthy and discriminative usance, that is, used with a select, and differing respect from other things: as namely, if Places, not as other places; if Times, not as other times; if Things by way of distinction so called, not as other things; if Persons set apart unto the service and worship of God, neither to be used by others, nor they to carry themselves in their fashion of life, as other persons, (for that which in other things sacred is their use; in persons sacred is their conversation, demeanour or carriage of themselves) but all to be sanctified with a select, appropriate, or uncommon usage; that as they are Gods by peculiar relation, and have his Name called upon them, so to be separate, as far as they are capable, from common use, and employed as instruments and circumstances of his worship and service: which is the highest and most singular honour that any creature is capable of. Nay, (as I have said before) even this is to the honour of God, that as himself is that singular, incommunicable, and absolutely Holy One, and his service and worship therefore incommunicable: so should that also which hath his Name thereon, or is consecrated to his service, be in some proportion incommunicably used, and not promiscuously and commonly as other things are. They are the words of Maymonides the Jew, but such as will not misbecome a Christian to make use of, concerning that Law, Levit. V. 15. If a soul commit a trespass; and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the LORD: then he shall bring unto the Lord for his trespass, a Ram, etc. Behold, saith he, how great weight there is in the Law, touching sacrilegious transgression And what though they be wood, and stone, and dust and ashes? when the Name of the Lord of all the world is called upon things, they are sanctified (i. made holy.) And who so useth them to common use, he transgresseth therein; and though he do it through ignorance, he must needs bring his atonement. Yea, it is a thing worthy to be taken special notice of, that, that so presumptuous, and most dreadfully vindicated sin of Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and their company, in offering incense unto the Lord being not called thereunto, did not discharge their Censers of this discriminative respect due unto things Sacred. For thus the Lord said unto Moses, after that fire from heaven had consumed them for their impiety: Speak unto Eleazar the Son of Aaron the Priest, that he take up the Censers out of the burning, and scatter thou the fire yonder, for they are hallowed: The Censers of these Sinners against their own souls, let them make of them broad plates for a covering of the Altar: for they offered them before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed, or holy. Num. 16. 37, 38.  
Now that by this discriminative usance or sanctification of things sacred, the Name of God is honoured and sanctified, according to the tenor of our petition; is apparent, not only from reason, which tells us that the honour and respect had unto aught that belongs unto another, because it is his, redounds unto the owner and Master; but from Scripture, which tells us, that by the contrary use of them, his name is profaned. Hear himself, Leu. XXII. 2. Speak unto Aaron, (saith he) and his Sons; that they separate themselves from the Holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my Holy Name in the things which they hollow unto me. Also in the Chapter next before, v. 6. The Priest that should not discriminate himself according to those singular observations, or differing rules there prescribed, is said, To profane the Name of his God. Again, Ezek. XXII. 26. When the Priests profaned Gods holy things, by putting no difference between the Holy and Profane: I (saith the Lord) am profaned amongst them. Likewise Chap. XLIII. ver. 7. together with other abominations there mentioned, the Lord saith, that his Holy Name had been polluted, or profaned, by the carcases of their Kings, that is, of Manasse and Amon buried in the King's Garden hard by the walls of the Temple: for so by the Hebrews, and others that place is understood. See 2 Kings XXI. ver. 18, 26. by the pollution of the Temple, the Lord esteemed his own Name profaned. Take in also if you will, that of Malachi Cham 1. where the Lord says of those, who despised and dishonoured his Table, or Altar by offering thereon for sacrifice, the lame, the blind, and sick, which the Law had made unclean and polluted, that they had profaned his Holy Name. But if the Name of God be profaned by the disesteem and misusage of the things it is called upon, then surely it is sanctified, when the same are worthily and discriminatively used, that is, as becometh the relation they have to him.  
I have already specified the several kinds of Sacred things which are thus to be sanctified: yet lest something contained under some of them might not be taken notice of, by so general an intimation, it will not be amiss a little more fully and particularly to explicate them, than I have yet done. Remember therefore that I ranged all sacred things under four heads. 1. Of Persons Sacred; such as were the Priests and Levites in the Old Testament, and now in the New, the Christian Clergy, or Clerus; so called from the beginning of Christian Antiquity, either because they are the Lords 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Portion, which the Church dedicateth unto him out of herself, (namely, as the 
Num. X. 11  Levites were an offering of the Children of Israel, which they offered unto him out of their Tribes,) or because their inheritance and livelihood is the Lords portion. I prefer the first; yet either of both will give their Order the title of Holiness, as doth also more especially their descent which they derive from the Apostles; that is, from those, for whom their Lord and Master prayed unto his Father, saying, Father, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Sanctify 
Joh. 17. 17, 18, 19  them unto, or for thy Truth: thy Word is Truth; that is, Separate them unto the Ministry of thy Truth, the word of thy Gospel, which is the truth and verification of the promises of God. It follows, As thou hast sent me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world, (this is the key which unlocks the meaning of that before and after.) And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they might be sanctified for thy Truth; that is, And for as much as they cannot be consecrated to such an Office, without some sacrifice, to atone and purify them; therefore for their consecration to this holy function of ministration of the new Covenant, I offer myself a Sacrifice unto thee for them, in lieu of those legal and typical ones, wherewith Aaron and his sons first, and then the whole Tribe of Levi were consecrated unto thy service in the old. An Ellipsis of the first Substantive in Scripture is frequent. So here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Truth, for the Ministry of Truth.  
Now that the Christian Church (for of the Jewish I shall need say nothing) hath always taken it for granted, that those of her Clergy ought, according to the separation and sanctity of their Order, to be distinguished, and differenced from other Christians, both passively in their usance from others, but especially actively, by a restrained conversation, and peculiarness in their manner of life, is manifest by her ancient Canons and Discipline. Yea, so deeply hath it been rooted in the minds of men, that the Order of Churchmen binds them to some differing kind of conversation and form of life from the Laity; that even those who are not willing to admit of the like discrimination due in other things, have still in their opinions some relic thereof remaining in this, though perhaps not altogether to be acquitted of that imputation, which Tert●llian charged upon some in his time, to wit, Quod quum excellimur & inflamur 
De Monog●●i●. ca 2.  adversus Clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes Sacerdotes; quia Sacerdotes nos Deo & Patri fecit. Quum ad per equationem Disciplin● Sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas, & impares sumus. When we vaunt, and are puffed up against the Clergy, than we are all one, than we are all Priests; For he made us Priests to God and his Father. But when we are called upon, to equal in our lives the example of Priestly Discipline, than down go our Mitres, and we are another sort of men.  
Another sort of things sacred, which I named, was Sacred PLACES, to wit, Churches, and Oratory's, as the Christian name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, implieth them to be, that is, The Lords. A third, Sacred - Times. i. dedicated and appointed for the solemn celebration of the worship of God, and Divine duties: such are with us, (for those of the Jews concern us not) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, our Lords days, with other our Christian Festivals, and holy days. Of the manner of the discrimination from common, or sanctifying both the one and the other, by actions some commanded, others interdicted to be done in them, the Canons and Constitutions of our Church will both inform, and direct us. For holy Times and holy Places are Twins (Time and Place being, as I may so speak, pair-circumstances of action) and therefore Leu. XIX. 30. And again XXVI. 2. they are joined together, tanquam ejusdem ration●s: Keep my Sabbaths and reverence my Sanctuary.  
The fourth sort of Sacred things is of such as are neither Persons, Times, nor Places, but Things in a special sense, by way of distinction from them. And this sort containeth under it many particulars, which may be specified after this manner.  
1. Sacred Revenue of what kind soever: which in regard of the dedication thereof, as it must not be profaned by sacrilegious alienation, so ought to be sanctified by a different use and employment from other Goods; namely such a one as becometh that which is the Lords, and not man's. For that Primitive Christian Antiquity so esteemed them, appears by their calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as they did their Place of Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and their Holy day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; all of the Lord, as it were, Christening the old notion of Sacred, by a new name. So Can. Ap●stol. XL. Manifestae sint Episcopi res propriae (si quidem res habet proprias) & manifesta sint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. res Dominicae— Author Constitut. Apost. lib. 2. c. 28. al. 24. Episcopus ne utatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dominicis rebus, tanquam alienis aut communibus, sed moderate. See also Balsamon in Can. 15. Concilii Ancyrani, and the Canon itself.  
Secondly, Sacred Utensils, as the Lords Table, Vessels of ministration, the Books of God, or Holy Scripture, and the like. Which that the Church, even in her better times, respected with an holy and discriminative usance, may be learned from the Story of that calumnious crimination, devised by the Arrian Faction against Athanasius, as a charge of no small impiety; namely, that in his Visitation of the Tract of Mareotis, Macarius, one of his Presbyters, by his command, or instinct, had entered into a Church of the Miletian Schismatics, and there broken the Chalice, or Communion Cup, thrown down the Table, and burned some of the Holy Books. All which argues, that in the general opinion of Christians of that time, such acts were esteemed profane and impious; otherwise they could never have hoped (as they did) to have blasted the reputation of the holy Bishop by such a slander.  
Touching the Books of God, or holy Scripture, (which I referred to this title) especially those which are for the public service of God in the Church, I add this further; That under that name I would have comprehended the senses, words and phrases appropriated to the expression of Divine and Sacred things; which a Religious ●are cannot endure to hear abused with profane and scurrilous application.  
Thirdly, under this fourth head of things Sacred I comprehend Sacred Acts; such as are the Acts of God's holy worship and administration of his Sacraments. For albeit these Acts are duties of the first and personal Sanctification of God's Name, whereof the immediate object is God; yet are the Acts themselves sacred things, and therefore have some sanctification due to them also, as other sacred things have: of which, although it be most true, that the unfeigned devotion of the heart (as before him who alone knoweth the hearts of the children of men) be the main and principal requisite; yet unless even in the outward performance, they be, for the manner and circumstances, discriminated from common acts, by a select accommodation befitting their holiness, their sanctification is defective, and by such defect, if voluntary, God's Name is profaned, even then when we are worshipping him. How much more, when our carriage therein cometh short even of that wont reverence, wherewith we come before an earthly Potentate? May not God here justly use the same expostulation with us, that he did with those in the Prophet Malachi, who presented themselves before him with such an offering, as was in regard of the blemishes unworthy of, and unbefitting so great a Majesty, and therefore to be accounted rather an affront then an act of honour and worship? Ye have, saith he, despised and profaned my Name— Offer it now unto thy Governor: will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person?— yet I am a 
Malac. c. 1. v. 6, 8, 12, 14.  great King, saith the Lord of hosts. And this is the document or lesson, which this place naturally and avoidable ministereth to us; That to come before the Divine Majesty, with less reverend and regardful deportment, than we do before earthly Kings and potentates, is to despise and profane his holy Name. And not that, which some would shelter under this text, and lean too much upon; namely, That the acts of Gods external worship ought to be wholly conform to the use of the semblable actions performed unto men, and not differ from them: and upon this ground charge the Christian Liturgies with absurdity in their forms of praying, and praising God with responsals, singing by turns, and speaking many together. For this principle is directly repugnant to the nature of Sanctification, which consists in discrimination and difference. And therefore, though the material of our gestures and other expressions vocal or visible, be borrowed from the use and custom of men; yet for the formality of them, not only they may, but aught to be differenced from them. Moreover, touching this reproof of the Prophet; take notice that it is grounded upon the Law, Levit. XXII. where we are taught, that when that is not observed concerning the Rites of God's service which the sanctity of them requireth, as in other particulars, so in this of a not defective or unblemished offering, his Name is thereby profaned. See v. 32. with the rest of the chapter foregoing it. And if so, then by the contrary it is sanctified.  
Lastly, Unto this head of sacred Acts I reduce Oaths and sacred Covenants, that is, such as are made either with God, or between men; Gods Name being called upon, which therefore 1 Sam. 20. 8. are styled Covenants of the Lord: For that the observance due touching both is a sanctifying of them, as things upon which the Name of the Lord is called, is apparent; forasmuch as when they are violated by falsehood, they are said to be profaned, as Levit. 19 12. Psal. 55. 20. Ier●m. 34. 15.  
Thus together with my explication of these several sorts of sacred things, I have briefly and in general pointed at that also wherein the proper sanctification of each consisteth, which though far short of such a tractation as the matter requireth: yet if it may serve but to give occasion only to others who are better able, to bend their thoughts upon this argument (which perhaps the times call for) I shall fully attain the end I aimed at. For mine own part, to descend to particulars would be a task too high for me, and as I suspect, not very acceptable. For it is ten to one (if the grounds I have laid be true) but that the most of us would be found faulty in some things, and some of us in all. Well, the sum of my argumentation hath been this: Is there any thing in the New Test. Gods by a peculiar right? To say there is not, is absurd and against the perpetual tradition of Christianity. If there be, than it is holy; if holy, then to be sanctified; if sanctified, then to be discriminated in the usance and respect thereof, from that which is of common condition.  
NOW out of this discourse, which I have hitherto made, you may see and take notice, That (contrary to the vulgar opinion) the Prohibition of Idolatry and the discriminative observance of things sacred; not to profane them by a promiscuous and common use; are derived both of them from one and same principle, sc. God's Incommunicablenesse, which derives a shadow and resemblance upon the things which have his Name called upon them, to wit, a state of appropriatnesse and singularity. Wherefore the Apostle, Rom. 2. not without good reason, compares together the transgressions of the one and the other kind, as parallel sins, or sins of affinity: Thou that hat'st Idols (saith he) dost thou commit Sacrilege? Where by Sacrilege understand not only the usurpation of things sacred, but the violation of that which is sacred, in general: And it is as if he had said, thou hast mended the matter well indeed, for still thou dashest against the same principle. For it is one of the exemplifications of that he saith in the beginning of the Chapter: He that judgeth or condemneth another, and doth the same, or the like himself, is inexcusable. By this it appears how much they are mistaken, who under pretence of avoiding Idolatry and superstition, cannot endure that any distinction should be made between things sacred and common. Is not this to unhallow Gods Name one way, that so we might not profane it another? Far be it from me to be a patron of idolatry or superstition in the least degree: yet I am afraid, lest we who have reform the worship of God from that pollution (and blessed be his name therefore,) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. Basil speaks, that is, by bending the crooked stick too much the other way, have run too far into the contrary extreme, and taken away (some of us) all difference in a manner between Sacred and profane; and by this our transgression in doing God's work, made ourselves liable to that upbraid of the Apostle; Tu qui idola abominaris sacrilegium (i. sacrarum ●●rum profanationem) admittis? Thou that abhorrest Idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? that is, profanest thou God's Name by violating that which is sacred?  
Let no man think it strange or incredible, that such an enormity should be committed, or an occasion at least given thereof, in the manage of so holy and glorious a work: seeing the experience of all ages sufficiently witnesseth, how prone the nature of man is, in flying one extreme, to run too far towards the other. Why then should we think it unlikely, or rather not think it very likely, that we also may have miscarried in the same manner? unless we will arrogate unto ourselves that privilege of infallibility, and freedom from error, which we condemn as intolerable presumption in our Adversaries.  
Besides, it is to be taken notice of, because of the prejudicated misprision of many to the contrary; That the measure of truth and falsehood, best and worst, is not the greater or lesser distance from Popery, (forasmuch as Popery also containeth much of Christianity) nor that which is most destructive of the man of sin, always most warrantable and safe to be embraced. If it were, there be some in the world, (whose religion we would be loath to admit of) that would be found more orthodox and better reformed Christians than any of us all.  
Nay, give me leave, without offence, for the better awakening of some out of their deafness to whatsoever else may be said to this purpose, to propound such a Demand as this: Who knoweth, whether this transgression I speak of, be not a main and principal ingredient of that guilt, which the Divine Majesty admonisheth us to take notice of, in this his so long and so severe visitatioh of our neighbours and brethren? whether he doth not visibly, or, if some passages be considered, almost vocally, upbraid them; Thou that hatest Idols dost thou commit Sacrilege? I know right well, that rashly to assign the particular causes of God's judgements, without rule or precedent of Scripture, is a sin of presumption, and a bold intrusion into God's secrets; and therefore I affirm not, but demand only, whether there be not here some cause which may minister such a suspicion. But whatsoever it be, the compassion of their woeful affliction calls upon me rather to pray for them, then to follow this harsh and unpleasant passage any further. Only thus much, If that which the Apostle saith in particular of the things which befell the Israelites, God's first people, in the Wilderness; These things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come: If this be to be extended also unto those punishments and their analogy, which befell them afterwards: then may perhaps two things further not un●easonably be enquired into. First, for what other sins, it is remembered in Scripture, that God gave his people, during that his first Covenant (especially after they came to dwell in their own Land) under the sword of an external enemy, or his worship thereby at any time to be trodden under foot; besides these two, Idolatry, and Profanation of that which was holy, or Sacrilege? Examples of the first who knows not? of the second, see the Story of Achan, josh. the seven. of Elies' sons, 1 Sam. Chap. II. the punishment of the Sacrilege of the seventh, or sabbatical year, (2 Chron. XXXVI. and the parallel places) for by the Law every seventh year, not only the whole Land, but all servants and debts were holy unto the Lord, and therefore to be released, Levit. 25. 2, 4. Deut. 15. Exodus 21. Secondly, What was that Transgression, after the return from Babylon, mentioned in that Prophecy of Antiochus Epiphanes, Dan. 8. 12. for which it is there foretold, that An host should be given him against the daily Sacrifice, and that it should cast down the truth unto the ground, and practise and prosper? Perhaps the Story in the 2, 3, & 4. Chap. of the second Book of Maccabees will tell us.  
To that which is commonly alleged, That such distinction and reverend regard of things Sacred, as we contend for, opens a way for Idolatry: I answer, No otherwise, than the eschewing of Idolatry, may also, through the perverseness of men, be made a bridge to profaneness, that is, by accident, not from it own towardness, but our distemper. Otherwise this Discrimination or distinction, if we would understand or heed the ground thereof, prompts the clean contrary; for we should reason thus: If the things which are Gods, ●o nomine, in that name, and because they are His, are therefore to be held segregate in their use; then surely God himself, who is the Fountain of Holiness, aught to have a prerogative of segregation in the most eminent and absolute manner; namely, such an one, as that the worship due unto him must not be communicated with any thing else besides him. And indeed, unless both be done, God's Name is neither fully, nor rightly sanctified.  
AND here I should now make an end, but that there is one thing yet behind of principal consequence, which I have deferred hitherto, because I could not elsewhere bring it in conveniently without somewhat disturbing the coherence of my discourse. There is an eminent species, or kind of Sanctification which I may seem all this while to have neglected, for as much as it seemeth not to be comprehended under this notion of discretion and separation, wherein I place the nature of Holiness, and that is Sanctification, or Holiness of life. To which i answer, That all notions of Sanctity and Sanctification in Scripture are derived from discretion and separation, and that this now mentioned is likewise derived thence. For it is to be reduced to the Sanctification of Persons Sacred, and set apart unto God. By which, though in the strict and proper sense, are intended only Priests, and such as minister about Holy things, yet in a larger sense, and, as it were, by way of resemblance, the whole body of the People of God are a Royal Priesthood, and 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Symb. Apost.  Holy Nation, which the Almighty hath selected unto himself, out of the rest of the world, and set apart to serve him in a peculiar and different manner, from the rest of men: For you have heard it is a requisite of that which is Holy, to be used in a peculiar and singular manner, and not as things common. Hence it is, that the observation of that peculiar and different from of life, which God hath commanded those, whom he hath called, and set apart from the world unto himself, in Scripture carries the name of Holiness, or Sanctity, (especially in the New Testament) that is, such as becometh those that are Holy unto God; According to that, Be ye Holy, as I am Holy.  
And here, I might have a large discourse, to show how the Name of God is sanctified by the lives of his Children, when they conform not themselves to the fashions of the world, but as the Apostle speaks, are crucified thereto, and keep themselves unspotted from the pollutions and vanities thereof. But this I leave, to be supplied by your meditations according to the general intimation given thereof.   
ACTS 17. 4. 
Acts 17. 4.  There associated themselves to Paul and Silas of the worshipping Greeks a great multitude. 
PAul and Silas preaching in the Jewish Synagogue at Thessalonica, & proving out of the Scriptures, that Me●siah, or Christ, was to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, and that jesus was that Christ, it is said, That some of them which heard, believed; and that there associated themselves to them a great multitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the worshipping Greeks. Of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is elsewhere mention in the Acts of the Apostles more than once; But what they were, our Commentators do not fully inform us; Nor can it be understood, without some delibation of Jewish Antiquity. The explication whereof will give some light not to this passage only, but to the whole Story of the Primitive Conversion of the Gentiles to the Faith, recorded in that Book.  
We must know therefore, that of those Gentiles, which embraced the worship of the God of Israel, (commonly termed Proselytes) there were two sorts: One of such as were circumcised, and took upon them the observation of the whole Law of Moses. These were accounted as Jews, (to wit, facti, non nati) bound to the like observances with them, conversed with, as freely, as if they had been so born; neither might the one eat, drink, or keep company with a Gentile, more than the other, le●t they became unclean. They worshipped in the same Court of the Temple, where the Israelites did, whither others might not come. They were partakers with them in all things, both divine and humane; In a word, they differed nothing from Jews, but only that they were of Gentile race.  
This kind the Jewish Doctors call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Proselyti ●●stiti●, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Proselyti f●d●ris, namely, because they took upon them the sign thereof, Circumcision. In the New Testament they are called simply, Proselytes, without addition. Of which Order was Vriah the Hittite, Achior, in the Book of judith, Herod the Idumaean, Onkelos the Ch●ld●● Paraphrast, and many others both before and in our Saviour's time.  
But besides these there was a second kind of Gentiles, admitted likewise to the worship of the true God, the God of Israel, and the hope of the life to come; which were not circumcised, nor conformed themselves to the Mosaical rites, and ordinances; but were only tied to the observation of those precepts, which the Hebrew Doctors call the precepts of the sons of Noah; namely, such as all the sons of Noah were bound to observe.  
These precepts are in number seven, recorded in the 
a Gemata Sanhedrin, in Perek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Talmud, 
b Maiem. Hal. Melachim. c. 9 vide Shick. de jure Regio Hebraeoru p. 128, 129  Maymonides and others, under these following titles. First, the precept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to renounce Idols, and all Idolatrous worship. Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to worship the true God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Thirdly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bloodshed; to wit, to commit no murder. Fourthly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, detectio nuditatum, not to be defiled with fornication, incest, or other unlawful conjunction. Fiftly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rapina, against theft and robbery. Sixtly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concerning administration of Justice: The seventh, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Membrum de vivo, so they call the Precept, of not eating the flesh with the blood in it, given to Noah, when he came out of the Ark; as Maymonides expressly expounds it, and adds besides. Quicunque haec septem praecepta exequenda susceperit, ecce is est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ex piis gentium mundi, habetque partem in seculo futuro. Note that he saith [ex piis Gentium,] for this kind were still esteemed Gentiles, and so called, because of their uncircumcision; in respect whereof (though no Idolaters) they were, according 
Act. 10. 28. 11. 3.  to the Law, unclean, and such as no Jew might converse with; wherefore they came not to worship into the Sacred Courts of the Temple, whither the Jews, and circumcised Proselytes came; but only into the outmost Court, called Atrium Gentium & immundorum, which, in the second Temple, surrounded the second, or great Court, whereinto the Israelites came, being divided therefrom by a low wall of stone made battlement-wise, not above three Cubits high, called (saith josephus, from whom I have it) in the Hebrew Dialect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Lorica, close by which 
De Billo Judaico lib. 6. ca 6. Graec. 1.  stood certain little pillars, whereon was written in Latin and Greek Letters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In atrium sanctum transire alienigenam non debere; And this I make no question, is that which Saint Paul, Ephes. 2. alluded unto, when he saith, That Christ had broken down the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the partitionwall, (namely, that Lorica, which separated the Court of the Gentiles from that of the Circumcision) and so laying both Courts into one, hath made the Jews and Gentiles Intercommoners; whereby those that were sometime far off, were now made nigh, and as near as the other, unto the Throne of God. But in Solomon's Temple, this Court of the Gentiles seems not to have been, but in the second Temple only; the Gentiles formerly worshipping without at the door, and not coming within the Septs of the Temple at all. This second kind of Proselytes, the Talmudists call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Proselyti portae, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Proselyti inquilini; because they were under the same condition, with those Gentile strangers which lived as inquilini in the land of Israel. For all Gentiles dwelling within the Gates of Israel, whether they were as servants, taken in war, or otherwise, were bound to renounce 
vid. Leu. 17.  their false Gods, and to worship the God of Israel; but not to be circumcised, unless they would, nor farther bound to keep the Law of Moses, then was contained in those precepts of the sons of Noah. These are those mentioned (as often elsewhere in the Law, so) in the fourth Commandment by the name of the Stranger within thy gates; whereby it might seem probable, that the observation of the Sabbath day (so far as concerneth one day in seven) was included in some one or other of those precepts of the sons of Noah; namely, in that, of worshipping for their God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and no other; whereof this consecration of a seventh day, after six day's labour, was a badge or livery; according to that, The sabbath is a sign between me and you, that I jehovah am your God; because in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: vide Exod. 31. 16, 17. Ezek. 20. 20. From the example of these inquilini, all other Gentiles, wheresoever living, admitted to the worship of the God of Israel upon the same terms, were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Proselyti Portae, or Proselyti inquilini; of which sort there were many in all Cities and places of the Gentiles, where the Jews had Synagogues; and used to frequent the Synagogues with them, (though in a distinct place) to hear the Law and the Prophets read and expounded.  
But in the New Testament they are found called by another name, to wit of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Worshippers, so often mentioned (though not observed) in the Acts of the Apostles. For first, these are those meant in that of the Acts 17. 4. alleged at my entrance into this discourse, where it is said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a great number of the worshipping Greeks believed, and adhered to Paul and Silas; which the Vulgar rightly translateth, de colentibus Gentilibus multitudo magna, taking the name of Greeks, here, as elsewhere in the New Testament, to be put for Gentiles in general. And this place will admit of no evasion: For that they were Gentiles, the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betokeneth expressly, being given them by way of distinction from the Jews, then and there present also. That they were worshippers of the true God, the God of Israel, their coming into the Synagogue, their name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their capableness of S. Paul's discourse, (which was to prove out of the Scriptures, that Messiah was to suffer death, and that jesus was he) argues sufficiently; yea, abundantly. For who could have profited by such a Sermon as this, but those who already had knowledge of the true God, and believed the reward of the life to come? This place therefore, may serve as a key to all the rest of the places in this Book, where these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are mentioned.  
To that in the same Chapter, ver. 17. where it is said, that Saint Paul in the Synagogue at Athens, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disputed with the jews and the worshippers.  
To that Acts 16. 14. where Saint Paul preaching the Gospel in the Jews Proseucha, or Oratory at Philippi, a woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the City Thyatira, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A proselyte worshipper, was converted unto the faith, and baptised with all her household.  
In the like manner, to Acts 18. 4. when S. Paul is said at Corinth, to have reasoned in the Synagogues every Sabbath, and to have persuaded the Jews and the Greeks: For these Greeks were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what did they in the Synagogues else so regularly every Sabbath day? True, the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here wanting; But it presently follows, when the Jews opposed Paul, (there testifying Jesus to be Christ) and blasphemed; that he shook his raiment, and said, Your blood be on your own heads: From henceforth I will go to the Gentiles. And he departed thence, saith the text, and entered into the house of one justus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Gentile-worshipper, whose house joined hard to the Synagogue.  
But above all, that narration Acts 13. deserves our consideration and attention: There ver. 43. it is said, that Saint Paul having preached the Gospel in the Jews Synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia, there followed him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, many of the Jews and worshipping Proselytes; and vers. 42. That when the Jews were gone out of the Synagogue, the Gentiles, that is, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, besought the Apostles, that the same things might be preached unto them the next Sabbath; which being accordingly done, and many of the other Gentiles (who were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) upon the same of such a new Doctrine, unwontedly assembling with them, it is said, that the jews when they saw the multitude, were filled with envy, contradicted and blasphemed. That then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said; It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken unto you, but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life; Lo, we turn to the Gentiles; as the Lord saith, I have set thee to be a light to the Gentiles, etc. 48. That when the Gentiles heard this they were glad, and glorified the word of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who were already in procinctu, and in the posture to eternal life. The Jews blasphemed; the rest of the Gentiles were uncapable; only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (who were already Candidati vitae aeternae, having been instructed in the worship of the true God, and hoping for the reward to come) they believed: Yet perhaps not all of them neither, (the words require not 
* For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the sense then but indefinite.  so much) but that none but such: And it follows, that the Jews found out some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, worshipping women, such as were of fashion (who yet perhaps had not been at the Apostles Sermon) by whose means they stirred up the chief men in the City, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas. This I take to be the true and genuine meaning of this passage, upon which no charge of Pelagianism can be fastened; nor needeth it any spinous Criticisms for its explication. The use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the acie & collocatione Militum, de ascriptione in ordinem vel classem, (in which signification the passive is most frequent) is well enough known: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Xenophon: In cam classem me ascribo. Plutarch, in Solone; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In pauperum ordinem se redigit, inter pauperes se numerat: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dicuntur milites, unde & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellantur: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, est in numerum virorum ascribi. Compare the 1 Cor. 16. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. According to which sense and notion, the words might be rendered, Crediderunt, quotquot nomina suae dederant vitae aeternae, or, [per Ellipsin Participii] Qui de agmine & class fuerant sperantium, vel contendentium ad vitam aeternam: otherwise, Qui in procinctussabant ad vitam aeternam: or most fitly, (sensu modò militari) Quotquot ordinati fuer ant ad vitam aeternam. De re tota judicent viri docti, & à studio partium alieni.  
Besides, it will not be impertinent, as a Mantissa to these quotations for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to note that the same persons are otherwise (namely, twice) characterised by the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As first of Cornelius, concerning whom there is no question but he was a Gentile worshipper: The Text saith, There was a man in Caesarea, called Cornelius, a Centurion of the Italian Band, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Again in that 13. of the Acts (whereon we have dwelled so long) S. Paul speaking at first to that mixed multitude assembled in the Synagogue, consisting partly of Jews, and partly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he compellates them, verse 16. both distinctly in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the former, meaning the Jews; by the latter, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Gentile worshippers.  
Of this kind of Converts (as I have in part already intimated) were in our Saviour and his Apostles time, very many in every Nation and City, where the Jews lived and had their Synagogues; yea, far more in number, then of that other sort of Proselytes which were circumcised. The reason being, because it was the more easy condition, and not so prejudicial to their outward liberty, as the other; in as much, as they might notwithstanding still live, and converse with their friends, kindred, and Countrymen, bear office and enjoy honours among them, (as Naaman the Syrian did, who was of this kind) which the other might not do.  
These impediments being out of the way, the hope of the Resurrection from the dead, and the reward of the life to come, were powerful inducements to draw many to the worship of that God, who only among the Gods 
* For since then, the Devil hath been God's Ape.  at that time, promised this reward to such as worshipped and served him, and no other, which was the bait wherewith the Jews alured them, and that to their own no small emolument; this kind, as it were to recompense their want of Circumcision, seeming to be very bountiful towards their Nation, as may be gathered both from Cornelius, who is said to have given much alms to the people, (namely of the Jews;) And the Story of that Centurion, Luke 7. whom the Jews besought our Saviour so instantly for, alleging that he loved their Nation, and had built them a Synagogue, and therefore deserved that favour they sued for, on his behalf.  
Now, out of this discourse (besides the clearing of the passages aforementioned,) we may learn two things: One, how so many of the Gentiles, by the preaching of the Apostles, could so soon and so readily be converted to the faith of Christ. It was because they had already embraced the principles which led thereunto. For we are to take notice, that the foundation of the Church among the Gentiles, was laid of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who had already embraced the worship of the true God, had knowledge of his promises, believed and hoped for the life to come. For was not S. Peter (to whom the instructions for this Embassage were first given) sent first to Cornelius a Centurion, a Gentile, the first of this order? wherefore? but that this might be for a pattern for them, with what kind of men they were first to deal in this great work; namely, with such as were idonei Auditores Euangelii; those which were puri puti Gentiles, being not so; as who knew nothing of the principles requisite thereto. This will appear, if we consider well the tenor of the Apostles Sermons, to such Gentiles as they converted; which we shall observe to presuppose that they already knew the true God, and the promise of eternal life, to such as worshipped him, and so had no more to learn, but the way and means now revealed by God, for attainment thereof, which was by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  
The other thing we may learn, is, what was the true state of the Question, which the Apostles met to decide in the Council at Jerusalem; whether the Gentiles which believed in Christ, were to be circumcised or not, and so bound to keep the whole Law? It was this, to resolve (that, whereas all such as embraced the worship of the God of Israel, conformed to one of these two kinds of Proselytes) to whether of them the Gentiles, which had or should receive the Gospel of Christ, were to conform themselves, whether to the Proselytes of the Covenant, or to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Proselytes of the Gate. Saint Peter standing up in the Council, demonstrates it to be the will of God, that they should conform to the latter, and not to the first; and that upon this ground; because that Cornelius, the first Christened Gentile, unto whom himself was sent by Divine Commission, was no circumcised Proselyte, but a Proselyte of the Gate, or a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only; yet received he no Commission to circumcise him: Yea, the holy Ghost, as he was Preaching, fell upon him and his household, being uncircumcised, as it did upon those of the Circumcision: whereby it appeared, that God would have the rest of the Gentiles, which embraced the faith, to be after the pattern of Cornelius; and to have no more imposed upon them, than He had. And accordingly the Council defines, That no other burden should be laid upon them, but only to abstain from pollution of Idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication: and as some copies 
* Together with Irenaeus twice, Lib. 3. cap. 12. Cyprian. 〈◊〉 Lib. 3. Tistimon. in sine.  have, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To do as they would be done to; that is, they should as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, observe the praecepta Filiorum Nohae, which here [by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] are briefly reckoned up.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
2 PETER 2. 4. 
2 Pet. 2. 4.  
For if God spared not the Angels which sinned, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉]— but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgement, etc. so we translate it:  
To which of S. Peter, answers that of S. jude, (as almost that whole Epistle doth to this) verse 6. And the Angels which kept not their first estate, [or principality] but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgement of the great Day.  
THese two places are brought to prove, that the Devils or evil spirits, are now in Hell, before the day of Judgement: Which I cannot see how it can possibly stand with the rest of the Scripture, which testifies every where that they have their mansion in the Air, and here about the earth, where they tempt, seduce, and do all the mischief they can to mankind; hence their Chieftain Satan is styled, The Prince of the power of the Air, that is, of the airy Dominion or Princedom. Therefore hither they were with their Prince exiled from Heaven, and no further, nor shall be until the Day of Judgement. And of this I shall speak at this time: First, to clear these Texts which seem to make for the contrary; Secondly, to inquire what was the opinion of the Ancients about this point.  
As for this place of S. Peter, and that imitation thereof in the Epistle of jude, I can believe the translation of neither: Piscator (not conceiving how that of S. jude (especially because of the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] eternal) could be reconciled with other Scripture, and experience, which shows us that the Evil spirits are not yet bound with eternal chains, having so much liberty of gadding about) supplies in the Text vinciendos, as if there were an Ellipsis, reading it thus, judicio magni illius Diei vinculis aeternis (vinciendo) reseruâsse.  
In that of S. Peter, if I understand him, he takes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not for Dativus instrumenti, with chains of darkness, but as Dativus acquisitionis, for chains of darkness; and construes it with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if it were, He delivered them for chains of darkness; namely, supposing a trajection of the words.  
But for my part I take both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Peter, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. jude, to be neither of them Dativus instrumenti, but both Acquisitionis, or Finis, and governed the one of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the other of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— As in the Hebrew, the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, serves for the proposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and for the Dative Case, whose propriety the style of the Greek Testament every where imitates, and why not in this? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Nay, among the Greek Grammarians we find observed, that the Dative Case is sometimes put for the Accusative with the proposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As in this example, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much more in the sacred Greek, which so frequently imitates the Hebrew Construction.  
Next for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Peter, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so not bound by any use or example to the signification we here give it, to wit, throwing down to hell. I would therefore render it, ad poenas tartareas damnavit, to wit, thus, Angelos qui peccaverunt, cum ad tartari supplicium damnasset, catenis caliginis servandos tradidit ad Diem judicii. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as S. jude hath it: So also Mat. 12. 24. The Queen of the South shall rise in judgement with this Generation, (that is) in, or at the Day of Judgement: Or I would render it, not casting down to hell, but casting down to hell ward: So the meaning in both places will be, That the wicked Angels were cast down from heaven, to this lower orb, there to be reserved for chains of darkness at the Day of Judgement: which sense the ninth verse in this Chapter of Peter, plainly intimates by way of reddition; Novit Dominus pios in tentatione eripere, as he did Noah and Lot, Injustos verò in diem judicii cruciandos servare, as he doth the wicked Angels. Moreover verse 17. where the same hellish darkness is spoken of, it is said, to be reserved for the wicked, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to whom that hideous darkness is reserved for ever; whence it is probable, that S. Peter in the foregoing passage of Angels, referred also those chains of darkness, to reserving, and not to delivering; that is, not that the evil Angels were now already delivered to chains of darkness, but reserved for them at the day of Judgement.  
And thus much for clearing of the words of these two parallel Texts; now what hath been anciently the current opinion of this point? And first, for the Jews, it is apparent to have been a tradition of theirs, that all the space between the earth and the firmament, is full of troops of Evil spirits, and their Chieftains, having their residence in the air; which, I make no doubt S. Paul had respect to, when he calls Satan the Prince of the power of the air. Drusius quotes two Authors, one the Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Munus novum; another, one of the Commentators upon Pirke Aboth, who speak in this manner, Debet homo scire & intelligere, à terra usque ad firmamentum omnia plena esse turmis, & praefectis, & infra plurimas esse Creaturas laedentes & accusantes, omnesque stare & volare in aere, neque à terra usque ad firmamentum locum esse vacuum: sed omnia plena esse praepositis, quorum alii ad pacem, alii ad bellum, alii ad bonum, alii ad mulam, ad vitam & ad mortem incitant. By praepositi, I suppose, he means such among the Spirits as are set as Wardens over several charges, for the managing of the affairs of mankind subject to their powers. This was the opinion of the jews; which they seem to have learned by tradition from their ancient Prophets: For in the Old Testament we find no such thing written, and yet we see S. Paul seems to approve it.  
Now for the Doctors of the Christian Church, S. Hierome upon the sixth of the Ephesians, tells us, that their opinion was the same; 'tis the opinion of all the Doctors, (saith he) that Devils have their mansion and residence in the space between the heaven and the earth. And that the Fathers of the first 300 or 400 years, nor did, nor could, hold the evil Angels to have been cast into Hell upon their sin, is evident by a singular Tenet of theirs. For justn Martyr, one of the most ancient, hath this saying; that Satan before the coming of Christ never durst blaspheme God, and that (saith he) because till then he knew not he should be damned. The same is approved by Irenaeus in his fifth Book and twentysixt Chapter; Praeclarè (saith he) dixit justinus, quod ante Domini adventum Satanas nunquam ausus est blasphemare Deum, quip nondum sciens suam damnationem; Post adventum autem Domini, ex sermonibus Christi & Apostolorum ejus, discens manifestè quoniam ignis aeternus ei praeparatus sit,— per hujusmodi homines (he means those Heretics who blasphemed the God of the Law) blasphemat eum Deum, qui judicium importat. Eusebius 4. Hist. Cap. 17. citys the same out of both, with approbation: So doth Oecumenius upon the last Chap. of the first of S. Peter. Epiphanius against Heresy 39 gives the same as his own assertion, almost in the same words with justin and Irenaeus, though not naming them; Ante Christi adventum (saith he) nunquam ausus est Diabolus in Dominum suum blasphemum aliquod verbum loqui, aut contra elationem cogitare: expectavit enim Christi adventum— put avitque se misericordiam aliquam assecuturum esse. I will not inquire how true this Tenet of theirs is, but only gather this, that they could not think the Devils were cast into Hell, before the coming of Christ. For then how could they but have known they should be damned, if the execution had already been done upon them?  
Saint Augustine, as may seem, intending to reconcile these places of Peter and jude with the rest of Scripture, is alleged to affirm, that the Devils suffering some hell-like torment in their airy Mansion; the Air may in that respect in an improper sense be called Hell. But that the Devils were locally or actually in Hell, or should be before the day of Judgement, it is plain he held not; and that will appear by these two passages in his Book de Civitate Dei. First, where he saith, Daemons in hoc quidem aere habitant, quia de Coeli superioris sublimitate dejecti merito irregressibilis transgressionis in hoc sibi congruo velut carcere, praedamnati sunt. Lib. 8. Cap. 22. The other where he expounds that of the Devils 
* Videatur etiam Origen. in Numer. c. 22. Non vult Deus Daemonum genus ante tempus damnare; Sciunt enim & ipsi Daemons, quia tepus eorum praesens hoc seculum continet: Propterea & Dominum rogabant, ut non torqueret eos ante tempus, etc. Et ob hoc neque Diabolum removit à principatu hujus seculi, etc.  Mat. 8. Art thou come to torment us before the time, (that is, saith he) ante tempus judicii, quo aeternâ damnatione puniendi sunt, cum omnibus etiam hominibus qui eorum societate detinentur. Lib. eodem Cap. 23. in fine.  
The Divines of later times, the Schoolmen and others, to reconcile the supposed Contrariety in Scripture, divide the matter; holding some Devils to be in the Air, (as Saint Paul and the History of Scripture tells us,) some to be already in Hell, (as they thought, Saint Peter and S. jude affirmed:) which opinion seems to be occasioned by a Quaere of Saint Hieroms, upon the sixth of the Ephesians; though he speaks but obscurely, and defines nothing. But what ground of Scripture, or reason can be given, why all the Devils, which sinned, should not be in the same condition? especially Satan, the worst and chief of them, should not be in the worst estate, but enjoy the greatest liberty? It follows therefore that these places of Saint Peter and Saint jude, are to be construed according to the sense I have given of them; namely, that the evil Spirits, which sinned, being adjudged to hellish torments, were cast out of Heaven into this lower Region, there to be reserved, as in a prison, for chains of darkness at the Day of Judgement.   
1 COR. 4. 1. 
1 Cor. 4. 1.  Let a man so account of us, as of the Ministers [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God. 
A Man would think at first sight, that this Scripture did exceedingly warrant our use of the word Minister, in stead of that of Priest, and leave no plea for them who had rather speak otherwise. Howsoever I intent, at this time, to show the contrary, (and even out of this text) that we have very much swarved herein from the Apostles language, and abuse that word to such a sense, as they never intended; nor is any where found in Scripture; ay fayour neither superstition, nor superstitious men; yet truth is truth, and needful to be known; especially when ignorance thereof breedeth error and uncharitableness. My discourse therefore shall be of the use of the words Priest and Minister, wherein shall appear how truly we are all Ministers in the Apostles sense, and yet how abusively and improperly so called in the ordinary prevailing use of that word: I will begin thus.  
All Ecclesiastical persons or Clergy men may be considered in a threefold relation. First, To God. Secondly, To the People. Thirdly, One toward another. In respect of God, all are Ministers of what degree soever they be; because they do what they do by commission from him, either more or less immediate: for a Minister is he, qui operam suam alicui, ut superlori, aut domino praebet. In respect of the People, all are Bishops, that is, Inspectores, or Overseers; as having charge to look unto them: But lastly, compared one to another, he whom we usually call Bishop is only Overseer of the rest; Inspector totius Cleri. Deacons are only Ministers to the rest; Ministri Presbyterorum & Episcoporum, and in that respect have their name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops are a degree of Presbyters of divine ordinance, to be as Heads, Chiefs, and Precedents of their Brethren: All other Ecclesiastical Ministers, whether in Ecclesia, or Foro Ecclesiastico (I mean whether they attend divine Duties in the Church, or Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical Courts) are all a kind of Deacons, being to the Presbyters, either single or Episcopal, as the Levites were to the Sacerdotes in the Old Testament, namely, to minister unto, or for them.  
These grounds being forelaid and understood, I affirm, first, that Presbyters are by us unnaturally and improperly called Ministers, either of the Church, or of such or such a Parish: we should call them, as my text doth, Ministers of God, or Ministers of Christ, not Ministers of men.  
First; Because they are only God's Ministers who sends them, but the People's Magistri to teach, instruct, and oversee them: Were it not absurd to call the Shepherd, the sheep's Minister? If he be their Minister, they surely are his Masters. And so indeed the People by occasion of this misappellation, think they are ours, and use us accordingly. Indeed we are called Ministers, but never their Ministers, but as you see here, God's Ministers, Christ's Ministers, who employeth us to dispense his Mysteries unto his Church.  
There are three words in the New Testament translated Minister, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first is most frequent; but not one of them is given to the Apostles, in the whole Scripture, with relation to the Church or People; you shall never find them called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is so frequent with us, but Ministers of God; 2 Cor. 6. 4. 1 Thess. 3. 2. Ministers of Christ, as in my text, and 2 Cor. 11. 23. Col. 1. 7. Ministers of jesus Christ. 1 Tim. 4. 6. or Ministers of that which they minister, as Ministers of the New Testament, 2 Cor. 3. 6. Ministers of the Gospel, Eph. 3. 7. Col. 1. 23. but not Ministers of them to whose behoof they minister: Yet might this speech, Minister of the Church, if rightly construed, be admitted; namely, if it be spoken by an Ellipsis, for Minister of God, for, and over the Church; so the Apostle Coloss. 1. 17. A faithful Minister of Christ for you: that is, Christ's Minister, not theirs; yet not for Christ, but for them; But those who use this speech commonly mean otherwise.  
Secondly, Angels are called ministering spirits, but not our Ministers, but God's Ministers to us-ward, or for our behalf: So Ministers of the Gospel, not the People's, or Congregations Ministers, but God's Ministers for their behoof.  
Thirdly, this speech [Minister of the Church, or, of this or that Church] is so much the more incommodious, because it hath begotten (as incommodious and unapt speeches do) an erroneous conceit, not only among the vulgar, but some of better understanding; namely, that a Minister is not lawfully called, unless he be chosen by the People, because he is their Minister, and so to be deputed by them: And indeed if he be their Minister, in proper relation, they are his Masters, and so it is good reason they should appoint him, as Masters do those who are to serve them: But if in proper relation they are Gods Ministers, and not theirs, (though for them) than God is to appoint them, or such as he hath put in place to do it. It is an erroneous opinion, that some maintain, That the power of Sacred Order, and of the Keys, is given by God immediately to the body of the Congregation; and that they depute him who is their Minister, to execute the power which is originally in them; That power is conferred by God immediately to those, who are Bishops and Pastors, and, by and through them, belongs to the whole body, and no otherwise: Sed tantum potuit incommodi sermonis usus.  
Some perhaps object against my whole assertion, that of S. Paul, 2 Cor. 4. 5. We preach not ourselves, but Christ jesus the Lord, (to wit, esse Dominum) and ourselves your servants for jesus sake: If the Apostles were the Church's servants, why not their Ministers? I answer, the Apostle says not, they were the corinthians servants, but that he had made himself so, in his Preaching to them: So he says expressly 1 Cor. 9 19 For though I be free from all men, yet I have made myself a servant to all, that I might gain the more: Yet he confesses the Corinthians began to vilify him for this condescent, 2 Cor. 11. 7. Have I committed an offence in abasing myself, that you might be exalted, because I have preached unto you the Gospel of God freely? This was that wherein he carried himself toward the Corinthians as a Servant, but to other Churches he did not so: It would be a strange assertion, to say the Apostle were the Corinthians Servant, in a proper relation; we know he says, Gal. 1. 10. If I pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ; And Rom. 6. 16. Know ye not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey?  
I come now to a second assertion, which is, that howsoever any Ecclesiastical person may be rightly called a Minister, (so it be in a proper relation to God-ward) yet the word Minister is again most unfitly used by us, for a name of distinction of one Ecclesiastical Order from another: As when we call those which are Presbyters, Ministers, by way of distinction from Deacons; for so we speak Ministers and Deacons, in stead of Priests and Deacons.  
The reason we thus speak, is to avoid the name Priest, which we conceive to signify Sacerdos, that is, one that sacrificeth, such as were those in the Law. But our Curates of holy things in the Gospel, are not to offer Sacrifice, and therefore ought not to be called Sacerdotes, and consequently, not Priests. This is the reason; but if it be well examined, Priest is the English of Presbyter, and not of Sacerdos; there being in our Tongue no word in use for Sacerdos: Priest, which we use for both, being improperly used for a Sacrificer, but naturally expressing a Presbyter; the name whereby the Apostles call both themselves, and those which succeed them in their charge. For who can deny that our word Priest is corrupted of Presbyter? Our Ancestors the Saxons first used Preoster, which by a farther contraction came Pressed, and Priest. The high and low Dutch have Priester, the French Prestre, Italian Prete, but the Spaniard only speaks full Presbytero. But, to come more near the point, our men in using the word Minister, for a distinctive name in stead of Priest, incur four Solecisms: I mean when we use the word Minister not at large, but for a distinction from the Order of Deacons, saying Ministers and Deacons.  
First, we run into that we sought to avoid: For we would avoid to call the Presbyters of the Gospel, by the name of the Sacrificers of the Law; and yet run into it in such sort, that we style those of the Gospel by the legal name, and those of the Law by the evangelical name; the Hebrew calls them of the Law, Cohanim, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifies to minister, and thence comes the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we call those of the Gospel, Cohanim, when we style them Ministers. On the contrary, the Apostles style those of the Gospel, Presbyteri; but we transfer that name to those of the Law, when we call them Priests: This is counterchange;  
Incidit in Scyllam, qui vult vitare Charybdim.  
Secondly, It is a confusion or tautology, to say Ministers and Deacons, that is, Ministers and Ministers: For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in Greek, what Minister is in Latin; both signifying a Minister; as if one should say, Homo and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Dilavium and Cataclysmus, and think so to distinguish things of several natures or conditions.  
Thirdly, We impose upon that Order, a name of a direct contrary notion to what the Apostles gave them: The Apostles gave them a name of Eldership, and Superiority in calling them Presbyteri, we of inferiority, & subordination in calling them Ministri: The Jews had no name more honourable than that of Elders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for so they called their Magistrates: so we read of Elders of the people, and Elders of the Priests and Levites, meaning the chief in both sorts; This honourable name the Apostles gave, as a name of distinction to the evangelical Pastors, whereby they dignified them above those of the Law; whose name in the Hebrew (as I said before) is but a denomination of ministry: And we have rejected the name of Dignity, of Fathership, and Eldership, and assumed in stead thereof, a name of under-service, of subjection, of ministry, to distinguish our order by; I say to distinguish our order; For in a general sense, and with reference to God, we are all his Ministers, and it is an honour unto us so to be, more than to be other men's Masters, as our Apostle in my text intimates.  
Fourthly, in the Churches beyond the Seas, there is a worse Solecism by reason of this misapplied speech. They have a kind of Officers, who are the Pastor's assistants in Discipline, much like to our Churchwardens, these they call Elders, we style them Lay-Elders; These are but a kind of Deacons at the most, and of a new erection too; And yet these are dignified by the name of Elders and Presbyters, who are indeed but Deacons or Ministers; and the Pastor himself is called a Minister, who in the Apostles style is the only Presbyter or Elder. For so they speak, The Minister and his Presbyters, or Elders.  
To conclude, it had been to be wished, that those whom the term of Priest displeased, as that which gave occasion by the long abuse thereof, to fancy a Sacrifice, had rather restored the Apostolical name of Presbyter in the full sound, which would have been as soon, and as easily learned and understood, as Minister; and was no way subject to that supposed inconvenience. But the mis-application of the word Presbyter in some Churches, to an Order the Apostles called not by that name, deprived those thereof, to whom it was properly due. Howsoever when they call us Ministers, let them account of us as the Ministers of Christ, and not of men: Not as deputed by the Congregation to execute a power originally in them, but as Stewards of the mysteries of God.   
S. JOHN 10. 20. 
joh. 10. 20  He hath a Devil, and is mad. 
IT is a matter of greater moment, than perhaps every man thinks of, under what notions things are conceived, and from what property or Character the names we call them by, are derived. For hereby, not seldom, it comes to pass, That the same things, presented to us under different notions, and names derived therefrom, are not taken to be the same they are. Even as he, that meets a man well known unto him, in an exotic disguise, or antic habit, takes him to be some other, though he knew him never so well before. For example; a man would wonder that a Comet, (as we call it) being so remarkable and principal a work of the Divine power, and which draws the eyes of all men with admiration towards it, should no where be found mentioned in the Old Testament: Neither there, where the works of God are so often recounted to magnify him, (when as Hail, Snow, Rain, and jee, works of far less admiration are not pretermitted) neither by way of allusion and figured expression, in the Prophet's predictions of great calamities and changes, whereof they were taken to be presages; especially, when we see them borrow so many other allusions, both from heaven and earth, to paint their descriptions with. Should a man therefore think, there never appeared any of them in those times, or to those Countries? It is incredible: Or that the Jews were so dull and heedless as not to observe them? That is not like neither: What should we say then? Surely, they conceived of them under some other notions than we do, and accordingly expressed them some other way: As what if by a Pillar of fire, such a one perhaps as went before the Israelites in the Wilderness; or by a Pillar of fire and smoke? as in that of joel, I will show wonders in the heavens, and in the earth, Blood, and Fire, and pillars of Smoke: Or by the name of an Angel of the Lord, (whereby no doubt they are guided) according as is said of that Pillar of Fire which went before the Israelites, That the Angel of the Lord, when they were to pass the Red-sea, came and stood between them and the Egyptians, when that Pillar did so. And who knows, whether that in the 104 Psalms; may not have some meaning this way? He ma●eth his Angel's Spirits, (or winds) and his Ministers a Flame of fire, to wit, because they are wont to appear in both. It comes in, in the Psalm, among other works of God, in a fit place for such a sense; both in regard of what goes before, and follows after. These, I say, or some of these may be descriptious of those we call Comets; which because they are disguised under another notion, and not denominated from Stella, or Coma, hence we know them not.  
Now, to come toward my Text; a like instance to this, I take to be that of the Daemoniack, so often mentioned in the Gospel: For I make no question, but that now and then the same befalls other men; whereof I have experience myself, to wit, To marvel how these Daemoniacks should so abound in, and about that Nation, which was the people of God; whereas in other Nations, and their writings, we hear of no such; And that too, as it should seem, about the time of our Saviour's being on earth only; because in the time before, we find no mention of them in Scripture. The wonder is yet the greater, because it seems notwithstanding all this, by the Story of the Gospel, not to have been accounted then by the people of the Jews, any strange or extraordinary thing, but as a matter usual; nor besides is taken notice of by any foreign Story.  
To meet with all these difficulties, (which I see not how otherwise can be easily satisfied) I am persuaded (till I shall hear better reason to the contrary,) that these Daemoniacks were no other than such as we call madmen, and Lunatics; at least, that we comprehend them under those names, and that therefore they both still are, and in all times and places have been, much more frequent than we imagine. The cause of which our mistake, is that disguise of another name, and notion, than we conceive them by; which makes us take them to be divers, which are the same.  
That you may rightly understand this my Assertion, (before I acquaint you with the reasons which induce me thereunto) you must know, that the Masters of Physic tell us of two kinds of Deliration, or alienation of the understanding; One, ex vi morbi, that, namely, which is with or from a Fever, called Delirium, or Phrenitis (the latter being a higher degree than the former;) Another kind sine Febre, when a man, having no other disease, is crazed and disturbed in his wits.  
And this, they say, is either simple dotage, proceeding from some weakness of the brain, or intellective faculty; or Melancholia and Mania, which they describe and distinguish thus: Both of them to be when the understanding is so disturbed, that men imagine, speak, and do things, which are most absurd, and contrary to all reason, sense, and use of men. But their difference to be in this; that melancholia is attended with fear, sadness, silence, retiredness and the like symptoms: Mania with rage, raving, and fury, and actions suitable; which is most properly styled madness. Now then, I say, that those Daemoniacks in the Gospel were such as we call madmen: understand me to mean, not of Deliration ex vi morbi, or of simple dotage, but of these two last kinds, Melancholici and Maniaci; whereunto add morbus Comitialis, or the falling sickness, and whatsoever is properly called Lunacy.  
Such as these, I say, the Jews believed (and so may we) to be troubled and acted with evil Spirits: as it is said of Saul's Melancholy, That an evil Spirit from the Lord troubled him; and therefore, passing by all other causes and Symptoms, they thought fit to give them their Name from this, call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. An occasion of the more frequent use of which expression, in our Saviour's time, and the ages immediately before him, then formerly, had been, or may seem to have been given by the sect of the Sadduces, which, after the time of Hyrcanus, had much prevailed, and affirmed (as S. Luke tells us) that there was no resurrection, neither Angel, nor Spirit. To affront, and cry down whose error, it is like enough the Pharisees, and the rest of the right-beleeving Jews who followed them, affected, to draw their expressions (wheresoever they could) from Angels and Spirits: as presently they did, in the Acts, when Saint Paul awakened their faction in the Council, saying I am a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee, etc. We find no evil, say they, in this man, but if a Spirit or an Angel hath spoken unto him, let us not fight against God.  
Having thus sufficiently stated, and explicated my assertion, now you shall hear what grounds I have for the same: First therefore, I prove it out of the Gospel itself, and that in the first place from this Scripture, which I have chosen for my text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he hath a Devil and is mad. Where I suppose the latter words to be an explication of the former.  
Secondly, I prove it out of Mat. 17. 15. where it is said, There came to our Saviour a certain man kneeling down to him, and saying; Lord have mercy on my son, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he is Lunatic, and sore vexed: For oft times he falleth into the Fire, and oft into the water. That this Lunatic was a Daemoniack, it is evident both out of the 15. ver. of this Chapter, where it is said, Our Saviour rebuked the Devil, and he departed out of him, and the child was cured from that very hour: As also out of the 9 of the Gospel of Saint Luke, where it is said of the selfsame person, Lo, a spirit taketh him, and he cryeth out, and it teareth him, that he foameth again, and bruising him, hardly departeth from him. By comparing of these places, you may gather what kind of men they were, which the Scripture calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Now I come to other Testimonies: And first, take notice, that the Gentiles also had the like apprehension of their madmen; whence they called them Larvati, and Cerriti, where Larvati is as much as Larvis, id est, Daemonibus acti: so Festus, Larvati, saith he, furiosi & ment moti, quasi Larvis exterriti. And for Cerriti, they were so called, quasi Cereriti, hoc est, à Cerere percussi. And therefore you may remember, that when Menechmus in Plautus feigns himself mad, and talks accordingly, the Physician, who was sent for to cure him, asks the old man who came to fetch him, whether he were Larvatus or Cerritus. If the Gentiles thought thus of their madmen, should we think it strange the Jews should? I could tell you here, that the Turks conceit of their madmen, is not unlike this; but that they suppose the spirit that works in them, to be a good, rather than an evil one. But I let this pass.  
My next testimony shall be out of justin Martyr, who in his second Apology ad Antoninum, to prove (at least to a Gentile) that the souls of men have existence and sense after death, brings for an argument their Necyomantia, and their Evocationes Mortuorum, together with other the like: & in the last place this of Daemoniacks; where by his description of them, we may easily gather what kind of people they were, which were so taken to be. Item illi (saith he) qui à mortuorum manibus corripiuntur (for such were these Daemonia taken to be) atque humi abjiciuntur homines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which all call Daemoniacks and madmen: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were all one, as men then conceived. Note here that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were taken to be the souls of men deceased, and that not among the Gentiles only, but (as may seem) among the Jews also. For josephus in his seventh Book De Bello judaico, Cap. 25. mentioning these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon occasion of a certain herb, supposed to be good for them, saith expressly by way of Parenthesis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (sc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Spiritus sunt pessimorum ●om●num vivis immersi. I tell not this meaning to avouch it for true; but only that you might understand, how justin Martyrs argument proceeds, to prove that souls have existence after Death, from Daemonia●i.  
My last proof is taken from those Energumeni, (which are all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) so often mentioned in the Church Liturgies, in the ancient Canons, and in other Ecclesiastical writings, many ages after our Saviour's being on earth; and that, not as any rare and unaccustomed thing, but as ordinary and usual. They were wont to send them out of the Church, when the Liturgy began; as they did the Poenitentes, Auditores, and Catechumeni, which might not be partakers of the holy Mysteries. If those were not such, as we now adays conceive of no otherwise then as madmen, surely the world must be supposed to be very well rid of Devils, over it hath been; which for my part I believe not. Nay, that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were such as I speak of, Balsamon and Zonaras both in their Scholia upon the Canons of the Church, will, I think, inform us: For to reconcile two Canons, concerning these Energumeni, which seem contradictory, one (called of the Apostles) in these words; Si quis Daemonem habet, ne fiat Clericus, sed neque cum fidelibus precetur: Another of Timotheus, quondam Patriarch of Alexandria, speaking thus, Si qui fidelis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, debet esse sanctorum mysteriorum particeps. To reconcile these, I say, they affirm, the former (which admits them not) to be meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of him that is continually and always mad; ne fort quid mali aut inhonesti agate, aut Daemoniac as voces emittat, ita ut populum Dei conturbet, atque divinum officium impediat. But that of Timotheus which admits them, to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of him that is mad but by fits, and hath his Lucida intervalla. And thus I have acquainted you with what I have observed, to confirm me in 
Vide Chrysostomi epistol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Item de precibus in ecclesia pro Energumenis; Hom. 4, & 5. de incomprehensibili Dei natura, versus finem inter Serm. ad Pop. Antioch.  this opinion, and make no doubt, but there are more passages yet to be found, this way, than I have met with.   
PROVERBS 21. 16. 
Pro. 21. 16.  The Man, that wandreth out of the way of understanding, shall remain in the Congregation of the Dead. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in coetu Gigantum. 
IT is a question sometimes moved amongst Divines, and worth resolving; How, and by what name the place and condition of the damned (which in the Gospel is called Gehenna) was termed, or expressed in the Old Testament before the Captivity of Babylon, and whilst the first Temple stood: For presently after the Return, the aforementioned name Gebenna began to be frequented; as appears both by the second of Esdras, the Chaldee Paraphrast, and other Jewish writings, where that name is often found; as also by the Gospel, where our Saviour useth it, as then vulgarly known amongst the Jews. But it is as certain, that before the Captivity or second Temple (for so the Jews call the time of their state after their return) this name was not in use; both because it is no where to be found in the Canonical Scriptures of the old Testament, which were all written within that time; and especially, because the ground and occasion thereof was not till about that time in being; which was the pollution of the valley of the sons of Hinnom, or Tophet by King josiah, and the dreadful execution of divine vengeance in that Place: Hence it became to posterity to be a name of execration, and applied to signify the place of eternal punishment.  
For this valley of Hinnom (Gehinnom, or, as afterward they pronounced it, Gehenna) was a valley near Jerusalem, in a place whereof, called Tophet, the children of Israel committed that abominable Idolatry, in making their children to pass through the fire to Moloch, that is, burned them to the Devil. For an eternal detestation whereof, King josiah polluted it, and made it a place execrable, ordaining it to be the place, whither dead Carcases, Garbage, and other unclean things should be cast out: For consuming whereof, to prevent annoyance, a continual fire was there burning. Yea, not man only, but the Lord himself, as it were consecrated this place, to be a place of execration, by making it the field of his vengeance, both before and after. For first, this was the place where the Angel of the Lord destroyed the host of Senacherib, King of Assyria, where one hundred and eighty thousand of their Carcases were burnt, according to that, Esay 30. Through the voice of the Lord shall the Assyrian be beaten down. For Tophet (this was a place, I told you, in the valley of Hinnom) is ordained of old; yea for the King it is prepared, he hath made it deep and large, the pile thereof is fire and much wood, the breath of the Lord like a stream of brimstone doth kindle it. This was also the place, where the Idolatrous Jews were slain, and massacred by the Babylonian armies; when their City was taken, and their Carcases left, for want of room for burial, for meat to the fowls of heaven, and beasts of the field; according to the word of the Lord, by the Prophet jeremy in his seventh and nineteenth Chapters, The children of judah have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and daughters in the fire, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. Therefore behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall be no more called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter. For they shall bury in Tophet till there be no place. And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and the beasts of the field, and none shall fray them away.  
Hence, as I said, this place being so many ways execrable for what had been done therein, especially, having been as it were the gate to eternal destruction, by so remarkable judgements, and vengeance of God there executed for sin; it came to be translated to signify the place of the damned, as the most accursed, execrable, and abominable place of all places; the invisible valley of Hinnom. For such was the property of the Jewish Language, to give Denominations unto things unseen, from such analogical, and borrowed expressions of things visible. By all which it is apparent, that this notion of that name took its beginning after the Captivity, and was not in use before.  
Still therefore we are left to seek, by what other name, and under what notion this place of the damned was expressed, before the word Gehenna, or Gehinnom came to be used. I answer, out of my Text, it seems to have been called Domus, or Coetus Gigantum. Vir qui erraverit à viâ intelligentiae, in Coetu Gigantum commorabitur. In the Hebrew, in Coetu Rephaim, which word properly signifies Giants, and to that sense is always rendered by the Seventy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though we, and the later Interpreters, both in this, and some other places, take it for manes, or mortui; but the ancient, I think, deserve the more credit, especially it being confessed, that the word elsewhere so signifies. In Coetu Gigantum therefore, that is, of those Giants, and Rebels against God, of whom we read Gen. 6. Those mighty men, and men of renown of the old World, whose wickedness was so great in the earth, that it repented, and grieved God he had made man; and to take vengeance upon whom, he brought the general Deluge upon the earth, and destroyed man and beast from the face thereof. Vir qui erraverit à viâ Doctrinae, The man that wandreth out of the way of understanding, shall go and keep them company; that is, go to that accursed place, and condition which they are in.  
That this construction of Coetus Rephaim is not improbable, may appear, first, by the gloss of Rabbi Solomon upon this Text, in Coetu Rephaim, that is, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Coetu Gehennae; This notion therefore is not altogether new.  
Secondly, it is strengthened by comparing with it other places of Scripture, where the like expression is used; as twice more in this Book of Proverbs; First, Chap. 2. 18. where we read according to the Vulgar, Domus mulier is alienae inclinata est ad mortem, & ad inferos semitae ejus; Here for ad inferos, the Hebrew hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ad Gigantes; And the Seventy render it with an exegesis: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, She hath put, or set her paths in Hades, or Hell, with the Giants. Again, Chap. 9 18. Aquae furtivae dulciores sunt, & panis absconditus suavior. Et ignoravit, (namely, he that goes in to a strange woman) quod ibi sint Gigantes, & in profundis Inferni convivae ejus. Here in some Editions of the Vulgar are added these words: Qui enim applicabitur illi, descendet ad inferos, & qui abscesserit ab illâ salvabitur: an Argument how this place hath been understood; For the meaning of both these places seems to be no other, but, That the strange woman will bring them who frequent her, to hell, to keep the Apostate Giants company.  
There is another place in the Hagiographa, where these Rephaim are mentioned, to wit, job 26. 5. which though of a more ambiguous sense, and scope, yet as it is translated by the vulgar Latin, and well enough to agree with the Hebrew, seems to be no other, but a description of Hell with the former; Gigantes, saith he, gemunt sub aquis, & qui habitant cum iis. Nudus est infernus coram illo (id est, Deo) & nullum est operimentum perditioni. The meaning hereof seems to be this. The place where the old Giants mourn, or wail under the waters, and their fellow-inhabitants, the rest of the damned with them, even Infernus, and the place of Perdition itself, is naked and open to the eyes of God, from whom nothing is hid; which is agreeable to that, Pro. 15. 11. Hell and destruction are before the Lord, how much more than the hearts of the children of men? In this place the Jews take the word Abaddon, which we render destruction, for Gehenna; that is, elliptically, for Beth Abaddon, the House of destruction. And why then should not the same word be so taken in that place of job? and Nullum est operimentum perditioni, be as much as, Nullum est operimentum Loco perditionis, or Gehennae?  
Compare with these places in the Hagiographa, two in the Prophets; One in the 14. of Esay; where by way of a Poetical or Prophetical hypotyposis of the destruction or fall of Babylon, the King thereof is brought in coming to the Rephaims, or Giants in the other world. Hell (saith the Text) from beneath is moved for thee, to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the Rephaims for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth: And they shall say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?  
The other is the 32 of Ezekiel, concerning the fall of Egypt, where their slain are bestowed in like manner, in the nethermost parts of the earth, with the Gibborim; which signifies not only mighty men, but Giants, and so is rendered in this place by the Seventy: And thus much from comparison of places of Scripture.  
A third Argument to make this notion probable, which I have represented, is this; Because all the expressions almost in Scripture, whereby this place of eternal punishment is represented, relate and allude to some places or Stories remarkable for Gods exemplary vengeance executed upon sinners. As that of Gehenna to the notorious Judgements of God in the valley of Hinnom, for Idolatry, and Blasphemy. That of the Lake of fire and brimstone, so often mentioned in the Apocalypse, to the Lake Asphaltites, the lasting monument of those showers of fire and brimstone from heaven, wherewith Sodom and Gomorrah with the rest of the Cities of the plain perished for their abominable lusts. Our Saviour's expression in his sentence of condemnation, (Go ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his Angels) seems to relate to the punishment of the Apostate Angels, who for their rebellion were delivered unto chains of darkness against that great Day.  
And was not the destruction of the old world, by the general Deluge of water, as famous as any of these? Yea, not to be paralleled by any, but that second Deluge of fire, at the last Judgement? How improbable is it then, that this should not lend a denomination to the place or state of eternal punishment, as well as the rest?  
Nay, which is more, S. Peter in his second Epistle, and second Chapter recites these last three together, as if they had been intended, as patterns of the eternal Judgement and punishment of sinful men. For (saith he) if God spared not the Angels that sinned, but cast them down to Hell, and delivered them to chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement. 5. And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eight person, a Preacher of righteousness, bringing in the Flood upon the world of the ungodly, (that is, of the Rephaim, for so the Seventy sometimes turn it.) 6. And turning the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample, or pattern (mark it well, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the punishment) of such, as should after live ungodly: (Hence, as I told you, was the Lake Asphaltites, or the Lake of fire and brimstone, borrowed by Saint john, for a denomination of hell.) 7. And he delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked; (If God did this) 9 He knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgement, to be punished. Ye see the application, or reddition, and accordingly, how prone the destruction of the world, of the Rephaim or ungodly by the Deluge, is, to give denomination to the punishment of Hell, as well as the other two.  
And now, I suppose, you look for my Application, and putting the whole Text together, which I shall do: He that goeth astray from the way of understanding, (that is, he that wandereth from the Law and Discipline of God; For that indeed is the true wisdom. Timor Domini principium sapientiae, The fear of God is the prime wisdom; that is the meaning; or to speak after our Academical notion, the chief Philosophy; whence, through all this Book of the Proverbs, the wicked man who hath no skill in this Divine Philosophy, or Discipline of God, goeth for a Fool, and so is called) must one day go even to his Fellow-giants; who, as Baruch says in his third Chapter, were destroyed, because they had no wisdom, and perished through their own foolishness. Vir qui erraverit à viâ Doctrina, in Coetu Gigantum commorabitur. They who thus go astray, shall go to those Rephaims of the old World, whose true sons they are; that is, unto the place of everlasting punishment; From which God deliver us.   
GEN. 49. 10. 
Gen. 49. 10.  The Sceptre shall not depart from judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet, until SHILOH come, and unto him shall the gathering of the People be. 
IT is a Prophecy of the coming of Christ, and the time thereof; namely, when the Sceptre shall depart from judah; then should the coming, reign, and Sceptre of Messiah begin, and not till then. The end of the one, should be the beginning of the other: Whence ariseth our demonstration against the Jew; If the Sceptre be already departed from judah, as we know it is, many hundred years since; then must Christ needs be come. For the Sceptre was not to depart from judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh came.  
For, that Shiloh here, is the name of Messiah, appears by the subjunction annexed, That the People or Nations (for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the plural number,) should be gathered, or obedient, unto him: Ergo, he is to be a King of the Nations; and who should this be but Christ?  
That the ancient Jews so understood it, appears by all the three Targums, or Chaldee Paraphrasts. The Targum, called of Jerusalem, renders expressly: Until the time when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, King Messiah shall come: jonathan: parvulus filiorum ejus, that is, of judah's sons, which one of the late Rabbis (saith Buxtorf.) expounds, Rex Messiah, qui venit ex David, qui fuit minimus inter filios Isai Patris sui: Onkelos; Until Messiah come, whose is the Kingdom. Likewise in their Thalmud, Shiloh is reckoned among the names of Messiah.  
Thus we and the Ancient Jews agree, about the aim and purport of this Scripture. But we Christians believe further, that it is long since fulfilled: Howsoever for the very point of time, when this Sceptre departed from judah, we vary in our opinions. Some will have it to have been, when Pompey first brought the Jewish State under the Roman subjection. Others a little after: when Herod, an Idumean stranger, yet formerly incorporated into the Jewish State and blood, was by the Romans invested to be their King, and the Hasmonaean, or Maccabaean race (which till then had born the chief rule) by him extinguished. Others, not till the destruction and final dissolution of the Jewish State by Titus.  
These are principal moments of time, to be pitched upon: But against the first, the subjecting of the Jewish State to the Romans, is objected; First, that it anticipates the time of Christ's birth too much, being sixty years before it. Secondly, that it might as well be affirmed, that the Sceptre departed from judah, when Nabuchadnezzar carried them captive to Babylon; or when they were subject to the Persian or Greek Monarchies, as when they were made subject to the Romans.  
Against the second, of Herod, lies the same exception that did against the former; that it was too early, being thirty years and more, before the birth of Christ; and more than twice as much, before his passion and ascension, at what time he began his Kingdom. Secondly, that under the reign of Herod, the Sceptre of judah might seem rather to be advanced then departed; for as much as they had then a King of their own, reigning over them; and though not of Jewish original, yet a Proselyte, and so one of their own body. And, if the Sceptre were departed from judah, because one not of their own Tribe had the sovereign rule over them; why was it not departed all the time, the Hasmonaean or Maccabaean families, who were Levites, reigned? No man would say, that the Sceptre were departed from Poland, though the Polanders should choose a Swede, a Germane, or a Frenchman, for their King. So neither from judah, though a Levite, or Idumaean Proselyte were their Prince.  
Against the last point of time, the dissolution of the Jewish State by Titus, is excepted, that it is as much too long after, either the Nativity or the Passion of Christ, as the other two were before it; to wit, seventy years after the one, and near forty after the other.  
I mean not to enlarge myself any further, in acquainting you with each particular passage, agitated concerning these differing opinions, or alleged in the disputing of them: I have selected only so much, as I thought requisite for the understanding of what I aim at, which is to show you such a construction of these words, with but a little alteration of the common translating; as being admitted, will leave no more place for those difficulties, wherewith this question is entangled.  
For the handling whereof, I will divide the remainder of my discourse into these two parts: First, I will unfold the words of my Text, which seem to have any difficulty or obscurity in them: Secondly, I will apply them to the time, wherein they were fulfilled.  
For the first; I begin with the word Sceptre, which is not to be restrained to Kingly Dominion only, but signifies any power, or Majesty of Government, under what form or name soever; whereof a rod, or staff, was anciently the ensign, whence every Tribe is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (by the word here used) as being united together under one staff, or power of Government: The meaning therefore is not, that judah should never cease from having a King, or being a Kingdom; but that it should not cease from being a State, a body Politic, or Commonwealth, having a power of Government, and Jurisdiction within itself, until Messiah came: wherefore the Septuagint here for Sceptrum, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, say they, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For it is certain, that judah was so far from being a continued Kingdom, until Messiah should come, that there was no Kingly Royalty in that Tribe, for more than two third parts of that time, namely, not till David, nor after Zedekiah, saving that of the Maccabees, (who were Levites) and of Herod, (by original an Edomite) which both put together, will not make fourscore years; yet were they never without some Ruler, or Rulers of their own, at that time.  
The next word I consider, is Law giver, which will not be hard to understand, if we mark well, what is implied by Sceptre; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word here translated Law giver, signifies not only a maker of Laws, but qui jus dicit, he that exerciseth Jurisdiction; and so differs not much from the former, if they be not altogether Synonyma.  
As for the phrase, from between his feet, it means nothing else, but of his posterity; For so the Scripture modestly expresseth the place of generation; as it doth also by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Femur, or Crus. For where we read in the 26. of this Book of Genesis, and again in the first of Exodus; All the souls that came out of the loins of jacob, were seventy souls: in the Hebrew it is, all the souls that came out of his thigh: whence, by the way, you may observe the occasion of that Fable, that Bacchus or Dionysius was born ex femore jovis; which according to the Oriental expression, (whence that whole story of Bacchus came) implied no more, then that he was jupiters' son; but the Greeks, not understanding the meaning, converted it unto that Fable, which you all know.  
Now for the word Shiloh, if we derive it, as I think we should, it will signify a Peacemaker, or Saviour, of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies Tranquillus, Pacificus, or Salvus fuit. And if the Masorites had so pleased, they might have pointed it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was the name of the eldest son of judah that survived; and in the Hebrew Etymology, can signify nothing else, but Peaceable, or Peacemaker. And whether the Patriarch jacob, or the Holy Ghost directing him, might not choose this name, before any other, to design Messiah in this Prophecy, in respect of the allusion it had to one of judah's sons, I will not affirm; but leave to your better consideration. Others, following the Jewish Rabbis, go farther about, to bring the word Shiloh, to signify Filius ejus, that is, judah's; construing the Prophecy thus: The sceptre shall not depart from judah, till his son (namely, Messiah) come: For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they will have put for the affix Vau, as sometimes it is elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Secundina, (that wherein the infant is wrapped in the womb) and so by a Metonymy to signify here, the Child itself. In a word, they will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Secundina ejus; and that to mean Filius ejus. But this, me thinks, is somewhat too ambagious, and therefore less probable; but let every one follow his own judgement.  
And now I am come to the Application, to show at what point of time this prediction was fulfilled: To make the way plain whereunto, I must first alter a little the construction of the remaining words; namely, And unto him shall the gathering of the People, or the Nations, be. For here the word, shall be, or shall, is not in the Hebrew, but added in translating, and so may be left out; the words in the original being only, Et ei aggregatio, or obedientia populorum: I construe therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Until, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as common to this with the former sentence; namely, thus: The Sceptre shall not depart from judah, etc. until Shiloh come, and the gathering of the people be to him: (that is) Until Messiah come, and the People or Nations be gathered unto him, the Sceptre shall not depart: Where note, that two things are specified to come to pass, before the Sceptre departs from judah, or judah ceases from being a Commonwealth: First, the coming of Christ, or Shiloh into the world: Secondly, the gathering of the Nations, or Gentiles unto him. For I construe the word Until, as I told you, as common to both sentences, Until Shiloh come, and until the Nations be gathered unto him.  
And now, me thinks, your thoughts might almost prevent me, in designing the time when this prediction was fulfilled: namely, neither when the Jews came first under the Roman subjection, for then Shiloh was not yet come: nor under Herod, or as some will seven years after him, when his son Archelaus being banished, Judaea was reduced into a Province: For though Christ was then born, to wit, in the end of Herod's reign, yet were not the Nations or Gentiles yet gathered unto him: But at the destruction of the Jewish State by Titus, when both these things were come to pass, Christ being come, and the Gentiles converted unto his obedience, than did the Sceptre depart from Judah, and they cease from being any more a Commonwealth.  
That this is the true application of this prediction, besides the evidence of the event, appears by our Saviour's Prophecy of this destruction of the Jewish State, in the Gospel of S. Mat; where, after he had named some other things to precede it, he adds this for the last sign; And this Gospel of the Kingdom, saith he, shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all Nations, and then shall the end come: that is, the end of the Jewish State; when the Gentiles, by the preaching of the Apostles, should be gathered unto Christ, then should the Jewish Church and Commonwealth be utterly dissolved; which till then had continued united under some Polity, and form of Government from its first beginning; For so it pleased the wisdom of Almighty God, when he would reject the jews, not to dissolve their State, till he had erected him a new among the Gentiles.   
PSALM 8. 2. 
Psal. 8. 2.  Out of the Mouth of Babes and Sucklings, thou hast ordained strength, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest quell the Enemy, and the Avenger. 
THese words are alleged by our blessed Saviour, Matth. 21. 16. and three more of the verses following this by S. Paul, to prove, that Christ must reign till he had subdued all his enemies under his feet: As Heb. 2. 4. What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5. For thou hast made him little lower than the Angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6. Thou hast made him to have dominion over the works of thine hands; thou hast put all things under his feet. Again, 1 Cor. 15. 23. Christ, (saith he) shall deliver up the Kingdom to God the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27. For he hath put all things under his feet. This is the quotation; for it follows presently; When he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.  
How principal a part of the Argument of this Psalm, what is in these two places cited by S. Paul, contains, every man may see, that reads and compares them. But how it should be consonant to the meaning of the Psalm, seems somewhat difficult to apprehend. For he that reads the whole Psalm, would think it were nothing else, but a description of man's excellency; whom God had made next to the Angels in dignity, & given him dominion over all things he hath made. For so after those words, Thou hast put all things under his feet; it follows immediately, All sheep and Oxen, yea and beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the Sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the Sea. But what is the dominion over these, to subduing of enemies, which the Apostle citys it for? or how is that, which is a description of mankind in general, a Prophecy of Christ in special?  
Some therefore, as in other citations of the Old Testament, so here also, betake themselves to the covert of an Allusion; namely, that the Apostle only borrows the words of the Psalmist, to express his own, and not the Psalmists meaning. But, howsoever this may have place in some other allegations of the Old Testament, which are for Illustration or Exornation only; yet when the testimony is brought for proof and demonstration, as this is, it can in no wise be admitted. For how can that testimony be of force to conclude any thing, where not the Author's meaning is brought, but his words only made use of? Others therefore say, that whatsoever is spoken of the Dignity and Excellency of Man in general, is to be understood by way of eminency of Christ, the chief of the sons of men. This indeed is something, but not enough. For what is the dignity of man, in regard of his Dominion and Lordship over the creature, to conquering and subduing of enemies? which is that the Apostle seeks to demonstrate thence.  
Well, to hold you no longer in suspense, the key of the interpretation of this Psalm, and the ground of S. Paul's accommodation of that passage (Thou hast put all things under his feet) to Christ's victory, is to be sought in the words I have now chosen; Out of the mouth of Babes and Sucklings, etc. which being first alleged by our Saviour in the Gospel, in defence of that acclamation given unto him by his followers, Hosanna, (that is, Save now) to the son of David; (which the Pharisees thought too high an attribute, to be deferred to flesh and blood) this application thereof by Christ to himself, gave the Apostle good warrant, to interpret the Psalm as he did, and to ground a Demonstration thereon.  
I shall therefore divide my discourse into two parts; First, I will show the meaning of the words as they stand in the Psalm: And secondly, make it appear, that our Saviour in the Gospel citys them according to that meaning.  
The whole drift therefore of the Psalm, is to praise and glorify God for the dignity wherewith he hath invested Man: What is man (saith he) that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him little lower than the Angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. This glory and honour is exemplified in two particulars: First, that God hath ordained man, even that weak and feeble creature, Man, to subdue and conquer his enemies; which is that my Text expresseth in the words before named; Out of the mouth of Babes and Sucklings, thou hast ordained strength, because of thine enemies, that thou mightest quell the Enemy, and the Avenger. Secondly, that he hath made man the Lord of all his Creatures: Thou hast made him, saith he) to have dominion over the works of thine hands: then follows, as it were the summing up of both in a word: Thou hast put all things under his feet. For having ordained him, both the Champion to conquer thine enemies, and made him at his Creation the Lord and Ruler of the works of thine hands, Quid reliquum est? what honour couldst thou have given him, which thou hast not? Lord! (therefore) what is man, that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that thou visitest him? Where is to be observed, that the Corollary, Thou hast put all things under his feet, comes in before his time, namely, before the description of this exemplification of man's dominion over the creature, was fully ended: as if the Prophet, out of admiration, could hold no longer from telling us the sum of that Dignity, wherewith man was invested. Thou hast made him (saith he) to have Dominion over the works of thine hands, and so one way or other, Thou hast put all things under his feet. Then follows the other part of the Description, All Sheep and Oxen, over these thou hast made him have Dominion, The Beasts of the field, the Fowls of the air, and the Fish of the Sea: whereas in direct order it should have stood thus; Thou hast made him have Dominion over the works of thine hands, over all Sheep and Oxen, the Beasts of the Field, and Fowls of the Air, and Fish of the Sea; And so in the upshot; Thou hast put all things under his feet.  
For this last particular of man's dignity, to have Dominion over the Creatures, is so plainly and evidently intended in the Psalm, that I shall need speak no more of it: I return therefore to the former, to make it clear also. That God ordained man, not only to exercise Dominion over the visible creatures, but to be the Champion to conquer and subdue his Enemies; which is the drift of the words I have chosen for my text.  
Out of the mouth of Babes and Sucklings (saith he) that is, of mankind, who springs from so weak and poor a beginning, as of Babes and sucklings; namely, out of the mouth of babes, not in sensu composito, but diviso: Of such whose condition is to be babes and sucklings; not that they should exercise this strength he speaks of, To quell the enemy and the Avenger, while they were babes; but that this power should be given to those, whose condition was to be such. And this is marvellous enough, that God should advance so weak a creature, and of so despicable a beginning, to such a power, as to grapple with the Enemy, and overcome him. But behold, there is yet something more admirable, namely, that this should not be done by the strength of his Arm, but by the breath & power of his Mouth. Out of the mouth of Babes and sucklings thou hast ordained strength because of thine enemies. etc. What Enemies? Thine, saith the Psalmist, and such too, as be ultores, avengers, the enemies both of God and mankind: And who are those, but Satan, and his Angels? those Principalities and Powers of the Air, those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Rulers of the Darkness of this world, as Saint Paul speaks: For when mankind is the one party, what can the other be but some Power that is not of mankind? Besides, who are the Enemies both of God and mankind but these? And of mankind especially; I put enmity, saith God to the serpent, between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: Hence he is called Satan, the adversary, or Fiend, and the enemy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Behold, I give you power (saith our Saviour to the seventy Disciples, Luke 10. 19) to tread on serpents, and scorpions, and over all the Power of the Enemy; Your Adversary the Devil (saith S. Peter) And this is he as I conceive who is here called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Enemy & the Avenger; man's tormentor; which words being found again in the 44. Psalms, may, for aught I know, by warrant of this place, be taken for the same Enemy, and the usual distinction altered, and the place read thus. By reason of the Enemy and the Avenger, all this (to wit, the Calamity and confusion he spoke of before) is come upon us; that is, by the malice of Satan. Now that such Enemies as these, should be subdued by an arm; yea, by a mouth of flesh, is a thing which might justly make the Prophet cry out; Lord what is man, etc.  
Now that this, which I have given, is the true meaning of this place, may be gathered from S. Paul● inculcating the word Enemy; when 1 Cor. 15. he demonstrates out of this Psalm, that Christ, before the end, shall abolish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For He must reign, saith he, till he hath put all enemies under his feet: The last Enemy which shall be destroyed 〈◊〉 Death: and then he alleges for his proof, that Corollary in this Psalm, For he hath put all things under his feet: But, in all this Psalm, there is no mention of Enemies, or subduing them, but only in the verse I have in hand; which unless it be thus expounded, S. Paul's allegation from hence will be too narrow, to prove what he intendeth.  
Having thus cleared the words I chose for my Theme, I shall not spend much time to show you, how directly and literally, the purport of them was fulfilled in our blessed Saviour's incarnation: You have, in part, heard such Scriptures already, as do evince it. The sum is this: The Devil, by sin, brought mankind under thraldom, and became the prince of this world, himself, with his Angels, being worshipped and served every where, as Gods; and the service and honour due to the great God, the Creator of heaven and earth, cast off, and abandoned; and all this to receive at last, for reward, eternal woe and everlasting death. To vanquish and exterminate this enemy, and redeem the world from this miserable thraldom, the Son of God took upon him, not the nature of Angels, (which might have been the enemy's matches) but the nature of weak and despicable man, that grows from a babe and suckling: Who (saith Esay, in that famous Prophecy of Messiah) hath believed our report, and to whom is the Arm of the Lord revealed? (namely, that works such powerful things by weak means:) for he shall grow [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as a tender plant, or sucker; (it is the very word here used in my Text, for a sucking child, and translated by the Seventy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and as a root out of a dry ground; that is, a small and little one.  
This is that whereof S. Paul discourses so divinely, in the Epistle to the Hebrews: To which of the Angels said he at anytime, Sat thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? For unto the Angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak: but unto him, of whom it is said, What is man that thou art mindful of him, or, etc. Again, We see jesus, who was made little lower than the Angels, (that is, was made man; that's the meaning) for the suffering of death, crowned with Glory and Honour: what can be so plain as this? It is the Son of man, by whom in part we are, and more fully shall be, delivered out of the hands of our enemies, that we might serve the true God without fear; as Zachary says in his Benedictus. It is the Son of man that delivered us from the power of darkness, Col. 1. 13. The Son of man, that spoiled Principalities and Powers, and made a show of them openly, Col. 2. 15. It was no Angel, that did all this; but the Son of man; even as was prophesied from the beginning, when the Devil first got his Dominion; That the Seed of the woman should break the Serpent's head.  
Nor is this all; for this Son of man enables also other sons of men his Disciples and Ministers to do the like in his name: The seventy Disciples, in the Gospel, return with joy, saying, Lord, even the Devils are subject to us through thy name: Yea, not these only, but as many as fight under his Banner against these enemies, have promise they shall at length quell and utterly subdue them: Yea, at that great Day shall sit with their Lord and Master, to judge and condemn them. Do ye not know, saith S. Paul, that the Saints shall judge the world? know ye not that we shall judge Angels?  
Lastly, this victory, as for the event, so for the manner of achieving it, is agreeable to our Prophecy. For as much as Christ our General, nor fights, nor conquers by force of Arms, but by the power of his Word and Spirit; which is the power of his mouth, according to my Text; Out of the mouth of Babes, etc. Hence, in the Apocalypse, Christ appears with a sword going out of his mouth: In the 2 Thess. 2. it is said, He shall consume Antichrist with the Spirit of his mouth: Esay prophesies, Chap. 11. 4. That the Branch of jesse should smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips should stay the wicked. That is, he does all nu●● & verbo, as God made the world: By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the Hosts of them by the breath of his mouth, Psal 33. 6. So doth Christ vanquish his enemies, and enable his Ministers to vanquish them, Verbo & Spiritu oris, according to that Host 6. 5. I have hewed them by my Prophets, and slain them by the words of my mouth.  
I come now to the second thing I propounded; namely, to show, that our Saviour in the Gospel, when he cited this place, alleged it for, and according to this, and no other meaning. The Evangelist relates it thus; When the chief Priests and Scribes saw the wonderful things that Jesus did, and those in the Temple crying, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David, they were sore displeased; and said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? how they ascribe the power of salvation, (which is God's peculiar) to thee, who art a son of man? Is that solemn acclamation of Save now, wherewith we are wont to glorify God, fit to be given to thee? Our Saviour answers, Yes; for have ye not read, (saith he) Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings, thou hast ordained strength? Consider what that means. You will wonder perhaps, that a thing so plain, could be taken in a differing meaning. For, it is commonly supposed to be alleged, only to prove that children should glorify Christ, whilst the great ones of the world despised him: And there are two things which have occasioned this mistake, and drawn the sense awry; The first is, because the Septuagint, (according to which the Evangelist reads this place) in stead of strength, translate here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, praise; Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings, thou hast ordained praise. Secondly, because those who made this acclamation, are said to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, When they saw the things which jesus did, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To the first, I answer, Our Saviour alleged not the words of the Psalm in Greek, but in Hebrew; where it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, strength, which is the constant signification thereof, through the whole Bible, and never Praise: Nor do the Seventy themselves ever translate it otherwise, save, as it seems, in this place. But whatsoever the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be otherwise, it must be here regulated by the Hebrew verity; according to which our Saviour alleged it, and must signify not simply, praise, but Robur praedicandum, or Robur laude dignum, Robur celebrandum, or the like. To the second, that they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who made this acclamation of Hosanna, to our Saviour; I answer, Be it so: yet I am sure, they were no babes and sucklings, but of reasonable years; How then would our Saviour's quotation have, in such a sense, been pertinent? Besides, young children are not properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Again, the Pharisees found no fault with the speakers, but with the thing spoken; which they thought too much for a man; and therefore our Saviour, when he alleged this Scripture, answered to that, and intended not to Apologise for the speakers. Fourthly, in all reason, those who cried here Hosanna in the Temple, were the same company, that brought him crying Hosanna all the way thither. But these (saith Saint Mark) were of the multitude which followed him; and S. Luke of the multitude of the Disciples; who also tells us, that the Pharisees, who were offended thereat, bade him rebuke his Disciples. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore here signifies, either Christ's Disciples, or the retinue which followed him, and brought him up thither, as a King. Take which ye will, you shall not fasten upon the word, any notion other then usual: I shall not need to tell you the Disciples of the Prophets are called, sons of the Prophets, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that Herod's Courtiers, Matth. 14. are termed his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This is john the Baptist, etc. Christ calls his Disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, john 21. 5.   
ZACH. 4. 10. 
Zach. 4. 10.  These seven are the eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth. 
IT is hard to keep a mean; which, as appears in many things else, so, in the Doctrine and speculation of Angels, whereunto men were heretofore so much addicted, as they pursued it, not only to vain and ungrounded Theories, but even to Idolatry and superstition. There were in the Apostles times, who intruded into things they had not seen: there were then, who beguiled men with a voluntary humility in worshipping of Angels, Col. 2. what after times brought forth, I shall not need speak. That ancient, and high soaring (though counterfeit) Dionysius, describes the Hierarchy of Angels, as exactly as if he had dwelled amongst them, delivering unto us nine Orders of them, out of nine words, found partly in the Old, partly in the New Testament; Seraphims, Cherubims, and Thrones, Powers, Hosts, and Dominions; Principalities, Archangels, and Angels; and tells us the several natures, distinctions, and properties of them all: Whereas it cannot be shown out of Scripture, either that some of these names concur not, (as Angels, not to be a common name to all the rest, especially to comprehend Archangels) or that these are denominations of the natures of Angels, and not of their offices and charges only; yet have these nine Orders passed for currant through so many ages of the Church.  
But we, who (together with divers superstitions) have justly rejected also these vain and ungrounded curiosities, are fallen into the other extreme; having buried the Doctrine of Angels in silence, making little or no enquiry at all, what God in his Word hath revealed concerning them: which yet would make not a little for the understanding of Scripture, wherein are so many passages having reference to them, and therefore questionless something revealed concerning them.  
I shall not therefore do amiss, if I choose for my discourse at this time, a particular of that kind, which Dionysius in all his speculations hath not a word of; and yet seems to have strong footing in Scripture: It is this:  
The Jews have an ancient tradition, that there are seven principal Angels, which minister before the Throne of God, and therefore called Archangels; Some of whose names we have in Scripture, as Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and in the second Book of Esdras, mention is made of jerechmiel the Archangel. This Tradition we shall find recorded in the Book of Tobit (whose antiquity is before the birth of our Saviour:) For there the Angel, who in the shape of Azariah had accompanied his son into Media, when he discovers himself, speaks in this manner; I am Raphael, one of the seven Angels, which stand and minister before the glory of the holy One. The 
Vide Cyp. adv. jud. li. 1. 20. H lar. in Psal. 129. vel. 130.  Greek hath, which present the Prayers of the Saints, and go in and out, before the holy One. But neither Saint Hierome, who translated it out of the Chaldee, nor the ancient Hebrew Copy set forth by Paulus Fagius, (and in likelihood translated out of the same Chaldee Original) hath any such matter; but reads as I first quoted. And therefore it seems to be an addition, or liberty of the Greek Translator, who thought their Ministry to consist in presenting the Prayers of the Saints, and so translated accordingly.  
This tradition is farther testified by jonathan ben Vziel, the Chaldee Paraphrast, Gen. 11. 7. where the Lords words, spoken in the plural number, Venite, descendamus, & confundamus linguam eorum, are paraphrased in this manner. Dixit Dominus septem Angelis, qui stant coram eo, Venite nunc, etc. Whether rightly or fitly in this place, it matters not: The testimony is sufficient for the Jewish tradition of seven Archangels, that stand before the Throne of God.  
This tradition junius saith is magical; and not a little triumphs therein, as an undoubted Argument to evince the Book of Tobit not to be Canonical: But whatsoever the Book of Tobit be, I hope to show this tradition to have firm ground, and footing in Scripture, and not so rashly to be rejected.  
The chief and most clear place is that I have now read; which gives us to understand, that these seven Angels were represented by that Candlestick of Seven Lamps, which continually burned, in the Temple, before the vail, over against the Mercy seat; which was the Throne of God. For in the beginning of the Chapter, the Prophet being showed this Seven-lamped Candlestick in a Vision, and two Olive-branches on each side, ministering oil to the Lamps thereof: The Angel asketh him, if he knew what these meant: The Prophet answers; No, my Lord; Then the Angel, discoursing a little by way of Preface, tells him what they were: These seven, saith he, (that is, the seven Lamps) are the seven eyes 
Angeli dicuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magni Regis. Philo. Lib. de Somni is.  of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth: that is, those Seven Vigiles, or prime Ministers of his Providence, the seven Archangels, As for the two Olive-trees on each side; These are, saith he, two anointed ones, which stand before the Lord of the whole earth; that is, Zorobabel, and jesua; the Prince and Priest, at that time; which should be Gods two instruments on earth, whereby his Church (signified by the Candlestick) should be reestablished, and his Temple builded; and that not by force, or strength, as he saith in his Preface, but by the Spirit of God, working with them; as the olive trees here conveyed oil to the Candlestick, not after a natural and usual, but a supernatural and secret manner. This interpretation of the latter, hath the suffrage of the best Expositors, both Jews and Christians; and so I shall need say no more of it: but betake myself to make good the first, concerning the words I chose for my Text, That those seven eyes of God, signified by the seven Lamps, are seven Angels.  
That this is so, I prove out of two places in the Apocalypse, derived from hence; where as well the Seven Lamps before the Throne, as the Lambs Seven eyes are said to be the Seven Spirits of God: I saw (saith Saint john, cap. 4. 5.) Seven Lamps before the Throne, which are the Seven Spirits of God. And again, cap. 5. 6. I saw in the midst of the Throne, and of the four Beasts, (as we translate it) and of the four and twenty Elders, a Lamb, as if he had been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth. Here first, we have Zacharies very words, Seven eyes sent forth into all the earth: Secondly, That these seven eyes are the seven Spirits of God: Thirdly, that these seven Spirits were represented by the seven Lamps burning before the Throne. If this be not sufficient to make my interpretation of Zacharie good, I know not what can be. For who can now but think, that the Jews derived their tradition of these seven Angels, from this place of Zachary, and the Apocalypse from them both?  
And that indeed the Jews supposed some such thing meant by the seven Lamps in the Temple, appears by the report of josephus, though depraved and fashioned unto the capacity of the Gentiles: For he tells us (both in his Antiquities, Lib. 3. cap. 7. and in his De Bello judaico Lib. 6. cap. 14.) that the seven Lamps signified the seven Planets, and the most holy place within the vail, (ibid. cap. 5.) the heaven of God, or heaven of Glory; and that therefore the Lamps stood slopewise, as it were to express the obliquity of the Zodiac: Now it is true, that the Jewish Astrologians, savouring of Gentilism, make these seven Angels the prefects of the seven Planets, which they seem to have learned in part from the Greek Philosophy; which conceit, howsoever it be vain and groundless, yet may be as a key to understand the meaning of this of josephus. And one thing more; If the visible things of God may be learned, as Saint Paul says, from the Creation of the world; why may not the invisible and intelligible world be learned from the Fabric of the visible? the one (it may be) being the pattern of the other. But to let this pass, and return again to the Apocalypse.  
Where concerning the places alleged, there may be two things objected: First, That the seven spirits there mentioned, are and may be expounded of the Holy Ghost, thus represented in respect of those sevenfold, (that is, manifold) Graces he communicates unto the Church: I answer, that many indeed have so taken it; but, besides the uncouthness of expressing one spirit by seven, there is a reason in the Text why they cannot be so taken; namely, because not only the seven Lamps are said to be those seven Spirits of God; but the seven Eyes, and seven Horns of the Lamb also, to be the same: Now it will be very hard and harsh to make the Holy Ghost, the Horns and Eyes of Christ, as he is the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world; that is, as he is a Man: Above Angels indeed the Man jesus is exalted, and that too for the suffering of death, that is, as the Lamb: but not above the Holy Ghost. This made not only Drusius, but even Beza himself, in his Notes upon this place, to affirm, it could not be meant of the Holy Ghost, but of seven created Spirits.  
A second scruple is, how (if they be created spirits) john could pray for Grace, and Peace from them? Grace be unto you, (saith he) and peace, from him which is, which was, and is to come, and from the seven spirits, which are before his Throne, and from jesus Christ the faithful witness, etc. would he pray for Grace, and peace from Angels? I answer, Why not? For first, he prays not to them, but unto God, unto whom such votes are tendered: Secondly, he prays for Grace and Peace from them, not as Authors, but as the Instruments of God, in the dispensation thereof: Are they not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sent forth to minister for them, who are heirs of salvation? And if it be no Idolatry to pray unto God, to give Grace and Peace from the outward Ministry of his word; no more is it to pray unto him for it, from the invisible Ministry. For certainly, it is lawful to pray unto God for a blessing from an instrument, which he is wont to give us by an instrument. Secondly, it may be said, that the words, Grace and Peace, need not to be taken in that special and strict sense; but in the large and general, wherein Grace sounds favour at large, and Peace all manner of prosperity. In which sense, no man will deny, but the blessed Angels have an interest in the dispensation of the favours and blessings of God to his Church: and so God may be prayed to, to give them, as he is wont, by their ministry. Grace and Peace from him which is, which was, and is to come, as the Author and Giver; and from the seven Spirits, as the Instruments; and from jesus Christ, as the Mediator. There is yet one place more in the Apocalypse, to confirm this tradition, chap. 8. 2. I saw, saith Saint john, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The seven Angels which stood before God. Is not this as plain as Tobit? Why should then the one be accounted Magical, and not the other?  
I add moreover, that these Angels are those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Principes primarii, or chief Princes, mentioned in the 10. of Daniel, Michael one of the Princes (saith the Angel there) came to help me: Now, Michael, we know, is one of the Archangels: And why therefore may not these chief Princes be those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereof Saint Paul speaks in his adjuration to Timothy? I charge thee (saith he) before God, and the Lord jesus Christ, and the Elect Angels; not the good Angels at large, but those Angeli eximii, the seven Archangels, which stand before the Throne of God.  
And it may, not without reason, be conjectured, that those seven chief Princes feigned in the Persian Monarchy, took their beginning from hence; And that Daniel (who in respect of his account for wisdom, and of his power under Darius the Mede, had a main stroke in the moulding and framing the government of that State) caused the Persian Court to resemble that of heaven; ordaining seven chief Princes, to stand before the King. Of which we find twice mention in Scripture, as in the book of Esther, where they are recorded by name, and styled, The seven Princes of Media and Persia, who saw the King's face, and sat first in the kingdom: And in the Commission granted to Ezra by Artaxerxes, Ezra 7. 14. they are called, The Kings seven Counsellors: Forasmuch as thou art sent by the King, and his seven Counsellors, etc. And it may be, the Church of Jerusalem, when they chose seven Deacons to minister unto their Bishop, had an eye the same way.  
Hitherto of the number of these Archangels; now a word or two of their office: And that is; first, to be the universal Inspectors of the whole world, and the Rulers and Princes of the whole Angelical host: which appears in that they are called Principes primarii, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (1.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their universal jurisdiction is meant by the words, sent forth into the whole earth, whereas the rest are limited to certain places. Secondly, to have the peculiar Charge and Guardianship of the Church, and affairs thereof, whilst the rest of the world, with their Polities, Kingdoms and Governments is committed to the care of 
* Clemens Alex. Strom. Lib. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (sc. Filius Dei) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vide & Clementem Romanum Epist. ad Corinth. ubi citat Deut. 30. 8, 9 secundùm versionem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legisse videntur.  subordinate Angels, who, according to their several charges, may seem to carry those names of 
a Origen seems to acknowledge but four Orders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cont. Cels. l. 4.  Thrones, Principalities, Powers, and Dominions. That the charge of the Church, quà talis, belongs thus peculiarly and immediately to the seven Archangels, may appear by S. john's saluting the Churches with a Benediction of Grace and Peace from their ministry; and the typing of them by the seven Eyes and Horns of the Lamb; as Powers, which the Father, since he exalted Him to be Head of his Church, hath annexed to his Jurisdiction: Hence it comes to pass, that we find these Angels peculiarly, both before, and in the Gospel, to have been employed about the Church affairs: In the Old Testament, the Angel Gabriel (one of the seven) revealed to Daniel the time of the restauration of the Jewish State, and coming of Messiah: And the Angel Michael (one of the chief Princes) was his assistant, when he strengthened Darius the Mede; who founded the Monarchy which should restore them, and is in special termed (Dan. 12.) the Prince that stood for daniel's people. In the Gospel, we find the same Angel Gabriel employed both to Zachary, and the Blessed Virgin, with the evangelical Tidings; and that Zachary might take notice that he was one of the seven, he says unto him, I am Gabriel that stand in the presence of God. Likewise in the Church's combat with the Dragon, Apoc. 12. Michael and his Angels are said to be her Champions, and in her quarrel, to have cast the Dragon and his Angels down to the Earth: And in this Prophecy of Zachary, it is said, that these seven eyes of the Lord took care of one stone, which Zorobabel laid for the foundation of the Temple, and therefore the work could not be disappointed, but should certainly at length be finished. So as, by this time, we may guess the meaning of that which Hanani the Seer told King Asa (2 Chron. 16. 9) The Eyes of the Lord (that is, these seven Eyes) run to and fro through the whole Earth, to show themselves strong in the behalf of those, whose hearts are perfect towards him.   
S. MARK 11. 17. 
Mar. 11. 17.  Is it not written, My House shall be called a House of Prayer, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to all [the] Nations? 
THey are the words of our Blessed Saviour, when he cast the Buyers and Sellers and Money-changers out of the Temple, and forbade to carry any vessels thorough it: Concerning which story, it is worth observation, that our Saviour, whilst he was upon earth, never exercised any Kingly, or coactive Jurisdiction, but in vindicating his Father's house from profanation; and this he did two several times; once at the first Passeover after he began his Prophecy, whereof you may read john 2. And now again at his last Passeover, when he came to give his soul a sacrifice for sin. This is that, which Saint Mark relates in this place, as do also two other of the Evangelists, Saint Matthew and Saint Luke. The vindication of God's House from Profanation (how little account soever we are wont to make thereof) was with our blessed Saviour the Alpha and Omega, the first and last of his care; Vbi incipit, ibi desinit. The consideration of which, how momentous it is, I leave to yourselves to judge: Thus much by way of Preface.  
Now for understanding of the words I have chosen, I will divide my discourse into a Question, and an Observation. The Question is; In what part of the Temple this Market was kept? A thing not commonly enquired after by Expositors, much less defined. The Observation, That this fact of our Saviour more particularly concerns us of the Gentiles, than we take notice of. For the first, (in what part of the Temple this was done) The Jews Religion, and scrupulosity to keep their Temple from profanation, was such, as might seem to make this story incredible. Those who were so chary, that no uncircumcised or unclean person should come therein; who trod the pavement thereof with so much religious observance and curiosity, who would not suffer (as josephus relates) any other building, no not the Palace of Agrippa their King, to have any prospect into it, lost it should be polluted with a profane look; how unlikely is it, they should endure it to be made a place of buying, selling, and bartering; yea, a Market for sheep, and Oxen, as john 2. it is expressly said to have been? Neither will it serve the turn, to excuse it, by saying, it was to furnish such as came thither with offerings: For the sheep, and oxen, whilst they were yet to be bought to that purpose, were not sacred, but profane, and so not to come within the sacred limits: You see the difficulty. But I answer, that this market was kept in the third, or Gentiles Court, which was the outmost of the Temple: For the Temple, in our Saviour's time, had three Courts, each surrounding one another. First, the inmost or Priest's Court, wherein stood the Temple, and the Altar of burnt offering: Into this none but the Priests, and Levites came. Secondly, the middle or great Court, which surrounded that of the Priests: whereinto the Jews of all sorts, and circumcised Proselytes came to worship. Without this was a third Court for the Gentiles, which surrounded the Israelites Court, as that did the Court of the Priests: The two first they accounted sacred; calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; into which therefore none might enter, but such as were circumcised and clean, according to the Law. The third was without the sacred limits, and so accounted profane and common; which may be learned out of josephus, who 
Lib. 6. de Bello judaico. ca 6.  tells us of certain little pillars, or columns, placed by the Lorica, or Septum, which severed this Court from the rest, whereon was inscribed in Greek (and Latin) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That no stranger pass within the sacred limits; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The second part of the Temple was called Holy, as implying that the outmost was not so. Into this Court therefore, which had no legal sanctity, and was without the sacred limits, the Gentiles were admitted, and had their station, together with such of the Jews, as were in their uncleanness; further they might not go. By Gentiles here I mean such, which though uncircumcised, yet worshipped the God of Israel, and were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
In this Court therefore the Jews made no scruple of doing profane and secular acts, being in their opinion no better than a common place. Nay, it is very probable, that to show their despiciency of the poor Gentiles (according to that in the Apocalypse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without are Dogs) and to pride themselves in their prerogative and discretion from them, they affected to have such acts there done. And hence it came to pass, that they permitted a Market of Oxen and Sheep, Doves and other bartery, to be kept there, for the use of the Temple, and those who came thither to worship. And thus the poor Gentiles, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were stabled amongst Oxen, Sheep, and stalls of Money-changers, and in that tumultuous place fain to offer up their devotions and prayers unto the most high God, whom they had chosen.  
But our blessed Saviour, who came to redeem, not the Jews only, but the Gentiles also, and to make them a principal part of his fold, would not suffer them to be thus neglected, but in this act of his gave them a praeludium of his further favour intended toward them, and he that was to vindicate their souls from death, and take away the partition-wall between them and the Jews, first vindicates their Oratory from profanation; alleging for his warrant this place of the Prophet Esay, My House shall be called a House of Prayer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He did not say, My Father's House is holy: For the Jews would soon have replied, That the Gentiles Court was without the sacred limits; But, It is written, saith he, My House shall be called a House of Prayer for all the Nations, Ergo, the place of prayer for all Nations is a part of my Father's House. If my Father's House, then holy, and not to be thus profaned. For whatsoever is his, is holy; Relative Holiness being nothing else but the peculiarity a thing hath to God-ward.  
Though therefore the Gentiles Court had no sanctity of legal distinction, yet had it the sanctity of such peculiarity, and therefore not to be used as a common place. The illation proceeds by way of conversion; My House shall be called the House of Prayer 
1 Kings 8. 41. 42.  to all Nations, or People; Ergo, The House of Prayer for all Nations is my Father's House. And the emphasis lies in the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which our Translators were not so well advised of, when following Beza too close, they render the words thus; My House shall be called of all Nations the House of Prayer, as if the Dative Case here [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] were not acquisitive, but (as it is sometimes with passive verbs) in stead of the Ablative of the agent for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which sense is clear from the scope and purpose of the place, whence it is taken, as he that compares them will easily see, and I shall make fully to appear in the next part of my discourse, which I tendered by the name of an Observation.  
Which was, that this fact of our Saviour more particularly concerns us of the Gentiles, than we take notice of. Namely, we are taught thereby, what reverend esteem we ought to have of our Gentile Oratories and Churches, howsoever not endued with such legal sanctity, in every respect, as was the Temple of the Jews; yet Houses of prayer as well as theirs. This observation will be made good by a threefold Consideration: First, of the story, as I have related it. Secondly, from the Text here alleged, for warrant thereof. And thirdly, from the circumstance of time. For the story, I have showed it was acted in the Gentiles Court, and not in those of the Jews: It cannot therefore be alleged, that this was a place of legal sanctity: For according to legal sanctity, it was held by the Jews as common: only it was the place for the Gentiles to worship the God of Israel in; and seems to have been proper to the second Temple: the Gentiles in the first worshipping without at the Temple door in the holy Mountain only. Secondly, the place alleged to avow the fact speaks expressly of Gentile worshippers, not in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, but in the whole body of the context: Hear the Prophet speak, Isa. cap. 56. vers. 7, 8. and then judge; The sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord to serve him, and to love the Name of the Lord to be his servants; every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my Covenant, (namely, that I alone shall be his God) even them will I bring to my holy Mountain, and make them joyful in my House of Prayer; their burnt offerings and sacrifices accepted upon mine Altar. Then follow the words of Text; For my House shall be called (shall be; it is an Hebraism) a House of Prayer, for all People.  
What is this but a Description of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Gentile worshippers? And this place alone makes good all that I have said before, That this vindication was of the Gentiles Court: Otherwise the allegation of this Scripture had been impertinent; for the Gentiles of whom the Prophet speaks, worshipped in no place but this. Hence also appears to what purpose our Evangelist expressed the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, namely, as that which showed, wherein the force of the accommodation to this occasion lay; which the rest of the Evangelists omitted, as referring to the place of the Prophet, whence it was taken; those who heard it being not ignorant of whom the Prophet spoke. Thirdly, the circumstance of time argues the same thing; if we consider, that this was done but a few days before our Saviour suffered; to wit, when he came to his last Passeover: How unseasonable had it been to vindicate the violation of legal and typical sanctity, which within so few days after he was utterly to abolish by his Cross, unless he had meant thereby, to leave his Church a lasting lesson, what reverence and respect he would have accounted due to such places, as this was which he vindicated?   
JOHN 4. 23. 
john 4. 23.  But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; For the Father seeketh such to worship him. 
THey are the words of our Blessed Saviour to the woman of Samaria, who perceiving him by his discourse to be a Prophet, desired to be resolved by him of the great controverted point between the Jews and Samaritans; whether Mount Garizim by Sichem, (where the Samaritans sacrificed) 
Jud. 9 7. The Evangelist here calls it Sichar. ver. 5. alias Shechem.  or jerusalem were the true place of worship. Our Saviour tells her, that this question was not now of much moment: For that the hour or time was near at hand, when they should neither worship the Father in Mount Garizim, nor at jerusalem. But that there was a greater difference between the Jews and them, than this of place; namely, even about that which was worshipped: For ye (saith he) worship that ye know not: But we (Jews) worship that we know. Then follow the words premised: But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and Truth.  
It is an abused Text, being commonly alleged to prove, that God now in the Gospel, either requires not, or regards not external worship, but that of the Spirit only: And this to be a characteristical difference between the worship of the Old Testament and the New. If at any time we talk of external decency in rites and bodily expressions, as fit to be used in the service of God; this is the usual Buckler to repel whatsoever may be said in that kind: It is true indeed, that the worship of the Gospel is much more spiritual, then that of the Law: But that the worship of the Gospel should be only spiritual, and no external worship required therein (as the Text according to some men's sense and allegation thereof would imply) is repugnant, not only to the practice and experience of the Christian Religion in all ages, but also to the express Ordinances of the Gospel itself. For what are the Sacraments of the New Testament? are they not rites, wherein and wherewith God is served and worshipped? The consideration of the holy Eucharist alone, will confute this Gloss. For is not the commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ's death upon the Cross, unto his Father, in the Symbols of Bread and Wine, an external worship? And yet with this rite hath the Church, in all ages, used to make her solemn address of Prayer, and Supplication, unto the Divine Majesty; as the Jews in the Old Testament did by Sacrifice: when I say, in all Ages, I include that of the Apostles. For so much Saint Luke testifieth of that first Christian society, Acts 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They continued in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers.  
As for bodily expressions by gestures and postures, as standing, kneeling, bowing, and the like; our blessed Saviour himself, lift up his sacred eyes to heaven, when he prayed for Lazarus; fell on his face when he prayed in his agony: Saint Paul (as himself saith) bowed his knees to the Father of our Lord jesus Christ: He and Saint Peter, and the rest of the believers, do the like more than once, in the Acts of the Apostles: What was imposition of hands, but an external gesture, in an act of invocation for conferring a blessing? and that perhaps sometimes without any vocal expression joined therewith. Besides I cannot conceive any reason, why in this point of evangelical worship, Gesture should be more scrupled at, than Voice. Is not confessing, praising, praying, and glorifying God by voice, an external and bodily worship, as well as that of Gesture? why should then the one derogate from the worship of the Father, in Spirit and Truth, and not the other? To conclude, there was never any society of men in the world, that worshipped the Father in such a manner, as this interpretation would imply: And therefore cannot this be our Saviour's meaning, but some other. Let us see if we can find out what it is.  
There may be two senses given of these words; both of them agreeable to reason, and the analogy of Scripture; let us take our choice. The one is, That to worship God in Spirit and Truth, is to worship him not with types and shadows of things to come, as in the Old Testament; but according to the verity of the things exhibited in Christ, according to that; The Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by jesus Christ. Whence the mystery of the Gospel, is elsewhere by our Saviour in this Evangelist, termed Truth, as Cap. 17. ver. 17. and the Doctrine thereof by Saint Paul, The word of truth. See Ephes. Cap. 1. ver. 13. Rom. 15. ver. 8. The time therefore is now at hand, said our Saviour, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father, no longer with bloody sacrifices, and the Rites and Ordinances depending thereon; but in, and according to the verity of that which these Ordinances figured. For all these were types of Christ, in whom being now exhibited, the true worshippers shall henceforth worship the Father.  
This sense hath good warrant from the state of the Question between the Jews and Samaritans, to which our Saviour here makes answer: which was not about worship in general, but about the kind of worship in special, which was confessed by both sides, to be tied to one certain place only; that is, of worship by Sacrifice, and the appendages; In a word, of the typical worship proper to the first Covenant, of which see a description Heb. 9 This josephus expressly testifies, Lib. 12. Antiq. cap. 1. speaking of the Jews and Samaritans, which dwelled together at Alexandria: They lived, saith he, in perpetual discord one with the other; whilst each laboured to maintain their Country customs; those of jerusalem affirming their Temple to be the sacred place, whither sacrifices were to be sent; the Samaritans, on the other side, contending they ought to be sent to Mount Garizim. For otherwise, who knows not that both Jews and Samaritans had other places of worship, besides either of these? namely, their Proseucha's, and Synagogues, wherein they worshipped God, not with internal only, but external worship; though not with sacrifice, which might be offered but in one place only. And this also may seem to have been a type of Christ, as well as the rest, namely, that he was to be that one, and only Mediator of the Church, in the Temple of whose sacred body, we have access unto the Father, and in whom he accepts our devotions and services: according to that, Destroy this Temple, and I will rear it up again in three days: He spoke, saith the Text, of the Temple of his Body. This sense divers of the Ancients hit upon, Eusebius Demon. Euang. Lib. 1. Cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not by Symbols and Types, but, as our Saviour saith, in Spirit and Truth. Not that in the New Testament men should worship God, without all external services; (for the New Testament was to have external and visible services, as well as the Old.) But with such as should imply the verity of the promises already exhibited, not by types and shadows of them yet to come: we know the Holy Ghost is wont to call the figured Face of the Law, the Letter, and the Verity thereby signified, the Spirit. As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both together, they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but once found in holy Writ; to wit, only in this place. And so, no light can be borrowed by comparing of the like expression any where else, to expound them: Besides, nothing hinders, but they may be taken one for the exposition of the other; that to worship the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the same with to worship him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But howsoever this Exposition be fair and plausible, yet, me thinks, the reason which our Saviour gives in the words following, should argue another meaning: God (saith he) is a Spirit, therefore they that worship him, must worship him in Spirit and Truth: But, God was a Spirit from the beginning: If therefore, for this reason he must be worshipped in Spirit and Truth, he was so to be worshipped in the Old Testament, as well as in the New.  
Let us therefore seek another meaning: For the finding whereof, let us take notice, that the Samaritans at whom our Saviour here aimeth, were the offspring of those Nations which the King of Assyria placed in the Cities of Samaria, when he had carried away the ten Tribes captive. These, as we may read in the second Book of the Kings, at their first coming thither, worshipped not the God of Israel, but the gods of the Nations from whence they came. Wherefore he sent Lions amongst them, which slew them; which they apprehending, either from the information of some Israelite, or otherwise, to be because they knew not the worship of the God of the Country, they informed the King of Assyria thereof, desiring that some of the captived Priests might be sent unto them, to teach them the manner and rites of his worship; which being accordingly done, they thenceforth (as the Text tells us) worshipped the Lord, yet feared their own gods too, and so did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Saint chrysostom speaks, mingle things not to be mingled.  
In this medley they continued about two hundred years, till toward the end of the Persian Monarchy. At what time it chanced, that Manasse, brother to jaddo, the High Priest of the returned Jews, married the daughter of Sanballat, than Governor of Samaria; For which, being expelled from Jerusalem by Nehemiah, he fled to Sanballat his Father in Law, and, after his example, many other of the Jews of the best rank, having married strange wives likewise, and loath to forgo them, betook themselves thither also: Sanballat willingly entertains them, and makes his son in Law Manasse their Priest. For whose greater reputation and state, when Alexander the Great subdued the Persian Monarchy, he obtained leave of him, to build a Temple upon Mount Garizim; where his son in Law exercised the office of High Priest. This was exceedingly prejudicious to the Jews, and the occasion of a continual Schism, whilst those that were discontented, or excommunicated at jerusalem, were wont to betake themselves thither: Yet, by this means the Samaritans (having now one of the sons of Aaron to be their Chief Priest, and so many other of the Jews, both Priests and others, mingled amongst them) were brought, at length, to cast off all their false gods, and to worship the Lord the God of Israel only. Yet so, that howsoever they seemed to themselves, to be true worshippers, and altogether free from Idolatry; nevertheless, they retained a smack thereof, in as much as they worshipped the true God, under a visible representation; to wit, of a Dove, and circumcised their Children in the name thereof, as the Jewish Tradition tells us: who therefore always branded their worship with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or spiritual 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est, Cultus externus; sic Idololatriam oppellant. Heinsii Aristarch. p. 881.  Fornication: Just as their predecessors, the ten Tribes, worshipped the same God of Israel, under the similitude of a Calf.  
This was the condition of the Samaritan Religion in our Saviour's time: and if we weigh the matter well, we shall find his words here, to the woman, very pliable to be construed with reference thereunto: You ask, saith he, of the true place of worship, whether Mount Garizim, or jerusalem; which is not so greatly material, for as much as the time is at hand, when men shall worship the Father at neither: But there is a greater difference between you and us, then of place; though you take no notice of it; namely, about the object of worship itself; For ye worship what ye know not, but we (Jews) worship what we know. How is that? Thus, Ye worship indeed the Father, the God of Israel, as we do; but you worship him under a corporeal representation; wherein you show, you know him not: but the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and Truth: In spirit, that is, conceiving of him no otherwise then in spirit; And in truth, that is, not under any corporeal or visible shape: For God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and Truth; that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not fancying him, as a body, but as indeed he is a Spirit. For those who worship him under a corporeal similitude, 
Jer. 3. 10.  do belly him; according as the Apostle speaks, Rom. 1. of such as change the glory of the incorruptible God, into an Image made like to corruptible man, Birds or Beasts: They changed, saith he, the truth of God into a lie, and served the creature, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 juxta Creatorem, as, or with the Creator who is blessed for ever. Hence Idols in Scripture are termed Lies; as Amos 2. 4. Their Lies have caused them to err, after which their Fathers walked: The Vulgar hath, Seduxerunt eos Idola ipsorum. And Isa. 28. 15. We have made Lies our refuge. And jer. 16. 19 Venient gentes à finibus terrae, & dicent, Verè mendacium possederunt (the Chaldee hath, coluerunt) Patres nostri, vanitatem, in qua non est utilitas. Nunquid faciet sibi homo Deos, & ipsi non sunt Dii?  
This therefore I take to be the genuine meaning of this place, and not that which is commonly supposed against external worship; which I think this demonstration will evince; To worship what they know, 
See the Homily against the peril of Idolatry. p. 3. where this Text is peculiarly applied against worshipping of God in an Image.  (as the Jews are said to do) and to worship in spirit and truth, are here taken by our Saviour for equivalents; else the whole sense will be inconsequent: But the Jews worshipped not God without Rites and Ceremonies (who yet are supposed to worship him in spirit and truth;) Ergo, to worship God without Rites and Ceremonies, is not to worship him in spirit and truth, according to the meaning here intended.   
S. LUKE 24. 45. 
Luke 24. 45.  Then opened be their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures. 46. And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. 
OUr Blessed Saviour, after he was risen from the dead, told his Disciples, not only that his suffering of death, and rising again the third day, was foretold in the Scriptures; but also pointed out those Scriptures unto them, and opened their understanding that they might understand them; that is, he expounded, or explained them unto them: Certain it is therefore, that somewhere in the Old Testament these things were foretold should befall the Messiah. Yea S. Paul, 1 Cor. 15. 3, 4. will further assure us that they are; I delivered unto you, saith he, first of all, that which I received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures. 4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. Both of them therefore, are somewhere foretold in the Scriptures, and it becomes not us to be so ignorant, as commonly we are, which those Scriptures be which foretell them. It is a main point of our Faith, and that which the Jews most stumble at, because their Doctors had not observed any such thing of Messiah. The more they were ignorant thereof, the more it concerns us to be confirmed therein. I thought good therefore, to make this the Argument of my Discourse at this time, to inform both you and myself, where these things are foretold, and if I can, to point out those very Scriptures, which our Saviour here expounded to his Disciples.  
Which that I may the better do, I will make the words foregoing my Text, to be as the Polestar in this my search; These are the things, (saith our Saviour) which I spoke unto you, while I was with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me. Then follow the words I read, Then opened he their understanding, etc. These two events therefore of Messiahs' death and rising again the third day, were foretold in these three parts of Scripture, in the Law of Moses, or Pentateuch, in the Neb in, or Prophets, and in the Psalms; and in these three we must search for them. And first for the first, that Messiah should suffer death.  
This was fore-signified in the Law, or Pentateuch, first in the Story of Abraham, where he was commanded to offer his son Isaac, the son wherein his seed should be called, and to whom the promise was entailed, That in it should all the Nations of the world be blessed. What was here acted else, but the mystery of Christ's Passion? to wit, that the promised seed should make all the Nations of the world blessed, by becoming a sacrifice for sin: which that it might be the more evident, the place is also designed, the region of Mount Moriah; there Abraham was bid to offer his son Isaac, even where Messiah, who was then in the loins of Isaac, was one day to be offered upon the Crosse.  
The second prediction in the Law, of Messiahs' suffering death, was by the slaying of Beasts, for the atonement of sin in their sacrifices; which were nothing else but shadows and representations of that offering upon the Cross, which Messiah was one day to make of himself for the sins of the world. Which mystery of the end of those legal sacrifices, was showed in the former story of Abraham's offering Isaac: For when he had now brought his son to the place appointed, and had built an Altar, and was now ready to slay him, as he was commanded; the Angel of the Lord stayed his hand, and showed him a Ram caught in a thicket by the horns, which Ram Abraham took, and offered for a burnt offering in stead of his son, to signify, that the offering of the blessed seed was yet to be suspended, and that God in the mean while would accept the offerings of Bulls and Rams, as a pledge of that expiation, which the blessed seed of Abraham in the loins of Isaac, should one day make.  
And thus much for the Law; now I come to the Prophets, wherein I find three evident Prophecies that Messiah should suffer death. The first is that famous one in the 53. of Isay the whole Chapter through; I will not repeat it all, but some two or three passages thereof: ver. 5. He was wounded, saith the Prophet, for our transgressions, he was bruised for 〈◊〉 iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed: And ver. 7. He was oppressed, he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he was brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, 〈◊〉 as a Sheep before his Shearers is dumb, so he opened noi his mouth. Ver. 8. He was cut off out of the Land of the living; for the transgression of my people was 〈◊〉 smitten. Now that this Prophecy was one of those by which the Apostles used to prove this verity, appears by the story of the conversion of the Eunuch Acts 8. unto whom Philip coming whilst he was in his Chariot, reading this place of Scripture, and h● thereupon ask Philip, of whom the Prophet spoke these words, the Text tells us, that Philip began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him jesus.  
The second place, which foretells that Christ should suffer, is that in the ninth of Daniel, who pointing ou● the time of Messiah's coming by seventy weeks, limits his account, not at his birth, but at his suffering; as the most principal moment of his story. From the going out of the commandment, saith he, to restore, and build jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and sixty two weeks:— and after sixty 〈◊〉 weeks, shall Messiah be cut off: what can be more plain than this?  
A third place in the Prophets, is to be found Zachary 12. 10. where, at the time when the Jews shall be converted, Christ is brought in speaking in this manner; I will pour out, saith he, upon the House of David, and upon the inhabitants of jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplication, and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced. Hence it follows, that the Jews should have pierced Messiah before they received him to be their Redeemer. And that this place also was one of those applied by the Apostles to this purpose, appears by S. john's twice alleging it. Once in his Gospel, when a Soldier with a Spear pierced our Saviour's side; Then, saith he, was fulfilled that 
joh. 19 37.  Scripture, which saith, They shall look upon him whom they have pierced. Again, in the beginning of his Revelation, 
Apol. 1. 7.  Behold (saith he) he cometh in the clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him.  
Now for the third division of Scripture, the Psalms, the principal place there which I dare warrant, is that 
Acts 2. 26, 27. 13. 35.  of the 16. Psalms, quoted both by S. Peter, and S. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles; My flesh shall rest in hope, for thou wilt not leave my soul in the grave, neither suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, as S. Peter and S. Paul say, was buried, and his body saw corruption, therefore it cannot be spoken of him; but of Messiah in the person of David, as a type in whose loins Messiah was. Now than if Messiahs' body were to be laid in the grave, it follows he was to die, and to be in the state of the dead.  
And thus I have done the first part of my task, and proved that Messiah was to suffer death, according to the Scriptures; namely, foretold in that threefold division of Scripture, mentioned here by our Saviour: The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Now I come to prove the other part, that it behoved him also, to rise again the third day, according to the Scriptures.  
And this was first foreshewn in the same story of Isaac, wherein his sacrifice or suffering was acted. For, from the time that God commanded Isaac to be offered for a burnt offering, Isaac was a dead man, but the third day he was released from death. This the Text tells us expressly, that it was the third day, when Abraham came to Mount Moriah, and had his son, as it were, restored to him again; which circumstance, there was no need nor use at all to have noted, had it not been for some mystery: For had there been nothing intended, but the naked story, what did it concern us to know, whether it were the third, or the fifth day, that Abraham came to Moriah, where he received his son from death? Now, that I have not misapplied this figure, S. Paul is my witness, who expressly makes this release of Isaac from slaughter, a figure of the Resurrection: For thus he speaks of this whole story, Hebrews 11. By faith, Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that received the promises, offered up his only begotten Son. Of whom it was said, that in Isaac shall thy seed be call led. Accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead: from whence also he received him in a figure.  
The same was foreshewn by the Law of sacrifices, which were to be eaten before the third day; some sacrifices were to be eaten the same day they were offered, but those which were deferred longest, as the Peace-offerings, were to be eaten before the third day. The third day no sacrifice might be eaten, but was to be burnt: If it were eaten, it was not accepted for an atonement, but counted an abomination: To show, that the sacrifice of Messiah, which these sacrifices represented, was to be finished the third day by his rising from the dead; and therefore, the type thereof determined within that time, beyond which time it was not accepted for atonement of sin, because than it was no longer a type of him.  
Thus far the Law; as for the Prophets, I find no express prediction in them, for the time of Christ's rising (for that of the Prophet jonah, I take to be rather an allusion, than a Prophecy:) only in general it is employed, that Christ should rise again; both in that famous Prophecy of Esay, the 53. and that of Zachary 12. In the former it is said, that after he had made 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. And again, that the Lord should divide him a portion with the great, and that he should divide the spoil with the strong, because he had poured out his soul unto death: which argues that he should not only live again, but be victorious after he had died. In that of Zachary it is said, the jews should look upon, or see him whom they had formerly pierced; and, that in that day he would pour upon them the spirit of grace and supplication: therefore he was to live again after they had pierced him.  
I come to the Psalms, where not only his rising again is prophesied of, but the time thereof determined; though at first sight it appears not so namely, in that fore-alledged passage of the sixteenth Psalm, Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, nor suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. All men shall rise again, but their bodies must first return to dust, and see corruption: But Messiah was to rise again before he saw corruption: if before, than the third day at farthest; for then the body naturally 
* vi. Meurs●i Glos. sar. Graeco. barba. rum, in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. citat ev Triodio.  begins to see corruption: this may be gathered by the story of Lazarus in the Gospel, where jesus commanding the stone to be rolled from his Grave, Martha his sister answered, Lord, by this time he stinketh; for he hath been dead four days. Also by that rule, given by the Masters of Physic, that those who die of the Apoplexy, suffocation of the Mother, or like sudden deaths, should not be buried till seventy two hours were passed; Because within that time, they might revive; and examples are given of those who have done so. They give also a reason of it in nature; because, say they, in that time the humours of the body make their revolution; the phlegm in one day, or twenty four hours; the choler in two days, or forty eight hours; the melancholy in three days, which is seventy two hours: and this to be the reason why an Ague, founded in an inflammation of phlegm, returns every day; an Ague, which comes from choler, every other day; from melancholy, every third day: Now if a body may be kept so long unburied, it is supposed it may be kept so long uncorrupted; (namely, where a corruption is not begun before death, as in some diseases) but longer it will not continue. When therefore it is so often inculcated in the New Testament, that our Saviour should rise again the third day; the Holy Ghost, in so speaking, respects not so much the number of days, as the fulfilling of Scripture, that Messiahs' body should not see corruption, but should rise before the time, wherein dead bodies begin to corrupt: and indeed our Saviour rose again within forty hours, after he gave up the Ghost, and was not two full days in the grave. Therefore, if there be any other Scripture, which implies Messiah should rise before, his body should see corruption, that Scripture, whatsoever it be, shows he should rise again within three days.   
EXODUS 4. 25. 
Exod. 4. 25.  Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,— Sponsus sanguinum tu mihi es. 
THAN; that is, when she saw the Angel of the Lord ready to kill Moses her husband in the Inn, because his son was not circumcised; she took a sharp stone, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that is, she took a knife, which, according to the custom then, was made of stone sharped. This we may learn out of joshuah 5. 2. where the Lord says to joshuah, Make thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (sharp knives, say we) ad verbum, cultros petrarum, and circumcise again the children of Israel: The Chaldee Paraphrast hath, Make thee novaculas acutas: the Septuagint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Thus far all is clear; but for the rest, we are to seek: First, on whom the fault lay, and what was the reason of this omission of circumcision: Then, who, and what is meant, when it is said, she cast, or made the foreskin to touch his feet; and above all, what is meant by sponsus sanguinum.  
Zipporah is commonly reputed to have been a perverse and froward woman; and Moses, the meekest man on earth, to have had that mishap in his choice, which many a good man hath. The reason, because she not only hindered her child from being circumcised, out of some nicety and aversation thereof, as a cruel ceremony; but also, when she saw there was no remedy, but she must do it, to save her husband's life, yet she did it with an upbraiding indignation, telling him, that he was a bloody husband, who must have such a thing done unto his poor child. But I see no ground either for the one, or the other.  
For, that the circumcision of the child was not deferred out of any aversation of hers of that ceremony, may be gathered; First, because she was a Midianitesse, and so a daughter of Abraham, by Ketu rah, and therefore well enough acquainted, and enured to that Rite, which not only her Nation, the Midianites, but all the Nations descended of Abraham observed, as may be seen in the Ismaelites, or Saracens, who learned not this ceremony first from Ma●…met, but retained it as an ancient custom of their Nation. Secondly, she had suffered already her elder son Gershom to be circumcised; wherefore then should we think she was averse from the circumcision of this? For that this child, for whom Moses was now in danger, was Fleezer his youngest son, it cannot be denied; for as much as it is evident, that Moses at this time was the Father of two sons, which, by reason, as may seem, of this disturbance, he sent back with his wife, unto her Father jethro, as we may read in the eighteenth Chapter of this Book: By which it may be gathered, that the cause of this omission of circumcision, was not any averseness in Zipporah from that rite, but rather, because they were in their journey, when the child was born; and so having no convenient time or place to rest in, till the wound might be healed, and thinking it might endanger the infant's life, to be tossed up and down, whilst the wound was green, in so long and tedious a voyage, they resolved to defer the circumcision. And that Zipporah was delivered of this child, when they had begun this journey, for Egypt, may be gathered by this; because Moses, before Gods sending him, hath but one child mentioned, namely, Gershom: For what reason can be given, why, if Eleezer had been then born, he should not have been mentioned also? But howsoever this case of travel afterward excused the Israelites in the Wilderness, for deferring the circumcision of their children then, yet could it not excuse Moses here; in regard it was necessitas accersita, he being not forced to take his wife and children with him, (especially his wife being in that case) but might have sent her and them, back presently to her Father; as upon this admonition he did. Nor was it indeed fit, when God sent him upon such a business to carry such an encumbrance with him.  
Thus have we freed Zipporah from the first charge of being the cause of this omission out of any averseness to the Divine Ordinance: Now I come to show likewise, that the words she spoke at the time of circumcision, Sponsus sanguinum to mihi es, were no words of upbraiding indignation to her husband (as is supposed) but have a far other meaning.  
For I believe not, she spoke these words to Moses, but to her Child, whom she circumcised, as the Formula then used in circumcision; namely, that as the foreskin fell down at her child's feet (not Moses, or the Angel's feet) she pronounced the Verb 〈◊〉 solennia, Tu mihi sponsus sanguinum.  
My reasons are; First, because a Husband is not wont to be called sponsus, after the wedding solemnity is past; nor can there any such example be shown in Scripture; Ergo, it is not like that Zipporah, after she was the mother of two children, should say to her Husband, Sponsus sanguinum tu mihi es.  
Secondly, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word here translated Sponsus, properly signifies Gener, a son in Law, and Sponsus only by way of equivalence or coincidence, (because to be made son in Law to the Parents, is by being the daughters Sponsus) My meaning is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word used, signifies not the relation of the Bridegroom to his Bride; but his relation to his Bride's Parents, by taking their daughter to wife. And therefore in the whole Scripture, we shall never find it relatively used, or with an affix, but only in respect to the wife's Father or Mother: And of the same condition is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we often by equivalence translate a Bride, but properly signifies Nurus; wherefore we shall never find the Bridegroom call the Bride his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor the Bride the Bridegroom her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or that they are called so by others. But only the Husband his Father and Mother in Laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the wife her Father and Mother in Laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: In a word, there is no word in the Hebrew Tongue, which signifies a Bridegroom and Bride, as they stand in relation each to other, but as to each others Parents only: whence it is remarkable that in the Canticles, when this relation comes to be expressed on the Bride's behalf, it is always done by addition of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Soror mea, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Callah, or Nurus my sister, which we translate aequivalenter, Soror mea sponsa. Now if this be true, I see not how Zipporah could call Moses here her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by saying to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanguinum tu mihi es; For she should have called him her son in law, and not her Husband: Ergo, she spoke the words to the child, and not to him.  
Thirdly, for a farther probability hereof, the Jewish Rabbins tell us, that it was the custom of women to call their children when they were circumcised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the word here turned sponsus. Aben Ezra upon this place, Mos mulierum, (saith he) vocare filium cum circumcisus est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rabbi Levi, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in principio connubii vocatur, qui alicui promissus est. Ind translatum ad initium rerum aliarum, ut cum infans recens circumcisus à mulieribus sponsus vocatur. Nam tunc primùm incipit Deo servire. The like hath Rabbi David Kimchi, in his Lexicon, who conjectures withal, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have some signification of causing new joy, and thence to be used both at the day of marriage, and day of circumcision.  
Fourthly, from this custom to call a child at his circumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; with the Arabians (who are of Abraham's posterity, and still use, and anciently used this Rite) Chatan is is to circumcise, Chiten circumcision, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, circumcised, as is ordinarily seen in their Translation of the New Testament: whence comes this? but from the manner of calling a child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when he was circumcised; Even as we, because a child in Baptism is made a Christian, use the word christian for to Baptise, and Christened for Baptised: And Zipporah was an Arabisse, and the Arabian tongue of near affinity with the Hebrew.  
Fifthly, this exposition is agreeable to the following words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and he let him go, when he had said, Sponsus sanguinum, hoc est, circumcisionis; that is, the Angel let Moses go, as soon as those solennia verba, Sponsus sanguinum, were out of Zipporahs' mouth: so the Vulgar rightly translates it: Et dimisit eum, postquam dixerat, Sponsus sanguinum tu mihi es ob circumcisionem. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is here, as elsewhere, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ex tunc, ab eo tempore, postquam, not simply tunc, as we translate it: Namely, as the destroying Angel, Exodus 12. when he saw the blood of the Paschall Lamb upon the lintels and side-posts of the Israelites doors, passed by them, and destroyed them not; so the Angel here, when he saw the blood of the circumcision upon Moses child, let Moses go, and slew him not: In these words, if you mark it, the Holy Ghost expounds what Zipporah meant by those words, Sponsus sanguinum, that is, Sponsus circumcisionis. Et dimisit eum postquam dixit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,— Sponsus sanguinum, id est, circumcisionis; then are not these words spoken of, or to Moses, but unto the child.  
Having thus proved what I took in hand; that these words were not spoke by Zipporah to Moses, but as solennia verba, in that case to her child, whom she circumcised; it remains, I should now tell you how they are so construed. I say therefore, Tu mihi sponsus sanguinum, in Zipporahs' meaning, is as much as Si● mihi initiatus circumcisione: It is well known, how tropically those words of relation of kindred, Father, Mother, Sister, Son, are used in the Hebrew Tongue; and Son, beside other notions, to be often the circumlocution of our vox concreta, as Filius percussionis, is he that is strucken; Filius foederis, he that is foederatus; Filius mortis, he that is condemned to die, or worthy of death; and the like. And why may not then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gener sanguinum, that is, as the Holy Ghost expounds it, circumcisionis, be as much as circumcisus, and Gener sanguinum tu mihi es (for so I told you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies) be as much as, 〈◊〉 pronounce thee circumcised? As if the circumcised person, by being married to circumcision, were made the circumcisers' son in Law, and circumcisions Bridegroom; as Es, or sis, mihi in generum desponsatus circumcisioni.  
Or if blood, or circumcision, note the Instrument, the Formula may be thus explicated, that the person circumcised becomes God's son in Law, as being wedded and joined to his Church, by the blood of circumcision, as with a ring; and then the pronoun mihi, must not be taken relatively to Zipporah, as before, but efficienter only in this sense, Per me factus es gener Deo, per sanguinem circumcisionis: or Feci le generum, Deo: or (if you like better the notion of sponsus) I have espoused thee to the Church of God, by this rite of circumcision, or Thou art, or be thou espoused, etc. Thus, as you see, may the Formula be either way explicated, to one and the same sense. But the first I like the best, because of mihi the relative to Zipporah, Tu mihi in generum es desponsatus circumc●sioni.  
Now lastly, to free my interpretation from novelty, the sense I have given of these words, is that, which both the Septuagint, and the Chaldee Paraphrast directly aim at; the Paraphrast expounding it thus; In sanguine circumcisionis istius, datus est sponsus, or gener mihi; The Septuagint, as we now read, thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Stetit sanguis circumcisionis filii mei: where the Text is corrupted, and I believe the Septuagint translated not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— sit hic sanguis circumcisionis Filii mei; a Periphrasticall, but evident sense, with the change of one letter only.  
From the sense of this place thus proved, I will point out two observations, and so conclude.  
The first is, that it is lawful to use some fitting form of words in the exhibition of a Sacrament, though not expressly ordained by God at the institution thereof; as appears by this form, that Zipporah used, no doubt ex more then, whatsoever the form were after that time.  
The second is, that the neglect of the circumcision of a child then, and so consequently of baptising it now, makes not so much the child, as the Parents liable to the wrath of God; as here the Angel sought not to kill the child, who was uncircumcised; but Moses the Father, who should have circumcised it. Both which observations I mean to amplify no farther, but to leave to your exacter meditations; and so I conclude.   
EZEKIEL 20. 20. 
Ezek. 20. 20.  Hollow my Sabbaths, and they shall be a sign between me and you, to acknowledge that I jehovah am your God. 
THis Commandment, with the end thereof, the Lord bids Ezekiel tell the Elders of Israel, that he gave to their Fathers in the Wilderness. And it is recorded in the Law; so that I might have taken it thence: but I rather chose to make these words in Ezekiel my Text, as expressed more plainly, and so a Comment to those in the Law: the place is Exod. 31. where this, which my Text containeth, is expressed thus, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep, for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, to acknowledge that I jehovah am your sanctifier, that is, your God; as the expression in Ezekiel tells us. For to be the Sanctifier of a People, and to be their God, is all one, whence also the Lord is so often called in Scripture, the Holy One of Israel; that is, their Sanctifier, and their God.  
That which I intent at this time to observe from these words, is the end why God commanded this observation of the Sabbath to the Israelites; to wit, that thereby, as by a Symbolum, they might testify and profess what God they worshipped: Secondly, out of this ground, to show how far, and in what manner the like observation binds us christian's, who are worshippers of the same God, whom the Jews worshipped, though not under the same relation altogether, wherein they worshipped him.  
All Nations had something in their ceremonies, whereby they signified the God they worshipped; so in those of the celestial Gods, (as they termed them) and those which were Deified souls of men, were differing rites, whereby the one was known from the other. Those gods which were made of men, having funeral rites in their services, (as cognisances that they were souls deceased) and each of them some imitation of some remarkable passage of the Legend of their lives, either of some action done by them, or some accident which befell them; as in the ceremonies of Osiris and Bacchus is obvious to any that reads them: And indeed it is a natural Decorum for servants and vassals, by some mark or cognisance to testify who is their Lord and Master: In the Revelation, the worshippers of the Beast receive his mark, and the worshippers of the Lamb carry his mark and his Fathers in their Foreheads. Hence came the first use of the cross in Baptism, as the mark of Christ, the Deity to whom we are initiated; and the same afterwards used in all Benedictions, Prayers, and Thanksgivings, in token they were done in the name, and merits of Christ crucified: so that in the Primitive Church this rite was no more, but that wherewith we conclude all our Prayers, and Thanksgivings, when we say, Through jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour; though afterward it came to be abused, as almost all other rites of Christianity, to abominable superstition.  
To return therefore unto my Text: Agreeably to this principle, and this custom of all Religions, of all Nations, of all vassals, the Lord jehovah, Creator of heaven and earth, ordained to his people this observation of the Sabbath day, for a sign and cognisance, that he should be their God, and no other. It is for a sign, saith he, between me and you, that I jehovah am your God. In the place I quoted before, in the 31. of Exod. are these words; The Children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual Covenant; it is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever, for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested: As if he had said, it is a sign that the Creator of heaven and earth is your God.  
But for the distinct understanding of this signification, we must know that the Sabbath includes two respects of time: First, the quotum, one day of seven, or the seventh day after six days labour: Secondly, the designation, or pitching that seventh day, upon the day we call Saturday. In both, the sabbatical observation was a sign, and profession that jehovah and no other was the God of Israel: the first, according to his attribute of Creator; the second of Deliverer of Israel out of Egypt. For by sanctifying the seventh day, after they had laboured six, they professed themselves vassals and worshippers of that only God, who created the heaven and the earth, and having spent six days in that great work, rested the seventh day; and therefore commanded them to observe this suitable distribution of their time, as a badge and livery that their religious service was appropriate to him alone. And this is that which the fourth Commandment in the reason given from the Creation intendeth, and no more but this.  
But seeing they might profess this acknowledgement, as well by any other six days working, and a sevenths resting, as by those they pitched upon; there being still (what six days soever they had laboured, and what seventh soever they had rested) the same conformity with their Creator; let us see the reason why they pitched upon those six days wherein they laboured, for labouring days rather than any other six; and why they chose that seventh day, namely Saturday, to hollow and rest in, rather than any other.  
And this was, that they might profess themselves servants of jehovah their God, in a relation and respect peculiar and proper to themselves; to wit, that they were the servants of that God, which redeemed Israel out of the Land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage; and upon the morning watch of that very day which they kept for their Sabbath, he overwhelmed Pharaoh, and all his Host in the Red Sea, and saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians. This I gather from the repetition of the Decalogue, Deut. 5. where that reason from the world's Creation (in the Decalogue given at Horeb) being left out, Moses inserts this other of the Redemption of Israel out of Egypt in stead thereof; namely, as the reason, why those six days rather than any other six for work, and that seventh day rather then any other seventh for rest, were pitched upon, as Israel observed them. Remember, saith he, thou wert a servant in the Land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God, brought thee out thence through a mighty hand, and a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath Day: Not for the quotum of one day of seven, (for of that another reason was given, the example of God in the Creation) but for the designation of the day.  
But whether this day were in order the seventh from the Creation or not, the Scripture is silent; for where it is called in the Commandment the seventh day, that is in respect of the six days of labour, and not otherwise: and therefore, whensoever it is so called, those six days of labour are mentioned with it. The seventh day therefore is the seventh after six days of labour, nor can any more be inferred from it: The example of the Creation is brought for the quotum, one day of seven, as I have showed, and not for the designation of any certain day for that seventh. Nevertheless, it might fall out so, by disposition of Divine Providence, that the Jews designed seventh day was, both the seventh in order from the Creation, and also the day of their deliverance out of Egypt. But the Scripture no where tells us it was so, (howsoever most men take it for granted) and therefore it may as well be not so: Certain I am, the Jews kept not that day for a Sabbath till the raining of Manna: For that which should have been their Sabbath the week before, had they then kept the day, which afterward they kept, was the fifteenth day of the second month; on which day we read in the 16. of Exodus, that they marched a wearisome march, and came at night into the wilderness of Sin; where they murmured for their poor entertainment, and wished they had died in Egypt: that night the Lord sent them Quails, the next morning it reigned Manna, which was the sixteenth day, and so six days together; the seventh, which was the two and twentieth, it reigned none, and that day they were commanded to keep for their Sabbath: now if the two and twentieth day of the month were the Sabbath, the fifteenth should have been, if that day had been kept before; but the Text tells us expressly, they marched that day; and, which is strange, the day of the month is never named, unless it be once, for any station but this, where the Sabbath was ordained; otherwise it could not have been known, that that day was ordained for a day of rest, which before was none. And why might not their day of holy rest be altered, as well as the beginning of the year was, for a memorial of their coming out of Egypt? I can see no reason, why it might not, nor find any testimony to assure me it was not.  
And thus much of the Jews Sabbath, how and wherein it was a sign, whereby they professed themselves the servants of jehovah, and no other God.  
Now I come to the second thing I propounded, to show how far, and in what manner the like observation binds us Christians.  
I say therefore, that the Christian as well as the jew, after six days spent in his own works, is to sanctify the seventh, that he may profess himself thereby a servant of God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth; as well as the Jew. For the quotum therefore, the Jew and Christian agree, but in designation of the day they differ. For the Christian chooseth for his Holy day, that which with the Jews was the first day of the week, and calls it Dominicum, that he might thereby profess himself a servant of that God, who on the morning of that day, vanquished Satan, the Spiritual Pharaoh, and redeemed us from our Spiritual thraldom, by raising jesus Christ our Lord from the dead, begetting us in stead of an earthly Canaan, to an inheritance incorruptible in the Heavens: In a word, the Christian, by the day he hallows, professes himself a Christian; that is, as S. Paul speaks, To believe on him that raised up jesus from the dead; so that the Jew and Christian both, though they fall not upon the same day, yet make their designation of their day upon the like ground; the Jews, the memorial day of their deliverance from the temporal Egypt, and temporal Pharaoh: the Christians, the memorial of their deliverance from the spiritual Egypt, and spiritual Pharaoh.  
But might not (will you say) the Christian, as well have observed the Jewish for his seventh day, as the day he doth? I answer, No; he might not: For, in so doing, he should seem not to acknowledge his Redemption to be already performed; but still expected. For the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt by the Ministry of Moses, was intended for a type and pledge of the spiritual deliverance, which was to come by Christ: their Canaan also to which they marched, being a type of that heavenly inheritance, which the redeemed by Christ do look for: Since therefore the shadow is now made void by the coming of the substance, the relation is changed, and God is no longer to be worshipped, and believed in, as a God foreshowing and assuring by types; but as a God who hath performed the substance of what he promised. And this is that which S. Paul means, Colossians 2. 16, 17. where he saith, Let no man judge you (henceforth) in respect of a Feast day, New Moon, or Sabbath days, which were a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.   
1. CO●. 〈◊〉. 5. 
1 Cor. 11. 5.  Every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head. 
I Have chosen this of the woman, rather than that of the man going before it, for the Theme of my Discourse; First, because I conceive the fault, at the reformation whereof the Apostle here almeth, in the Church of Corinth, was the women's only, not the men's. That which the Apostle speaks of a man praying or prophesying, being by way of supposition, and for illustration of the unseemliness of that guise which the women used. Secondly, because the condition of the sex in the words read, makes something for the better understanding of that which is spoken of both; as we shall see presently.  
What I intent to speak upon this Text, shall consist of these two parts; First, of an enquiry, what is here meant by prophesying, a thing attributed to women, and therefore undoubtedly some such thing as they were capable of. Secondly, what was this fault for matter and manner, of the women of the Church of Corinth, which the Apostle here reproveth.  
To begin with the first, and which I am like to dwell longest upon; Some take prophesying here, in the stricter sense, to be foretelling of things to come; as that which in those Primitive times, both men and women did, by the pouring out of the Holy Ghost upon them; according to that of the Prophet joel, applied by S. Peter to the sending of the Holy Ghost at the first promulgation of the Gospel: I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions. And that such Prophetesses as these, were those four Daughters of Philip the Evangelist, whereof we read Acts 21. 9  
Others take prophesying here in a more large notion, for the gift of interpreting and opening Divine mysteries contained in holy Scripture, for the instruction and edification of the hearers; especially, as it was then inspired and suggested in extraordinary manner by the Holy Spirit, as Prophecy was given of old; according to that of S. Peter, Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So because many, in the beginning of the Gospel, were guided by a like instinct in the interpretation and application of Scripture, they were said to Prophecy. Thus the Apostle useth it in the fourteenth Chapter of this Epistle, where he discourses of spiritual Gifts, and before all prefers this of Prophecy; because he that prophesieth, (saith he) speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.  
But neither of these kinds of Prophecy suit with the person in my Text, which is a woman: For it is certain the Apostle speaks here of prophesying in the Church, or Congregation; but in the Church a woman might not speak, no not so much as ask a question for her better instruction, much less teach and instruct others. This the Apostle teacheth us in this very Epistle, Chapter the fourteenth; even there where he discourseth so largely of those kinds of Prophecy: Let your women (saith he) keep silence in the Churches: For it is not permitted unto them to speak, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to be subject: And if they will learn, let them ask their husbands at home. Again in the first of Timothy, the second and the eleventh, Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. 12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. Note here, that to speak in a Church Assembly, by way of teaching or instructing others, is an act of superiority, which therefore a woman might not do, because her sex was to be in subjection, and so to appear before God in that Garb and Posture, which consisted therewith; that is, they might not speak to instruct men in the Church, but to God she might.  
To avoid this difficulty, some would have the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in my Text, to be taken passively, namely, to hear, or be present at Prophecy, which is an acception without example, either in Scripture, or any where else. It is true, the Congregation is said to pray when the Priest only speaks; but that they should be said to preach, who are present only at the hearing of a Sermon, is a Trope without example. For the reason is not alike: In prayer the Priest is the mouth of the Congregation, and does what he does in their names, and they assent to it by saying, A men. But he that preaches or prophecies is not the mouth of the Church, to speak aught in their names, that so they might be said to speak too; but he is the mouth of God speaking to them. It is not likely therefore, that those who only hear another speaking or prophesying to them, should be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no more, as I said, then that all they should be said to preach, who were at the hearing of a Sermon.  
What shall we do then? Is there any other acception of the word prophesying left us, which may fit our turn? Yes, there is a fourth acception, which if it can be made good, will suit our Text better (I think) then any of the former; to wit, that prophesying here should be taken for praising God in Hymns and Psalms. For so it is fitly coupled with praying: Praying and praising, being the parts of the Christian Liturgy. Besides, our Apostle also in the fourteenth Chapter of this Epistle, joins them both together; I will pray, saith he, with the spirit, and will pray with understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing, that is, prophecy, with understanding also. For, because Prophets of old did three things: First, foretell things to come: Secondly, notify the will of God unto the people: And thirdly, uttered themselves in musical wise, and, as I may so speak, in a poetical strain and composure: Hence it comes to pass, that to prophesy in Scripture, signifies the doing of any of these three things, and amongst the rest, to praise God in verse or musical composure.  
This to be so, as I say, I shall prove unto you out of two places of Scripture; and first out of the first of Chronicles, ch. 25. where the word Prophecy is three several times thus used: I will allege the words of the Text at large, because I cannot well abbreviate them; These they are; v. 1. Moreover David and the Captains of the Host, separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of jeduthun, who should prophesy with Harps, with Psalteries, and with Cymbals: and the number of the men of Office according to their service was, 2. Of the sons of Asaph, Zaccur, and joseph, and Nathaniah, and Asarelah, the sons of Asaph under the hands of Asaph, which prophesied according to the order of the King. 3. Of jeduthun, the sons of jeduthun, Gedaliah, and Zeri, and jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah (and Schimei) six, under the hands of their Father jeduthun, who prophesied with a Harp to give thanks, and to praise the Lord. Lo here, to prophesy 
Vide etiam 2 Chr. 29. 3●. & 35. 15.  and to give thanks, (or confess) and to praise the Lord with spiritual songs, made all one. Nor needs such a notion seem strange, when as even among the Latins, the word vates signifieth both him that foretells things to come, and a Poet: for that the Gentile Oracles were given likewise in verse: And S. Paul to Titus, calls the Cretian Poet, Epimenides, a Prophet; as one, saith he, of their own Prophets said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Arabians (whose language comes the nearest both in words and notions to the Hebrew) call a chief Poet of theirs (Princeps omnium Poetarum (saith ●rpenius) quos unquam vidit mundus) Muttenabbi, that is, Prophetizans, or Propheta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now than if Asaph, jeduthun, and Heman prophesied when they praised God in such Psalms, as are entitled unto their several Quires; as we find them in the Psalm-Book, (for know that all the Psalms entitled to the sons of Korah, belonged to the Choir of Heman, who descended from Korah,) why may not we, when we sing the same Psalms be said to prophesy likewise? namely, as he that useth a prayer composed by another, prayeth; and that according to the spirit of him that composed it; So he that praiseth God with these spiritual and prophetical composures, may be said to prophesy according to that spirit, which speaketh in them.  
And that Almighty God is well pleased with such service as this, may appear by that one story of King jehoshaphat, in the second of Chronicles, who when he marched forth against that great confederate Army of the children of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, the Text there tells us, that having consulted with his people, He appointed singers unto the Lord, that should praise the Beauty of holiness, as they went out before the 
2 Chron. 20. 21.  Army, and to say, Praise the Lord, for his mercy endureth for ever, (that is, they should sing the one hundred and sixth Psalm, or one hundred thirty sixth, which begin in this manner, and were both of them not unfit for such an occasion;) And when they began to sing 
Verse 22.  and praise, (saith the Text) the Lord set ambushments against the children of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, which were come against judah, and they were smitten.  
A second place where such kind of Prophets and prophesying, as we speak of, is mentioned, is that in the first of Samuel, in the story of Saul's election, where 
1 Sam. 10. 5 10.  we read, That when he came to a certain place, called the Hill of God, he met a company of Prophets coming down from the high place, (or Oratory there) with a Psaltery, a Tabret, and a Pipe, and a Harp before them, and they prophesied, and he with them. Their Instruments argue what kind of Prophecy this was; namely, praising God with spiritual songs, and melody. In what manner, is not so easy to define or specify: But with an extemporary rapture, I easily believe. And if we may conjecture by other examples, one of them should seem to have been the Preceptor, and to utter the verse or ditty; the rest to have answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the extremes or last words of the verse; For after this manner we are told by Philo judaeus, that the Essens (who were of the jewish Nation) were wont to sing their Hymns in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or worshipping places. And after the selfsame manner, Eusebius tells us, did the Primitive Christians, having in all likelihood learned it from the Jews, whose manner it was; the same is witnessed by the Author Constitutionum Apostolicarum in his second Book, and fifty seventh Cham where describing the manner of the Christian 
Note to sing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. alternis choris, and answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are divers. Vid. Hook. l. 5. p. 261.  service; after the reading of the Lessons of the Old Testament, (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let another sing the Psalms of David, and the people, succinere, or answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (〈◊〉.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the extremes of the verses. Some footsteps of which custom remain still with us (though perhaps in somewhat a different way) when in those short versicles of Liturgy, being sentences taken out of the Psalms, the Priest says or sings the first half, and the People answer the latter; quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As for example, in that taken out of Psal. 51. 17. the Priest says, O Lord open thou our lips; The People or Chorus answer, And our mouth shall show forth thy praise. But whatsoever the ancient manner of answering was, thus much we are sure of, that the jews in their divine lauds were wont to praise God after this manner, in Antiphones or Responsories; as (to let pass other testimonies, and the use of their Synagogues to this day derived from their Ancestors,) we may learn by two special Arguments; one from the Seraphims singing, Esay the sixth, where it is said, that the Seraphims cried one unto another saying, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts, the whole earth is full of his Glory. Note, they cried one unto another. Secondly, from the use of the Hebrew verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in the proper and native signification thereof being to answer, is also used for to sing: as in the Psalm, where we translate, Sing unto the Lord with thanksgiving, 
Psa. 147. 7.  sing praise upon the Harp unto our God; in the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Answer unto the Lord in thanksgiving, sing praise upon the Harp unto our God. And Isay 27. 2. In that day sing ye unto her, a vineyard of red wine. In the Hebrew, Answer ye unto her. And Numbers 21. in Israel's song of the Well; Spring up, O Well, sing ye unto it. In the Hebrew it is, Answer unto it. And Moses speaking of those that were worshipping the golden Calf, Exodus 32. 18. It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, nor the voice of them that cry for being overcome, but the noise of them that sing do I hear; In the Hebrew, the voice of them that answer one another. And so in other places. But to put all out of doubt, look Ezra 3. 11. where it is expressly said, The Levites, the sons of Asaph, sung together by course, in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord, because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever. Hence was derived the manner of praying, and praising God in the Christian service, alternis vicibus, in a musical way, and, as it were, by way of prophesying and versifying; even though we do but speak it only; as you know the Poet says, Amant alterna Camaenae. Thus I have taken occasion somewhat to enlarge this particular; That we ourselves might the better understand the reason of what we do, and what precedents, and whose example we follow therein. And thus much of prophesying.  
I come now to the second thing, I propounded to speak of; namely, what was that fault among the Corinthians, which the Apostle here taxeth: For the right understanding whereof, I say two things; First, for the offenders, that they were the women, and not the men. That which the Apostle speaketh concerning men, being by way of supposition only, and to illustrate his Argument against the uncomely guise of the women à pari: this appears, because his conclusion speaks of women only, and nothing at all of men. Secondly, for the quality of the fault, it was this; that the women at the time of praying and prophesying were unveiled in the Church; notwithstanding it was then accounted an unseemly and immodest guise, for women to appear open and bare-faced in public. How then, will you say, should it come to pass, that Christian women should so much forget themselves, as to transgress this decorum in God's House, and service which they observed other where? I answer, from a fantastical imitation of the manner of the she-Priests and Prophetesses of the Gentiles, when they served their Idols, as their Pythiae, Bacchaes, or Maenades, and the like; who used, when they uttered their Oracles, or celebrated the rites and sacrifices of their Gods, to put themselves into a wild and extaticall guise, having their faces discovered, their hait dishevelled, and hanging about their ears: This these Corinthian women (conceiting themselves when they prayed or prophesied in the Church, to be acting the parts of she-Priests, uttering Oracles like, the Pythiae, or Sibyllae, or celebrating sacrifice, as the Maenades, or Bacchaes) were so fond, as to imitate (as that sex is prone to follow the fashion) and accordingly cast off their veils, and discovered their faces immodestly in the Congregation, and thereby (as the Apostle speaks) dishonoured their heads; that is, were unseemly accoutred, and dressed on their head: which he proveth by three Arguments; partly from Nature, which having given women their hair for a covering, taught them to be covered, as a sign of subjection; the manner of this covering being to be measured by the custom of the Nation: Lastly, by an Argument à pari, from men, for whom even themselves being Judges, it would be an uncomely thing to wear a vail, that is, a woman's habit; so by the like reason, was it as uncomely for a woman to be without a vail, that is, in the guise and dress of a man. And howsoever the Devils of the Gentiles, sometimes took pleasure in uncomeliness, and absurd garbs and gestures; yet the God whom they worshipped with his holy Angels, who were present at their devotions, loved a comely accommodation, agreeable to Nature and Custom, in such as worshipped him. For this cause therefore (saith he) ought a woman to have a covering on her head, because of the Angels. Lastly, he concludes it, from the example and custom both of the jewish and Christian Churches, neither of which had any such use, for their women to be unvailed in their sacred assemblies: If any man (saith he) be contentious, (that is, will not be satisfied with these reasons) let him know, that we, (that is, we of the Circumcision) have no such custom, nor the Church of God. For so, with S. Ambrose, Anselm, and some of the ancients, I take the meaning of the Apostle to be in those words.  
Thus you have heard briefly, what was the fault of these Corinthian Dames, which the Apostle here taxeth. From which we ourselves may learn thus much; That God requires a decent and comely accommodation in his House, in the act of his worship, and service; For if in their habit and dress, surely much more in their gestures, and deportment; he loves nothing that is unseemly in the one, or in the other.   
TITUS 3. 5. 
Titus 3. 5.  By the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. 
THese words, as it is easy to conceive, upon the first hearing, are spoken of Baptism; of which I intent not by this choice, to make any full or accurate tractation, but only to acquaint you (as I am wont) with my thoughts concerning two particulars therein: One, from what propriety, analogy, or use of water, the washing therewith was instituted for a sign of new birth, according as it is here called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the washing of regeneration. The other, what is the counter-type, or thing which the water figureth in this Sacrament.  
I will begin with the last first, because the knowledge thereof must be supposed, for the explication and more distinct understanding of the other. In every Sacrament, as ye well know, there is the outward Symbol or sign, res terrena, and the signatum figured and represented thereby, res coelestis. In this of Baptism, the sign or res terrena, is washing with water: The question is, what is the Signatum, the invisible and celestial thing, which answers thereunto? In our catechetical explications of this mystery, it is wont to be affirmed to be the blood of Christ; That as Water washeth away the filth of the body, so the blood of Christ cleanseth us from the guilt and pollution of sin. And there is no question but the blood of Christ is the fountain of all the grace and good communicated unto us, either in this or any other Sacrament, or mystery of the Gospel. But that this should be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the counterpart, or thing figured by the water in Baptism, I believe not, because the Scripture, which must be our guide and direction in this case, makes it another thing; to wit, the Spirit or Holy Ghost; this to be that, whereby the soul is cleansed and renewed within, as the body with water is without; so saith our Saviour to Nicodemus, joh. 3. Except a man be born of water, and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. And the Apostle in the words I have read, parallels the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, as type and countertype. God (saith he) hath saved us (that is, brought us into the state of salvation,) by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost: where none, I trow, will deny that he speaks of Baptism. The same was represented by that vision, at our Saviour's Baptism, of the holy Ghosts descending upon him, as he came out of the water, in the similitude of a Dove: For I suppose, that in that Baptism of his, the mystery of all our Baptisms was visibly acted; and that God says to every one, truly baptised▪ as he said to him, (in a proportionable sense,) Thou art my Son, in whom I am well pleased.  
And how pliable the analogy of water is to typify the Spirit, well appears by the figuring of the Spirit thereby in other places of Scripture; As in that of Isay, I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and slouds upon the dry ground: I will pour my Spirit upon 
Isa. 44. 3.  by seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring, where the latter expounds the former: Also by the discourse of our Saviour with the Samaritan woman, john 4. 14. Whosoever (saith he) drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of water springing up to everlasting life: By that also, joh. 7. 37. where on the last day of the great feast, jesus stood and said, If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture saith (that is, as the Scripture is wont to express it, for otherwise there is no such place of Scripture to be found in all the Bible) out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this (saith the Evangelist) he spoke of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.  
Nor did the Fathers or ancient Church, as far as I can find, suppose any other correlative to the element in Baptism, but this; of this they speak often, of the blood of Christ they are altogether silent in their explications of this mystery: many are the allusions they seek out, for the illustration thereof, and some perhaps forced, but this of the water, signifying or having any relation to the blood of Christ, never comes amongst them; which were impossible, if they ●ad not supposed some other thing figured by the water, than it; which barred them from falling on that conceit.  
The like silence is to be observed in our Liturgy, where the Holy Ghost is more than once paralled with the water in Baptism, washing and regeneration attributed thereunto; but no such notion of the blood of Christ. And that the opinion thereof is novel, may be gathered, because some Lutheran Divines make it peculiar and proper to the followers of Calvin.  
Whatsoever it be, it hath no foundation in Scripture, and we must not of our own heads assign significations to Sacramental types without some warrant thence. For whereas some conceive those two expressions, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or sprinkling of the blood of 
1 Pet. 1. 2.  Christ, and of our being washed from our sins in (or by) his blood, do intimate some such matter, they are 
Apoc. 1. 5.  surely mistaken; for those expressions have reference not to the water of Baptism in the New Testament, but to the rite and manner of sacrificing in the Old; where the Altar was wont to be sprinkled with the blood of the Sacrifices, which were offered, and that which was unclean purified with the same blood: whence is that elegant discourse of Saint Paul, (Heb. 9) comparing the sacrifices of the Law, with that of Christ upon the Cross, as much the better. And that whereas in the Law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Almost all things were purified with blood; so much more the blood of Christ, who offered himself without spot to God, cleanseth our consciences from dead works: But that this washing, that is, cleansing by the blood of Christ, should have reference to Baptism, where is that to be found? I suppose, they will not allege the water and blood which came out of our Saviour's side, when they pierced him; For that is taken to signify the two Sacraments ordained by Christ, that of blood the Eucharist, of water Baptism, & not both to be referred to Baptism: I add, because perhaps some men's fancies are corrupted therewith, that there was no such thing as sprinkling, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used in Baptism in the Apostles times, nor many ages after them; and that therefore it is no way probable, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Peter should have any reference to the Laver of Baptism.  
Let this then be our conclusion; That the blood of Christ concurres in the mystery of Baptism, by way of efficacy and merit, but not as the thing there figured; which the Scripture tells us not to be the blood of Christ, but the Spirit.  
And so I come to my other Quaere. From what property or use of water, the washing therewith is a Sacrament of our new birth; for so it is here called, the washing of regeneration; and our Saviour says to Nicodemus, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. For in every Sacrament there is some analogy between what is outwardly done, and what is thereby signified: therefore in this. But what should it be? It is a thing of some moment, and yet in the tractates of this mystery, but little or seldom enquired after; and therefore deserves the more consideration. I answer; this analogy between the washing with water, and regeneration lies in that custom of washing infants from the pollutions of the womb, when they are first born; for this is the first office done unto them when they come out of the womb, if they purpose to nourish and bring them up. As therefore in our natural birth, the body is washed with water from the pollutions wherewith it comes besmeared out of the matrix; so in our second birth from above, the soul is purified by the Spirit, from the guilt and pollution of sin, to begin a new life to God-ward.  
The analogy you see is apt and proper, if that be true of the custom, whereof there is no cause to make question. For the use at present, any man, I think, knows how to inform himself: For that of elder times, I can produce two pregnant and notable testimonies; one of the Jews and people of God; another of the Gentiles. The first you shall find Ezek. 16. where God describes the poor and forlorn condition of Jerusalem, when he first took her to himself, under the parable of an exposed Infant; As for thy nativity, saith he, in the day thou wast born, 
Ezek. 16. 4, 5.  thy navel was not cut, neither was thou washed in water, to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all: None eye pitied thee, to do any of these things unto thee, to have compassion on thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the loathing of thy person in the day that thou wast born. Here you may learn what was wont to be done unto infants at their nativity, by that which was not done to Israel▪ till God himself took pity on her, cutting off the navel string, washing, salting, swaddling: upon this place S. Hierome takes notice (but scarce any body else, that I can yet find) that our Saviour, where speaking of Baptism, he says, Except a man be born of water & the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, alludes to the custom here mentioned of washing Infants at their nativity.  
The other testimony (and that most pertinent to the application we make) I find in a story related by Plutarch, in his Quaestiones Romanae, not far from the beginning, in this manner: Among the Greeks, if one that were living were reported to be dead, and funeral obsequies performed for him, if afterward he returned alive, he was of all men abominated, as a pro fane and unlucky person; no man would come into his company, and (which was the highest degree of calamity) they excluded him from their Temples and the Sacrifices of their gods: It chanced that one Aristinus being fallen into such a disaster, & not knowing which way to expiate himself therefrom, sent to the Oracle at Delphos, to Apollo, beseeching him to show him the means whereby he might be freed and discharged thereof. Pythia gave him this answer, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 

What women do, when one in childbed lies,  
That do again, so mayst thou sacrifice.    Arastinus rightly apprehending what the Oracle meant, offered himself to women, as one newly brought forth to be washed again with water; from which example it grew a custom among the Greeks, when the like misfortune befell any man, after this manner to expiate them; they called them Hysterop●tmi, or Postlimini●nati: How well doth this befit the mystery of Baptism? where those who were dead to God through sin, are like Hysteropotmi, regenerate and born again by water and the Holy Ghost.  
These two passages discover sufficiently, the analogy of the washing with water in Baptism to regeneration or new birth; according as the Text, I have chosen for the scope of my discourse, expresseth it; namely, that washing with water is a sign of spiritual infancy; for as much as infants are wont to be washed, when they come first into the world.  
Hence the Jews before john the Baptist came amongst them, were wont by this rite to initiate such, as they made Proselytes, (to wit) as becoming infants again, and entering into a new life and being, which before they had not. That which here I have affirmed, will be yet more evident, if we consider those other rites anciently added and used in the celebration of this mystery, which had the selfsame end we speak of; namely, to signify spiritual Infancy. I will name them, and so conclude; As that of giving the new baptised milk and honey, ad infantandum, as Tertullian speaks; ad infantie significationem, so S. Hierome; because the like was used to infants new born; according to that in the seventh of Isay, of Immanuels' infancy; A Virgin shall conceive and bear a son; butter and honey shall he eat, 
Isa. 7. 14, 15.  that he may know to refuse evil and choose good. Secondly, that of salt, as is implied in that of Ezekiel, Thou wast not washed with water, nor salted with salt: that of putting on the white garment, to resemble swaddling: All these were anciently (especially the first) used in the Sacrament of our Spiritual birth, out of reference to that which was done to Infants at their natural birth. Who then can doubt, but the principal rite of washing with water, the only one ordained by our blessed Saviour, was chosen for the same reason? to be the element of our initiation; and that those who brought in the other, did so conceive of this; and from thence derived those imitations.   
JOSH. 24. 26. 
josh. 24. 26.  And (Joshuah) took a great stone, and set it up there (viz. in Sichem) under the Oak, which was in the Sanctuary of the Lord: Alii, by the Sanctuary. Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
THE Story whereupon these words depend is this; joshuah a little before his death assembled all the Tribes of Israel at Shechem, or Sichem; there to make a solemn Covenant between them and the Lord, to have him alone for their God, and to serve no other Gods besides him: which they having solemnly promised to do, saying, The Lord our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey: joshuah for a testimony and monument of this their stipulation, erects in the place a great stone or pillar under an Oak, which was by (or, as the Hebrew hath it, in) the sanctuary of the Lord. Of this Oak, or rather collectively, Querce●um, or Oaken-holt of Sichem, is twice mention made elsewhere in Scripture. For this was the place where Abraham first sat down, and where the Lord appearing unto him, he erected his first Altar in the Land of Canaan, after he came out of Haran thither; as we read Gen. 12. 6. in these words; And Abraham passed through the Land unto the place of Sichem, unto the Oak, or Oak-grove of Morch, where the Lord appeared unto him, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this Land; and there he builded an Altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him. And what place more fit for Abraham's posterity, to renew a Covenant with their God, then that where their God first made his Covenant with Abraham their Father? Again, it was this place, where in the aftertimes of the Judges, one hundred and seventy years after the death of joshuah, the Sichemites made Abimelech, the base son of jerubaal or Gideon, King, as we read judg. 9 6. That all the men of Sichem gathered together, and all the House of Millo, and went and made Abimelech King, by the Oak of the Pillar which was in Sichem: The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, even the Oak, where joshuah here in my Text set up this great stone for a witness to Israel. For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the other two places, signify one and the same thing, to wit, either an Oak, Terebinth, or some other kind of tree; as the Septuagint perpetually render them.  
Yea, that of judges must of necessity so be rendered, by comparing it with this of my Text, to which it hath reference: Nevertheless our last Translation in the first of these places. Gen. 12. concerning Abraham, chose rather to follow S. Hierome (wherefore I know not) who follows not himself, and translates it a plain, not an Oak, to wit, the plain of Morch: by which Translation, the identity of that place with the other two, where it is translated Oak, is obscured and made the less observable. If there be any difference between the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it should rather be this, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should signify a tree, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a grove, holt, or wood of such trees; as the Septuagint in that place of the ninth of judges, have expressly rendered it, namely, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Quercetum, Oak toft, or holt in Sichem. And so, I believe, it ought to be understood in the other places, that is, to be taken collectively; of which we shall hear more hereafter.  
But this is no great matter of difficulty, that which follows is; namely, how this Oak, or Oaken-holt of Sichem, is said here in my Text to have been in (for the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) or by the Sanctuary of the Lord. For how comes the Sanctuary of the Lord to be at Sichem, when as the Tabernacle, and the Ark of the Testimony were at Shiloh, there set up by joshuah himself, and so remained (as the Scripture elsewhere tells us) until the time of the Captivity of the Land; which without doubt was not till after joshuah was dead and buried: and is usually understood of that time, when the Ark was taken captive by the Philistims. And yet is not only here a Sanctuary mentioned at Sichem, but in the beginning of the Chapter, the Elders and Officers of the Tribes are said, upon joshuahs' summons, to have presented themselves there before the Lord, which speech useth to imply as much.  
If we say, the Ark of God was taken out of its place at Shiloh, and brought to Sichem by the Levites, upon occasion of this general Assembly, yet the difficulty will not be removed: For first, how could the Ark alone give d●●oinin●tion to the place where it stood, to be called the Sanctuary of the Lord? Or secondly, if the Altar were there with it, how was the Law of God observed, which saith, Thou shalt not 
Deut 16. 21  plant a Grove of any trees, (or any tree) near unto the Altar of thy God, which thou shalt make thee; Neither shalt thou set up a pillar, which the Lord thy God hateth; when as here are both, an Oak or Quercetum, in the Sanctuary of God, and a Pillar or Statue erected under it?  
Thirdly, this Sanctuary, whatsoever it was, must be something which had a constant and fixed station, and was not temporary or mutable; because the Oak, under which this pillar was erected by joshuah, is here designed and appointed out by it, as by a constant and standing mark: else to what purpose had it been to sign out the Oak by it, if it were such as would be here to day and not to morrow? For these reasons it appears that this Sanctuary could not be the Tabernacle, where the Ark and Altar for Israel were, but that it was something else: And what that should be, is to be enquired.  
I answer, it was a Proseucha, or praying place, which the Israelites (at least those of Ephraim, in whose lot it was) after the Country was subdued unto them, had erected in that very place at Sichem, where God first appeared to Abraham, and where he built his first Altar, after he was come into the Land of Canaan; The place where God said unto him, Unto thy seed will I give this Land.  
For the understanding whereof, you must take notice, that the Jews besides their Tabernacle or Temple, which was the only place for sacrifice, had first or last two sorts of places for religious duties: The one called Proseuchaes; the other Synagogues: the difference between which was this; Proseucha was a plot of ground, encompassed with a wall, or some other like mound or enclosure, and open above, much like to our Courts: the use properly for prayer, as the name Proseucha importeth: A Synagogue was aedificium tectum, a covered edifice, as our houses and Churches are, where the Law and Prophets were read and expounded, and the people instructed in divine matters; according to that Acts 15. 21. Moses of old time hath in every City them that preach him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day. From whence also ye may gather, that Synagogues were within the Cities, as Proseucha's were without; which was another difference between them, as you shall hear confirmed.  
That Proseucha's were such places as I have described them to be, I prove out of a notable place of Epiphanius, a Jew bred and born in Palestine; who in his Tract against the Messalian Heretics, after he hath told us that the Messaliam built themselves certain houses, or large places, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fororum instar, which they called Proseuchae; he goes on thus; Et habuisse quidem judaeos jam olim, ut & Samaritas▪ certa quaedam ad precandum loca extra urbes, quas Proseuchas dicerent, ex Apostolorum Actibus liquet, ubi purpurae institrix Lydia Apostolo Paulo occurrisse dicitur; De quo ita Scriptura narrat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it seemed to be a place of prayer, (of which I shall say more anon;) He goes on still, Est & Sicimis, saith he, quae hodie Neapolis dicitur, Proseuchae locus extra urbem Theatro similis, secundo ab urbe lapide situs; Quem ita aperto coelo & area subdiali extruxerunt Samaritae judaeorum in omnibus imitatores. Out of these words you may collect every part of my description. First, that Proseuchae were out of the Cities in the fields. Secondly, that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, like the ancients Forum, or place of market, and 
* The like he hath a few lines after of the Sataniani; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, under the open air, and without roof, such as the Courts of the Temple also were, whither the people came to pray; so that they were as it were a kind of disjoined, and remoter Courts unto the Temple, whither they turned themselves when they prayed in them. Thirdly, that they were ordained for places of prayer; All these are in this passage of Epiphanius; and moreover that such a one was in his time remaining at Sichem, the place my Text speaks of, there erected by the Samaritans, in that, as in all things else, imitators of the Jews: What better testimony could be desired?  
These Proseucha's of the Jews, both name and thing, were not unknown to the Poet juvenal, when describing in his third satire, in what manner proud and insolent fellows in the City of Rome, used in their drunken humours, to abuse and quarrel with those they met in the streets, in the night time, whom they took to be of mean estate and condition, he brings them in speaking thus: Ede ubi consistas; in quâ te quaero Proseuchâ? where dwell you? in what Proseucha should I seek or inquire for you? intimating that he was some poor fellow, either that dwelled in an house that could not keep out wind and weather, but was like a Jews Proseucha, all open above; or he alludes to the banishment of the Jews out of Rome, by Domitian, in his own time, and then fresh, as who had no where else to bestow themselves, but in their Proseucha's out of the City, or who used to assemble in the Proseucha's; according to some of these senses is juvenal to be understood.  
For that the Jews had Proseucha's about the City of Rome, appears by Philo judaeus in his De legatione ad Calum; where commending the clemency and moderation of Augustus Caesar, he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he knew the Jews of Rome had their Proseucha's, and that they used to assemble in them, especially on the Sabbath days, and yet never molested them, as Caius did. The same Philo mentioneth Proseucha's elsewhere, though it be not to be dissembled, 
Vide de vita Mosis. Lib 3.  that he seems to comprehend Synagogues also properly so called under that name, as being better known to the Gentiles, who called both by that name▪ josephus in his Life tells us of a Proseucha at Tiberias in Galilee, in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the next day, the Sabbath, the whole people were gathered together in the Proseucha, which is (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a large edifice, fit to receive a great multitude.  
In the New Testament, the name of Synagogue is frequent, but that of Proseucba seldom; whence may be conjectured that both are comprehended under that name, as in Philo both are termed Proseuchae: yet once or twice, as learned Interpreters think, we read of Proseucha's in the new Testament; as namely Acts 16. 13. (which Epiphanius even now alleged to that purpose) where S. Luke tells us, that S. Paul being come to Philippi in Macedonia on the Sabbath Day, they went out of the City to a river side, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where there was taken to be a Proseucha, or where was famed to be a Proseucha; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will bear both. The Syriack hath; Quia ibi conspiciebatur Domus orationis; the Arabic, Locus orationis. For if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were taken here for prayer itself, as if the sense were; where prayer was used to be made; it should rather have been said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet, if it were so taken, it would still argue no less, then that there was here an appointed place for prayer, and that out of the City, which is all one, as to say there was a Proseucha: so I take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the 16. verse of the same Chapter, where it is said; It came to pass, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as we went to the Proseucha: especially since we read not in the Text, that S. Paul went thither to pray, but to preach, where he deemed there was an assembly that day according to custom: And we sat down, (saith S. Luke) and spoke unto the women, which were come together there.  
A second place where a Proseucha is mentioned in the New Testament, may be that Luke 6. 12. where it is said, that our Saviour went out into a high Mountain to pray, and continued all night, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Proseucha Dei, so Drusius thinks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here to be taken for a place, and the Article helps the sense; otherwise it seems an odd and unaccustomed expression for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to mean, in prayer made unto God; and why should it not be as likely, that our Saviour might sometimes pray in their Proseucha's, as teach in their Synagogues?  
Thus we have seen the testimonies for Proseucha's, their use and difference from Synagogues. Now for Synagogues, the common opinion is, that they were not before the Captivity of Babylon; and that necessity first taught the Jews the use of them in that Captivity, which afterward they brought with them at their return into their own Country. The reason why men so think, is, I suppose, the absolute silence of them in Scripture, until the time of the second Temple; but though the name were not, it is possible the thing might be: howsoever, because it is most received, that they were not, we will let it pass for currant. But as for Proseucha's, such as we have described them, none, that I know, have affirmed or determined aught of their antiquity; it may be, not taken it into consideration, either because they had no occasion to think of any such matter, or because they confounded them altogether with Synagogues.  
The matter therefore being free and undecided, I will make bold to affirm, that if Synagogues were not, yet Proseucha's, that is, open places for Prayers, were a long time before the Captivity, yea even from the days of joshuah the son of Nun. And though the Jews had, or were to have but one Altar, or place of Sacrifice, that namely, which the Lord should choose, to place the Ark of his Covenant there, the Tabernacle or Temple; yet had they other places for devotion, and religious use. And that this Sanctuary of God here mentioned in my Text at Sichem (which was a levitical City) was such a one; my reasons are these; First, because it is incredible, that the Israelites, having but one Temple for the whole Nation, whereat they were bound to appear, and those the males only, but thrice a year, should have no other places of prayer nearer their dwellings, whither they might resort on Sabbath days, the Temple or Tabernacle being from some of them above an hundred miles distant at the least. Secondly, because (as I have already showed) this sanctuary at Sichem could not be the Tabernacle, which was then at Shiloh, not at Sichem, and yet must have some stable and fixed place, because the situation of the Oak is designed by it: yea, must have been still there, when this story of joshuah was written; which is thought to have been long after his death: surely this Chapter was written after it, where both his death and burial are recorded: wherefore to say the Ark was brought thither upon this occasion, will not serve turn. Thirdly, this place should be a Proseucha, because of that circumstance of trees growing in it; which, as it proves it not to have been the Tabernacle, (where no such thing was lawful to be) so seems it to be a Characteristical note of a Proseucha.  
For though it were not lawful to have trees near the Altar of God, that is, in or about the Court of the Tabernacle; Yet was it not so with Proseucha's, yea they seem to have been ordinarily garnished and beset with them. This may be gathered from a passage of Philo judaeus, where relating the barbarous outrage of the Gentiles at Alexandria, against the Jews, there dwelling in the time of Caius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of some of the Proseucha's they cut down the Trees, others they demolished to the very Foundations.  
The same is implied by that of juvenal, speaking of a Jewish Wizard or Fortune-teller,— conducta sub arbore conjux. And again in his sixth Satire, 
Arcanam Iudaea tremens mendicat in aurem,  
Interpres legum Solymarum, magna sacerdos  
Arboris, ac summi sida internuncia coeli.  Interpres legum Solymarum, that is, of Moses Laws, Magna Sacerdos Arboris, because of the Trees in their Proseucha's, or Places of worship. The same appears also out of those verses of his third Satire, complaining that the once sacred Grove of Fons Capenus, where Numa used to meet with the Goddess AEgeria, was then let out to the beggarly Jews for a Proseucha, and that every Tree (such were the times) must pay rend to the people: by which means, the woods which formerly had been the habitation of the Muses, were become dens for beggarly Jews to mutter their Orisons in; hear his words: 
Hic ubi nocturne Numa constituisset amicae,  
Nunc sacri Fontis nemus, & delubra locantur  
Iudaeis, quorum cophinus foenumqu● supellex;  
Omnis enim populo mercedem pendere jussa est  
Arbor; & ejectis mendicat sylva Camoenis.  Whence comes this connexion of jews and Trees, but 
Vide Psal. 52. 10. Sicut olea in Domo Dei.  from their having trees in their Proseucha's? unto which their situation without the Cities conduced; as also it did for privacy and retirement.  
Thus you see how well the description and mark of a Proseucha agrees to this Sanctuary in my Text. And that the Jews had many other such in other places, as well as at Sichem, even in those elder times, as at 
* These three places are called by the LXX. 〈◊〉 Samuel. 6. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though in the Original there be no such thing.  Mispah, Bethel, and Gilgal, I make little doubt; which we read to have been places of Assembly for the people; and the two last sanctified of old by Divine apparition, as Sichem was. Of Mispah the Author of the first of Maccabees, in his third Chapter, if I understand him, testifieth as much; when he tells us, that whilst the holy City lay desolate, and the Sanctuary was trodden down by the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes; judas Maccabaeus, and those of the people which adhered unto their God, assembled together at Maspha to make there their supplications unto their God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because at Maspha or Mispah had been a place of prayer in former time for Israel; as much as to say, there had been a Proseucha of old. And do we not read in that story of the ●…jamiticall war in the Book of judges, That the jabernacle being at Shiloh, (as appears by the last Chapter) yet (in the Chapter going before) it is said, that the whole Congregation of Israel was gathered together as one man unto the Lord in Mispah? and that in the twenty sixth verse is mention of an house of God there, where the people prayed and fasted? It is said indeed that the Ark of the Covenant was upon that extraordinary occasion brought thither, but it being certain, out of the next Chapter, that the Tabernacle was still at Shiloh, this House of God could be none of it: Nay perhaps, we may hence learn, that when the Ark upon occasion of such a general and extraordinary assembly was to be removed, they used to bring it to such places as these, which were as holy Courts, ready prepared for it, and that then it was lawful, but not else, to sacrifice in them.  
Of these Courts for prayer, we may understand that also in the seventy fourth Psalms; They have cast Fire into thy Sanctuary, they have burnt up all the Conventicula Dei in the Land, namely, in the Captivity by Nabuchadnezzar, who destroyed both their Temple, and their Proseucha's. For if we understand it of the persecution of Antiochus, as some do, it must then follow, that some Canonical Scripture was written after Malachi, and the ceasing of Prophecy, that is, in the time of Maccabees; which will not easily be granted; Besides that we read not, that Antiochus cast any fire into the Temple. Now if it speak of the vastation by Nabuchadnezzar, then had the Jews before that time, not only a Sanctuary for sacrifice, but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Co●…ticula Dei, that is, either Proseucha's, or Synagogues; for either will serve my purpose.  
But now you will say, what profit is there of this long discourse? were it so, or were it not so, as I have endeavoured to prove, of what use is the knowledge thereof to us? yes, to know it was so, is useful in a threefold respect: First, for the right understanding of such places of the Old Testament, where a House of God, and assembling before the Lord are often mentioned, there where neither the Ark of the Covenant, nor the Tabernacle at such time were: as besides the places before alleged, we read in the tenth of the first Book of Samuel, of Saul's meeting with three men going up to God to Bethel, and of a place 
1 Sam. 10. 3. 5. 〈◊〉  called, The Hill of God, whence a company of Prophets came from the high place there, prophesying with a Tabret, Pipe, and Harp before them; in neither of which places can we find that ever the Tabernacle was: and as for the Ark we are sure it was all this time at Kiriathjearim, till David solemnly fetched it thence: and if at any time the Ark might (as now it was not) be transferred to any of them upon occasion of some general Assembly of the Nation, that so they might have opportunity to ask counsel of the Lord, and offer Sacrifice, yet were they not the ordinary station thereof.  
Secondly, we may learn from hence, that to have appropriate places, set apart for prayer and Divine duties, is not a circumstance or rite proper to legal worship only, but of a more common nature: For as much as though Sacrifice, wherein the legal worship (or worship of the old Covenant) consisted, were restrained to the Ark and Tabernacle, and might not be exercised where they were not; yet were there other places for Prayer besides that; which are no more to be accounted legal places, then bare and simple prayer was a legal Duty.  
Lastly, we may gather from this Description of Proseucha's, which were as Courts, encompassed only with a wall or other like enclosure, and open above; in what manner to conceive of the accommodation of those Altars, we read to have been erected by the Patriarches, Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, in the Book of Genesis; namely, that the ground whereon they stood, was fenced and bounded with some such enclosure, and shaded with trees, after the manner of Proseucha's, as we may read expressly of one of them at Beersheba: That Abraham there planted a Grove, and called upon the Name of the Lord, the everlasting God. Yea, when the Tabernacle and Temple were, the Altar of God stood still in an open Court, and who can believe that the place of those Altars of the Patriarches were not bounded and separated from common ground? And from these patterns in likelihood, after the Altar for Sacrifice was restrained to one only place, the use of such open places, or Courts for prayer, garnished with trees, as I have showed Proseucha's to have been, continued still.   
1 TIM. 5. 17. 
1 Tim. 5. 17.  Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour: especially they that labour in the Word and Doctrine. 
THere are two things in these words to be explicated; First, what is meant here by Elders: Secondly, what is this double-honour due unto them. For the first, there is no question but the Priests or Ministers of the Gospel of Christ were contained under this name: for so the New Testament useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Presbyter, for the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments in the Gospel; whence cometh the Saxon word Priester, and our now English word Priest. And the Ancient Fathers thought these only to be here meant, and never dreamt of any other. But in our time those who obtrude a new Discipline and Government upon the Church, altogether unknown and unheard of in the ancient, will needs have two sorts of Elders or Presbyters here understood: one of such as preach the Word and Doctrine, whom they call Pastors; another of Laymen, who were neither Priests nor Deacons, but ned as assistants to them in the exercise of Ecclesiastical Discipline in admonitions and censures of manners, and in a word, in the execution of the whole power of the Keys.  
These our Churchmen call Lay-Elders, and the Authors of this new device, Presbyterians; these Presbyters or Elders they will have meant in the first words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders that rule, or govern well, whom therefore they call Ruling-Elders; the other whom they call Pastors, to be described in the latter words; they who labour in the Word and Doctrine, whom therefore they distinguish by the name of Teaching-Elders.  
This is their exposition, and this exposition the ground and foundation of their new Discipline; but none of the Fathers, which have commented upon this Place, neither chrysostom, Hierome, Ambrose, Theodoret, Primasius, Oecumenius, or Theophylact, (as they had no such, so) ever thought of any such Lay-Elders to be here meant; but Priests only, which administered the Word and Sacraments.  
But how (will you say then) is this Place to be understood, which may seem, as they allege, to intimate two sorts of Elders, some that ruled only, others that laboured also in the Word and Doctrine? The Divines of our Church, who had cause, when time was, to be better versed in this question, than any others, have given divers expositions of these words; none of which give place to any such newfound. Elders, as the Fautors of the Presbyterian Discipline, upon the sole Authority of this one place, have set up in divers foreign Churches, and would have brought into ours. I will relate four of the chief of these expositions, to which the rest are reducible.  
The first is grounded upon the use of the participle in the Greek tongue, which is often wont to note the reason or condition of a thing, and accordingly to be resolved by a causal, or conditional conjunction. According whereunto this Text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, duplici honore digni habeantur, (or dignentur) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is to be resolved thus; Elders or Presbyters that rule or govern the Flock well, let them be accounted worthy of double honour, and that chiefly in respect, and because of their labour in the Word and Doctrine. And so this manner of speech will imply two duties, but not two sorts or orders of Elders, and that though this double honour be due unto them for both, yet chiefly and more principally for the second, their labour in the Word and Doctrine: and this way goes S. chrysostom and other Greek Writers.  
A second exposition is taken from the force and signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies not simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to labour, but to labour with much travel and toil; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vexor, laboribus & molestiis premor, and so properly signifies molestiam, or fatigationem ex labour. Thus the meaning will be; let Elders that do been praesidere, i. govern and instruct their Flock well, be counted worthy of double honour; especially such of them as take more than ordinary pains in the Word and Doctrine: Or thus; let the Elders that discharge their office well, be, etc. especially by how much the more their painfulness and travel shall exceed in preaching the Word and Doctrine, etc.  
Thus we have seen two expositions of these words, neither of them implying two sorts of Orders of Presbyters, but only distinguishing several offices and duties of the same Order, or implying a differing merit in the discharge of them: But if they will by no means be persuaded, but that two sorts of Elders are here intimated, let it be so; two other expositions will yield them it, but so as will not be for their turn; for their Lay Elders will be none of them.  
The first is this, That the Apostle should speak here of Priests and Deacons, considering both as Members of the Ecclesiastical Consistory or Senate, which consisted of both Orders, and in that respect might well include them both under the name of Elders; it being a common notion in Scripture, to call the Associates of a Court of Judicature by that name Senatus in Latin hath its name à senibus, i. senioribus, of Eldership; and is as much to say, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. According to this supposal, the Apostles words may have this construction: Let the Elders which rule well, whether Priests or Deacons, be counted worthy of double honour, but more especially the Priests who besides their government labour also in the Word and Doctrine. Now what can be opposed against such an exposition I see not. For it is not improbable, but the Apostle should make provision as well for the maintenance of Deacons, as of Priests, seeing he omits it not, of Widows in the verse going next before this. But unless he includes them under the name of Elders, he makes no provision for them at all. Besides this is not the only place (some think) where Deacons are comprehended under the name of Elders. For the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15. where they inscribe their Synodical Epistle thus; The Apostles, Elders, and Brethren to the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, etc. may seem to comprehend the Deacons under the name of Elders or Presbyters, otherwise they should omit them, which without doubt were part of the Council.  
There is another exposition, which allows also of two sorts of Elders to be here implied, but makes them both Priests; namely, that Presbyters or Priests in the Apostles time, were of two sorts, one of Residentiaries, and such as were affixed to certain Churches, and so did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, praesidere Gregi. Another, of such as had no fixed station, or charge over any certain place, but traveled up and down to preach the Gospel where it was not, or to confirm the Churches where it was preached already; such, as are elsewhere known by the names of Evangelists and Doctors or Prophets: that these were those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, spoken of here by the Apostle: that both these sorts of Presbyters were to be counted worthy of double honour, as well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as those that traveled up and down to preach the Gospel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but especially these latter, because their pains were more than the others. This is confirmed from the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in Scripture signifies not only corporal labour, as may appear in many places; but seems to be used by S. Paul even in this very sense we have now given, as 1 Cor. 15. where he says, comparing himself with the other Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have traveled up and down more than they all, as is manifest he did.  
These are the principal expositions given by the Writers of our Church, upon this passage of Scripture, which is the foundation and only place whereon they build this new Consistory, and are so much in love with it. But this being capable, as you see, of such variety of exposition; how much too weak and insufficient it is to establish any such new order of Elders never heard of in the Church from the time of the Apostles until this last age, any man may judge.  
But give me leave to propound a fifth exposition, which shall be more liberal to them then any of those yet given. For it shall yield them all they contend for so eagerly to be implied in this Text, namely, that there are not only two sorts of Elders here implied; but also that the one of them are Lay-Elders, such as have nothing to do with the administration of the Word and Sacraments; what would they have more? yet they will be never the nearer for this concession; for the Lay-Elders here implied, may be no Church Officers, but Civil Magistrates, which in Scripture language we know are called Elders: as when we read of the Elders of Israel, of the Elders of judah, of the Elders of the Priests, and Elders of the people, of Priests and Elders, and the like; according to such a notion the words may be construed by way of Transitus à thesi ad hypothesin, as Rhetoricians call it, to wit, in this manner; Cum omnes Seniores, sive Reipublicae, sive Ecclesiae, qui bene president, duplici honore dignandi sint, tum maxime Seniores Ecclesiastici, qui laborant in verbo & Doctrinâ: Or thus, Let all Elders that govern well, of what sort soever, be counted worthy of double honour, especially the Elders of the Church which labour in the Word and Doctrine; Is not this good sense? and doth not the Apostle in the beginning of this very Chapter, use the name Elder, in the larger and more general sense, when he says, Rebuke not an Elder, but exhort him as a Father, and the younger men as Brethren, the Elder women as Mothers, the younger as Sisters: why may he not then do so here? And doth not S. james in his last Chapter call the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it were in distinction from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? But it will be objected that this exposition is too ambitious, because it makes the Apostle to prefer the Elders of the Church before the Elders of the Commonwealth, that is, the Priest before the Civil Magistrate, when he says that all Elders, whether of Church or Commonwealth, are to be accounted worthy of double honour, so especially those Elders which labour in the Word and Doctrine, which are the Presbyters of the Church.  
But here know that the name of Elder is never given in Scripture to the Supreme Magistrate, but to the subordinate only; and why the Ministers of the Word and Doctrine should not be accounted as worthy of double honour, as they, or more worthy, I know not; especially if S. Paul here says it; sure I am, this objection is not sufficient to refute my interpretation.  
Thus I thought good to acquaint you how many ways this place may be expounded, without importing any such new Elders, (neither Priests nor Deacons) as they would impose upon us for Church Officers, by the sole authority thereof; for though this Disciplinarian controversy of our Church stirred up by the admirers of the Genevian platform were in the heat before our time, yet the sect is not yet dead, but ready upon every occasion to surprise such as they find unarmed, or not forewarned.  
And thus having informed ourselves who they are, which are here termed Elders, we will now see also, what is that honour which is due unto them, which was the second thing I propounded, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let them be accounted (saith the Apostle) worthy of, or deigned double honour. That by honour here, is meant honour arium stipendium, or a tribute of maintenance, is manifest by the following words, which the Apostle brings to enforce it; For the Scripture saith, (saith he) Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn; and, The labourer is worthy of his hire: Who sees not what these proofs infer? The first of them he alleges also in the same argument, 1 Cor. 9 where he adds, Doth God take care for Oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? (ours namely, that preach the Gospel) For our sakes no doubt this is written, that he which ploweth should plow in hope, and he that thresteth in hope, should be partaker of his hope. The case is plain; It is an Hebrew notion, to bring honour, that is, to pay tribute, or bring a present, as Apoc. 21. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit, the new Jerusalem. And thus much of the word Honour.  
But what is meant by double honour? Some (as among the Fathers S. Ambrose,) will have this double honour, to be honour of maintenance, and honour of reverence. But because the Apostles proofs here infer only maintenance; I take it to be meant in this place only of it. And as for double, there seems to be an allusion to the right of the firstborn, to whom at first the office of Priesthood belonged in their Families, and into whose room the Levites were taken, and whom the Presbyters of the Gospel now succeed. As therefore they had a double portion among their Brethren, in like manner should the Presbyters of the Gospel be counted worthy of double honour.  
And if you will admit of that construction of these words, which I gave in the fifth place, namely to comprehend as well the Elders of the Commonwealth, as the Elders of the Church, (that both were to be accounted worthy of double honour, but especially those of the Church, who labour in the Word and Doctrine) it will agree yet far better; because both the one and the other succeed in the place of the First born; to whom belonged both to be Priests and Civil Governors in their Tribes and Families.  
Yet howsoever the ancient Christians were wont in their Agapes or Love-Feasts, to give their Presbyters a double portion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with some reference to this Text, as appears by Tertullian; nevertheless, I think double honour is not here to be so precisely taken, but only to note a liberal and ingenuous maintenance, such as might set them above the vulgar, as the Firstborn by their double portion were preferred above the rest of their Brethren.  
But I have not yet done with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for from this that the Apostle here styleth the Priest's maintenance, honour; it followeth, that the Priest's maintenance is not to be esteemed of the nature of Alms, as some would have it, but is a Tribute of honour, such as is given by an inferior to his superior. For Alms and honour, Nec bene conveniunt, nec in unâ sede morantur, the one respecting those to whom it is given, as miserable, the other, as honourable. I mean if alms be taken, as we use the word, for a work of mercy. From the same ground also it follows, that the Priest's maintenance is no ordinary mercenary wages, but such as is given by way of honour, as well as of reward: for such as is given to ordinary workmen is reward and wages only, and not a Testimony or Tribute of honour: But that which is due to the Priest, as you see, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, namely, of the same nature with that which is given to Princes and Magistrates, by those which are under them. For as the Ministers of the Gospel are in the nature of Presbyters or Elders, unto the people over whom they are set; so is their maintenance from them, such as is suitable to the condition and Dignity of an Elder; not a common wages, which the superior often gives to his inferior, or servant, but honorarium, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
ACTS 2. 5. 
Act. 2. 5.  And there were [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] sojourning at jerusalem jews, devout men, out of every Nation under heaven. 
AT the Feast of Pentecost, when that wonder happened of the holy Ghosts descent upon the Apostles in the likeness of Fiery tongues, there were present at Jerusalem (as the story a little after my Text informs us) men of several Nations, as Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and dwellers in Mesopotamia, judaea, and Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphilia, Egypt, and the parts of Lybia about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, (or stranger-Romans) both jews and Proselytes, Cretes and Arabians; all these, upon the noise of this strange accident came together unto the Place, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language, wherein he was born.  
Many when they read this story, suppose the people here mentioned, the most of them to have been Gentiles, and some Expositors cannot be excused from this mistake. For the more clear discerning whereof, and their better information, who may perhaps be overtaken with the same error; I have made choice of the words before read, for the argument of my present discourse; which tells us in express terms, that these Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, these Mesopotamians, Cappadocians, & the rest after mentioned under those national names, were Israelites, or jews of the dispersion; jews born in Parthia, and Media, jews of Elam, or Persia, Mesopotamian jews, and so the rest of the Countries there named; all of them of the Circumcision; for so saith my Text, beginning to speak of them: There were so journing, (or if you will, dwelling) at jerusalem, jews of every Nation under heaven; that is, of every Nation where the jews were dispersed.  
This is yet further confirmed by S. Peter's speech unto them; as when having cited the words of the Prophet joel, verse the 22. he saith unto them, Ye men of Israel, hear these words; jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, etc. Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Men of Israel, and such as had slain their Messias; surely those were no Gentiles. Likewise when at the hearing of this, they were pricked in their hearts, he saith unto them; Repent and be Baptised, every one of you, in the Name of jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. For the Promise is made unto you and your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord shall call. The Promise, saith he, is made unto you and your children; were these then any others then jews, or Israelites of the seed of Abraham?  
Lastly, we find that of these Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, and of the rest named with them, there were added unto the Church by this Sermon of S. Peter three thousand souls; But it is certain that Cornelius the Centurion was the first Gentile that was converted unto the Faith; Therefore these first Converts were no Gentiles. Perhaps you will say, they were Proselytes of these several Nations, and therefore called jews. I say, not so neither; because Proselytes are by name rehearsed among them, when it is said of those Romani advenae, (verse the tenth) that they were jews and Proselytes; Ergo, the rest were jews by race, and not by Religion only. But what need I to have heaped together all these proofs, when my Text alone is sufficient to evince it?  
I come now therefore to a more particular illustration thereof, according to what I have thus in general premised. And first, for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I translate sojourning, rather than dwelling; (for so I understand it, that they were not proper dwellers, but such as came to worship at Jerusalem from those far Countries at the Feasts of the Passeover and Pentecost; and so had been continuing there some good time) It is true that in the usual Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signify a durable mansion; But with the Hellenists, in whose Dialect the Scripture speaketh, they are used indifferently for a stay of a shorter or longer time; that is, for to sojourn, as well as to dwell; as these two examples out of the Septuagint will make manifest: one, Gen. 27. 44. where Rebecca says to her younger son jacob, Son arise, and flee unto Laban thy brother to Haran, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and tarry with him a few days, until thy brother's fury turn away; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here to tarry but a few days. Another is in the first Book of Kin. 17. 20. where Eliah cries unto the Lord, saying, O Lord my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son? here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to sojourn only: In a word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answer to the Hebrew verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies any stay, or remaining in a place.  
Next for the persons here specified, jews out of every Nation under heaven; for the right understanding thereof we are to know that before the last dispersion of the jews by the Romans, after their Temple and City were destroyed by Titus (which at the time of this story was not, nor many years after it) there had been already two Captivities, and great dispersions of that Nation, besides some smaller scatter: The first was of the ten Tribes, by Salmanassar King of Assyria, who is said to have planted them in Hala, and Habor, by the river of Gozan, and in the Cities of the Medes; and these never (I mean any considerable part of them) returned to dwell again in their own Country; of these therefore we are (chiefly) to understand, to have been those which the story here calls Parthians, Medes, and Elamites; Elamites, that is, Persians of the Province of Elymais. For in those Countries which these names comprehend, were the ten Tribes placed by the Assyrian, and there still dwelled or thereabouts, in our Saviour and his Apostles time, and long after. S. Hierome upon those words in the third of joel, Et Filios juda & Filios jerusalem vendidistis Filits Graecorum, (which he understands of the Captivity by Vespasian and Titus) tells us thus much; Filit (saith he) juda & jerusalem, nequaquam Israel & decem Tribuum, qui usque hodie in Medorum urbibus & montibus habitant. The second Captivity was by Nabuchadnezzar King of Babylon, of the two Tribes, Judah and Benjamin, more than a hundred years after that of the ten. Now a good part of these at seventy years' end returned again, under Cyrus and his successors, to dwell again in their own land, re-edified the Temple, and City of Jerusalem, re-erected their Commonwealth, which continued till our Saviour's time and a little after. Notwithstanding all those that were Captives in Babylon returned not: it may be not much more than the half of them; certain it is, that a great number of them stayed there still, those especially which were rich, and so well accommodated, having no mind to stir; whence in our Saviour's, and the Apostles times, there were an innumerable company of them in those parts, where they flourished with Academies, and Schools, and had Doctors not inferior to those of Jerusalem itself: Yea, from them proceeded the Chaldee Paraphrase; and that great Doctor and Patriarch of Rabbis, R. Hillel. Of these therefore, we have reason to think, were those which are here enumerated by the name of dwellers in Mesopotamia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: where note by the way that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are comprehended in the number of those, whom my Text saith were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which confirms my interpretation, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies sojourning, and not dwelling, for that they could not be said to dwell in both places.  
These two dispersions beyond the river Euphrates, how numerous they were, in our Saviour and the Apostles times, we may gather from those words of King Agrippa, in josephus, in that Oration he made unto the jews before that fatal siege, dissuading them from rebelling against the Romans, their party being too much too weak to maintain themselves against that mighty Empire: Quos igitur (saith he) ex orbe non habitato socios in Bellum assumetis? Siquidem omnes, qui in orbe habitabili degunt, Romani sunt: Nisi fortè quis vestrum spes suas ultra Euphratem porrigat, & in Adiabenorum Regione Gentiles suos aestimet adjuturos; (Adiabenorum Regio, is that of Assyria; he goes on) Verum nec illi propter irrationabilem causam tanto se Bello implicabunt: nec, si tam probroso operi assensum darent, Parthus tamen sineret. Mark then, that they were under the dominion of the Parthians, josephus himself testifieth as much in his Prologue to his Tract de Bello judaico; where he informs us, that that History of his he had first penned patria lingua, for the use of those of his Nation in the East; which he thought soon after to publish in Greek, for the better information of the Greeks and Romans concerning the true gests of that war. Indignum esse ratus (saith he) Parthos quidem & Babylonios', Arabum, que remotissimos, & ultra Euphratem Gentis nostrae incolas, itemque Adiabenos meâ diligentiâ verè cognoscere unde coepisset Bellum, quantisque cladibus constitisset, quove modo desiisset: Graecos vero, & Romanorum aliquos, qui militiam secuti non essent, figmentis seu adulationibus captos, ista nescire: Observe here the rehearsal of his Nation; Babylonii, Parthi, Arabes, Transeuphrateni or Mesopotamienses, and Adiabeni: Besides he tells us in the same place, Quod Iudaei quidem cunctos, etiam qui trans Euphratem essent, Gentiles suos secum rebellaturos esse crediderant.  
Besides these two captivities by Salmanassar and Nabuchadnezzar; the first whereof never returned again into their own land, and the second but in part; there happened a third Captivity and dispersion in the days of Ptolomeus Lag●● one of the Greek Kings, reigning in Egypt, who surprising the City of Jerusalem, carried many of the People of the Country, of the offspring of those who returned from Babylon, captives into Egypt, planting them at Alexandria, and the places thereabouts; whom many others followed of their own accord, partly alured by the King's favour, (who gave them equal privilege with those of Alexandria) and partly by the fertility of the Country: so that this Colony became a very great one. These were called Hellenists, because they spoke the Greek tongue, and used the Translation of the Septuagint (which was made in Egypt) in their Synagogues. Of these three principal dispersions, came those lesser scatter in all parts of the Roman Empire, and elsewhere. From that of Babylon and Mesopotamia, was spread that of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bythinia, to which S. Peter as an Apostle of the Circumcision, writes his two Epistles; which may be gathered, because in his second Epistle, he salutes them from Babylon, which was their Metropolis. The Church, saith he, at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; that is, the Church of the circumcision there. From those of Alexandria and Egypt, were derived those plantations in Lybia and Cyrene, and all other Hellenists whatsoever in several parts of the Roman Empire. Add to these, that many of those of Judaea itself, that could not live well at home, upon some occasion or other, either alluring them or constraining them, seated themselves abroad among the Gentiles, and in their Cities, being together with themselves under the same Dominion of the Roman Empire. Insomuch that King Agrippa, in that forementioned oration of his, before that last siege, dissuading them of Judaea from rebelling against the Romans, in regard of the evil they might bring thereby, not upon themselves only, but upon their whole Nation wheresoever living among the Gentiles, sticks not to say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: For there is no people in the whole world, which hath not some part of ours dwelling amongst them; marvel not therefore, that S. Luke says in my Text, jews of every Nation under heaven.  
All this is confirmed out of the New Testament itself; forasmuch as before the last Captivity by Titus, which was not till almost forty years after our Saviour's Ascension, and whilst their Commonwealth in the holy Land, was yet standing; we read that almost in every City of the Gentiles, whither the Apostles came to preach the Gospel, they found jews with their Synagogues in them: To which add that S. james directs his Epistle, To the twelve Tribes scattered abroad, or as the Greek hath it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as I have also before noted, that S. Peter doth his unto the dispersion of Asia.  
This is that I had to speak for the illustration of this Story, and Text: out of which besides the right understanding of Scripture, whereto it conduceth, you may observe these four things: First, the wisdom and providence of Almighty God, in so ordering the first publication of the Gospel, that the fame thereof, and of that convincing miracle, which gave authority thereunto, might be carried unto all Nations, by so many both ear and eye-witnesses of the same as these Jews were.  
Secondly, a probable reason why the Apostles were so ignorant at the first, as they seem to have been, that the Gospel was to be peached unto the Gentiles, notwithstanding our Saviour's Commission unto them; Go preach this Gospel unto all Nations. For it may be, they thought this command might be satisfied, in preaching the Gospel to those of the Circumcision only, which were of every Nation under heaven.  
Thirdly, the Elogium here given to those who made conscience (as we speak) or Religion, to come unto the House of God to worship; they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so saith my text, Thete were sojourning in jerusalem, jews, devout men, etc. For there appears no other respect why they are so called, but because they came so long a journey to worship God in his House or Temple at jerusalem.  
Fourthly, the blessed opportunities and means for salvation which they meet with, which come thither to worship. For had these jews stayed at home, as the rest of their brethren did, they had not been partakers of such a blessing; nor witnesses of so wonderful a miracle for confirmation of their faith, as now they were.   
1 COR. 9 14. 
1 Cor. 9 14.  Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
MY purpose, in choosing this Text, is not to make the maintenance of the Ministry under the Gospel, the direct aim of my discourse; but only to inquire what is meant by these last words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Which that we may the more readily and certainly find, let us examine, and consider the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereof the words I have now read, are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Know ye not, saith the Apostle, that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] those that minister about holy things, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] do eat of the holy thing, or, as we turn it, of the things of the Temple: [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] they which wait at the Altar, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] are fellow-shares with the Altar? [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] So hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Here, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those who were employed about holy things, are the Levites who lived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the holy thing, or if you had rather it should be a substantive) of the Temple: that is, of that which belonged thereto; namely, of the Tithes which belonged to the Temple, but were no offering of the Altar. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they who did incumbere, or assidere altari, were the Priests, whoseproper office it was to offer sacrifices thereon, and hadpart of the same for their proper maintenance; as the breast & left shoulder before it was burnt, and after so much as was reserved from burning: so they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Apostle speaks, they were fellow-shares with the Altar; the Altar having one part of the Offering, they another.  
Thus you see, the Apostle in both, suits the maintenance with the office: The office of the Levites was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their maintenance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the holy thing, or the revenue of the Temple; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they eat of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Office of the Priests, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; their maintenance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to share with the Altar. Now then must not the Apodosis answer the Protasis? what manner of similitude, what analogy will there be else? Ergo, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the office of the Ministers of the Gospel, so is their maintenance noted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Those therefore who interpret these words, as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the last place, were taken in no other sense, than it was in the first; namely, to note the function or calling of the Ministers; (as if the sense were no other, but that the Ministers of the Gospel, whose calling it is to preach the Gospel, should get their living by their Calling of preaching the Gospel;) make S. Paul the Author of a lame and inconsequent similitude, whose Apodosis answers not unto his Protasis. For what an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what an even so, or analogy would this be? The Levites lived of the holy portion, or revenue of the Temple, as their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or wages; Even so the Ministers of the Gospel must live by there Calling and Function: The Priests were maintained out of the share they had of the Offerings of the Altar; Even just so, the Ministers of the Gospel must live by their Calling and Function of Preaching the Gospel: May not any one see that the Apodosis answers not the Protasis? For that speaks of the wages, this of the service, for which the wages is due. Well therefore, as in the Protasis the wages was compared with the work; so must it be in the Apodosis too; & consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must here express the wages, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth the work.  
But now here is the quaere; If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, note not the function, but the wages, and maintenance due to the evangelic Ministers, in what notion then is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to be taken, and how to be expounded? Oecumenius would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this last place to signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the believers of the Gospel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & the meaning to be, that those who preach the Gospel, should be maintained by those which believe the Gospel: But this would make our Apodosis to answer the Protasis, little better than the former: For that speaks of the maintenance, and wages of the Levites, and Priests, not a word of the maintainers. 
* Philo de Sacerdotú honoribus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Besides, to speak properly, it is not true, that the people maintain the Ministers: They are not their Ministers, but Gods; and he maintains them, out of his own revenue, and not at other men's charges. Quis militat suis stipendiis? (saith our Apostle, at his entrance upon this Argument;) Who goeth to war at his own charges? Now I ask; Cujus stipendiis militat, qui militat? nun Imperatoris? To which purpose note also by the way, that it is not said here (as we translate it,) So hath God ordained, that those which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel: But, So hath God appointed, or given order to those which preach the Gospel, that they should live of the Gospel; that is, Non dicit Dominum mandasse aliis, ut eos alerent, sed mandâsse ipsis, ut ex Euangelio viverent.  
But to return again to the interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which others therefore had rather take here for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for that which in the Gospel is consecrate to God; to wit, as the Priests and Levites had their maintenance 
Jol. 18. 7. The Priesthood of the Lord is their [the Levites] inheritance.  out of that which was offered unto God in the Law: So God had ordained, that the Ministers of the Gospel should be maintained of that which is consecrate to him in the Gospel. And this sense is straight and good.  
But what need we fly to a Trope, when the natural sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will serve our turn; yea do it much better? For howsoever in the New Testament it most commonly signifies good tidings; yet, in other Greek Writers, the more usual signification in the singular number is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, praemium quod datur laetum afferenti nuncium; the gift or reward wont to be given for good tidings. Homer (Odyss. 14.) brings in Ulysses in a poor travellers disguise, stipulating with his servant Eumaeus, what his reward should be, for the good news he promised to tell him of his Master's life and speedy return, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let this be my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Reward, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To whom Eumaeus answers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither am I able to give such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neither will Ulysses ever come home again. Plutarch (in his De gloria Atheniensium) relates, that the Lacedæmonians to one that brought them tidings of the victory at Mantinaea, having been no actor, but a spectator only, sent for an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, only a dish of meat from one of their common suppers, called Phiditia: The words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The same Author (within three or four lines after) affirms, that Historians, who relate and describe battles and victories in such perspicuous styles, deserve an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from those who first read them: And (in his Demetrius) he tells, that when one Aristodemus brought news to King Antigonus, of a notable victory his party had obtained against Ptolomaeus Lagi, but put the King first in great perplexity, by discovering nothing, either by word or countenance, what his tidings were, till he came to the King's presence, then saying, Salve Rex Antigone, vicimus praelio navali Regem Ptolomaeum: The King answered, Et tu quoque herclè salve; quia vero ita nos torsisti, lues poenam, nam tardius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accipies; which is a sufficient testimony both of the use of the word, and the custom. Cicero (in one of his Epistles Ad Atticum) useth the 
Li. 2. Ep. 8.  plural number: O suaves tuas Epistolas, (saith he) uno tempore mihi datas duas! Quibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae reddam nescio; deberi quidem plane fateor.  
Besides, in the plural number, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies a sacrifice for good tidings; Hence Plutarch (in his Photion) hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isocrates (in Areopagitico) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ob tot successus bis quidem sacrificavimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Xenophon (in his Hellanica) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To conclude; it is apparent by these examples, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a gift, or tribute due for good tidings; whether as an offering to the Gods, the Authors, or as a reward to men, the messengers and bringers.  
Now the most blessed & happy tidings that ever came to the ears of the sons of men, is salvation by Jesus Christ our Lord; whereof his Priests and Ministers are the daily messengers: Is there not then an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 due for this? And is not this that our Apostle meaneth when he says; The Lord hath ordained that they who preach the Gospel should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that which of old was required only for acknowledgement of the Divine Dominion, under the bondage of the Law, is now turned into the nature of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the liberty of the Gospel; I mean that which we offer now unto God for the maintenance of the evangelical Ministry, and other uses of his service: The sense is most fit and agreeable, and makes the Apostles expression (if so understood) passing elegant.  
But you will say; What probability is there the Apostle should use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this notion? For though profane Authors do so, yet the Scriptures meaning, both here and elsewhere, is to be measured by its own Dialect. Have therefore the Hebrew, the Chaldee, the Septuagint any such notion as this? I answer, Yes; all three of them. For in the Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the only word for good tidings, signifies also Praemium boni nuncii; Yea, being not above five times found in the Old Testament, some will have it thrice taken in that signification, and twice will be easily yielded them. Likewise in the Chaldee, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signify as well the one as the other; both nuncium and nuncii praemium. As for the Septuagint, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but thrice found with them, and once so apparently in this signification, as leaves no place for contradiction. It is 2 Sam. 4. 10. where they have, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cui oportet me dedisse Euangelia. They are the words of King David, when Rechab and Baanah brought Ishbosheths' head unto him; When one told me, saith he, Behold Saul is dead, (thinking he had brought good tidings) I took hold of him, and slew him in Ziklag, when I should have given a reward for his tidings. The Hebrew word rendered here reward for good tidings, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The Septuagint, as I said before, have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Vulgar, or S. Hierome, mercedem pro nuncio: The Chaldee Paraphrast, Donum boni nuncii.  
Thus you see, this notion was familiar to all the Languages that S. Paul was brought up in. Why should it then be improbable, he should use it when he had occasion? And no marvel it is to be found no oftener; For, unless it be in this Chapter, in the whole New Testament the thing itself (reward for good tidings) is never mentioned, intimated, or alluded to. How then could the word be used? But in this Chapter, me thinks I hear it used a second time, ver. 23. I will only propound it to your consideration, and so conclude.  
The matter stands thus; S. Paul, though he received no reward at the hands of the Corinthians for his pains in making known the glad tidings of salvation unto them, but did it gratis to them-ward: yet he looked for an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from God, stored up in the heavens, for all his faithful Messengers, and to be received at the great Day: In expectation whereof, he not only preached the Gospel to them freely, but endured all things, and made himself a servant to all: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this I do for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that I might be partaker thereof. What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should it be, that Paul here aimed to be partaker of? Surely, it should seem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here notes some Proemium, even by that which immediately follows; Know ye not that they which run in a race, run all, but one receiveth the brabeum; So run that ye may obtain. I leave it to your better meditations, and so conclude.   
FINIS.   

DIATRIBAE. OR, A continuation of certain DISCOURSES ON SUNDRY TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE: Delivered upon several occasions,  
BY JOSEPH MEDE, B. D. late Fellow of Christ's College in CAMBRIDGE.  
Never before published, being exactly printed according to the Authors own Manuscripts.  
LONDON, Printed by M. F. for JOHN CLARK, and are to be sold at his Shop under S. Peter's Church in Cornhill.  
MDCXLVIII.   

The Texts newly added.  

LUKE 2. 13, 14. AND suddenly there was with the Angel a multitude of the heavenly Host, praising God, and saying, Glory be to God on high, (or, in the highest) and on earth peace, goodwill towards men. pag. 241  
MATTH. 7. 21. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven; but he that doth the will of my Father which is in Heaven. 264  
ACTS 10. 4. And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine Alms are come up for a memorial before God: Or, (as it is verse 31●) are had in remembrance. 285  
PSALM 112. 6. The Righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance. 311  
NEHEM. 13. 14, 22. Remember me, O my God, concerning this, and wipe not out my good deeds [Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that I have done for the house of my God, and for the offices thereof. And spare me according to the greatness of thy mercy. 324  
MATTH. 10. 41. He that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall receive a Prophet's reward. 356  
DEUT. 33. 8. And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Vrim be with thy Holy One. 350  
ACTS 5. 3, 4, 5. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to purloin of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words, fell down and gave up the Ghost, etc. 379  
JOEL 2. 17. Let the Priests, the Ministers of the Lord, weep between the Porch and the Altar, and say, Spare thy people, o Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach. 404  
GEN. 3. 13, 14, 15. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The Serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the Serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field: upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. 414  
MALACH. 1. 11. For from the rising of the Sun, even unto the going down of the same, my Name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place Incense shall be offered unto my Name, and a pure offering: for my Name shall be great among the Heathen, saith the Lord of Hosts. 471   

Four other Treatises by the same Author formerly Printed: viz.  
1. The Name ALTAR, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THPION.  
2. CHURCHES, that is, Appropriate places for Christian Worship.  
1 COR. 11. 22. Have ye not Houses to eat and drink in? [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;] Or despise ye the CHURCH of God? 31. B.  
3. The Reverence of GOD'S HOUSE. ECCLESIASTES 5. 1. Look to thy foot [or feet] when thou comest to the House of God; and be more ready to obey, then to offer the sacrifice of fools; for they know not that they do evil. 81. B.  
4. daniel's WEEKS. 

DAN. 9 24, 25, 26, 27.  
24. Seventy Weeks are allotted for thy people, and for thy holy City, to finish transgression, and make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to fulfil Vision and Prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 140. B.  
25. Also know and understand, that from the going forth of the Commandment to cause to return and to build jerusalem, unto MESSIAH the PRINCE, shall be Seven of Weeks; even threescore and two Weeks; the street shall be built again and the Wall, even in a straight of Times. 146. B.  
26. And after threescore and two weeks shall MESSIAH be cut off, but not for himself, and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the City, and the Sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the War Desolations are determined. 158. B.  
27. And he shall confirm the Covenant with many for one Week: and in the midst of the Week he shall cause the Sacrifice and the Oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of Abominations, he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation; and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate. 163. B.      

A 
Luk. 2. 13, 14.  CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN DISCOURSES ON Sundry Texts of SCRIPTURE.  
LUKE 2. 13, 14. 13. And suddenly there was with the Angel a multitude of the heavenly Host, praising God, and saying, 14. Glory be to God on high, (or, in the highest) and on earth peace, good will towards men. 
AT the Creation of the world, when God laid the foundations of the earth, and stretched out his line thereon, the stars in the morning (as God himself describes it job 38. 7.) sang together, and all the sons of God (that is, the holy Angels) shouted for joy. This in my Text is so like it, that a man would think some new Creation were in hand; nor were it much wide of truth to affirm it: for if ever there were a day wherein the Almighty Power, the incomparable Wisdom, the wonderful Goodness of God again the second time appeared, as it did at the world's Creation, it was this day, whereof S. Luke our Evangelist now treateth; when the Son of God took upon him our flesh, and was born of a Virgin, to repair the breach between God and man, and make all things new. The news of which restauration was no sooner heard and made known to the Shepherds by an Angel sent from heaven, but suddenly the heavenly Host descended from their celestial mansions, and sung this Carol of joy; Glory be to God on high, welcome peace on earth, goodwill towards men. A Song renowned both for the singularity of the first example, (for until this time, unless it were once in a Prophetical Vision, we shall not find a Song of Angels heard by men in all the Scripture) and from the custom of the Church, who afterward took it up in her Liturgy, and hath continued the singing thereof ever since the days of the Apostles until these of ours. Yet perhaps it is not so commonly understood, as usually said or chanted, and therefore will be worth our labour to inquire into the meaning thereof, and hear such instructions as may be learned therefrom. Which that we may the better do, I will consider first the Singers or Chanters, The heavenly Host: Secondly, the Carol or Hymn itself, Gloria in excelsis Deo: Glory be to God on high, etc.  
For the first, the heavenly host here spoken of, is an Army of holy Angels: For the Host of Heaven in the language of Scripture is twofold, Visible and Invisible. The Visible Host are the Stars, which stand in their array like an Army, Deut. 4. 19 Lest thou lift up thine eyes (saith the Lord there) unto heaven, and when thou seest the Sun, Moon, and Stars, even all the Host of heaven, shouldst be driven to worship and serve them. The Invisible Host are the Angels, the heavenly Guard; according to that of Micaiah, 1 King. 22. 19 I saw the Lord sitting upon his Throne, and all the Host of heaven standing by him, on his right hand and on his left. So Psal. 103. Bless the Lord ye his Angels, that excel in strength, that do his Commandments. Bless the Lord all ye his Hosts, ye ministers of his that do his pleasure: Where the latter words do but vary that which is expressed in the former. From this it is that the Lord Jehovah, the true and only God, is so often styled the Lord or God of Sabaoth, or of Hosts, that is, King both of Stars and Angels: according to that Nehem. 9 Thou art God alone;— and the Host of Heaven worshippeth thee. By which Title He is distinguished from the Gods of the Nations, who were some of the Host, to wit, of the Stars or Angels, but none of them the Lord of Hosts himself. For the same reason, and with the same meaning and sense, in the Books written after the Captivity, he is styled Deus coeli, the God of heaven, as in Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel; in which Books, together with the last of Chronicles, the title of Deus Sabaoth is not to be found, but the title of Deus Coeli only, and as may seem taken up for some reason in stead of the other.  
But to return to what we have in hand: It was the Angelical Host, as ye hear, who sang this Song of joy and praise unto the most High God. And wherefore? For any restitution or addition of happiness to themselves? No; but for Peace on Earth, and goodwill towards men. He that was now born took not upon him the Nature of Angels, but of men: He came not into the world to save Angels, but for the salvation of men. Nor was the state of Angels to receive advancement in glory by his coming, but the state of men; and that too in such a sort as might seem to impeach the dignity, and dim the lustre of those excellent creatures, when an inferior nature, the nature of man, was now to be advanced into a Throne of Divine Majesty, and to become Head and King not only of men, but of the heavenly Host itself. O ye blessed Angels! what did these tidings concern you, that ruined mankind should be restored again and taken into favour; whereas those of your own Host, which fell likewise, remained still in that gulf of perdition, whereinto their sin had plunged them, without hope of mercy or like promise of Deliverance? what did it add to your eminent Dignity, the most excellent of the creatures of God, that the Nature of man should be advanced above yours? that at the Name of jesus every knee should bow, of things in Heaven, and things in Earth, and things under the Earth?  
The Observation therefore which this Act of the Angels first presents unto us, is the ingenuous goodness and sweet disposition of those immaculate and blessed spirits, in whose bosoms Envy, the Image of the Devil and deadly poison of charity, hath no place at all: For if any inclination to this cankered passion had been in these heavenly creatures, never such an occasion offered, nor greater could be, to stir it up to envy. But heaven admits of no such passion, nor could such a torment consist with the blissful condition of those who dwell therein. It is the smoke of that bottomless pit, a native of hell, the character and cognisance of those Apostate Angels, which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, and are reserved for chains of everlasting darkness. These indeed grieve no less at the happiness of men than the Angel's joy; witness the name of their Prince Satan, which signifies the Fiend, or malicious one, who out of envy overthrew mankind in the beginning; out of envy he and all his fellow-fiends are so restless and indefatigable to seduce him still.  
The Use of this Observation will not be far to seek, if we remember the admonition our Saviour hath given us in the prayer left unto his Church; which is, To make the Angels the pattern of our imitation in doing the will of our heavenly Father; for so he teacheth us to pray, Let thy will be done in earth, as it is done in heaven; that is, Grant us o Lord to do thy will here, as thy holy Angels do it there. And as we should imitate them in all things else; so in this affection towards the happiness and prosperity of others. And good reason I think, if we mean at all to approve ourselves unto God our Father, why we should endeavour rather to be like unto them, then unto Devils: But in nothing can we be more like them, then in this, to rejoice at the good, and not repine at the happiness of our brethren: Hoc enim Angelicum est; This is the Character of the Angelical nature, and consequently of those, who one day shall have fellowship with them. To be contrarily affected Diabolicum est, the badge and brand of Devils and Fiends; and those who wear their Livery, reason good they should keep them company. Let every one therefore examine his own heart concerning this point, that he may learn upon what terms he stands with God, and what he may promise himself of the blessedness to come. Do the gifts of God? Doth his favour or blessing vouchsafed to thy brother, when thou seest or hearest of them, torment and crucify thy soul? Dost thou make their happiness thy misery? Is thine eye evil to thy Brother, because Gods is good? If this be so, without doubt thy heart is not right before God; nor doth his Spirit, but the spirit of Devils or Fiends reign therein. But if the contrary appear in any reasonable measure, with a desire to increase it; (for we must not look to attain the perfection of Angels in this life, but in some measure and degree only) if thou canst rejoice at another's good, though it concerns not thyself; the Spirit of God rests upon thee: For emulations and envyings (saith the Apostle, Gal. 5.) are the fruits of the flesh, but the fruits of the Spirit are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, kindness and goodness: So he calls the opposite virtues to those former vices.  
But as any good that betides our brother ought to affect us with some degree of joy, and not with grief and envy; so chiefly, and most of all his spiritual good, and that which concerns his salvation, ought so to do. This was that the holy Angels praised God for in my Text, on the behalf of men; that unto them a Saviour was born, who should save them from their sins, and reconcile them unto God. Which sweet disposition of those good and blessed spirits our Saviour himself further witnesseth, when he saith, (Luk. 15. 17.) There is joy in heaven (namely, among the holy Angels) for one sinner that repenteth. But is there any man, will you say, such a son of belial, as will not do this, will not imitate the holy Angels in this? Judge ye: There is an evil disease which commonly attends upon Sects and Differences in opinion: that as men are curious and inquisitive into the lives and actions of the adverse party; so are they willing to find them faulty, and rejoice at their falls and slips, hear and relate them with delight; namely, because they suppose it makes much for their own side, that the contrary should by such means be scandalised, and the Patrons and followers thereof disreputed. But should that be the matter of our grief, whereat the Angel's joy; or that the matter of our joy, whereat the Angels grieve? How is this to do our Father's will on earth, as the Angels do in heaven? Nay, if this be not to put on the robes of darkness, and to shake hands with hellish fiends, I know not what is. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly mine honour be not thou united.  
There is another Lesson yet more to be learned from this act of the Angels; namely, that if they glorify God for our happiness, and the favour of God towards us in Christ, much more should we glorify and magnify his goodness ourselves, to whom solely this Birth, and the benefit of this Birth redounds. If they sing, Glory be to God on high, for his favour toward men; we to whom such favour is shown, must not hold our peace; for shall they for us, and not we for ourselves? No, the Choir of heaven did but set us in, we are to bear a part, and it should be a chief part, since the best part is ours. As therefore the Church in her public Service, hath ever since kept it up: so must every one of us in particular, never let it go down or die on our hands.  
Thus much of the Quaere; Now come we to the Anthem or Song itself: whose contents are two; First, the Doxology or Praise; Glory be to God on high. Secondly, a gratulation rendering the reason thereof; Because of Peace on earth, Good will towards men. For the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be taken here for a copulative, but as Vaughan is frequently in the 
Ita Zonar. ad c. 74. Trullan.  Hebrew, for a conjunction causal, or for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Glory to God in the highest; for that there is Peace on earth, goodwill towards men. Or if we retain the copulative sense, yet we must understand the words following as spoken by way of gratulation: Glory be to God on high, and welcome peace on earth, goodwill towards men. Or both causally and gratulatorily thus, Glory be to God in the highest; for (o factum bene!) there is peace on earth, and goodwill towards men.  
To begin with the first, the Doxology or praise; Glory be to God in the Highest: that is, Let the Angels glorify him, who dwells on high: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be referred to Glory, and not to God; the sense being, glorified be God by those on high; and not God, who dwells on high, be glorified. This may appear by the like expression in the 148. Psalms, whence this Glorification seems to be borrowed: Praise ye the Lord from the heavens, praise him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●rat●e ye him all his Angels, praise ye him all his Host. Therefore junius for Praise ye the Lord from the Heavens, hath Laudate cum coelites: The Chaldee, for Laudate eum in excelsis; Laudate eum Angeli excelsi. In like manner here, Gloria in excelsis ●eo, are the words of the Angelical Choir, inciting themselves and all the Host to give glory and praise unto God for these wonderful tidings. Now therefore let us see what this Glory is; and how it is given to God.  
To tell you every signification of the word Glory in Scripture, might perhaps distract the hearer, but would inform him little. Nor will it be to purpose to reckon up every signification it hath, when it is spoken of God: I will therefore name only the two principal ones: And first, Glory when it is referred to God, often signifies the Divine Presence, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as in this Chapter, a little before my Text, when it is said, The Glory of the Lord shone round about the Shepherds, and they were sore afraid. But this is not the signification in my Text, but another which I shall now tell you. For Glory besides signifies in Scripture the high and glorious Supereminency or Majesty of God, which consisteth in his threefold Supremacy of Power, of Wisdom, and of Goodness. And as words of eminency and dignity with us (as Majesty, Highness, Honour, Worship) are used for the persons themselves to whom such Dignity belongeth, (as when we say, His Majesty, his Highness, his Honour, his Worship:) so in the Scripture, and among the Hebrews, His Glory, or the Glory of the Lord, is used to note the Divine Essence, or Deity itself. As in 2 Pet. 1. 17. There came a voice (saith S. Peter) from the excellent Glory; (that is, from God the Father) This is my well-beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Rom. 1. The Gentiles are said to have changed the glory of the incorruptible God, into the likeness of things corruptible. As it is said (in the 106. Psal. ver. 20.) of the Israelites in the Wilderness, That they changed their Glory into the similitude of an Ox that eateth 
Jer. 2. 11.  grass. S. john cap. 1. 14. of his Gospel says of the Son, We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten Son of God. According to which sense he is called Heb. 1. The brightness of his Father's glory, and the express Image of his person; where the latter words are an exposition of the former, Image expounding brightness, and person or substance expounding glory.  
If Glory therefore signify the Divine Majesty or Greatness; to glorify or give glory unto God is nothing else but to acknowledge this Majesty or greatness of His; namely, his supereminent Power, his Wisdom, and Goodness: for in the peerless supereminency of these three, (under which all his other Attributes are comprehended) his glorious Majesty consisteth. Take this withal; That all the religious service and worship we give unto God, (whether we praise him, pray, or give thanks unto him) is nothing else but the acknowledging of this glory, either in deed or word; namely, by confessing it, or doing some act whereby we acknowledge it. To come to particulars: By our Faith we confess his Wisdom and Truth; by our thanksgiving, his Goodness and Mercy: when we pray, we acknowledge his Power and Dominion; and therefore the form of prayer our Saviour taught us, concludes, For thine is the kingdom, power, and glory. In praise we confess all these or any of them, according to that in the Hymn of the Church, Te Deum laudamus, Te Dominum confitemur; We praise thee, O God, we acknowledge thee to be the Lord. All which is evident by those forms of glorification set down in the Apocalypse, which are nothing else but express and particular acknowledgements of the greatness or Majesty of God, and his peerless prerogatives. When the four Wights are said to have given glory, honour and thanks to him that sat upon the Throne: what was their Ditty but this? Thou art worthy, o Lord, to receive glory and honour and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. When the Lamb opened the book with 7. Seals, the Wights, the Elders, and every creature in heaven, in earth, and under the earth, sung, Worthy is the Lamb to receive power, and riches, and strength, and honour, and blessing. And again; Blessing, honour, glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. In which we may observe the whole glorification to consist in the acknowledgement of these three sovereign prerogatives of the Divine Majesty, his Power, his Wisdom, his Goodness: The two first, Power and Wisdom, are express; and Riches and Strength belong to Power: The third is contained in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Blessing, or thanksgiving; which is nothing else but the confession of the Divine goodness.  
Hence it is, that the Septuagint and Vulgar Latin commonly render the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signify to praise, and glorify, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, confiteor: Confitemini Domino quoniam bonus, quoniam in saeculum misericordia ejus. Psal. 106. 107. 136. Confitebor tibi Domino in toto corde meo, quoniam audisti verba oris mei. Psal. 138. Confitemini Domino, & invocate nomen ejus. Psal. 105. and the like. And in the 148. Psal. Confessio ejus super coelum & terram: that is, His glory is above the heaven and the earth. The Holy Ghost in the New Testament useth the same language, Luc. 11. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them to babes; where we have, I thank thee o Father, Beza and Erasmus read, Gloriam tibi tribuo; which I think is the better. So also in this Chapter Luke 2. 38. it is said of Anna, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deo laudes gratiasque agebat. So Heb. 13. 15. By him therefore, (that is, by Christ) let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the fruit of our lips confessing to his Name. By all which it is evident, that to praise and give glory unto God, whether by praise at large, or prayer and thanksgiving in special, is nothing else (as I have said) but to confess and acknowledge his peerless Majesty over all and in all; which the Scripture calls his glory. And if ever there were a work of God, wherein all these peerless Prerogatives of Power, Wisdom, and Goodness, all together appeared in the highest degree, it was undoubtedly in this wonderful work of the Incarnation of the Son of God for man's redemption: well therefore might the heavenly Host sing, Gloria in excelsis Deo; The Power, the Wisdom and Goodness of the glorious God be acknowledged by the holy Angels and all the Host of heaven for ever and ever. This is the meaning of the Doxology.  
Come we now to the gratulation, which contains the cause thereof; glory be to God on high; for (o factum benè! o happy news!) there is peace on earth, goodwill towards men. One and the same thing two ways expressed: for it is an Apposition, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the latter words declaring the meaning of the former; Peace on earth, that is, goodwill towards men, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ' Ev for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; to wit, in imitation of the Hebrew construction, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verbs, which signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the noun signifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are construed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, and accordingly both the Septuagint and New Testament express the same. But the Vulgar Interpreter reads here, Pax in terris, hominibus bonae voluntatis, as if the Greek were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as now all our Copies constantly read, and I believe ever did: yet Beza seems here to favour the Vulgar Latin, expounding Homines bonae voluntatis of those whom God wils well to; to wit, of the Elect, to whom this Peace by Christ belongeth: and from the conveniency of this sense, inclines to believe, that the Greek anciently read so; quoting to this end Irenaeus, Origen, and chrysostom (as he saith) in divers places. But he trusted too much the Latin Translation of chrysostom; for the Greek chrysostom hath no such matter; but both in those places Beza points to, and in divers others reads constantly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as our Copies do. And so I make no question Irenaeus and 
* Vide cont. Celsu lib. 1. p. 46. gr.  Origen did too in the Greek Originals if we had them to look into. But the Latin Translators thought not fit to alter the words of the Hymn so ordinarily sung in the Liturgy, and so expressed it in Latin, as the Latin Church used. And for the meaning, I believe the Vulgar Latin aimed at no other sense, than what the Greek implies; namely, that this Peace was no earthly peace, but the peace of God's goodwill to man, referring the Genitive Case voluntatis, not to hominibus, but to pax. Pax in terris: what pax? Pax bonae voluntatis hominibus. That which makes me think so is, because Origen and his Translator, in the place Beza quotes for this reading, expressly expounds it so. And so there will not be a pin to choose; save that the Greek expresseth this sense by way of Apposition more naturally; the Latin by way of Rection, somewhat harshly; and yet perhaps the Translator thought, less ambiguously.  
Well then; this peace on earth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God's goodwill or favour to men: and God's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the peace on earth, the Angels gratulate; namely, the reconciliation of God to men in Christ: For by reason of Sin, heaven and earth, God and man were till now at enmity: but by Christ this enmity is taken away, and man, by the forgiveness of his sin, restored unto peace and favour with God. And as by this Nativity God and man became one Person, so by this conjunction Heaven and earth, Angels and men, become one Fellowship, one City and Kingdom of God: the Kingdom of Satan, that Prince of the powers of the Air, who by reason of sin had captivated, and brought under his service the whole Earth, and thereby held the same at open war and enmity with Heaven, being now by degrees to be destroyed and rooted out. And this is that admirable mystery of our Redemption by Christ, which the Angelical Host here gratulates, by the name of Peace on earth, and goodwill towards men.  
And that we may not doubt, but we have hit the meaning, that this peace on earth, is God's goodwill to men, and therefore expounded by it; besides that in the Old 
* Vid. Num. 6. 27. Judg. 6. 24. Psal. 85. 7. etc. Cant. 8. 10. Jer. 16. 15. 29. 11.  Testament peace is often taken for God's favour and mercy to men; (as in that of Isay 54. 10. The mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the Covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.) So if we examine the Use thereof in the New Testament, we shall find it in special applied to this our Reconciliation to God in Christ by remission of sin. S. Peter to Cornelius Act. 10. describes the Gospel thus, The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace by jesus Christ. And S. Paul, Col. 1. It pleased God the Father, that in Christ all fullness should dwell. And (having made peace through the blood of his Cross) by him to reconcile all things unto himself. What can be plainer than this? The same, as I take it, he means Eph. 2. when he tells us, That Christ came to preach peace both to those that were afar off, and to them that were nigh; that is, both to Jew and Gentile. But what peace? namely, that through him, we both might have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Hence the Gospel is called the Gospel of peace; and God so often in the New Testament, the God of peace; that is, of reconcilement and favour: and the evangelical salutation is, Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and jesus Christ our Lord.  
The meaning of this Angelical gratulation being thus cleared, let us see now what may be learned and observed therefrom. Where my first Observation shall be this: S. Peter tells Cornelius, That to Christ give all the Prophet's witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins. Our Saviour after his Resurrection, expounding the Scriptures to his Apostles says, the same, Luke 24. 47. Thus it is written (saith he) and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that remission of sins should be preached in his Name among the Nations. But where is this publication of remission of sins by Christ written? for in those formal words we shall hardly find it. Let us take here the Angel's key, and we shall: for they tell us that peace on earth is this goodwill towards men. Now do not the Prophets speak of some peace on earth, which Messiah should bring with him when he comes? yes surely: well then, let us look for this publication of remission of sins under that name, and we shall find it, Isay 9 6. Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the Father of eternity, the Prince of peace, that is, of peace not between men and men, but between God and men) and of the increase of his government and peace shall be no end. Isay 52. 7. How beautiful upon the mountains, are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation, that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth: which place S. Paul, Rom. 10. 15. interprets of the publication of the Gospel of Christ. Esay 53. 5. The chastisement of our peace was upon him; that is, he suffered for the remission of our sins. Is. 57 19 quoted by S. Paul to the Ephesians, Chap. 2. Peace to him that is afar off, and to him that is near, saith the Lord, and I will heal him. Ezek. 34. 24, 25. I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David (King Messiah) a Prince among them.— And I will make a Covenant of peace with them. So Chap. 37. 26. Hag. 2. 9 The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of Hosts; and in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord of Hosts. Zech. 9 10. Shout o daughter of jerusalem; behold, thy King cometh unto thee,— and he shall speak peace unto the Heathen, and his Dominion shall be from Sea to Sea, and from the River unto the end of the earth.  
Thus much of the Use to be made of the Angel's expression in this heavenly Carol: Now I shall propound to your consideration another, and that taken from the argument itself; namely, that if Almighty God, our heavenly Father, be so graciously disposed to us-ward, as to be reconciled unto us, by forgiving us our trespasses: then ought we semblably to be reconciled to our brethren and forgive them their trespasses, when they have wronged or offended us. Leo Serm. 6. de Nativit. Natalis Domini, natalis est pacis, ergo singuli fideles offerant Patri pacificorum concordiam filiorum. The Illation is good; we have the authority of the Apostle S. john to back it; 1 joh. 4. 10. God (saith he) so loved us, that he sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. What follows? Beloved, (saith he) if God so loved us, we ought to love end another. So I say, if God be so gracious, to forgive and be reconciled to us, we ought as it were, to echo this his loving kindness, and to forgive, and be reconciled one to another.  
This congruity and semblablenesse of our actions and affections one towards another, with God's favour and mercy towards us, is the Rule and Reason not only of this, but of many other duties he requires at our hands. Thus the Jews were every seventh year to manumise their servants, as an act of congruity and thankfulness to God, who had delivered them, when they were servants, out of the land of Egypt, and house of bondage. They were bidden to use a stranger kindly, because themselves had been strangers, and God when they were oppressed, had been compassionate and kind towards them, and redeemed them from their thraldom. Likewise we read in the Gospel, Luk. 8. 36. Be ye merciful, as your heavenly Father is merciful: And Matth. 5. Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. In a word, God hath revealed, he will show mercy to none, but such as appear before him with this congruity. james 2. 13. He shall have judgement without mercy, that showeth no mercy: and therefore the tenor of our sentence at the last judgement runs, Come ye blessed, and be partakers of mercy, because ye have showed it: But, Go ye cursed without all mercy into Hell fire, because ye have showed no mercy.  
Thus we see how God requires this congruity in general: and as for the particular of reconcilement and forgiving our brother, it is written in capital letters, and urged in such sort as it might not unfitly be termed the Livery of Christianity. In so much that if we consider it duly, it cannot but breed astonishment, that the evidence and necessity should be so apparent, and the practice among those who look for the benefit of Christ and call upon his Name, so little regarded: when as I dare boldly pronounce, there is no remission of sins to be looked for at the hands of God without it.  
An invincible argument whereof is, That our Saviour himself, in the prayer he hath taught his Church, hath put in a bar against ask it, but upon this condition, Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. If we ask not with this disposition, there is no promise that any such prayer shall be heard: nay, our Saviour tells us in plain terms, it shall not: If (saith he) you forgive not men their trespasses, no more will your heavenly Father forgive you your trespasses. How then can any man whose heart is fraught with malice, and meditates revenge against his brother, hear this and not tremble? Is it not a fearful thing for a man to carry in his own bosom, not only an evidence that his sins are unpardoned, but a bar too, that he cannot ask the forgiveness of them? Let no man deceive himself: Etsi enim multis bonis conscientiis abundemus, saith S. chrysostom, reconciliatione tamen contemptâ, nullum possumus promereri solatium. As the fifth Commandment is called by the Apostle the first Commandment of promise, so is this petition for forgiveness of sins, the only petition with condition: and such a condition too, as our Saviour dwells upon and enforces, when he had delivered this form of prayer to his Disciples: For he passes by all the rest of the petitions, and singles out this alone to comment upon, as that wherein the chiefest moment lay, and without which all our prayer would be uneffectuall, and to no purpose.  
A further confirmation of which we have in that parable of Servus nequam, Matth. 18. whom his Lord being moved with compassion, when he besought him, forgave a debt of ten thousand Talents: But he finding one of his fellow-servants which ought him an hundred pence, though he fell at his feet and besought him, yet would not hear him, but cast him into prison. Then his Lord was wroth, and said, O thou wicked servant! shouldst not thou have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity upon thee? And he delivered him unto the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due to him. The Application is terrible: So likewise, saith our Saviour, shall my heavenly Father do unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. We are this Servus nequam, if when our heavenly Father forgives us thousands of Talents, we stand with our brethren for an hundred pence. There is no proportion between the offences wherewith we offend God, and the offences wherewith our brother offends us. And therefore we have no excuse, hath our brother wronged us never so often, never so much, never so heinously: For whatsoever it be, or how unworthy or undeserved soever; our sin, our ingratitude to Almighty God is and hath been infinitely greater, even much more than ten thousand Talents surpass an hundred pence.  
To these two testimonies add a third, and that also as the former, out of our blessed Saviour's own mouth: Mat. 5. If thou bring (saith he) thy gift to the Altar, and there remember, that thy brother hath aught against thee: leave there thy gift before the Altar, and go thy way; First be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word whereby the Septuagint constantly render that which the Law calls Corban; and the Gospel concurres with them, Mar. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now Corban in the Law is in special used for those offerings, which were made for atonement of Sin, as the Burnt-offering, Sin-offering, Trespasse-offering, and Peace-offering, called Offerings by Fire or Sacrifices. So that this precept of our Saviour's here, is the same in effect with the former, when thou comest to offer an offering unto God for an atonement of thy sin; Go thy stay first, and be reconciled unto thy brother, for without this thy sin shall not be forgiven thee. I shall not need tell you, that now in the Gospel, Christ is the Sacrifice, is the gift which a Christian by faith offers unto God for the propitiation of his sin; and that this sacrifice is commemorated, sealed and communicated unto us in the blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper; whereby it will easily appear, how this precept of our Saviour's uttered after the style of the legal worship is appliable to the evangelical.  
Hence in the ancient Church, when they assembled to celebrate this Sacrament, the Deacon was wont to proclaim, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ne quis contra aliquem; Let no man have aught against his brother: And then, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Salute one another with an holy kiss: which accordingly they did, first the Bishop and Clergy, than the Laity, the men apart by themselves, and the women by themselves; and this was a profession of friendship and reconciliation, and therefore called Osculum pacis, the kiss of peace. In aftertimes the Priest gave this kiss of peace unto the Deacon, and he to the chief of the Congregation, and so it was given from one to another. In stead of which at length was brought in that foolish ceremony, still used among the Romanists, for the Priest to send a little guilded or painted Table, with a Crucifix or some Saint's picture thereon, to be kissed of every one in the Church, before they receive the Holy Bread; which they call the kissing of the Pax. So oftentimes profitable and useful Ceremonies degenerate into toys and superstitions. Our Church, though she useth no ceremony, retains the substance; when the Priest in his exhortation to the Communicants, saith, If any of you be in malice or envy, or any other grievous crime, bewail your sins, and come not to this holy Table: and by the Rubric the Priest, if he know any such, is to turn them back, unless they will be reconciled.  
Lastly, the necessity of this duty is testified by that pious and generally received custom amongst Christians, to exhort those that are dying to forgive all the world, that so themselves may find mercy and forgiveness at the hands of God. Is it needful at the hour of death, and not as needful in the time of our health? Is there no forgiveness to be expected at the hands of God without it, when we are dying, and is there while we are living? No certainly; All times are alike here; and there is no time wherein God will forgive us, unless we forgive our brother. What then remains, but that we do every day, as we would do, if we were to die the next? It is a blessed disposition to have a becalmed heart to those who have wronged us, and not to let the Sun go down upon our wrath: To be able to come before God with confidence, and say; Lord forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.   
MAT. 7. 21. 
Mat. 7. 21.  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven; but he that doth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 
THere are three sorts of men in the world; some which call not Christ their Lord, as Turks, Jews and Infidels: some which call him Lord, as all Christians, but not all in like manner, for there are two sorts of them; some which call him Lord, and that is all; others which both call him Lord, and do the will of his Father, the administration whereof is committed to him. The first of those three sorts, those who do not so much as call Christ their Lord, it is plain they cannot be saved; for there is no other name to be saved by, but the name of Christ only. For the second sort, those who call Christ their Lord, that is, are Christians, and profess to believe in Christ, and hope to be saved by him, and yet do no works of obedience unto God; though such as these may think themselves in a good estate, yet our Saviour here expressly excludes them from entering into the Kingdom of heaven: But the third sort, which do not only call Christ their Lord, but do the will of his Father, these are the only true Christians; for these there is hope, but for none other: Not every one (saith our Saviour) that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, etc.  
Our Saviour foresaw there would be among those who believed on his Name, such as should think their faith sufficient, and that as for works they might be excused, having him for their Lord and Captain of their salvation, who himself had both undergone the punishment due for their sins, and fulfilled that obedience which they should have done. So that now there remained nothing on their part for to obtain salvation, but to trust and rely upon him, without any endeavour at all to please God by works, as being now become unuseful to salvation. If ever there were a time when Christians thus deceived themselves, that time is now, as both our practice showeth plainly by a general neglect of such duties of piety and charity, which amongst our Forefathers were frequent; as also our open profession, when being exhorted to these works of piety to God, and of charity towards our brethren, we stick not to allege, we are not bound unto them, because we look not to be saved by the merit of works, as they, but by faith in Christ alone; as though faith in Christ excluded works, and not rather included them, as being that whereby they became acceptable unto God, which of themselves they are not: or as if works could no way conduce unto the attaining of salvation, but by way of merit and desert, and not by way of the grace and favour of God in Christ, as we shall see in the handling of this Text. We greatly now a days, and that most dangerously, mistake the error of our forefathers, which was not in that they did good works; I would we did so; but because they knew not rightly the end why they did them, nor where the value of them lay: they thought the end of doing them was, to obtain eternal life, as a reward of Justice due unto them, whereas it is only of grace and promise in Christ Jesus: They took their works to have such perfectness in them as would endure the touchstone of the Law of God, yea such worth and value as to merit the reward they looked for; whereas all the value and acceptableness of our works, issueth from the merit of Christ, and lieth only in his righteousness communicated unto us and them by faith, and no otherwise. But setting aside these errors of the end, and of the value of works, we must know as well as they; That not every one that saith unto Christ, Lord, Lord, etc. but he that doth the will of his Father, etc.  
Now for the Explication of the words: To call Christ, Lord, is to believe in him, to acknowledge him, to look for salvation by him, or, as the Scripture expresseth it, Luke 6. to come unto him, every one, (saith our Saviour there, explaining this very Text we have in hand) Every one (saith he) that cometh unto me, and heareth my words, and doth them, I will show you who he is like: where to come unto Christ, is put in stead of that which in the former was, to say unto him Lord. The doing of his Father's will, is the doing of those works of obedience, which his Father hath commanded in his Law, and now committed to his Son, whom he hath made the head and King of his Church to see executed and performed by those he bringeth to salvation. But how, and in what manner, we shall see by and by.  
The Text consists of two parts; The one negative; Not every one that saith unto Christ, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven. The other affirmative; But those who do the will of his Father shall only enter thither. But these are so nearly linked together, that they cannot be handled asunder: And the observations which I shall draw thence depend on the whole Text; the first and chiefest whereof is this; That faith in Christ without works of obedience, and amendment of life, is not sufficient for salvation, and consequently not that faith whereby a Christian is justified. For if it were, it would save us: If it be not sufficient to save us, it cannot justify us: This floweth directly from the Text, and cannot be denied; if ye remember what I said before; that to call Christ, Lord, is to believe in him.  
For the better understanding of this, you must take notice that there is a threefold faith whereby men believe in Christ: There is a false faith: There is a true faith, but not saving: and thirdly, there is a saving faith. A false faith is, to believe to attain salvation through Christ any other way than he hath ordained, as namely, to believe to attain salvation through him, without works of obedience to be accepted of God in him; which is a faith whereof there is no Gospel. A true faith is, to believe salvation is to be attained through obedience to God in Jesus Christ, who by his merits and righteousness, makes ourselves and our works acceptable to his Father.  
A saving and justifying faith is, to believe this so as to embrace and lay hold upon Christ for that end. To believe to attain salvation through obedience to God in Christ, so as to apply ourselves, and rely upon Christ, for that end, namely, to perform those works of obedience, which God hath promised to reward with eternal life: For a justifying faith stayeth not only in the brain, but stirs up the will to receive and enjoy the good believed, according as it is promised. This motion of election of the will, is that which maketh the difference between a saving faith, which joineth us unto Christ, and that which is true indeed, but not saving, but dogmatic and opinionative only. And this motion, or applying of the will to Christ, this embracing of Christ and the promises of the Gospel through him, is that which the Scripture (when it speaks of this faith) calleth coming unto Christ, or the receiving of him, Joh. 1. 12. As many as received him, to them he gave power (or privilege) to be the sons of God, even to them that believe on his Name: where receiving and believing one expound another. So for coming; Come unto me (saith our Saviour) all ye that are heavy laden, and I will ease you. The last is very frequent, john 5. 40. Ye will not come to me (saith our Saviour) that ye might have life. And Chap. 6. 37. All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me. ver. 44. No man can come unto me, unless the Father draw him. 45. Every man that hath heard, and learned of the Father cometh unto me; and such like. All which express the specification of a saving faith, which consists in the embracing, receiving and applying of the will to the thing believed.  
What this embracing, receiving, or applying unto Christ is, I will farther make plain thus: He that believeth that Christ is an atonement to God for the sins of all repentant sinners, (and surely he is an atonement for none else) must repent and turn from all his sins, that so Christ may be an atonement for him, else he embraceth not what he believeth.  
He that believes that God in Christ will accept and reward our obedience and works of piety, though short of perfection, and of no worth in themselves, must apply himself accordingly to do works of Religion and Charity, that God in Christ may accept and reward them. For our belief is not that saving belief, until we apply ourselves to what we believe. To believe to attain salvation through Christ, without works of obedience to be accepted in him, is, as I have already said, a false faith whereof there is no Gospel, no promise: To believe the contrary, that Christ is given of God to such only as shall receive him, to perform acceptable obedience to God through him, and yet not to apply, and buckle ourselves thereto, were indeed to believe what is true, but yet no saving faith, because we embraced not the thing we believed, as we believed it.  
Thou sayest then thou hast faith, and believest that Christ is the atonement to God, for the sins of all such as leave and forsake their sins by repentance; Why then repent thee of thy sins that Christ may be an atonement for thee. Thou sayest thou hast this faith, that God in Jesus Christ will accept thy undeserving works and services unto eternal life; why then embrace thou Christ, and rely upon him for this end, that thou mayest do works of piety towards God, and charity towards men, that so God in Christ may accept thee and them unto eternal life.  
Now if this be the faith which is saving, and unites us unto Christ and no other, than it is plain that a saving faith cannot be severed from good works, because no man can embrace Christ as he is promised, but he must apply himself to do them. For out of that which hath been spoken three reasons may be gathered for the necessity of them. First, it is the end of our faith and justification by Christ, yea the end why he shed his blood for us, that we being reconciled to God in him, might bring forth fruits of righteousness, which else we could never have done. This is no speculation, but plain Scripture. S. Peter 1 ●p.. 2. 24. telleth us, that Christ his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness. S. Paul, Tit. 2. 11, 12, 13, 14. The grace of God (saith he) that bringeth salvation, hath appeared unto all men; (wherefore?) teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, and righteously, and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These words contain the sum of all I have hitherto told you: That Christ is therefore given us, to be a propitiation for our sins, and to justify us, that in him we might walk before God in newness of life; so to obtain a Crown of righteousness in the world to come.  
Answerable is that place Ephes. 2. 10. where the Apostle having told us, we are saved by grace through faith, and not of works, lest any man should boast; he adds presently, (lest his meaning might be mistaken, as it is of too many) that we are God's workmanship created in jesus Christ unto good works, which God hath before ordained (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that we should walk in them: as if he should say, Those works of obedience, ordained by God aforetime, in his law for us to walk in, which we could not perform of ourselves; now God hath as it were new moulded us in Jesus Christ, that we might perform them in him; namely, by way of acceptation, though they come short of that exactness the Law requireth. And thus to be saved, is to be saved by grace and favour, and not by the merit of works, because the foundation whereby ourselves and our services are approved in the eyes of God, and acquitted of guilt, (which the Scripture calleth to be justified,) is the mere favour of God in Jesus Christ, and not any thing in us. And this way of salvation excludes all boasting; for what have we to boast of, when all the righteousness of our works is none of ours, but Christ's imputed to us; whereby only, and not for any merit in themselves, they become acceptable, and have promise of reward. But that men should be saved by Christ, though they be idle and do nothing, I know no such grace of God revealed in Scripture.  
Now that in Christ we may perform works of righteousness, which God will accept and crown, is plain by the tenor of Scripture. S. Paul, Philip. 1. 11. desires that the Philippians might be filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God. And the same Apostle tells the Romans, Rom. 6. 22. that being made free from sin, and become servants to God, they have their fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life; that is, as the Syriack turns it, Sunt vobis fructus sancti, they have holy fruits, whose end is life eternal.  
And if we would seriously consider it, we should find, that the more we believe this righteousness of faith in Christ, the more reason we have to perform works of service and obedience unto God, then if we believed it not: For if our works would not be acceptable with God, unless they were complete in every point, as the Law required; if there were no reward to be looked for at the hands of God, unless we could merit it by the worthiness of our deeds: who that considers his own weakness and insufficiency, would not sooner despair, then go about to please God by works? He would think it better to do nothing at all, then to endeavour what he could never hope to attain, and so lose his labour. But we, who believe that those who serve God in Christ, have their failings and wants covered with his righteousness, and so their works accepted, as if they were in every point as they should be; why should not we of all men fall to work, being sure by Christ's means and merit, we shall not lose our labour?  
A second motive why we should do good works is, because they are the way and means ordained by God to obtain the reward of eternal life, without which we shall never attain it: Without holiness no man shall see God, Heb. 12. 14. Look to yourselves (saith S. john Ep. 2. ver. 8.) that ye lose not those things ye have wrought for, but that ye may receive a full reward. The Angel's message from heaven to devout Cornelius was, Thy prayers and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God: whereupon S. Peter inferred, that in every Nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him, Acts 10.  
Hence it is that we shall be judged, and receive sentence at the last day, according to our works: Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was hungry, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me: For in as much as ye have done these unto one of the least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Lord, how do those look to be saved at that day, who think good works not required to salvation, and accordingly do them not! Can our Saviour pass this blessed sentence on them? think they he can? If he should, they might truly say indeed, Lord, we have done no such matter, nor did we think ourselves bound unto it; we relied wholly upon our faith in thy merits, and thought we had been freed from such services. What? do they think Christ will change the form of his sentence at that great day? No certainly: If the sentence for Bliss will not fit them, and be truly said of them, the other will, and must, for there is no more; Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels: For when I was hungry, ye gave me no meat, etc. This must be their doom unless they suppose the righteous Judge will lie for them.  
And it is here further to be observed, that the works named in the sentence of Judgement, are works of the second Table, works of mercy and charity; Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick; all Almesdeeds, which men are now a-days so much afraid of; as if they looked toward Popery, and had a tang of meriting: For now a-days these costly works of all others are most suspicious; but will it be so at the day of Judgement? True it is, they merit not the reward which shall be given them: but what then? Are we so proud we will do no works, unless we may merit? Is it not sufficient that God will reward them for Christ's sake, though they have no worth in themselves?  
The third and last motive to works of righteousness is, because they are the only sign and note whereby we know our faith is true and saving, and not counterfeit: For 1 john 1. 8. If we say we have fellowship with Christ, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. Chap. 2. ver. 3. Hereby we know that we know him (viz. to be our Advocate with his Father, and the propitiation for our sins) if we keep his Commandments. And Chap. 3. 7. Little children, let no man deceive you: He that doth righteousness, is righteous, even as Christ is righteous. The same almost you may find again, Chap. 2. 29. For if every one that believeth in Christ truly and savingly, believes that salvation is to be attained by obedience to God in him, and not otherwise, and therefore embraceth and layeth hold upon him for that end; How can such an one's faith be fruitless? how can he be without works, who therefore lays hold on Christ that his works and obedience may be accepted as righteous before God, for his sake, and so rewardable? It is as possible for the Sun to be without his light, or the fire to want heat, as such a faith to be without works.  
Our Saviour therefore himself makes this a most sure and never failing note to build our assurance of salvation upon, Luke 6. 46. where the mention of the words of my Text gives the occasion, Why call ye me, Lord, (saith he) and do not the things which I say? 47. Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doth them, I will show you to whom he is like. 48. He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded upon arock. 49. But he that heareth and doth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great. Whom these three motives or reasons will not persuade to good works, let not my soul o Lord be joined with theirs, nor my doom be as theirs must be.  
A second observation out of these words, and near akin to the former is; That it is not enough for a Christian to live harmlessly, and abstain from ill, but he must do that which is good. For our Saviour excludes not here those only, who do against the will of his Father, but those who do not his Father's will: It is doing good which he requireth, and the not doing evil only. This is an error which taketh hold of a great part of men, even of those who would seem to be religious. He is a reformed man, and acquits himself well, who abstains from fornication, adultery, who is no thief, no cozener, or defrauder of other men; who will not lie, or swear, or such like: But as for doing any works of piety or charity, they think they are not required of them.  
But they are much deceived: For God requires some duties at our hands, which he may reward not out of any merit, but out of his merciful promise in Christ. But not doing ill is no service rewardable: A servant who expects wages, must not only do his Master no harm, but some work that is good and profitable: otherwise the best Christian would be he that should live altogether idly; For none doth less harm, than he that doth nothing at all. But Mat. 25. 30. He that increased not his Master's Talon, though he had not misspent it, is adjudged an unprofitable servant, and cast into utter darkness, where is weeping, and gnashing of treth. So also Mat. 3. The tree that beareth no good fruit, is hewn down, though it bore none that was evil: The axe is laid to the root of the tree, every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. Mat. 21. 19 The sig-tree is cursed for having no fruit, not for having evil fruit. And the sentence of condemnation, as you heard before, is to pass at that great day, for not having done good works, not for doing ill ones: Go ye cursed, for when I was hungry, ye fed me not, etc.  
Thus having let you see how necessary it is for a Christian to join good works with his faith in Christ; I will now come to show you, how you must do them, hoping I have already persuaded you that they must needs be done.  
First therefore, we must do them out of faith in Christ, that is, relying upon him only for the acceptance, and rewarding of them: for in him alone God is well pleased with us and with what we do, and therefore without faith and reliance upon him, it is impossible to please God. We must not think there is any worth in our works, for which any such reward as God hath promised, is due; For, alas! our best works are full of imperfections, and far short of what the Law requires. Our reward therefore is not of merit, but of the merciful promise of God in Christ: which the Apostle means, when he says, We are saved by grace, and not by works: That is, it is the grace and favour of God in Christ, which makes ourselves acceptable, and our works rewardable, and not any desert in them or us.  
Having laid this foundation; the next thing required is sincerity of heart in doing them: we must do them out of the fear of God, and conscience of his Commandments, not out of respect of profit, or fear, or praise of men; For such as do so are hypocrites: Not every one, saith our Saviour, that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, but he that doth the will of my Father; Now it is the will of our heavenly Father that we serve him in truth and uprightness of heart: I know (saith David, 1 Chr. 29. 17.) that thou my God triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness. And so he said to Abraham, Gen. 17. 1. I am the Almighty God, walk before me, and be thou upright, or be thou sincere. This manner of serving God joshuah commended to the Israelites, josh. 24. 14. Fear the Lord (saith he) and serve him in sincerity and truth: and the Prophet Samuel, 1 Sam. 12. 24. Only fear the Lord, and serve him in truth with all your heart. This sincerity, uprightness and truth in God's service is, when we do religious and pious duties, and abstain from the contrary out of conscience to Godward, out of an heart possessed with the love and fear of God. It is otherwise called in Scripture, perfectness, or perfectness of heart: For it is a lame and unperfect service, where the better half is wanting, as the heart is, in every work of duty both to God and men. And therefore it is called perfectness, when both go together, when conscience as the soul, enlives the outward work as a body. And indeed this is all the perfection we can attain unto in this life, to serve God in truth of heart, though otherwise we come short of what we should: and therefore God esteems our actions and works, not according to the greatness or exactness of the performance, but according to the sincerity and truth of our hearts in doing them: As appears by the places I have already quoted, and by that 1 King. 15. 14. where it is said, that though Asa failed in his reformation, and the high places were not taken down, nevertheless his heart was perfect with the Lord his God, all his days.  
A note to know such a sincerity and truth of heart by, is, If in our privacy, when there is no witness but God and ourselves, we are careful then to abstain from sin, as well as in the sight of men. If when no body but God shall see and know it, we are willing to do a good work, as well as if all the world should know it. He that findeth himself thus affected, his heart is true, at least in some measure, but so much the less by how much he findeth himself the less affected in this manner. When we are in the presence and view of men, we may soon be deceived in ourselves, and think we do that out of conscience and fear of God, which indeed is but for the fear or praise of men, either lest we should be damnified, or impair our credit, or the like: but when there is none but God and us, then to be afraid of sin, and careful of good duties, is a sign we fear God in truth and sincerity, and not in hypocrisy.  
The special and principal means to attain this sincerity and truth of heart is, to possess ourselves with the apprehension of God's presence, and to walk before him as in his eye: wheresoever thou art, there is an eye that seeth thee, an ear that hears thee, and a hand that registereth thy most secret thoughts. For the ways of man (saith Solomon Prov. 5. 21.) are before the eyes of the Lord, and he pondereth all his doings: How much ashamed would we be, that men should know how much our hearts and our words and actions disagreed? How would we blush that men should see us commit this or that sin, or neglect this or that duty? what horrible Atheism than doth this argue, that the presence of man, yea sometimes of a little child, should hinder us from that wickedness which Gods presence cannot? This having of God before our eyes, and the continual meditation of his allseeing presence, would together with devout prayer for the assistance of God's grace, be in time the bane of hypocrisy and falsehood of heart, and beget in stead thereof that truth and sincerity which God loveth.  
Another property of such obedience as God requires, is universality: we must not serve God by halfs, by doing some duties and omitting other, but we must with David, Psal. 119. 6, 20. have respect to all God's Commandments; to those of the second Table, as well as to those of the first; and to those of the first, as well as those of the second. The want of which universality of obedience to both Tables is so frequent, as the greatest part of Christians are plunged therein, to the undoubted ruin of their souls, and shipwreck of everlasting life, if they so continue.  
For there are two sorts of men, which think themselves in a good estate, and are not: The one are those who make conscience of the duties of the first Table, but have little or no care of the duties of the second. And this is a most dangerous evil, by reason it is more hard to be discovered: those which are guilty thereof, being such as seem religious, but their Religion is in vain. Such were those in the Church of Israel against whom the Prophet Esay declaimeth Chap. 1. from the 10. ver. to the 17. To what purpose are your sacrifices and burnt offerings, saith the Lord? your oblations and incense are an abomination. Your new Moons, Sabbaths, calling of Assemblies; even the solemn meeting, I cannot away with; it is iniquity. Would you know what was the matter? see the words following; Learn to do well, seek judgement, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Lo here a want of the duties of the second Table. Such is that also of Hosea Chap. 6. I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; which is twice alleged by our Saviour in the Gospel against the Pharisees hypocritical scrupulosity in the same duties of the first Table, with a neglect of the second. But here perhaps some may find a scruple, because that if sacrifice in this or the like places be opposed to the duties of obedience required in the second Table, it should hereby seem, that the duties of the second Table which concern our neighbour, should be preferred before the duties of the first, which concern the Lord himself; forasmuch as it is said, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; that is, rather mercy, which is a duty of the second Table, than sacrifice, which is of the first. I answer, The holy Ghosts meaning is, not to prefer the second Table before the first, taking them simply, but to perform the duties of both together, before the service of the first alone: Be more ready to join mercy, or works of mercy with your sacrificing, then to offer sacrifice alone.  
To go on: The duties of the first Table are by a special name called duties of Religion; those of the second Table come under the name of Honesty and probity: Now as a man can never be truly honest, unless he be Religious; so cannot that man (what show soever he makes) be truly religious in God's esteem, who is not honest in his conversation toward his neighbour: Religion and Honesty must be married together, or else neither of them will be in truth what it seems to be. We know that all our duty to God and our neighbour is comprehended under the name of love, as in that sum of the Law; Love God above all things, and thy) neighbour as thyself. This is the sum of the whole Law contained in both Tables. But S. john tells us 1 Ep. 4. 20. He that saith, I love God, and hateth his brother, is a liar; which is as much as if he should say; He that seems religious towards God, and is without honesty towards his neighbour, he is a liar, there is no true religion in him.  
If you would then know, whether a man professing Religion, by diligent frequenting God's service, and exercises of devotion, keeping sacred times, and hearing Sermons, be a sound Christian or not, or a seeming one only; this is a sure and infallible note to discover him, and for him to discover himself by: For, if notwithstanding his care of the duties of the first Table, he makes no conscience to walk honestly towards his neighbour; If he be disobedient to Parents, and lawful Authority; if he be cruel and uncharitable; if he be unjust in his dealings, fraudulent, an oppressor, a falsifier of Covenants and promises, a backbiter, a slanderer, or the like: his Religion is no better than an hypocrites: For such was the Religion of many of the Pharisees, whom therefore our Saviour termeth Hypocrites; Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: They were scrupulous in the duties of the first Table, they paid tithe even of mint and anise, they fasted twice a week, they were exact observers of the Sabbath, and other ceremonies of Religion; but judgement, mercy, and faith in their conversation towards men, our Saviour tells them, they regarded not.  
Besides our Saviour's woe denounced against such, there are two dangerous effects which accompany this evil disease, which should make us beware thereof: First, those who are addicted to Religion without any conscience of honesty, are easily drawn by the Devil to many intolerable acts under colour and in behalf thereof, as they imagine● We see it in the Papists and Jesuits, whose preposterous zeal to their Religion, makes them think Treasons, Murders, Rebellions, or any other such wicked acts, are lawful and excusable, so they be done for the good of the Catholic cause, as they call it. And if we search narrowly amongst ourselves, we shall light upon some examples of indirect and unlawful courses, undertaken otherwhile on the behalf of Religion, and all through want of this conscionable care of maintaining honesty towards our neighbour, together with our zeal for Religion toward God. Even as we see an horse in some narrow and dangerous passage, whilst he is wholly taken up with some bugbear on the one side of the way, which he would eschew, and in the mean time mindeth not the other side, where there is the like danger, he suddenly slips into a pit or ditch, with no small danger to himself and rider: So is it here, with such as look only to the first Table, and mind not the second, whilst they go about as they think to advance the duties of the one, they fall most foully in the other.  
The second evil is a most dangerous scandal, which follows profession of Religion without honest conversation towards men: It is a grievous stumbling block and stone of offence, making men out of love with Religion, when they see such evil effects from it, and those who seem to profess it. Those who are not yet come on are skared from coming, resolving they will never be of their Religion, which they see no better fruits of. Those who are entered, are ashamed and discouraged, forsaking the duties of Religion, that they might shun the suspicion of hypocrisy and dishonesty. But woe be unto them by whom scandal cometh: Let us all therefore take heed to adorn and approve our profession, by bringing forth fruits, not only of piety and devotion toward God, but of works of righteousness and charity to our neighbour.   
ACTS 10. 4. 
Acts 10 4.  And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine Alms are come up for a memortall before God; or (as it is ver. 31.) are had in remembrance. 
WHen the Jews had crucified our blessed Saviour, the Lord and Prince of Life, though their impiety were most horrible, and such as might seem to admit of no expiation or atonement, yet would not God for that reject them; but after he was risen from the dead, his Apostles, and Messengers were sent to offer and tender him once more unto them, if so be they would yet receive him as their Messiah and Redeemer, which was promised to come; telling them that what they had formerly done unto him, God would pass by it, (namely, according to our Saviour's prayer upon the Cross, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do) as done of ignorance on their part, whilst himself was by the dispensation of his Providence, fulfilling that which was long before spoken by the mouth of all his Prophets, that Christ or Messiah should suffer death: All which you may read in the Sermon which S. Peter preached unto them in the Temple, Acts 3. Thus the Lord showed himself according to his style, A God gracious and merciful, long-suffering, and slow to anger.  
But when these Jews, notwithstanding this second tender, not only continued in their former obstinacy, refusing to accept him for their Redeemer, but also misused and persecuted his Ambassadors sent unto them, this their ingratitude was so hideous and heinous in the eyes of God, that he could bear with them no longer, but resolved thenceforth to cast them off, and choose himself a Church among the Gentiles.  
To prepare a way whereunto, he sent a Vision much about the same time, both to Peter, (who was then by reason of the Jews persecution fled to joppa) and to Cornelius a Gentile, Captain of the Italian Band, living at Caesarea upon that coast; ordaining the one (Peter) to be the Messenger and Preacher; and the other (Cornelius) to be the first Gentile which should be partaker of the faith of Christ: Therefore accordingly Peter's Vision was to admonish him, not to make scruple, as all Jews did, of conversing with a Gentile as unclean; signified by a sheet let down from heaven, wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air, that is, of all both clean and unclean; wherewith came also a voice, saying, Peter, kill and eat. Whereunto when Peter answered, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean: the voice replies, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou unclean. Now as this Vision was to give Peter commission to go unto Cornelius; so was Cornelius his Vision to command him to send for Peter; For he saw a Vision at the ninth hour of the day, an Angel of the Lord coming unto him, and saying, Cornelius. Whom when Cornelius looked on, being afraid, he said, What is it, Lord? The Angel said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial, or had in remembrance before God. And now send men to joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter, and he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. And thus have I brought the Story as far as my Text; which is as you see a part of this Message of the Angel to Cornelius, namely, his Report; And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms, etc.  
Wherein two things are to be considered; First, who was the man, and what was the condition of this person to whom the Angel spoke, namely, Cornelius. And the Angel said unto him. Secondly, what the Message or Report he brought importeth; Thy prayers and thine almesdeeds are come in remembrance before God. To begin with the first; The man here spoken to, (as you may read in the beginning of the Chapter, and as I have in some part told already) was Cornelius, a Gentile, Captain of the Italian Band at Caesarea, and so no doubt himself of that ●…tion. To understand which, ye must know, that at t●… 〈◊〉 the Land of Jury, like as most other Nations were, was under the Roman Empire, and ruled by a Precedent of their appointing: which Precedent had his Court and Seat at Caesarea, a great and magnificent City upon the Palestine coast, some seventy miles from Jerusalem, where was continually a guard of Soldiers both for the Precedents safety, and awing the subdued Jews: And among these was our Cornelius a Commander, being Captain of the Italian Band. But howsoever he were by race and breeding a Gentile, yet for Religion he was no Idolater, but a worshipper of the true God, the God of Israel, or God the Creator of heaven and earth: For the Text tells us, that he was a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always: which is as much as to say, he was a Proselyte, for so were those converted Gentiles called, who left their false Gods, and worshipped the true. Yet was he not circumcised, nor had taken upon him the yoke of Moses Law, and so was not accounted a member of the Church of Israel: wherefore according to the Ordinances of the Law he was esteemed unclean, and so not lawful for Peter, or any other circumcised Jew to accompany with him, had not God given Peter an Item that he should thenceforth call no man unclean, for as much as that badge of separation was now dissolved.  
For the better understanding of this, we must know, there were, while the legal worship stood, two sorts of Proselytes, or converted Gentiles: One sort which were called Proselytes of the Covenant; These were such as were circumcised, and submitted themselves to the whole Mosaical pedagogy: These were counted as Jews, and conversed with as freely as those which were so born. But there was a second sort of Proselytes inferior unto these, whom they called Proselytes of the Gate: These were not circumcised, nor conformed themselves to the Mosaical Rites and Ordinances, only they were tied to the obedience of those Commandments, which the Hebrew Doctors call the Commandments of Noah, that is, such as all the sons of Noah were bound to observe; which were, first, to worship God the Creator. Secondly, to disclaim the service of Idols. Thirdly, to abstain from blood, namely, both from the effusion of man's blood: and fourthly, from eating flesh with the blood therein. Fifthly, to abstain from fornication, and all unlawful conjunction. Sixtly, to administer justice: and seventhly, to abstain from robbery, and do as they would be done to. And such Proselytes as these, howsoever they were accounted Gentiles, and such as with whom the Jews might not converse as being no free denizens of Israel; yet did they yield them a part in the life to come. Such a Proselyte was Naaman the Syrian, and of such there were many in our Saviour's time; and such an one was our Cornelius.  
Hence it was, that when afterward there arose a controversy in the Church, Whether or no the Gentiles which believed, were to be circumcised, and so bound to observe the Ordinances and rites of Moses; S. Peter in the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem determined, It was the will of God they should not; and that upon this ground, because Cornelius the first believing Gentile was no circumcised Proselyte, but a Proselyte of the Gate only, and yet nevertheless when himself was sent (as ye have heard) to preach the Gospel of Christ to him and his house, the Holy Ghost came down upon them as well as upon the Circumcision; whereby it was manifest, that God would have the rest of the Gentiles which believed, to have no more imposed upon them, than Cornelius had: and accordingly the Council concluded, that no other burden should be laid upon them, but only those precepts given to the sons of Noah; To abstain from pollutions of Idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication, and the rest, which they had received already in becoming Christians, and so needed not to be expressly mentioned.  
Now that I may not seem to have held you with so long a story without some matter of instruction: Let us observe by the example of this Cornelius, how great a favour and blessing of God it is, to live and dwell within the pale of his Church, where opportunity and means of salvation is to be had. If Cornelius had still dwelled among his Countrymen the Italians, where he was bred and born, or in any other Province of that Empire; he had in all likelihood never come to this saving and blessed knowledge of the true God, but died a Pagan as he was born. But by this occasion of living at Caesarea, within the confines of the land of Israel, where the Oracles and worship of the most high God were daily resounded and professed; he became such an one as ye have heard, a blessed Convert unto the true God, whom with all his house he served and worshipped with acceptation.  
If this be so, then should we ourselves learn to be more thankful to God then most of us use to be, for that condition wherein by his Providence we are born; for we might, if it had pleased him, have been born, and had our dwelling among Pagans and Gentiles, who had no knowledge of his word and promise; (and such our Nation once was:) But behold his goodness and mercy! we are born of Christian Parents, and dwell in a Christian Country, and so made partakers of the name and livery of Christ as soon as we were born: How great should our thankfulness be for his mercy? Nay, we might have been born and bred in a Christian Nation too, and yet such an one where Idolatry, false worship, and Popery so reigned, as there had been little hopes or means to have been saved: But behold, we are born, bred, and dwell in a reformed Christian State, where the worship of God in Christ is truly taught and practised; where no God is worshipped but the Father, and in no other Mediator but his Son Jesus Christ. How should we then magnify our good God for his so great and abundant mercy towards us? Luther, or some other tells a story of a Germane peasant, who on a time beholding an ugly Toad, fell into a most bitter lamentation and weeping, that he had been so unthankful to Almighty God, who had made him a man, and not such an ugly creature as that was. O that we could in like manner bewail our ingratitude towards him who hath made us to have our birth and habitation, not among Pagans and barbarous Indians, a people without God in the world, but in a believing and Christian Nation, where the true God is known, and the means of salvation is to be had! Thankfulness for a less benefit is the way to obtain a greater: To acknowledge and prise God's favour towards us in the means, is the way to obtain his grace to use them to our eternal advantage: whereas our neglect of thankfulness in the one, may cause God in his just judgement, to deprive us of his blessing in the other. Consider it.  
And thus much concerning the person to whom the Angel spoke, Cornelius, And he said unto him. Now I come to the message itself, Thy prayers and thine alms are come into remembrance before God. Where before I make any further entrance, there is an Objection requires to be answered; namely, how Cornelius his service could be accepted of God, (as it is said to be) when as he had no knowledge of Christ, without whom no man can please God. I answer; Cornelius pleased God through his faith in the promise of Christ to come, as all just men under the Law did: which faith God did so long accept after Christ was come, till his coming and the mystery of Redemption wrought by him, were fully and clearly made known and preached, which had not been to Cornelius till this time: for though he had heard of his preaching in Galilee and Judaea, and that he was crucified by the Jews, yet he had not heard of his Resurrection from the dead, and Ascension into glory, or was not assured of it, till it was now confirmed unto him, by one sent from God himself. And it is like that having heard somewhat of the Apostles preaching, and of the Jews opposing their testimony, and so knowing not what to believe, he had earnestly besought God in his Devotions to lead him in the way of truth, and make known unto him what to do.  
This being premised, I return again unto the Angel's words; wherein I will consider three things: First, the conjunction or coupling of Almesdeeds with Prayer; Thy Prayers and thine Alms. Secondly, the efficacy of power they have with God; Thy Prayers and thine Alms are come up into remembrance before God. Thirdly, I will add the reasons why God so much accepteth them; which are also so many Motives, why we should be careful and diligent to practise them.  
For the first, the joining of Almesdeeds with prayer: Cornelius we see joined them, and he is therefore in the verses before going commended for a devout man, and one that feared God. And by the Angel's report from God himself, we hear how graciously he accepted them; giving us to understand, that a Devotion thus armed, was of all others the most powerful to pierce into his dwelling place, and fetch a blessing from him. Therefore our Saviour likewise, Mat. 6. joins the precepts of Alms and Prayer together, teaching us how to give alms, and how to pray in one Sermon, as things that ought to go hand in hand, and not to be separated asunder. It was also the Ordinance of the Church in the Apostles times, that the first day of the week, which was the time of public prayer, should be the time also of Alms. So saith S. Paul, 1 Cor. 16. 1. Now concerning the collection for the Saints (saith he) as I have given order to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2. Upon the first day of the week (that is, upon the Lord's day) let every one of you lay by himself in store as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. Which institution seems to be derived from the Commandment of God in the Law twice repeated; Let no man appear before the Lord empty: For the words annexed to that Law Deut. 16. (where it is applied 
Exo. 23. 15 Deu. 16. 16  to the three great feasts, when all Israel was to assemble to pray before the Lord in his Tabernacle) the words I say there annexed, sound altogether like unto these of S. Paul concerning the Lord's day; Three times a year (saith the Text there) shall all the males appear before the Lord: and they shall not appear before the Lord empty. Every one shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which he hath given thee. Is not this the same in sense with S. Paul's, Let every one lay by himself in store, as God hath prospered him? The Primitive Church after the Apostles followed the same precedent, and our own Reformed Church hath ordained the same in her Service-book, were it accordingly practised as was intended: For after the Epistle and Gospel she appoints divers choice sentences of Scripture to be read, which exhorts us to Alms and other Offerings to the honour of Almighty God; and then as supposing it to be done, in the Prayer for the whole estate of Christ's Church, We humbly beseech him most mercifully to accept our Alms, and receive our prayers, which we offer unto his Divine Majesty.  
Shall I now need to exhort Christians thus to furnish and strengthen their prayers which they daily offer unto God, to couple them with Almesdeeds, to come before God with a present, and not emptyhanded? Whom neither God's Commandment, the practice of his Church, the example of his Saints, nor the acceptance of such prayers as the hand which dealeth Alms, lifteth up to him; whom these will not move, no words of mine will do it. But some may say, Would you have us always give Alms when we pray? No; I say not so, but I would not have you appear before the Lord empry; that is, such as are not wont to give them, nor mean to do: for you may give them before, or second your prayers with them after; you may have set and appointed times for the one, as you have for the other; or when the Law of man enjoins you any thing in this kind, do it heartily, faithfully, and with a willing mind, without grudging, that so God may accept it as a service done to him. Or lastly, thou mayst do as the holy men of Scripture were wont, vow and promise unto God if thy prayer be heard to offer something unto him either for relief of the poor, the Widow, the Orphan, and distressed one, or the maintenance of his service and worship. If God will be with me, (saith jacob, Gen. 28.) and keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, etc. Then shall the Lord be my God, and this stone which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth unto thee. (See the use of vowing by such as came to pray in God's House, Eccles. 5. 4.) If thou comest before God in any of these ways, thou shalt not come emptyhanded. But send not thy prayer single and alone; the prayer with Alms is the prayer God loveth: Hear what himself saith Psal. 50. 14. Offer unto God thanksgiving (Alms is an Offering of 
* Eccl. 35. 2  Thanksgiving) and pay thy vows unto the most High. So call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.  
Now I come to the second thing I propounded, The power and efficacy which Prayer and Alms have with God. Thy prayers and thine alms (saith the Angel) are come up for a memorial (or, are had in remembrance) in the sight of God. God is said to remember our prayers when he grants them, our Alms and good deeds when he rewards them, or in a word, when he answers either of them with a blessing: as on the contrary he is said to remember iniquity, when he sends some judgement for it. So God is said to remember Hanna, when he heard her prayer for a Son, 1 Sam. 1. 19 and Nehemiah speaking (cap. 5. 19) of his deeds of mercy and bounty showed unto his poor brethren returned from captivity, says, Think upon me, or remember me o my God for good, according to all that I have done for this people. Thus were Cornelius his prayers and alms remembered. Prayers therefore and alms, be they performed as they should be, are powerful and approved means to obtain a blessing at the hands of God. To speak first of prayer: What is it that prayer hath not obtained? It hath shut and opened heaven; see the story of Eliah. It hath made the Sun and Moon to stand still; read the book of joshua. It is the key that openeth all God's treasures and blessings both spiritual and corporal: for spiritual blessings, Cornelius we see obtained thereby illumination and instruction in Gods saving truth. And S. james saith, If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and it shall be given him Ephraim in the 31. of jeremy prays for converting grace, Turn thou me, o Lord, and I shall be turned: To whom God presently replies, Is Ephraim my dear Son? Is he a pleasant Child? For since I spoke against him, I do earnestly remember him still: Therefore my bowels are troubled for him, I will surely have mercy on him, saith the Lord. Prayer obtains remission of sins; I said (saith David Psal. 32.) I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. For this shall every one that is godly prey unto thee in a time when thou mayst be found. Prayer also obtaineth corporal blessings; When heaven was shut and it reigned not, Eliah prayed for rain and it reigned: Hannah prayed for a Son, and she conceived: If we be sick (saith S. james cap. 5.) The prayer of faith shall heal the sick: Nehemiah prayed that he might find favour in the sight of King Artaxerxes, and found it. Chap. 2. 4.  
But some man will say, If prayer have such power and efficacy, how comes it to pass that many even godly men, oft pray, and yet speed not? I answer, There are divers causes thereof; Either we pray not as we ought, or we are not disposed as we ought to be when we pray; We pray not as we ought, either when we pray not heartily, or not constantly: For God regards not formal and superficial prayer, but prayer that comes from the heart, and loves to be importuned before he grant, as our Saviour tells us in the parable of the woman and the unjust Judge, whom though at first he would not hear, yet importunity made him do her justice. Or secondly, we rely not upon God as we ought, when we pray, but trust more to second means, to our wit, to our friends or the like, then to him. And this seems to be that wavering in prayer S. james speaks of, when he bids us pray in faith, without wavering, Chap. 1. that is, without reeling from God to rest upon second means: but as with our mouth we pray to him, so should our hearts rely upon him to give us what we ask; we often pray to God for fashion, but indeed we look to speed by others; and so God takes himself mocked, and then no marvel if he hears us not: If it were our own case we would not listen to such suitors. Or thirdly, we pray and speed not, when we make not God's glory the end of what we ask; Ye ask (saith S. james) and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye might consume it upon your lusts. Or fourthly, we may ask something that crosseth the rule of Divine providence and justice, and then also we must not look to speed: David prayed for the life of his child by Bathsheba, Vriahs' Wife, but was not heard, because it stood not with the rule of Divine justice, that so scandalous a sin, which made the Enemies of God to blaspheme, should not have an exemplary punishment. In like manner sundry times when the children of Israel rebelled against the Lord, and murmured against Moses and Aaron their Governors; Moses poured forth very earnest prayers to God for removing his judgements from off the people, but God would not hear him, because their sins were scandalous, and committed with so high a hand, that it could not stand with the rule of his justice, not to inflict punishment for them.  
Again, sometimes, and that too often, we are indisposed for God to grant our request; as first, when some sin unrepented of lies at the door, and keeps God's blessing out; Psal 66. 18. If I regard (saith David) iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me. 
Psal. 50. 16.  And his Son Solomon observed it, Prov. 28. 9 where he says, He that turneth away his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer shall be abomination. So God would not hear joshua praying for the Israelites, when they fled before the men of Ai, because of Achans Sacrilege; Get thee up, (saith God) why liest thou thus upon thy face? Israel hath sinned— for they have taken of the accursed thing; that is, the thing that cursed were those that meddled therewith: Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their Enemies,— because they were accursed: Neither will I be with you any more, except ye put the accursed thing from among you.  
Or lastly, our Prayers often are not heard, because we appear before the Lord empty; we do not as Cornelius did, send up prayers and alms together: we should have two strings to our bow, when we have but one. This is another indisposition, which unfits us to receive what we ask of God: For how can we look that God should hear us in our need, when we turn away our face from our brother in his need? When we refuse to give to God, or for his sake, what he requires, why should he grant to us what we request? Hear what an ancient Father of the Church, S. Basil by name, in concione ad Deum; Novi quosdam (saith he) qui jejunarunt, qui orarunt, qui ingemuerunt, verùm ne unum quidem obolum in egenos expenderunt: Quae utilitas hîc est reliquae virtutis? I have known, saith he, many who would fast, who would pray, who would sigh; but not bestow one halfpenny upon the poor: But what then will their other devotion profit them?  
Add to all these reasons of displeasure, a reason of favour, why God sometimes grants not our requests; namely, because we ask that which he knows would be hurtful for us, though we think not so. We ask sometimes that which if he granted us would utterly undo us: As therefore a wise and loving Father will not give his child a knife, or some other hurtful thing, though it cries never so much unto him for it: so does God deal with his children. And how wise soever we think ourselves, we are often as ignorant in that which concerns our good, as very babes are, and therefore we must submit ourselves to be ordered by the wisdom of our heavenly Father.  
Moreover, we must know and believe, that God often hears our prayers, when we think he doth not; and that three manner of ways: As namely first, when he changes the means, but brings the end we desire another way to pass: we ask to have a thing by our means, but he likes not our way, but gives it us by another means which he thinks better. S. Paul that he might the better glorify God in serving him, desires the prick of the flesh might be taken from him: God denies him that means, but grants him grace sufficient for him; that so being humbled by the sight of his own infirmity, he might glorify God for his power in man's weakness. And is it not all one, whether a Physician quench the thirst of his Patient by giving him Barberies, or some other comfortable drink, as by giving him Beer which he calls for? Secondly, God often grants our request, but not at that time we would have it, but defers it till some other time which he thinks best. Daniel prays for the return of the Captivity in the first year of Darius, but God defers it till the first of Cyrus: we must not therefore take Gods delays for denials. The souls of the Saints under the Altar, Rev. 6. cry out aloud for vengeance; God hears that cry, and cannot deny the importunate cry of innocent blood; yet he defers it for a little season, saith the Text; and why? because their fellow-servants and Brethren that should be slain as they were, might be fulfilled. Lastly, God sometimes grants not the things we ask, but gives us in stead thereof something which is as good, or better: And then we are not to think, but that he hears us.  
And thus much concerning the power and efficacy of prayer. Now I come also to show the like of Alms, how powerful a means they are to procure a blessing from God: Not thy prayer only, saith the Angel, but thine Alms also are come up for a remembrance in the sight of God. For Alms is a kind of prayer, namely, a visible one, and such an one as prevails as strongly with God for a blessing, as any other. Hear David in the 41. Psalms, Blessed is he that considereth the poor, the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble. 2 The Lord preserve him and keep him alive, and he shall be blessed upon earth; and thou wilt not deliver him unto the will of his enemies. 3. The Lord will strengthen him upon the bed of languishing: thou wilt make all his bed in his sickness. A place so evident as flashes in a man's eye. But hear Solomon speak too, Prov. 19 17. He that hath pity upon the poor dareth unto the Lord, and that which he hath given, he will pay him again. And Pro. 28. 27. He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack; but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse. Also Prov. 11. 25. The liberal soul shall be made fat; and 
Pro. 21. 13.  he that watereth, shall be watered also himself. Likewise Eccles. 11. 1. Cast thy bread upon the waters, for thou shalt find it after many days. These are for corporal blessings, and of this life; but hear also for spiritual blessings, and those of the life to come. David, Psal. 112. (quoted by S. Paul, 2 Cor. 9) He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor, his righteousness remaineth for ever, etc. That is, he shall be remembered, not only in this life, but in the life to come. Luke 16. Make to yourselves (saith our Saviour) friends of the unrighteous Mammon, (that is, of these deceitful and uncertain riches) that when you fail, they (that is, the friends you have made) may receive you into everlasting Tabernacles: that is, that God looking upon the Almesdeeds you have done, and hearing the prayers and blessings of the poor, may reward you with eternal life. So S. Paul, 1 Tim. 6. 17, etc. Charge them that be rich in this world,— that they trust not in uncertain riches, but in the living God,— That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate: Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. Non memini (saith S. Hierome) me legere mala morte mortuum, qui libenter opera charitatis exercuit, habet enim multos intercessores, & impossibile est multorum preces non exaudiri. What should I say more? Shall we not receive our sentence at the last day according to our works of mercy? Come ye blessed of my Father, and inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For when I was hungry, ye gave me meat, when I was thirsty, ye gave me drink, etc. ye know the rest: O the wonderful efficacy of Alms in prevailing with God What favour do they find in his sight? how are they remembered? but not for any merit in them, which is none, but of his mere mercy and merciful promise, who accepts them in Christ our Saviour. Whence is that prayer of Nehemiah c. 12. concerning this case of good works, Remember me o my God, concerning this, and spare me according to the greatness of thy mercy.  
Thus much of the efficacy and prevalency which prayer and Alms have with Almighty God, to procure a blessing from him. Now I come to the third thing propounded, The reasons why God requires them, and why they are so pleasing unto him: which reasons when they are known, will be also strong motives to us why we should frequent them: For though indeed their efficacy alone were a motive sufficient to invite any reasonable man to do them; yet will these reasons add a further enforcement thereunto. To begin then with prayer; the reasons why God requires this duty at our hands (I will name but the chief) are these: First, that we might acknowledge the property he hath in the gifts he bestows upon us: otherwise we would forget in what tenure we hold those blessings we receive from his hands; Though therefore he be willing to bestow his benefits upon us, yet he will have us ask them before he doth it. Even as Fathers do with their children, though they intent to bestow such things upon them as are needful, yet they will have their children to ask them. Unless therefore we ask of God the things which are his to give, as we shall not receive what we have not, so we cannot lawfully use any thing we have.  
Secondly, Another reason is, that we might be acquainted with God: Acquaint now thyself with God, saith Eliphaz Job 22. 21. and be at peace; thereby good shall come unto thee. Now acquaintance we know grows amongst men by conversing together, by intercourse and speaking to one another. So it is here, by accustoming to speak to God in prayer we grow acquainted with him: otherwise if we grow strangers to him, and he to us, we shall not dare to behold him.  
Thirdly, Prayer is the way to keep our hearts in order: For to come often into the presence of God, breeds an holy awe in our hearts: It makes us to call our sins to remembrance with sorrow and shame, and to be afraid to commit them: we may know it by experience; men are afraid to offend those into whose presence they must often come to ask and sue for favours, and if they have offended, they are presently ashamed, and the first thing they do, will be to sue for pardon.  
These are the reasons for prayer: Now let us see the reasons also why Alms are required; which are near of kind to those for prayer. For first, we are to offer Alms to testify our acknowledgement of whom we received, and of whom we hold what we have. For as by prayer we ask Gods creatures before we can enjoy them; so when we have them, there is another homage due for them, namely, of thanksgiving, without which the use of the creature, which God gives us, is unclean and unlawful to us. Every creature of God (saith S. Paul, 1 Tim. 4.) is good, if it be received with thanksgiving; not else. And the same Apostle 1 Cor. 10. tells us, that even those things, which according to the manner of the Gentiles, were offered unto Idols, (that is, to Devils) a Christian might lawfully eat, so it were done with thanksgiving to the true and only God: for so he should profess, he eat not meat of the Devil's gift, or Devil's Table, but of the Lords, whose of right was the earth, and the fullness thereof: Whether therefore, saith he, ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do else, do all to the glory of God; that is, give him the glory of the Lordship of his creature by your thanksgiving. Now our thanksgiving to God for his creature, must not express itself in words only, but it must be also in work and deed; that is, we must yield him a rent and tribute of what we enjoy by his favour and blessing, which if we do not, we lose our Tenure. This Rent is twofold; either that which is offered unto God, for the maintenance of his worship and Ministers; or that which is given for the relief of the poor, the Orphan and the Widow, which is called Alms. For not only our riches, but our Alms are an offering unto Almighty God; So Prov. 19 17. He that hath pity on the poor, dareth to the Lord: and Chap. 14. 31. He that hath mercy on the poor, honoureth his Maker. And our Saviour will tell us at the day of Judgement, that what was done unto them, was done unto him. This then is the reason why we must give Alms, because they are the tribute of our thanksgiving, whereby we acknowledge we are Gods Tenants, and hold all we have of him; that is, of the Manor of heaven, without which duty and service we have not the lawful use of what we possess. Whence our Saviour tells the Pharisees, who stood so much upon the washing of the Cup and Platter, lest their meat and drink should be unclean; Give alms, saith he, of such things as you have, and behold all things are clean to you. Luke 11. 41.  
Now that this acknowledgement of God's Dominion was the end of the Offerings of the Law, both those wherewith the Priests and Levites were maintained, and those wherewith the poor, and the Orphan, and the Widow were relieved, appears by the solemn profession of those who paid them were to make, Deut. 26. where he that brought a basket of first-fruits to the house of God, was to say, I profess this day unto the Lord, that I am come unto the Country which the Lord swore unto our Fathers for to give us. And when the Priest had taken the basket, he was to say thus; A Syrian ready to perish was my Father, and he went down into Egypt and sojourned there with a few, and became there a Nation great and mighty, and populous. And the Egyptians evil entreated us, etc. And the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and outstretched arm, etc. And brought us into this land, and hath given us this land, even a land that floweth with milk and honey. And now, behold, I have brought thee the first-fruits of the land, which thou 〈◊〉 Lord hast given me: and thou shalt set it (saith the Text) before the Lord thy God, and worship before the Lord thy God. This was to be done every year. But for Tithes the profession was made every third year, because then the course of all manner of Tithing came about. For two years they paid the Levites Tithe and the Festival Tithe, the third year they paid the Levites Tithe and the poor man's Tithe: So that year the course of Tithing being finished, the party was to make a solemn profession: When thou hast made an end (saith the Lord) of Tithing all the Tithes of thine increase, the third year, which is the year of Tithing, (that is, when the Tithing course finisheth) and hast given it to the Levite, the Stranger, the Fatherless, and the Widow, that they may eat within thy gates and be filled: Then thou shalt say before the Lord thy God; I have brought away the hallowed thing out of mine house, and also have given it to the Levite, and to the Stranger, to the Fatherless, and to the Widow, according to all the Commandments which thou hast commanded me.— Look down from thy holy habitation from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the land which thou hast given us, as thou swarest to our Fathers, a land that floweth with milk and honey.  
What we have seen in these two sorts, is to be supposed to be the end of all other Offerings in pios usus, (which were not sacrifices) namely, to acknowledge God to be the Lord and giver of all. As we see in that royal Offering which David with the Princes and Chieftains of Israel made for the building of the Temple, 1 Chron. 29. where David acknowledgeth thus; Thine o Lord is the Kingdom, and thou art exalted as Head over all: Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all, and in thine hand is power and might, and in thine hand it is, to make great and to give strength unto all. Now therefore our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious Name.— For all things come of thee, and of thine hand have we given thee.  
For this reason there was never time since God first gave the Earth to the sons of men, wherein this acknowledgement was not made by setting apart of something of that he had given them, to that purpose. In the state of Paradise among all the trees in the garden, which God gave man freely to enjoy, one tree was Noli me tangere, and reserved to God as holy, in token that he was Lord of the garden: So that the first sin of Mankind for the species of the fact was Sacrilege, in profaning that which was holy. For which he was cast out of Paradise, and the Earth cursed for his sake, because he had violated the sign of his fealty unto the great Landlord of the whole earth. Might I not say, that many a man unto this day is cast out of his Paradise, and the labours of his hands cursed for the same sin? But to go on.  
After man's ejection out of Paradise, the first service that ever we read was performed unto God, was of this kind: Abel bringing the best of his flock, and Cain of the fruit of his ground for an Offering or Present unto the Lord. The first spoils that ever we read gotten from an Enemy in war, paid tithes to Melchisedek the Priest of the most high God, as an acknowledgement that he had given Abraham the Victory. Melchisedek blessing God in his name to be the possessor of heaven and earth, and to have delivered his enemies into his hand. To which Abraham said Amen by paying him Tithes of all. jacob promiseth God, that if he would give him any thing, (for at that time he had nothing) he would give him the tenth of what he should give him: Which is as much to say, as he would acknowledge and profess him to be the giver, after the accustomed manner.  
For the time of the Law, I may skip over that; it is well enough known, no man will deny it. But let us come to the time of the Gospel, which though it hath freed us from the bondage of typical Elements, yet hath it not freed us from the possession of our Fealty unto God as Lord of the whole earth. 'Twere strange me thinks to affirm it: I am sure the ancient Church next the Apostles thought otherwise. I will quote for a witness Irenaeus, who Lib. 4. cap. 32. tells us that our Saviour, when he took part of the Viands of his last Supper, and giving thanks with them, consecrated them into a Sacrament of his body and blood, set his Church an example of dedicating part of the creature in Dominicos usus; Dominus (saith he) dans discipulis suis consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi, nec ingrati sint, eum qui ex creatura panis est, accepit & gratias egit, etc. Et novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat, primitias suorum munerum in novo Testamento. But this is no proper occasion to follow this argument any further: I will therefore leave it, and add a second reason why God requires Alms and such like offerings at our hands.  
Namely, that we might not forget God: our blessed Saviour Mat. 6. and Luk. 12. 33, etc. speaking of this very matter of alms, Lay not up (saith he) for yourselves treasures upon earth; but ●ay up for yourselves treasures in heaven:— For where your treasure is, there will your heart be. The proper evil of abundance is to forget God and our dependence upon him: the remedy whereof most genuine and natural is, to pay him a rent of what we have: So shall we always think of our Landlord, and lift up our hearts to heaven in whatsoever we receive and enjoy. Yea, when this service is so acceptable to God, that he promiseth a great reward to those who thus honour and acknowledge him, how can it choose but detain our hearts in heaven in that respect also; when we shall so often think of God, not only as the Lord and giver of what we have, but as the rewarder also of the acknowledgement we perform?   
PSAL. 112. 6. 
Psa. 112. 6.  The Righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance. 
A Word fitly spoken, saith Solomon, is like Apples of Gold in pictures of Silver; that is, graceful and comely: so is a Text of Scripture fitly chosen, and rightly applied to the occasion. Such an one, as I take it, is this I have now read, not chosen by me, but appointed by order to be used at these times of commemoration. I shall need no other preface to commend it to your attention: Let us therefore see what is the sense and meaning thereof.  
The Righteous; that is, the bountiful: shall be in everlasting remembrance: In remembrance with God; in remembrance with men: with God; in the world to come, and in this world: with men, how, and in what manner? These are the several heads I shall treat of; and first of the first, the Subject; The Righteous, or the bountiful man.  
Righteousness in a special sense, in the Hebrew and the rest of the Oriental Tongues of kind to it, signifies Beneficence or Bounty, both the Virtue and the work; and therefore by the Hellenists or Septuagint is it translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word so frequent in the New Testament, for that we call Alms. 'Tis a known place, Dan. 4. according both to the Septuagint and vulgar Latin; Peccata tua Eleemosynis redime, & iniquitates tuas misericordi is pauperum: where in the Original for Eleemosyna is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justitia, as we in our English render it; Break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquity by showing mercy to the poor. This notion of righteousness is to be found thrice together in the 12. of Tobit, ver. 8. Prayer (saith old Tobit there to his son) is good with fasting, and with alms, and righteousness: A little with righteousness is better then much with unrighteousness: It is better to give alms, then to lay up gold. 9 For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. Those that exercise alms and righteousness, shall be filled with life. Here in the Greek copy, alms and righteousness are exegetically put the one to expound the other, but in the Hebrew there is but one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for them both, that being the word in that language for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hence in the Syriack Translation of the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justitia, and so in the Arabic. Hence Mat. 6. 1. for, Take heed that you do not your alms before men, (as we read it) the vulgar Latin and some Greek Copies have, Attendite, ne justitiam vestram faciatis coram hominibus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Namely, as the word charity with us, though in the larger sense it signifies our whole duty both to God and man, is restrained to signify our liberality to the poor; so is the word Righteousness in the Oriental Languages.  
If Righteousness therefore signify Beneficence and Bounty, then is the righteous according to this notion the bountiful man, or as we speak the charitable. And that it is so taken in my Text, both the general scope of the Psalm, and the connexion with the words before and after, is proof sufficient; for before goes this; A good man showeth favour and dareth: he will guide his affairs with judgement: Surely he shall not be moved for ever: Then come the words of my Text; The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance. After it follows this; He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor; his righteousness remaineth for ever: which S. Paul allegeth 2 Cor. 9 to promote their collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem.  
For illustration of this and our further information, it will not be amiss I hope, to commend to your observation some other places of Scripture where the word righteous is thus taken; as namely Psal. 37. 21. The wicked borroweth and payeth not again; but the righteous showeth mercy and giveth. Again, Psal. 25. 26. I have been young and now am old, yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging their bread. He is ever merciful and dareth, and his seed is blessed. Here the righteous is the merciful and bountiful; to whom namely this blessing, that his seed shall not want, is proper and peculiar. The same use is, Prov. 10. 2. Treasures of wickedness profit nothing, but righteousness delivereth from death. The same is repeated again cap. 11. 4. Riches profit not in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivereth from death. Where righteousness to be taken for alms is apparent out of Tobit 12. where it is so applied and rendered, namely, Alms doth deliver from death. I could add also another place, Prov. 21. 28. but these shall be sufficient.  
Hence appears their error who conceive of the nature of Alms, as of an arbitrary thing, which they may do if they will, or not do, without sin; as that which carries no obligation with it, but is left freely to every man's discretion. And this makes some contend so much, to have the Priest's maintenance granted to be eleemosynary, that so they might be at liberty to give something or nothing as they listed. But if that were so, yet if Alms be justitia in the Hebrew tongue, and the language which our Saviour spoke. If our Saviour called them justitia, when he mentioned them, who dare affirm then, that justitia implies no obligation, or that a man may leave it undone without sin?  
So much for the subject, The Righteous: The next is the Predicate, shall be in everlasting remembrance: In remembrance, I said, with God and men: with God, in the life to come, and this life: Let us consider the first, The world to come.  
It is certain, that at the day of Judgement we shall receive our doom, according to our works of charity and mercy; and that of all the works that a Christian man hath done, these alone have that peculiar privilege to be then brought in express remembrance before God: Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me, etc. For as much as ye have done thus unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matth. 25. What doth my Text say? The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance; God remembers our good deeds, when he rewards them, (as he doth our prayers when he hears them;) If to remember then, be to reward, an everlasting reward is an everlasting remembrance. 'Tis remarkable that this privilege which the works of Bounty and Mercy shall have at the day of Judgement, was not unknown to the Jews themselves: for so we read in the Chaldee Paraphrast upon Ecclesiastes; Futurum est ut Dominus mundi dicat omnibus justis ante se constitutis, Vade, gusta cum gaudio panem tuum, ut statutum est, pro pane quem dedisti pauperibus & obscuris qui esuriebant; & bibe cord bono vinum quod repositum est tibi in horto Eden, (id est, Paradiso) pro vino quod misevisti pauperibus & obscuris qui sitiebant: quia ecce modò accepta sunt opera tua bona coram Domino.  
The reason of this prelation of works of mercy at that great day is, because all we can expect at the hands of our heavenly Father is merely of his mercy and bounty: we can hope for nothing but mercy, without mercy we are undone; according to that of Nehemiah in his last Chap. Remember me, o Lord, concerning this, and spare me according to the greatness of thy mercy. Now in those that are to be partakers of mercy, the divine wisdom requires this congruity, that they may be such as have been ready to show mercy unto others, judging them altogether unworthy of mercy at his hands who have afforded no mercy to their brethren: for so the Scripture tells us, that they shall have judgement without mercy, that have shown no mercy. The tenor of our Petition for forgiveness of sins in the Lord's Prayer, runs with this condition, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And who can read without trembling the Parable of the unmerciful servant in the Gospel, to whom his Lord revoked the Debt he meant to have forgiven him, because he showed no mercy to his fellow-servant, who owed him a far less Debt? Shouldst thou not, saith he, have showed compassion to thy fellow-servant, as I showed compassion unto thee? This rule of congruity, I say, is the reason why at the day of our great account, we shall be judged according to our works of mercy and bounty: To do as we would be done to, hath place not only between man and man, but between God and men.  
Nor is this I speak of, manifest by the form of our last sentence only, but by other Scriptures beside: what else means that of our Saviour, Luke 16. Make unto yourselves friends of the unrighteous Mammon, (that is, of these slippery and deceitful riches, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures Dialect is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting Tabernacles? Or what means that of S. Paul 1 Tim. 6. 17. Charge them that be rich in this world,— that they trust not in uncertain riches, but in the living God,— That they do good, that they be rich in good works, laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life?  
Laying up a good foundation, etc. in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Here it is observable that works of Beneficence are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the foundation of the reward we shall receive in the life to come. If any but S. Paul had said so, we should have gone near to have excepted against it for an error: Works the foundation of eternal life? No, that shall not need: but the foundation of that blessed sentence we shall receive at the last day for them, and that is evident by the form thereof, which we have alleged: whatsoever is meant, a great privilege sure is hereby implied, that these works have above others. A like place to this we have in the old Testament, with application particularly to Alms or works of mercy, Tobit 4. 9 For thou layest up for thyself a good treasure against the day of necessity: in the Greek it is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which answers to the Hebrew word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Here give me leave to tell you what a late sacred Critic hath observed concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place of Timothy; namely, that the signification thereof there is not Vulgar, but Hellenisticall, agreeable to the use of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereto it answers; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, as it doth, Radix or fundamentum; but besides this in the rabbinical Dialect it is used for Tabula contractus, a Bill of contract, a Bond or Obligation whereby such as lend are secured their loan again. That therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the first sense, doth answer the same likewise in the second; and accordingly the Apostles meaning to be, that those who exercise these works of beneficence do provide themselves as it were of a Bill or Bond, upon which they may at that day sue or plead for the award of eternal life, Vi pacti, but not Vi meriti.  
In the same sense he takes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Tim. 2. 19 The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal: The Lord knoweth them that are his. And let every one that nameth (or calleth upon) the name of Christ, depart from iniquity. The mentioning of a Seal here, implies a Bill of contract; for Bills of contract had their Seals appendent to them; each side whereof had his Motto, the one suiting with the one party contrahent; the other with the other: That to this S. Paul alludes; Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, standeth sure; (that is, God's Bill of contract, or his Chirographum,) having a Seal according to the manner; the one side whereof carrieth this Motto, The Lord knoweth them that are his: the other this, Let every one that calleth upon the Name of Christ, depart from iniquity.  
Thus God remembreth the Righteous, or charitable man in the world to come. He remembreth him also in this: For that which the Apostle saith of godliness that it hath the promise of this life, as well as of that to come, is most properly and peculiarly true of this righteousness of bounty and mercy: other righteousness indeed must not look for reward till hereafter, but this is wont to be rewarded now.  
For spiritual blessings we have the example of Cornelius, who for his Almesdeeds found favour with God, to have S. Peter sent unto him, to instruct him in the saving knowledge of Christ: Thy prayers and thine Almesdeeds, said the Angel, are come up in remembrance before God; Now therefore send to Joppa, and inquire for one Simon Peter, etc.  
For temporal blessings hear what David says, Psa. 37. 25. (quoted before) I was young, saith he, and now am old, yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging their bread. He is ever merciful and dareth, therefore his seed is blessed. This blessing is the merciful and charitable man's peculiar, that his children shall not want, who was liberal and openhanded to supply the want of others. But think not that God remembers the charitable man with a temporal blessing in his posterity only; for he remembers him also in his own person: Thus the same David, Psal. 41. 1. Blessed is he that considereth the poor, the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble. 2. The Lord will preserve him and keep him alive, and he shall be blessed upon the earth, and thou wilt not deliver him unto the will of his enemies. 3. The Lord will strengthen him upon the bed of languishing, etc. And doth not his Son King Solomon say the same? Prov. 19 17. He that hath p●ty upon the poor dareth unto the Lord, and that which he hath given, he will pay him again. But this perhaps some will think, may be applied to the reward in the life to come: If it be, it would much illustrate that of S. Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I now spoke of. But Prov. 28. 27. is a place not capable of this exception; He that giveth to the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes, shall have many a curse.  
Thus we have seen, how the righteous man is in remembrance with God: Now let us see how the same is and aught to be in remembrance with men: And it may be inferred from the former; for why should not we remember those whom God doth? The practice in the Church of God hath been accordingly.  
The Jews, when they make mention of any of their deceased Worthies, are wont to do it with this Encomium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, Memoria ejus sit in benedictione: Otherwhile with this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Memoria ejus sit ad vitam futuri seculi. And of their Rabbis in general, when they mention them, they say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Magistri nostri, quorum memoria sit ad benedictionem. Which encomiasticall scheme is taken from that of Solomon Pr. 10. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Memoria justi sit ad benedictonem: which therefore they sometimes use unaltered to the purpose aforesaid; sometimes with addition, as Memoria Justi sit in benedictione ad vitam futuri saeculi; sometimes, Memoria Justi & Sancti sit ad benedictionem. These formulae are frequent in their writings: Nor hath this commemorative Scheme been taken up by them (as some perhaps may suppose) since the coming of our Saviour in the time of their dispersion; but was used long before, as may appear Ecclus. 45. 1. where Moses is thus remembered, Moses beloved of God and men, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whose memorial is blessed. And in the next Chapter like mention is made of the Judges of Israel; namely, The Judges every one by name, whose heart went not a whoring, nor 
Eccl. 46. 11  departed from the Lord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let their memory be in benediction. So of judas Maccabaeus, 1 Mac. 3. 7. He grieved many Kings, and made jacob glad with his acts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, His memorial is, or let his memorial be blessed for ever.  
But what is the meaning of this Formula? what is it for the memory of the righteous to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or in benedictionem? The Septuagints Translation of that Prov. 10. 7. (whence, as I told you, this form of honourable remembrance is taken) will soon resolve us; for they in stead of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Memoria justi in benedictione, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the memory of the just is with praises. To make mention therefore of the righteous by way of benediction, is to praise them, for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to bless, in Scripture hath a treble notion: First, to speak well of: Secondly, to speak well for: Thirdly, to do well unto. To speak well of, is to praise; So we are said to bless God, when we praise and glorify him: Benedic anima mea Domino; Bless the Lord o my soul; that is, praise him. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; that is, praised. Bless the Lord all ye Nations; that is, praise him: and so every where in the Psalms. The second notion, to speak well for, is to pray for: So the Priest is said to bless the people, when he prays for them: The Lord bless you, and save you, the Lord make his holy countenance to shine upon you, and be merciful unto you: So other blessings of the like kind, are prayers for those, over whom they are pronounced. The third notion of blessing is, to do good unto, to bestow some gift or good upon: Thus God is said to have blessed man, when he said unto him, Increase and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it; that is, He endowed him with these gifts. In thy seed shall all the Nations of the world be blessed; that is, receive some great benefit. So God is said to have blessed the Patriarches when he made them to thrive, and gave them wealth and riches; according to that of Solomon, Prov. 10. 22. The blessing of the Lord maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it; namely, such as is wont to accompany riches gotten without God's blessing. Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture signifies a gift or present, bounty or beneficence: the present of cattle which jaacob provided for his brother Esau, when he went to meet him, is all that Story through called his Blessing: The Presents which David sent of his prey to the Elders of Judah, 1 Sam. 30. 26. are there called Blessings. And in the New Testament, 2 Cor. 9 the collection at Corinth for the poor Saints at Jerusalem, is thrice called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their blessing, which we translate Bounty. I thought good to be a little diligent in this explication, that we might be the better able to discern what kind of remembrance of righteous men deceased is commended unto us in that Scripture, The memory of the righteous is with blessing: whence not the Jew only, as you have heard, but the Christian also seem to have derived their practice in that particular, which I am now to show.  
For the Christian in this point hath been no whit short of the Jew, but exceeded them rather, not in the later only, but in those better and primitive times: witness those anniversary remembrances of the Martyrs and Saints deceased; the appointing of Festival days for their memorial; the custom to assemble at their Sepulchers, to make Panegyric orations in their honour; and above all, that ancient and so long continued custom without known beginning, to commemorate at the Holy Table, when the Eucharist was celebrated, the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, and Confessors: All which tended to this, that the memory of the righteous might be with blessing. In the extent of which blessing the Christian went beyond the Jew: for of that threefold notion of blessing I now spoke of; first, to speak well of, or to praise: secondly, to speak well for, or to pray for: thirdly, to do well unto; the Jews seem (not only anciently, but of 
* Vid. Buxtorf c. 35.  late) to have used none but the first in their commemorations, namely, that of praise. But the Christian added the second of prayer and good wishes for the Saints departed, namely, for their public acquittal and consummation at the day of Resurrection: which, had it continued in the first and original meaning, could not be disliked; but having roved in time, (the Mother of many Superstitions and Errors) and kindled the fire of Purgatory, it was thought fit by the Authors of our Reformation, to be disused, and the blessing of the Dead to be confined to that of praise only, namely, of praising and commending them, by recounting their worthy deeds; and then secondly, of praising God for them.   
NEHEM. 13. 14, 22. 
Nehem. 13. 14, 21.  
14. Remember me, O my God, concerning this, and wipe not out my good deeds [Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that I have done for the house of my God, and for the offices thereof.  
22. And spare me according to the greatness of thy mercy.  
THese words are the words of Nehemiah himself, by way of a short ejaculatory prayer, or Apostrophe unto Almighty God: But what were those good deeds, will you ask, which he speaks of, done for the house of his God, and the offices thereof? Of this the words going before will inform us; v. 10. I perceived, saith he, that the portions of the Levites had not been given them, whereby the Levites and the singers that did the work, were fled every one to his field. 11. Then contended I with the Rulers, and said, Why is the house of God forsaken? And I gathered them together, and set them in their place (or station.) 12. Then brought all judah the tithe of the corn, and the new wine, and the oil, unto the Treasuries (or storehouses.) 13. And I made Treasurers over the Treasuries;— such of the Priests and Levites as were accounted faithful, and their office was to distribute unto their Brethren. 14. Remember me, o my God, concerning this, etc.  
There needs no more for understanding the meaning of the words: Now therefore let us see what Lessons we may learn therefrom. And in the first place, that which is most pregnantly to be gathered thence, and best fits our turn; namely, That to make provision for the maintenance of God's worship, and the Ministers thereof, is a worthy work, and of high esteem and favour with God: forasmuch as Nehemiah commendeth himself unto the Divine favour and remembrance, under that name of having done good deeds or kindnesses unto the House of God, and the Offices thereof; a manifest argument he took them to be most pleasing and acceptable unto him. The truth of the observation appears not only by this, but by other places of Scripture both of the Old and New Testament: Let us take some survey of them. And first for the furnishing a place for God's worship, take notice of that famous benediction and prayer of King David, when his people offered so willingly and liberally towards the building of the Temple; In the uprightness of my heart (saith he) I have willingly offered all these things: and now I have seen with joy thy people which are present here, to offer willingly unto thee. O Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel our Fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and prepare their hearts unto thee. 1 Chron. 29. 17, 18. Surely therefore it was a most excellent disposition, and such as he knew, God prized and esteemed.  
For, entertainment and provision for his Prophets and Ministers, in what account God hath it, appears by his great solicitude in his Law that they should not be neglected: Take heed to thyself (saith he, Deut. 12. 19) that thou for sake not the Levite, as long as thou livest upon the earth: What expression can go beyond this? Again, by that story of the Shunamite woman, 2 King. 4. 9 who entertained the Prophet Elisha and made provision for him, when he should have occasion to pass that way: Behold, (said she to her husband) this is an holy man of God, which passeth by us continually. 10. Let us make I pray thee a little chamber on the wall, and let us set for him there a bed, a table, and a stool, and a candlestick, and it shall be when he cometh unto us, than he shall turn in thither. How acceptable to Almighty God was this good office done to his Prophet, appears by the double miracle he wrought for her, both in giving her a child, when her husband was now so old she despaired; and in raising him again to life, when he was dead.  
But let us come now to the New Testament, and see whether the like be not to be found there; lest otherwise any might think (as some are prone enough to do) the case were now altered. And first also to begin here with the provision of a place for God's worship; the story of that Centurion of Capernaum in S. Luke's Gospel is worthy our consideration; Who when he heard of jesus (saith the Text) sent unto him the Elders of the jews, beseecbing him, he would come and heal his servant. The Elders came to jesus, and besought him instantly, saying, He was worthy for whom he should do this. Why so? For (say they) he loveth our Nation, and hath built us a Synagogue. Luk. 7. 4, 5. Then jesus (saith the Text, without any more ado) went with them; namely, as well approving of their motive, that he who had done such a work deserved that favour should be deigned him. Also concerning provision and entertainment for his Apostles and Ministers; Are they not our Saviour's own words and promise when he sent them forth? He that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet shall receive a Prophet's reward: Nay, He that should give them but a cup of cold water, should not lose his reward. According to which S. Paul speaking of the Philippians bounty and communication towards him; I have received (saith he) of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing unto God. And 2 Tim. 1. 16. concerning the like good office done him by Onesiphorus, he speaks in this manner; The Lord (saith he) give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus, for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain. The Lord grant unto him, that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day. Which is not much unlike this of Nehemiah in my Text, if it had been spoken in the first person by Onesiphorus himself, as it is in the third by Saint Paul: Howsoever, who will deny, but it implies the same thing?  
Now then, if this be so as I think we have proved; What shall we think of the times we live in, when men account them the most religious to Godward, who do, or would unfurnish the House of God most, who rob his Priests most? But they have an excuse sufficient to bear them out, and what is that? The Priests they say have too much. If this excuse would serve turn, some of themselves perhaps might soon have less than they have: for sure some body else as well as the Priest, have more than they need, and might spare some of it. But whether the Priests have too much or not, will not be the question: Suppose they had; hath God too much too? For these men consider not that the propriety of such things as these is Gods, and not the Priests; and that to change the propriety of what is sacred, by alienating thereof to a profane and private use, (I say not, by diverting it from the Priest's livelihood to any other holy use, in case the Priest have more than needs;) is to rob God himself: yea, God tells us so much, Malach. 3. 8. Will a man (saith he) rob his God? (as if it were a thing intolerable, and scarce ever heard of;) yet ye (saith he) have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In Tithes and Offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse, because ye have robbed me. (For that's the burden that goes with things consecrated, Cursed be he that alienates them.) This Malachi lived at the same time with Nehemiah, and the Jews say, 'twas Ezra; whence this exprobration of his, and this fact of Nehemiah in my Text, may justly seem to have relation one to the other. And thus much of my first Observation.  
My second is; That God rewardeth these, and so all other our good deeds and works, not for any merit or worthiness that is in them, but of his free mercy and goodness; Remember me, o my God, (saith Nehemiah) and wipe not out my good deeds: Why, is there any reward due to them of Justice? No; But remember me, o my God, and spare me according to the greatness, or multitude of thy mercy. Thus he expounds himself: And S. Paul taught us even now the selfsame thing in his Votum or prayer for the house of Onesiphorus, for like good service done to the Offices of God's House; The Lord (saith he) grant unto him, that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day; that is, the day of Judgement, which is Tempus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when every one shall receive according to his work.  
The controversy therefore between the Romanists and us, is not, whether there be a reward promised unto our works: we know the Scripture both of the Old and New Testament is full of testimonies that way, and encourageth us to work in hope of the reward laid up for us: We know that in keeping of God's Commandments there is great reward; Psa. 19 11. And that unto him that soweth in righteousness, shall be a sure reward; Prov. 11. 18. We know our Saviour saith, Mat. 5. 12. Blessed are ye, when men revile and persecute you,— for great is your reward in heaven. Also that he that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall receive a Prophet's reward. And whosoever shall give a cup of gold water only, to one of his little ones in the name of a Disciple, shall not lose his reward, Mat. 10. Again, we read Luk. 6. 35. Love your enemies, Do good and lend,— and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: we know also what S. john saith, 2 Ep. v. 8. Look to yourselves that ye lose not those things which ye have wrought, but that ye may receive a full reward. But the Question is, Whence this Reward cometh; whether from the worth or worthiness of the work, as a debt of Justice due thereto; or from God's mercy, as a recompense freely bestowed, out of God's gracious bounty, and not in justice due to the worth of the work itself? Which Question, me thinks, Nehemiah here in my Text may determine when he saith, Remember me o Lord for my good deeds, according to thy great mercy. And the Prophet Hosea, Chap. 10. 12. when he biddeth us, Sow to ourselves in righteousness, and reap in mercy. And S. Paul, Rom. 6. 23. where though he saith, that the wages of sin is death, yet when he comes to eternal life, he changeth his style, But (saith he) eternal life is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the gracious gift of God through jesus Christ. For as for our works they are imperfect, and whatsoever they were, we owed them to him, in whom we live, and have our being, whether there were any reward or not promised for them.  
Neither do we hereby any whit detract from that Axiom, That God rewardeth every man according to his work: For still the question remaineth the very same, Whether there may not be as well merces gratiae, as merces justitiae; that is, Whether God may not judge a man according to his works, when he sits upon the Throne of Grace, as well as when he sits upon his Throne of Justice. And we think here, that the Prophet David hath fully cleared the case in that one sentence, Psa. 62. 12. With thee, o Lord, is mercy; for thou rewardest every one according to his work.  
Nay more than this; we deny not, but in some sense this reward may be said to proceed of Justice: For howsoever originally and in itself, we hold, it cometh from God's free bounty and mercy, who might have required the work of us without all promise of reward, (for as I said, we are his creatures and owe our being unto him) yet in regard he hath covenanted with us, and tied himself by his word and promise to conferte such a reward; the reward now in a sort proveth to be an Act of Justice, namely, of justitia promissi on God's part, not of merit on ours: Even as in forgiving our sins (which in itself all men know to be an Act of Mercy) he is said to be Faithful and Just, 1 joh. 1. 9 namely, of the faithful performance of his promise: for promise we know once made, amongst honest men is accounted a due debt. But this argues no more any worthiness of equality in the work towards the obtaining of the reward, then if a promise of a Kingdom were made to one, if he should take up a straw; it would follow thence, that the lifting up of a straw, were a labour of a work worth a Kingdom, howsoever he that should so promise were bound to give it.  
Thus was Moses careful to put the children of Israel in mind touching the Land of Canaan, (which was a type of our eternal habitation in heaven) that it was a Land of promise, and not of merit, which God gave them to possess, not for their righteousness, or for their upright heart, but that he might perform the word, which he swore unto their Fathers, Abraham, Isant, and jaacob. Whereupon the Levites in this book of Nehemiah, say in their prayer to God; Thou madest a Covenant with Abraham, to give to his seed the Land of the Canaanites, and hast performed thy word, because thou art just; that is, true and faithful in keeping thy promise. Now because the Lord hath made a like promise of the Crown of life to them that love him, S. Paul sticks not in like manner to attribute this also to God's Justice; Henceforth (saith he, 2 Tim. 4. 8.) is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the righteous judge shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but to all them that love his appearing. Upon which S. Bernard most sweetly, as he is wont; Est ergo quam Paulus expectat, corona justitiae; sed justitiae Dei, non suae: justum quippe est, ut reddat quod debet, debet autem quod pollicitus est.  
Lastly, for the word merit; It is not the name we so much scruple at, as the thing want now adays to be understood thereby; otherwise we confess the name might be admitted, if taken in the large and more general sense, for any work having relation to a reward to follow it; or whereby a reward is quocunque modo obtained; In a word, as the correlatum indifferent either to merces gratiae or justitiae: For thus the Fathers used it; and so might we have done still, if some of us had not grown too proud, and mistook it, since we think it better and safer to disuse it: even as Physicians are wont to prescribe their Patients recovered of some desperate disease, not to use any more that meat or diet, which they find to have caused it.  
And here give me leave to acquaint you with an Observation of a like alteration of speech, and I suppose for the selfsame cause happening under the old Testament; namely, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Righteousness into that which findeth mercy: for so the Septuagint and the new Testament with them render the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justitia; not only when it is taken for beneficience or alms, (as in that Tongue it is the ordinary word) in which use we are wont to expound it works of mercy; but where there is no relation to Alms or Beneficence at all. Whence I gather that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Septuagint meant not, as we commonly take it, works of mercy, but rather works whereby we find mercy at the hands of God. I will give you a place which me thinks is very pregnant, Deut. 6. 24, 25. where we read thus, And the Lord commanded us to do all these Statutes, (you may see there what they are) to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as at this day. And it shall be our Righteousness, if we observe to do all these Commandments before the Lord, as he hath commanded us. Here the Septuagint (for, And it shall be our Righteousness) have, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and it shall be our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that whereby we shall find mercy at the hands of God, if we observe to do all these Commandments, etc. This place will admit no evasion; for there is no reference to Alms here: And indeed all our Righteousness is nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that whereby we find mercy at the hands of God; and no marvel if works of mercy, as to relieve the poor and needy, be specially so called, for they above all other are the works whereby we shall find mercy, and receive the reward of Bliss at the last day. And so much of my second Observation.  
I come now to my third; That it is lawful to do good works, Intuitu mercedis: It is plain that Nehemiah here did so; Remember me, o my God, concerning this, etc. So did Moses of whom it is said, Heb. 11. That he chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, then to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for, saith the Text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (aspiciebat vel intuebatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He had respect unto the recompense of Reward. And I confess, it seems an unreasonable thing to me, that that which is made the end (though but in part) of the Action, should not be at all looked unto by the Agent, when as Finis is principium Actionis; and that which God hath promised unto us, as an encouragement to make us work with the more alacrity, should not be thought on, nor looked to in our working. Do not they, who would persuade this, go the way to discourage men from good works, by removing out of their sight, the encouragement which God hath given them?  
But they object: The obedience of God's children ought to be filial, that is, free and not mercenary, as that of hirelings. I answer; Obedience, which is only for reward, without all respect or motive of love and duty, is the obedience of an Hireling; not that which acknowledgeth the tie of obedience absolute, and the reward no otherwise due, then of his Father's free love and bounty, as every true child of God doth, and aught to do.  
They object again that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 13. 5. Charity seeks not her own: now say they, the works of God's children must proceed from love and charity. I answer; what though Charity seeks not her own, may not a charitable man so much as look or hope for his own, or have an eye to what is promised him? But this place is altogether misapplied and abused: For that property of charity now mentioned (as some also of the rest of that Chapter) concerns only our charity towards men, and not our charity towards God: the meaning thereof being, That a charitable man will sooner lose his own, then by seeking or contending for it, break the band of charity.  
To conclude: The Use that follows from all this Discourse shall be only this; That if Almighty God remember them, who have done good deeds unto his House and the Offices thereof; much more ought we who are partakers of the comfort and benefit of such bounty, to remember and honour them with a thankful celebration of their Names.   
MAT. 10. 41, 
Mat. 10. 41  He that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall receive a Prophet's reward. 
OUR blessed Saviour giving his Apostles their mission to preach the Gospel, unfurnished with outward things, and forewarning them what harsh and unkind usage they and their successors were like to find amongst men: for the better encouragement of such as should entertain and minister unto them; he pronounceth, That whosoever received them, received him, and he that received him, received him that sent him: Whereby it appeareth how honourable an office it was to afford them entertainment, and such as the noblest need not be ashamed of. But because the hope of reward is the most forcible spur to all undertake, he addeth that too in the words of my Text, He that receiveth, saith he, a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall receive a Prophet's reward: that is, he that receiveth a Prophet, not for any respect, but quatenus talis, because he is a Prophet, shall have a Prophet's reward.  
Which words contain in them evidently these two Propositions: First, that there is some special and eminent degree of reward due unto a Prophet above other men. Secondly, That he that shall entertain a Prophet, and do any good office unto him under that name, that is, for his office sake, shall be partaker of that Reward. Of these two I intent to treat, beginning with the first, the more general.  
That there shall be differing degrees of Reward in the life to come, is evident by sundry places of Scripture: As first, from that so often iterated passage, wherein God is said to reward every man according to his works; which is not to be understood only of the differing quality of our works, good and evil, which God rewards accordingly, the one with everlasting bliss, the other with eternal fire, (as some here except) but also of the differing works of just men compared together, as is manifest by that 1 Cor. 3. 8. where the Apostle comparing his own and Apollo's work together, saying, He had planted, and Apollo watered; adds, That both should receive their reward, according to their work; that is, as their work differed, so should their reward do. In the second place the same is represented by that Parable, Luke 19 of the ten servants who received of their Lord, being to go into a far Country, ten pounds to trade with till his return. At what time he that had increased his pound to ten pounds, was made ruler over ten Cities; He that had gained but five pounds, over five Cities, and so the rest, according as they had improved the stock given them. A third place is that 1 Cor. 15. 42. There is one glory of the Sun, another of the Moon, and another glory of the Stars, for one star differeth from another in glory. So also is the Resurrection of the dead. Here is the full stop, and not the words to be referred to that which follows, to wit, That the body is sown in corruption, and riseth again in incorruption, as some would have them. For the Apostle speaks here of the difference of things heavenly and glorious, (one star, saith he, differs from another in glory;) and not of the difference between glorious, and inglorious, corruptible and incorruptible: For this belongs to his other similitude; There are celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial, but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. A fourth place is that 2 Cor. 9 6. where the Apostle speaking of the reward of beneficence, avoucheth, that he which soweth sparingly, shall reap sparingly, and he that soweth bountifully, shall reap bountifully. Fifthly, that speech of our Saviour to the twelve, Mat. 19 imports as much; Behold, we, saith S. Peter, have forsaken all and followed thee: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; what shall we have therefore? Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Regeneration, or Resurrection, when the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of his Glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel. S. Luke relates it upon another occasion; whereby it appears our Saviour uttered it more than once, You (saith he to the Twelve) are they which have continued with me in my temptations: Therefore I appoint you a Kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my Table in my Kingdom, and sit on Thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel. Luk. 22. 28, etc. Whatsoever is meant by the reward intimated in this expression, for the quality thereof: 'Tis plain there is some peculiar and more eminent degree of glory here promised the Apostles, which shall not be common to others with them: First, because it is the reward of their proper and peculiar service unto Christ, as the Text shows. Secondly, because these twelve thrones in regard of their number, can befit no more but these twelve. Thirdly, supposing the twelve Tribes of Israel here mentioned, to be likewise in a condition of bliss and happiness; it must needs be, that those who sit upon twelve Thrones to judge, that is, to govern them, must be in a higher degree of dignity, than those over whom they shall be set: Whatsoever therefore the meaning of the reward be, thus much may be gathered from the description thereof, That there shall be differing degrees of glory in the Kingdom of Christ to come. To conclude; It hath been the ancient and constant Tradition of the Church, testified by the unanimous consent of all the Fathers, was never questioned by any, until that Peter Martyr in this last age Age first began to doubt thereof, and others since more boldly adventured to contradict it.  
Their main reasons or objections are these two: First, that the Reward to come depends not upon the virtue or dignity of our works, but only upon the merit and satisfaction of Christ: But his merits and satisfaction is uniform and the same to all: Ergo, The Reward also which is to be given by virtue thereof shall be so. This Objection proceeds from that scrupulosity, which many of ours have to admit of any relation or connexion between our works and the reward to come: Whence also is that, that they should not be done intuitu mercedis; which is an assertion repugnant to the tenor of the Scripture, where the Holy Ghost is wont to ground his Exhortations upon the hope and promise of reward. Now what an unreasonable conceit is it to think that where wages is promised for the encouragement of the labourer, the labourer should be bound to work without having any eye or respect to his wages? But to the objection I answer thus; That it is true, the merits and satisfaction of Christ is the foundation of our reward, namely, that alone which makes our works capable thereof, without which they were not: nevertheless it is true also, that our works are the subject of Reward; and the same merit of Christ, makes differing works capable of a different reward.  
Their other objection hath a little more likelihood, and seems therefore somewhat more difficult to answer: It is taken from the Parable, Mat. 20. where the Kingdom of heaven is compared to a Vineyard, the Master whereof went out in the morning to hire labourers, and agreed with them for a penny a day: Three hours after, or at the third hour, and so again at the sixth and ninth hours; yea at the eleventh, but an hour before Sun went down, he did likewise. And when they came all to receive their wages, he gave the last hired as much as he had agreed with the first, to wit, every one a penny, neither more nor less: Whence it seems to follow, that the reward to come, signified by the penny, shall not be proportioned according to the difference of works, but be one and the same to all.  
I answer; First, the Parable proves no more but this; that the sooner or later coming of men into the Vineyard of the Church, (for all were not to be called at one time, nor in one age) shall not make their reward greater or lesser: not that the reward shall not be different according to the diversity of our works. Secondly, I add, that this Parable hath respect to the Churches of the Jews and Gentiles not called, nor to be called at the same time: For the Jews were hired into the Vineyard betimes in the morning, the Gentiles not till the day was far spent; yet shall they by the goodness of their heavenly Master receive the same reward of eternal life, which was promised to the Jew, with whom the Covenant was first made, and who bore the heat of the day, whilst the other stood idle. Besides, in the new Vineyard of the Gospel the turn is changed; for into it (because the Jews would not) the Gentiles have first been hired, though at several hours, the Jew being not to come in until the eleventh hour; yet when Christ comes to give us wages, shall receive his penny, that is, eternal life as well as we.  
This to be the genuine scope of the Parable, may be gathered by that which is presently subjoined by our Saviour as it were to be the key thereof. So the last (saith he) shall be first, and the first last; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for many are called, but few are chosen: which I understand thus; The last, that is, the Gentiles who came in last, shall be the first partakers of Christ's Kingdom. The Jews who were first in Covenant, and had wrought so long before us in God's Vineyard, shall be last in the Covenant of Christ, and not converted till the fullness of the Gentiles be come in: For though many of them were invited at the first coming of Christ, yet few or none obeyed, and so the Nation became not of his peculium, but stands yet rejected; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To the like purpose is the same speech used by our Saviour, Luk. 13. They shall come, saith he, from the East, and from the West, and from the North, and from the South, and shall sit down in the Kingdom of God. And behold, there are last, which shall be first, and there are first, which shall be last. What means this? Out of the eighth of S. Matthew, where the same passage is related, we shall hear it expounded; for there the words run thus, Many shall come from the East and West, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, in the Kingdom of heaven: But the children of the Kingdom (that is, the whole generation of Israel, who received not the Gospel, at the Preaching of Christ and his Apostles, and all the generations since, who have continued in unbeleef) shall be cast out into utter darkness.  
And here by the way, because the Parable useth the notion of a day, to signify a time of many ages; it will not be altogether unseasonable to note, that the Metaphor may appear the easier, how that the Scripture often elsewhere calls the whole time of man's pilgrimage in this world, by the name of a Day; As, To day if you will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. S. Paul, Heb. 3. 13. Exhort one another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every day, whilst it is called to Day; where we say Day to include every day. And I believe we are thus to understand Day in the Lord's Prayer, in that Petition, Give us this day our daily Bread; that is, the whole time we live in hoc seculo. For in stead of S. Matthews This Day, spoken after the Hebrew notion, Saint Luke hath in the same Petition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, every day. Therefore S. Matthews Hodie, must comprehend S. Luke's Every day, if the sense of the Petition in both of them be the same, as I believe it is. Nay more than this; The world to come, even seculum aeternitatis, or eternity itself is likewise termed a day, 2 Pet. 3. ult. Domino nostro, saith he, & servatori jesu Christo, sit gloria & nunc, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & in diem aeternitatis: A long Day indeed. But this obiter.  
Thus having cleared my Proposition in thesi, or in general; That there shall be differing degrees of glory in the reward to come: It remains that I make it good in the hypothesis concerning a Prophet; namely, that to them who instruct others in the ways and will of God, which is the Office of a Prophet, there belongs a pre-eminence of reward, above and besides that which is common to all Saints. This pre-eminence of glory the Schoolmen term Aureola, that is, an Additament of felicity to that essential glory in the Vision of God, which they term Aurea: This Aureola or Coronet to be added to the Crown of glory, they ascribe to three sorts of persons; To Virgins, to Martyrs, and to Doctors or Prophets. The two first are out of my scope: The third, of Prophets, let us see how it is proved out of Scripture. First therefore it is apparent from my Text, He that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall receive a Prophet's reward; Ergo, there is some special or peculiar reward belonging to a Prophet, and that too an eminent one; otherwise our Saviour's speech will have no enforcement in it, as he that considers thereof may easily see. The second is, Dan. 12. 3. where the Angel prophesying of the Resurrection to be at the end of Time, and saying, That many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake; some to everlasting life, and some to shame, and everlasting contempt; he adds, And those that be wise (that is, have learned the true wisdom, which consists in the fear of God) shall shine as the brightness of the firmament. But those that turn many unto righteousness (that is, the Teachers and Instructers) as the stars for ever and ever. Here the difference between those that teach and are taught, is as much as between the light of the Stars, and the brightness of the Firmament. Some will have the whole sentence to speak of the eminency of glory laid up for Prophets, Translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the first place not docti or intelligentes, but Doctores: The Teachers shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many unto righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever: but I have followed that interpretation, which our Translators thought most likely. Thirdly, to this eminency of glory the Angel seems also to have respect in the end of that Chapter, when he says, But go thy way Daniel, till the end be; for thou shalt rest, and stand up in thy lot at the end of days: in sort tua, i. in sort Prophetarum. And this perhaps may be that too which our Saviour intends, Mat. 5. Qui fecerit & docuerit, magnus vocabitur (i. erit) in regno coelorum. The reason of all this is, because those who teach & convert others to righteousness, have an interest and a kind of title to all the good works which they shall do: How then can their reward but be great and eminent, when not only their own works, but the works of their converts and disciples, shall be brought into their account?  
A matter, if we consider it, of no small encouragement and comfort unto us, whom God hath placed in this condition to be Teachers and Instructers of others, if so be we bury not our Talon in a Napkin, but employ it for the advantage of our Lord and Master. For it is not the habit or faculty, but the work, which shall reap the reward we speak of: Happy are we therefore, if we neglect not this opportunity of bliss, which God hath given us.  
And thus having done with the first Proposition I undertook, I come unto the second; which is, That he that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall be partaker of a Prophet's reward: He that receives, that is, doth any good office, or deserves well of a Prophet: For this to be the meaning, may appear by that which follows; He that receiveth a righteous man, in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward; where righteous is to be taken by way of eminency, for one of eminent sanctity, such as among the Jews had therefore the surname of justi, as Simeon justus, jacobus justus, and other the like. Then in the next words the expression is varied; Whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones, a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, shall not lose his reward: whence I say we may gather what good office, the word receiving before used, intimated to us, namely, to relieve, maintain, support, and the like. He therefore that thus receives a Prophet, shall be partaker, saith our Saviour, of a Prophet's reward; that is, have an eminent reward, or of the quality of a Prophet, though himself be none.  
The reason is, because he that supports and enables a Prophet for his duty, hath an interest in his work, and consequently in the reward that belongs unto it: This appears by the contrary, because he that maintains and abets those, who commit an evil act, makes himself guilty of their sin, and so of the punishment due to the same. An example whereof we have in that of the Benjamites in the Book of Judges, who by abetting the men of Gibeah, who committed that foul abomination with the Levites Wife, made themselves guilty of their sin, and brought that hideous judgement, which at first was deserved only by a few sons of belial, upon the Heads of the whole Tribe: It is a known story. Now it is par ratio for a man to entitle himself to another's good works, as to his ill.  
But there is a modification in the Text, whereupon this reward we speak of depends, otherwise not to be looked for: And that is, This good office must be done in nomine Prophetae, not for any other respect, then as he is, and because he is a Prophet: He that receiveth a Prophet in nomine Prophetae, shall receive a Prophet's reward: not he that receives him only for some personal or by-respect, because he is his kinsman, friend, or friends ally, or which is the ground of the most respect the Prophet gets among the most now adays, because he is one of their own side and faction; but setting all such respects aside, eo nomine quia Prophet●, with mere respect to their office and calling, or because they are (as Valens and Valentinian in their Rescript apud Theodoretum calls them) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Procuratores magni Regis. I may tell you that this is no ordinary thing now adays; we may perhaps find some that can be content to make much of the Prophet for some personal qualities of his, or perhaps because he hath abilities above ordinary, or because it may be he is like to further the way they wish good luck to, or that they may gain repute among some sort of men, or other respects of like nature. But are there many which regard them in nomine Prophetae? How then comes it to pass that their courtesies are so appropriate to the persons of some, that they show no respect or esteem to the calling in others?  
Whence comes that Unchristian, or indeed Atheistical language, A base Priest, A paltry Priest? It would never have grieved me, if any other had served me thus, but to be served thus by a base Priest, who can endure it? Tell me in good earnest, is this to honour a Priest or a Prophet in nomine Prophetae; or not rather point-blank unto it, to reproach and dishonour him under that reverend Name; that is, to despise and reproach the Calling itself? For can a man honour that condition, the name whereof he thinks to be a reproach? Is any man wont to say, A base Lord, A base Knight, A base Gentleman, A base Christian? No: And why? because he accounts them all terms and titles of honour. Judge then by this, what account they make of God's Amber, who turn the very title of their Calling into a name of reproach, and what reward by proportion they are like to merit at Christ's hands: Not a Prophets I am sure; and whether a Christians or not, themselves may judge. 'Tis often, and too often true indeed, that for our persons we are unworthy of any better respect, but even then it best appears, whether a man hath respect to the Calling eo nomine, when there is nothing in the Person to move him to it.  
But there is another sort of men, who honour not a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, yet behind, namely, such as rob and spoil them of their livelihood and daily bread, and not only themselves give nothing to enable and encourage them the better to perform their Ministry; but take from them several ways, that which the piety and bounty of their Ancestors hath allotted them; yea to many, if not to the most, no gain or theft is more sweet, then that which is gotten out of the Priest's portion: But whether it will prove so at that day, when the just God shall reward every man according to his works, may be greatly feared. I told you a little before, that the reason, why he that receives a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall be partaker of a Prophet's reward, is, because he that supports and enables a Prophet to do his duty, hath thereby an interest in his work, and consequently to the reward due to the same. If this be so; what can they look for, who by subtracting their daily bread from them, hinder and disenable them from the free and cheerful performance of their duty, by distracting them with the cares of providing for their bodily life? Do they not derive upon themselves the guilt of whatsoever impediment comes hereby to the propagation of the Kingdom of Christ? Shall not the loss of every soul that perisheth for want of due provision to maintain an able Minister, be cast in their account at the last day? I will speak nothing now of the burden which Sacrilege itself, being a robbing of God, carries with it, (see Prov. 20. 25. It is a snare to the man who devoureth that which is holy; and after vows to make enquiry;) nor of those dreadful execrations, which the Donors of such things were wont antiquo ritu, to lay upon the heads of all such as should divert them to profane uses, wherewith these men willingly and wilfully involve themselves. But for a close, let us join in an humble and hearty acknowledgement of God's goodness and mercy, and say, Blessed be God our heavenly Father, who notwithstanding the malignity of many, hath not left us destitute, but in every age hath raised up some to show kindness unto the Prophets, and to provide entertainment for them: Witness the goodly structures, and liberal endowments in our two Seminaries for the entertainment and education of Prophets and Prophets Sons; being the bounty of those Worthies, the fruits of whose Piety and Devotion, the whole Church of God by his Divine goodness doth enjoy; To whose blessed Names, as their deserts challenge from us, let all due honour and thankfulness be for ever rendered.   
DEUT. 33. 8. 
Deut. 33. 8.  And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy Holy One. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
THis verse is part of that blessing wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death; and these words are part of the blessing of Levi: a blessing which much exceeds those that went before it, and is far above all that come after it: For as S. Paul proves Melchisedec to be greater than Abraham, because he blessed Abraham, and worthier than Levi, because he tithed Levi in the loins of Abraham; so may we say of this blessing, that it is the greatest of all, because it is the blessing of him who by his Office was to bless all the rest, and the worthiest of all, because by it the party blessed is enabled to bless the rest of his Brethren: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Always that by which another is, that thing itself is more than the other.  
In the words themselves we will consider first the subject blessed, and then the quality of the blessing itself: The subject blessed is expressed both by name, and by description; by name, Levi; by description, God's Holy One. The blessing itself is contained in words few, in substance plentiful; Vrim and Thummim; nay more than so, Thy Thummim and Thy Vrim; that we might know whence this blessing comes; how that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a divine thing, the gift of God, who is the Author and giver of all good things: And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim, etc.  
To begin first with the Subject Levi: What Levi was is so well known, that it were needless to say much to make it better known. Only this, that Levi was the Tribe which God had especially bequeathed to himself, and set apart for the Ministry of the Altar. Concerning whose name, (though observations drawn from names are like an house raised upon the sand, yet because of old, and among the Patriarches Names were given by the Spirit of Prophecy;) it will not be altogether unworthy our speculation, to remember the reason why this Name Levi was imposed; which we shall see as truly verified in that Function, to which God did advance his posterity, as it was by his Mother fitly given to himself, upon the good hope she conceived at his birth.  
For Levi signifies a conjoiner, an Uniter or maker of union; for thus said Leah when she bore him; Now at this time will my husband be joined to me, because I have born a third son: And she called his name, Levi. She called him Levi; but for aught we read, in regard of herself, she found him no Levi as she hoped; but she prophesied of that sacred office, whereby all the sons of Levi became conjoyners, became makers of union, not between jacob and Leah, but between God and Man, between Christ and his Spouse, between the spiritual jacob and his deformed Leah. For as truly as ever Leah spoke, might the Church then, and may the Church now, affirm, when she hath born these sons unto her husband; Now I know my heavenly husband, my Lord my God, will be joined to me, because I have born him these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these sons of Union, these Ministers of reconciliation. Plato could say, a Priest was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A friend-maker between God and men: Nay, his whole office is nothing but the service of peace, and that not only between God and man, but between man and his brother; for how can he love God, who loves not his brother? or how can he be at peace with God, who is at variance with his brother? Needs must he therefore that is Minister of the one, be Minister of the other also; and he that is so, nay he alone that is so, is a right Levite, and a true son of Union.  
How unworthy then of this holy name, how unworthy to succeed in the holy Order of Levi, are those who are Ministers of division, who by their lives, doctrine, example, or any other way divide God and his Church, and the Church within itself; who neither have peace with God themselves, nor will suffer others to have it; who neither agree themselves with others, nor suffer others to agree among themselves? Beati pacifici, Blessed are the peacemakers, especially in the sons of Peace. This Christ prayed for in his Apostles, joh. 17. saying, Holy Father, keep them through thy name, that they may be one as we are one. Christ is so one, that he makes all one, who are one in him; so should every son of Levi be one. In sum, the Ministers of God are called Angels, and therefore should sing a song like unto that song of Angels, Glory be to God on high, peace on earth, and good will amongst men. That Church which hath such a Levite, such a Minister, such a son of Union, may truly take up the words of Micah, judg. 17. and say, Now I know the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my Priest.  
And thus much of the name Levi: Now I come unto the Tribe itself; concerning which there may be two things asked: First, why God did confine the Priesthood to one Tribe alone, and not suffer it to be common to all, as it was before the Law, and is now since the Law? Secondly, why Levi was chosen to this holy Function rather than any other Tribe?  
To the first, why God did limit this holy Function to one Tribe only, some of the Jews make this answer: That one of the sons of Israel with his whole posterity was due unto God by virtue of jacob's vow, Gen. 28. which was, that if God would be with him in his journey, and bring him back again unto his Father's house, of all that thou shalt give me, saith he, I will give the tenth unto thee; Now because God gave children, as well as beefs and sheep, therefore they also must fall within compass of his Vow. And that there might be no difficulty about tithing the odd children, because there were more than ten, they devise this way to make all even: for first, say they, the full number of Jacob's children was fourteen, because that Joseph's two sons Ephraim and Manasseh go in the number of Jacob's sons: for jacob Gen. 48. said unto joseph, Thy two sons which are born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came into Egypt, shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are mine; but thy lineage which thou begettest after them shall be thine. Now of these fourteen, four were the Lords by his right unto the firstborn, for so many there were which first opened the womb of their four Mothers, Rahel and Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah, Jacob's two Wives and his two Concubines: Now of the remainder being ten, one falls to God's share for Tithe, as being comprised within their Father's Vow.  
This reason, though it be as you see handsomely framed, yet hath no great likelihood, because men use not to be tithed; and therefore this extent of the Vow, is beyond the intent of the Vower. And whereas they urge the words, of all that thou shalt give me; they seem to forget, that God gave unto jacob besides his sons, great store of man-servants and maidservants, and yet we read not that any of these were dedicated unto God, or that he challenged any of their posterity.  
The only or chief cause (if I am not deceived) why God restrained the Priestly Function to one Tribe, was for a sign and band of restraint of his Church to one people: For, as the Church cannot be without the sacred Function of holy Ministry; so likewise the condition thereof must follow the condition of the Ministry. As long therefore as none could be a Priest but of the Tribe of Levi, so long there could be no Church, but of that people whereof Levi was a Tribe. A point of sacred Policy so to order the choice of Ministers, as shall be most fit to uphold the present state of an established Church.  
The other question we propounded was, Why God chose Levi before any other Tribe? And of this many reasons may be given: As first, for Moses sake, whom God would honour by advancing the house of his Father to the highest pitch of dignity that mortal man could attain to: for what greater honour then to be Ambassador of the Lord of Hosts, to be admitted unto the inspection of his most secret mysteries; to be God's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his proper and peculiar portion. Would God they either knew or believed this, who think their house disgraced, and their blood stained, if any of their Kin become of the Clergy. It was not so in God's opinion, no, nor Moses his neither, for had it been, Levi of all Tribes should not have been Gods holy one.  
The second Reason was the Nobility of this Tribe, for Levi was enabled both generally, as being the son of a lawful Wife, and not the son of an Handmaid; and specially as being of kin to Moses the Prince of the Congregation: In the first respect he was nobler than many of his brethren; in the second, more noble than any of them. This example of Gods own choice of men for his holy Service, if we would look unto, we would not sin the sin of jeroboam, to make Priests almost of no other but of the lowest of the people: I speak not only of the lowest for external condition, but of the lowest for the gifts of their mind; for I know it is true which the Virgin hath in her Magnificat, That God often puts down the mighty from their seats, and exalteth them of low degree. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I know it is true that he often filleth the hungry with good things, and the rich he sends empty away: but we should know that whensoever we offer unto him, he requireth the best thing in our hands; and therefore for this worthy Calling we are to give unto him, as far as may be, the worthiest among the sons of men.  
Another reason why God chose this Tribe afore other, may be the smallness thereof, being not above the sixtieth part of the people: A number which God in his wisdom saw fit for that Church, as being both sufficient for instructing the people, and discharge of the duties of their order; and not too great to live of God's ordinary, his Tithes and the other offerings of the Altar, whereas the least of the other Tribes were as big as three of it.  
But the last Reason, and as it seems one of the chiefest, is that which Moses intimates in the very verse following my Text, speaking thus of Levi, that he said unto his Father and to his Mother, I have not seen them; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children; but observed God's word and kept his Covenant. In which words Moses alludes unto their forward zeal to avenge the Lord of the people which worshipped the golden Calf, Exod. 32. where it is said, that Moses stood in the gate of the camp and cried, Whosoever is on the Lord's side, let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves unto him. Then said Moses, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the Camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses, etc. For Moses had said, (so it follows in the Text) Consecrate yourselves unto the Lord this day, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother, that there may be given you ablessing this day. This blessing here spoken of is our Urim and Thummim, the blessing of Sacred Order: So bountifully did God reward them who were so forward to be on his side when Moses called them, that himself vouchsafed to call them unto his side for ever.  
Whence, first, we may learn whom we are chiefly to prefer unto this holy Function, namely, those who are zealous for the Lord of Hosts, who prefer the glory of God above all worldly respects whatsoever: This got Phinehas the son of Eleazar the High Priesthood; this got all the sons of Levi the guerdon of Urim and Thummim, the blessing of holy Orders.  
Secondly, we may see by the advancement of this Tribe, how merciful our God is: We know that Levi's fury did once as much offend him, as his son's zeal now pleased him; and yet for this one action he forgot the sin of their Father in the bloody slaughter of the Sichemites: He remembered not the curse of jacob, Into their secret let not my soul come: My glory be not thou joined with their assembly. Cursed be their wrath, for it was fierce, and their rage, for it was cruel. Gen. 49. 6, 7. Nay, he turned the very curse of jacob into a blessing, By dividing them in jacob, and scattering them in Israel. Here mercy and Truth met both together, and Justice and Peace kissed each other. Lastly, here God verified his own description of himself, That though he be a jealous God, and visits the sins of the father upon the children unto the third and fourth generation, yet he is also a merciful God, and shows mercy even unto the thousandth generation of them that love him and keep his Commandments.  
And thus have you seen why of Levi Moses said this Blessing. And of Levi he said. Now I come to the description of this blessed Tribe in these words, Gods holy one: Let thy Vrim and thy Thummim be with thy holy one. How is Levi here called Holy? how is this Title given to him above the rest of his Brethren? Are not all the Lords people holy? certainly whatsoever is meant hereby, it is something more specially belonging to Levi, then to any other Tribe. Which, that we may the better find, we must take notice of a threefold holiness; Essential, Habitual, Relative. Essential holiness is the holiness of God, all one with God himself, and this is a glorious holiness: Who (saith Moses) is like unto thee o Lord among the Gods? who is like unto thee, glorious in holiness? Exo. 15 11. Habitual I call an inherent holiness, such as is the holiness of righteous men, integrity of life, or righteous holiness, whereof Abraham, job, David, and all the Patriarches are called Saints and holy men: This is that which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Latins Sanctimonia. Relative holiness I define a special relation, or relation of peculiarity which a thing hath unto God, either in regard of propriety of possession, or speciality of presence: that which is holy after this manner the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Latins, Sacrum. The first of these three is proper to God alone, for he only is essentially holy. The second is proper to reasonable creatures; for they are only habitually holy, or endued with holy qualities. But the last is common to all manner of things; for all things animate or inanimate are capable of relative holiness, or pecularity towards God: Persons, Things, Times, Places. Persons, so the Nazarites of the Law are called holy; thus was Samson, thus was Samuel holy from their Mother's womb. Things, so the Offerings of the Law, yea and of the Gospel too, are holy things: The censers of Korah and his company were Holy, because (saith the Text) they offered them unto the Lord. Times, so the Sabbath day and other Festival days are holy days. Places, so the Temple of the Lord is an holy Place; Mount Zion an holy Mount; yea the ground about the bush where God appeared to Moses is called Holy ground. And of these four, Persons, Things, and Times are holy, because of God's peculiar propriety in them, in that they are his Persons, his Things, and his Times: But Places are holy in another regard, because of God's special manner of Presence in them.  
Now let us see in which of all these three ways, Levi may be said to be holy: Essentially holy he cannot be, for he was not God, but the holy one of God. Habitually holy the event shows he was not more than the rest, though he should have been. The Tribe of L●vi was always Tribus sacra, holy unto the Lord, but was not always righteous before the Lord. It was not always true of Levi, that he walked before God in peace and equity, and turned many from iniquity; but often, yea too often they were gone out of the way, and caused many to fall by the Law. Phinehas the son of Eli, was not like Phinehas the son of Aaron: Annas and Caiaphas' high Priests, as holy as any for their order, as unholy as any in life and conversation.  
It should therefore seem, that Levi should be only called holy by a Relative holiness; namely, because he was Gods peculiar one, because his offered one, because his peculiar of peculiars; that is, his peculiar Tribe of his peculiar People; for in this Levi had a privilege above the rest, in the other none: and this Ezra gives unto him cap. 8. 28. when he delivered unto the Levites the holy Vessels, Ye are holy (saith he) unto the Lord, and these Vessels are holy also: that is, Ye are holy as the Vessels are; for he saith not, they were holy before the Lord, for so he had meant holy in life; but holy u●to the Lord; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which always implies a Relative holiness.  
But though this be true that Levi was holy after this manner, yet the word which in my Text is turned Holy, seems scarce to admit of this construction: for the word here used is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies favourable and gracious, and in Religion charitable and godly: All which leans to an habitual, not to a respective holiness. But because Levi was not in this sort holy above other, as I said before; It may seem therefore it should be thus construed: That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken actively or passively: Actively it signifies favourable, benign and gracious. Passively, he that is favoured or graced. And thus junius expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place, Let thy Thummim and thy Vrim be with thy favoured one; not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Septuagint, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word and sense the Angel useth in his salutation to the blessed Virgin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hail, thou highly favoured one; Hail thou whom God hath especially graced to be the Mother of his only Son: So Levi is here described to be one upon whom God bestowed a special favour or grace, a special 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the grace of holy Ministry: for so S. Paul calls this power of Order, a grace or favour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Eph. 3. 8. Unto me who am less than the least of all Saints is this grace given, to preach among the Gentiles, investigabiles divitias Christi. And of Timothy the same Apostle speaketh, Neglect not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or grace in thee, which was given by prophecy and imposition of hands. With this grace was Levi graced, with this favour was he highly favoured, and well might be called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God's highly favoured one.  
And thus the issue will be all one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense will fall out to be Gods holy one in the last sense: for to be specially favoured of God, is to have a special relation to God-ward, to be Gods more especially; and this is to be holy with a relative holiness. Now which soever of these we take to be here meant, we see that that is in special given to Levi, which otherwise was common to all the other Tribes. If you take it in the first sense for holiness in life, as it were to put Levi in mind, how it behoved him above all to be holy; were not all the Tribes as holy as Levi? and yet Levi alone is called Gods holy one. If you take it in the second sense for a relative holiness; were not all the Tribes of Israel thus holy unto God? were not all his own people, his peculiar people, and a chosen Nation? and yet Levi alone is called Gods holy one. If you take it in the last sense, for Gods favoured one; were not all Israel a Nation favoured of God above all Nation? and yet Levi alone is especially called Gods favoured one.  
We therefore whom God hath set apart to minister about holy things; we who are holy unto the Lord, and Gods own in a peculiar manner; we who have a special relation unto God; we who have received a special favour from God; we must remember we owe a special thankfulness unto him: we who are God's peculiars, must demean ourselves peculiarly both toward God and man: we are unto God as other men are not, and therefore may not always do as other men do; we cannot reason from others to ourselves, no not in things of themselves lawful, Why should not we do as every man may do; for all that is lawful for others, will not be seemly for us; for we are the household servants of the most High, we are special men, of whom God requires a special demeanour in life and actions.  
This was one cause why God enjoined the Jews so many peculiar rites and special observations differing from the fashions of other people, because they were his peculiar people, an holy Nation; because they were toward him as no other was, though all the world were his, and therefore would have their manners differ from the fashion of all other Nations, as a badge and acknowledgement of that special relation they had to him above other. Levit. 20. 25. I (saith God) am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people; ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, unclean fowls and clean, etc. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, that you should be mine. This was also a cause why God restrained the Priests of the Law from that which was lawful for the rest of the people; They might drink no Wine; they might not mourn for their kin; they might not marry a divorced woman: the reason of all this is given, because they were holy unto the Lord; that is, with a relative holiness, as being God's men in a special manner, and therefore required they should specially demean themselves in their lives. These observations indeed were ceremonial, but there is something moral in them: And therefore in the Gospel we hear of some special things required in a Minister; as that he should have a good report of those who were without; this was not required in every one who was to be a Christian. Again, S. Paul requires in a Bishop, that he should be the husband of one wife; this was not in those times required of every one who was to be a Christian. I shall not need to tell you what special demeanour the ancient Church bound her Clergy unto: but it came to pass at last this rule was over practised by them, for hence it was that a Bishop might not marry at all, that Priests and Deacons might not marry being once in Orders, and at last marriage was quite forbidden them all. Thus our Fathers erred on the right hand, but we go aside on the left: they restrained their Clergy from that which was lawful for, and beseemed all men; we think almost that lawful for us, which is lawful for no man, at least we think that which any man may do we may do also: But there is a golden mean between these extremes, happy is he that finds it, for he alone shall demean himself like himself, like a Levite, like God's holy one.  
Secondly, from this special title given to Levi, we may note how causelessly some are offended to hear those who minister about holy Things, distinguished from others by names of holiness and peculiarity; to hear them called Clerus, and Clerici, as it were the Heritage of God; for so saith S. Hierome, Clerus dicimur, quia sors Dei sumus. But say they, are not the People also God's heritage? Doth not S. Peter call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when he forbids Presbyters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to domineer over God's heritage? I confess he doth: But those who reason after this manner come too near the language of Dathan and Abiram, Num. 16. Moses and Aaron, you take too much upon you; Is not all the Congregation holy, every one of them? and is not the Lord among them? why then lift ye yourselves above the Congregation of the Lord? If this reasoning had been good, wherein had these Rebels offended? It could not be denied them, that all the People were an holy People; for they might have alleged the testimony of God himself, avouching them to be his peculiar People, and an holy People unto the Lord their God; All the earth (saith he Exod. 19) is mine, but you shall be my Segulla, my peculiar people, a Kingdom of Priests, and an holy Nation.  
But it might be answered them, Though all the people were God's peculiar people, and therefore his holy ones, yet Levi was his peculiar Tribe of his peculiar people, and therefore comparatively his only holy one. All the Land of Canaan was the Lords; The Land is mine, saith he, and therefore it could not be alienate beyond the year of Jubilee, and yet for all this there were some parts of the Land specially called Holy unto the Lord: All the increase of corn, all the increase of wine, all the fruit of the field was the Lords, and yet the offerings alone were called holy unto the Lord. God himself calls them his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his inheritance, and therefore gave them unto that Tribe alone, which alone he had made his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Tribe of his inheritance: So the offered Tribe lived of God's offerings, the holy Tribe on the holy things. Again, why may we not call our Clergy God's inheritance, when God himself calls the Levites his Levites? Thou shalt (saith he Num. 8.) separate the Levites from among the children of Israel, and the Levites shall be my Levites; that is, my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, my Clergy. Why may not we call the Ministers of Christ his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when he himself calls them the gift his Father gave him out of the world? for so he saith joh. 17. I have declared thy name unto the men thou gavest me out of the world, thine they were and thou gavest them me: and again, Holy Father, keep them in thy name, even them whom thou hast given me. If you say he speaks here of all his Elect, the words following prove the contrary; for those (saith he) whom thou hast given me, I have kept, and none of them is lost but the child of perdition. Here he plainly affirms, he lost one of those his Father gave him, wherefore he speaks not of his elect ones, for those no man can take out of his hands. Again, ver. 18. As thou didst send me into the world, saith he, so I send them into the world: but I hope all the Elect are not sent, as Christ was sent by his Father. I conclude therefore, so long as God in the Law says specially of the Levites, They are mine: so long as Christ in the Gospel of his Apostles, They are mine, o Father, which thou hast given me out of the world; it is neither arrogancy, nor injury, to style those who minister about holy things with the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the inheritance of the Lord.  
What Levi was, and what is meant by this Title God's holy one, we have now showed sufficiently. It remains we should come unto the words containing the blessing itself, which is called Vrim and Thummim; the words themselves signify light and perfection, Illumination and Integrity: good endowments certainly, whosoever shall enjoy them.  
But because they are not only Appellative words, but also proper names of certain things, we must inquire further what is meant by them; and that in a twofold consideration; First, specially and properly as they are names of certain things belonging in special unto the High Priest: Then generally, as they are applied by Moses unto the whole Tribe of Levi. The first again shall be twofold, what they were in the High Priest personally; or what they signified in him typically, himself being also a Type.  
For the first, what is meant by these things, as they belong unto the High Priest personally, is a matter full of controversy; and therefore that we may the better proceed, we will first see the generals wherein all or the most agree; and after come unto the particulars wherein they disagree. The first, wherein all agree ●s, that this Vrim and Thummim was some thing put in the Breastplate, which was fastened to the Ephod over against the heart of the High Priest: And thus much the Scripture witnesseth, Exod. 28. 30. where God saith to Moses, And thou shall put in the Breast plate of judgement, the Vrim and the Thummim which shall be on Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the Lord. And for this cause as most think, was the Breastplate made double, that the Vrim and Thummim might be enveloped therein.  
The second thing wherein all agree, is that this Vrim and Thummim was a kind of Oracle whereby God gave answer to those that enquired of him; and from hence the Septuagint call the whole Breastplate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which some turn Rationale, but might more truly be turned Orationale, for an Oracle is as it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Voice of God, though this Voice or Revelation were of divers kinds; for at sundry times, and in divers manners (saith S. Paul) God spoke in old time to our Fathers. The Jews therefore make four kinds of Divine Revelation: First, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Prophecy, which was by dreams and Visions: The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, afflatus Spiritus sancti, as was in job, David, and others. The third Vrim and Thummim, which was the Oracle. The fourth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, filia vocis, which was usual in the second Temple after the Oracle had ceased; as Mat. 5. at Christ's Baptism there came a voice from heaven, saying, This is my well-beloved son, in whom I am well pleased: and joh. 12. when Christ said, Father glorify thy name: There came a voice like thunder, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.  
But to return again to our purpose; That Vrim and Thummim was an Oracle of God, besides the consent of Jews and others, it is plain by Scripture, Num. 27. when God had commanded Moses to put his hands upon joshua, and to set him over the congregation in his stead; he adds, And he (that is, joshua) shall stand before Eleazar the Priest, who shall ask counsel for him by the judgement of Vrim before the Lord. So 1 Sam. 23. when David was to ask counsel of the Lord, he called for the Ephod, wherein the Oracle was: and whereas before he had once or twice asked counsel of the Lord concerning Keilah, to prevent the objection how the Lord answered; it follows in the next by way of a Prolepsis, That Abiathar then Priest, when he fled to David to Keilah, brought the Ephod with him. ver. 6. Lastly, in the second of Ezra, when certain of the Priests which returned from Captivity, could not find their names written in the genealogies; it is said, that Ezra commanded they should not eat of the most holy things, till there rose up a Priest with Vrim and Thummim; that is, till God should by Oracle reveal whether they were Priests or no: whereby it also appears that this Oracle had then ceased.  
And for more light to that we have in hand; it will not be amiss to observe, that Teraphim among the Idolaters, was answerable to the Vrim and Thummim of the holy Patriarches. Both were ancient, for Rahel is said to have stolen away her Fathers Teraphim: And Vrim and Thummim seems to have been used among the Patriarches before the Law was given, because the making of it, is not spoken of among other things of the Ephod: And because God speaks of it to Moses demonstratively, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Vrim and the Thummim.  
Both also were Oracles; for the Jews and others agree, Teraphim were small Images made under a certain constellation, which they used to consult both in things doubtful, and things future, supposing they had a power to this effect received from heavenly influence; much like to puppets made of wax and like matter, which our Wizzards still use unto like purpose. And therefore Ezek. 21. we read that the King of Babel among other divinations, consulted also of Teraphim: And the King of Babel (saith the Text) stood at the head of the two ways, to use divination, consulting with Teraphim, he looked in the liver. And Zac. 10. 2. Surely (saith the Text) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Teraphims have spoken vanity, and the Soothsayers have seen a lie, and the Dreamers have told a vain thing.  
Besides, from this like use of Teraphim with the holy Vrim and Thummim, we may read Ephod and Teraphim joined both together as things of like kind, as Hosea 3. The children of Israel, saith the Lord, shall remain many days without a King, and without a Prince, and without an Offering, and without an Image, and without an Ephod and Teraphim. Yea, of so near a nature was this Teraphim unto the Vrim and Thummim, that Micah, he that had an house of Gods, when he had made an Ephod, because he had no Vrim and Thummim, he put Teraphims in stead thereof, as we may gather judg. 17. 18. where we may see also that when the children of Dan enquired of the Lord concerning their journey, it pleased him to give answer by the Idolish Teraphim. So we may gather likewise that the Israelites after jeroboams schism, having no Vrim and Thummim, used Teraphim in the Ephod, and therefore it is that Hosea threatens that they shall be without Ephod and Teraphim.  
Having hitherto shown how far it is agreed about Vrim and Thummim, in the next place the points of difference ought to be considered; which are either about the matter whereof it was made, or in the manner how God answered by it.  
For the matter, some will have it to be nothing else but the writing or carving of the great name jehovah, which was put within the folding of the breastplate; and that it was called Vrim and Thummim, because by the knowledge of the mystery of jehovah in the Trinity, our minds are enlightened, and understandings made perfect.  
Some other there are of the same opinion, but they will have it called Vrim and Thummim, because by the virtue of that name written, Sacerdos verba sua illustrabat, & perficiebat: And moreover they say the breastplate was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the breastplate of judgement, because by it the Lord gave as it were sentence and judgement, what was to be done in hard and doubtful matters. And this is the opinion of Rabbi Shelomo.  
Some other will have it called the breastplate of judgement, because that by it the judgement of the Judges, if it were amiss, was hereby as it were pardoned: because the High Priest was to bear the sins of the people: The Authors of this opinion are mentioned by R. Shelomo.  
Aben Ezra saith, it was so called because by it the judgement and decrees of the Lord were known: And he thinks also that Vrim and Thummim were something made by the hand of the craftsman.  
But Nehemanides and R. Shelomo say, it was opus divinum, and given to Moses in the Mount, or at least that God showed him how to make it.  
Some think it was nothing but the stones in the breastplate, by the shining whereof God did annuere, by the not shining, abnuere. But Kimchi confutes this, because it is spoken of as a differing thing in the same place, where the stones are described: But he himself says, it is not certainly known what it was.  
Nehemanides saith, it was certain sacred names, by the virtue whereof the letters of the breastplate were enlightened and ordered, so that the Priest might read the answer of God: and that which caused shining was called Vrim; & that which made them legible, Thummim.  
The sum of these Opinions laid together is, That this Oracle was either the stones of the breastplate themselves, or something in the folding of the breastplate, which by a divine virtue did cause the stones to shine, and by the letters of the Tribes names in them, as it were to express the answer of God.  
For concerning the manner of this Oracle, the Talmudists report thus much: First, no private man might consult with Vrim and Thummim, but either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that was King or chief of the Consistory, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Consistory or Judges themselves, and that in matters difficult and of great importance.  
Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that enquired must stand with his face looking full upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Priest whom he asked; and the Priest stood with his eyes fixed upon his breast where was the Vrim and Thummim.  
Thirdly, the voice was to be a soft still voice, and not above one thing to be asked at one time: But if they asked two things at once, the answer was only unto the first; but in case of extremity, unto both: and such was David's case, 1 Sam. 30. when he asked concerning the Amalekites, who had burnt Ziklag, Shall I follow this company, saith he, and shall I overtake them? The Lord answers, Follow, for thou shalt surely overtake them, and recover all.  
Now if you ask how the Priest knew the answer of the Lord? First, you must remember, there were twelve stones in the breastplate, and in those stones the twelve names of the sons of Israel, either set or carved; and that there might be a full Alphabet of letters, there was also, say they, written upon the breastplate, Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, and these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Tribes of Israel or Jeshurun. Now when the Lord answered, the letters expressing the answer, by the divine virtue of the Vrim and Thummim became 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. prominentes; that is, showed forth themselves with a splendour, that the Priest might read the answer of God: As 2 Sam. 2. when David asked the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Shall I ascend into any of the Cities of judah? the letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Shimeon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Levi, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in jehudah, put themselves forth, or shone forth with a splendour, that the Priest might read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ascend: Though some of the Jews say the letters became 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, joined themselves together and made a word: which as I cannot conceive how it should be, so I think it less probable.  
And thus hitherto have you heard the divers opinions of the matter and manner of this Oracle of Vrim and Thummim: Here is variety enough, I leave to every one to make his own choice which he will believe; only give me leave to add thus much in way of censure of them, which is, that all seem against reason and likelihood, to confound Vrim with Thummim, in making them one and the same thing called by divers names, in regard of divers effects and uses: which I can the less believe, because I find Vrim alone used in matter of consultation with God, whereby it seems Thummim had some other use. In the 27. of Numb. Moses commands joshuah in all business to consult the High Priest, by the judgement of Vrim before the Lord; but no speech of Thummim. Again, 1 Sam. 28. it is said, that Saul asked counsel of the Lord, when he was to go against the Philistims; but the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Vrim, nor by the Prophets. Here also is Vrim spoken of, but no word of Thummim.  
If I may therefore speak what I think; I would say, that Vrim and Thummim were a twofold Oracle, and for a twofold use. And that Vrim was the Oracle, or part of the Oracle, whereby God gave answer to those who enquired of him in hard and doubtful cases; therefore called Vrim, or lights, because as ignorance is called darkness; so is all knowledge a kind of illumination or enlightening; and that which bringeth knowledge is fitly called a light, because it dispels the darkness of our minds.  
But Thummim was that Oracle or mean whereby the High Priest knew whether God did accept the Sacrifice or no; therefore called Thummim, that is, Integrity; because those whose Sacrifice God accepted, were accounted Thummim, that is, just and righteous in the eyes of God; because their Sacrifice was a shadow of Christ's Sacrifice, by acceptation whereof we are justified and made righteous before God. For without doubt the Patriarches and legal Church had some ordinary mean to know when their Sacrifice was accepted, else had they been behind the Gentiles; for they had a sign to know when they did Litare, that is, when their false Gods accepted their false sacrifice; and as the Devil was God's Ape in giving Oracles, so I verily believe he was in this also. Nay josephus expressly affirms it of the Jews, though for the particular I suppose he is mistaken: For he saith, that whensoever God did accept the Sacrifice, the Onyx stone on the Priests left shoulder shone with an admirable splendour; but this, saith he, ceased certain hundred years before his time: and no wonder, for when the Sun of righteousness drew near unto his rising, those dimmer Vrim and smaller stars must needs lose their light. Now that which josephus affirms of the Onyx stone on the left shoulder, I suppose was mistaken for the Thummim on the left part of the breastplate.  
And lastly, as I said before of Vrim, so I think of Thummim, that it was in use among the Patriarches of old, and that by some such means as this Abel knew that God accepted his Offering, and Cain that his was refused.  
And thus much of Vrim and Thummim considered personally in the High Priest; now I come to consider it typically: for as the High Priest himself was a type of Christ, so must these Adjuncts of his also be types of something in Christ; which we shall not be long a finding out, if we remember again the signification of the words, and the use of the things themselves: Vrim is Light and Illumination; Thummim Integrity and Perfection. By Urim the Jews were ascertained of the counsel and will of God; By Thummim of his favour and good will towards them. All this agrees to Christ both in himself, and in regard of us.  
In himself, his breast is full of Vrim, full of Light and Understanding, in him dwell all the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge, as S. Paul saith; He is the Wisdom of the Father by which the world itself was made. His heart is also endowed with Thummim, with all kind of Perfections; He was conceived without Original sin, lived without Actual sin; fulfilled the whole Law of God, which is the Law of Thummim, the Law of all Perfection.  
Thus to Christ himself agrees both Vrim and Thummim, and so it doth also in regard of us, for he is an Vrim and Thummim both to us and for us: To us he is Vrim, a light which enlighteneth every one which cometh unto the world: He is the light which shone in darkness, but the darkness could not comprehend it. He was that light by which the people (as it is said in Matthew 4.) which sat in darkness saw great light. And of this Light john came to bear witness, that all might believe in him, joh. 1. In sum, Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patris, the Word and Oracle of his Father, by whom we know and learn the Father's will: for so S. john saith, cap. 1. No man hath seen God at any time, but the Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him unto us.  
Neither is Christ only an Vrim, but also a Thummim to us: For as by Thummim the Jews were ascertained of God's favour toward them in accepting their Sacrifice: so by Christ coming in the flesh is revealed the unspeakable mercy of God to mankind, in that he would accept his Sacrifice once offered for the expiation of the sins of the whole world. This is that goodwill toward men, which the Angels sung of assoon as he was born; Glory be to God on high, peace on earth, and goodwill towards men: Yea, glory be to God on high for this peace on earth, and for this good will towards men.  
Thus we see Christ an Vrim and Thummim to us: now let us see how he is the same for us; and that is when his wisdom and righteousness is made ours by imputation: So his Vrim becomes our Vrim, his Thummim our Thummim, that is, his wisdom is made ours; his righteousness and favour with God made ours; for this is my well-beloved Son, said a voice from heaven, in whom I am well pleased. In brief, S. Paul comprehends both these together, where he saith, Christ jesus is made unto us Wisdom, Sanctification, and Redemption. And so Lord, let thy Vrim and thy Thummim be with thy holy one.  
And thus much for the special consideration of this Vrim and Thummim, both personally and typically: Now I come unto the general meaning thereof, as it concerns not the High Priest only, but the whole Tribe of Levi, for this is the blessing of that whole Tribe. And in this large respect, the meaning cannot be proper, for so it belongs unto the High Priest to have Vrim and Thummim; nor typical, because the Priests only, and not the under Levites were types of Christ: but the sense must be analogical, signifying some endowments common to all Levites, which resemble the Vrim and Thummim upon the breast of the High Priest.  
Now what these are, the words themselves import, namely, Light of understanding & knowledge; this is their Vrim; and Integrity of life, this is their Thummim. The first makes them Doctores, the second Ductores populi: He that wants either of these two, wants the true ornament of Priesthood, the right character of a Levit.  
For though these endowments may well beseem all the Tribes of Israel; yet Moses specially prays for them in Levi, because by him they were to come to all the rest; and the want of them in him, could not but redound to all the rest; It a populus, sicut sacerdos: the Priest cannot err, but he causeth others to err also; the Priest cannot sin, but he causeth others to sin also. And this is it that Malachi saith from the Lord, 
Mal. 2. 6, 8.  unto the Priests of his time; Ye are gone out of the way, and have caused many to fall by the Law: But the Levites of old, (saith the same Prophet) The Law of Truth was in their mouth, and iniquity was not found in their lips: they walked with God in peace and equity, and turned many from iniquity. Here you see when the Levites err, the people err also; when the Levites walk in equity, the people are turned from iniquity.  
The Ministers of Christ must be Lux mundi, the light of the world; Vos estis lux mundi, ye are the light of the world; ye are the world's Vrim, saith Christ unto his Apostles; for the lips of the Priest should preserve knowledge, and they should learn the Law at h●s mouth. This light of knowledge, this teaching knowledge is the Vrim of every Levite; and therefore Christ when he inspired his Apostles with knowledge of heavenly mysteries, he sent a new Vrim from above, even fiery tongues, tongues of Vrim from heaven: He sent no fiery heads, but fiery tongues; for it is not sufficient for a Levite to have his head full of Vrim, unless his tongue be a candle to show it unto others. There came indeed no Thummim from heaven, as there came an Vrim, for though the Apostles were secured from errors, they were not freed from sin: And yet we who are Levites, must have such a Thummim as may be gotten upon earth, for S. Paul bid Titus in all things to show himself an example of good works: and this is a Thummim of Integrity.  
But besides this Thummim the Ministers of the Gospel have received from God more especially another Thummim, like unto that which was proper to the High Priest; namely, the power of binding and losing, which is as it were a power of Oracle to declare unto the people the remission of their sins, by the acceptance of Christ's Sacrifice: And this directly answers to Thummim in the first sense.   
ACTS 5. 3, 4, 5. 
Act. 5. 3, 4.  
3. But Peter said, Ananias, Why hath Satan filled thine heart, to lie to the holy Ghost, and to purloin of the price of the Land?  
4. Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.  
5. And Ananias hearing these words, fell down and gave up, etc.  
IN the 110. Psalms, where our Saviour is Prophetically described in the person of a King, advanced to the Throne of Divine Majesty, glorious and victorious; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sat thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool, etc. amongst other Kingly Attributes and Graces, it is said, (if it be translated as it should be) That his people in the day of his power should offer him freewill offerings; that is, bring him Presents at the day of his Inauguration or investment, as a sign of their Homage: For so was the manner of the East to do unto their Kings; and therefore when Saul was anointed King by Samuel, it is said of those sons of Belial, which despised and acknowledged him not, that they brought him no presents: But of Messiahs' people it is said, Thy people in the day of thy power, (that is, the day when thou shalt enter upon thy power, or the day of thy Investment) shall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a people of free presents, or shall bring thee freewill Offerings. It is an Ellipticall speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and rightly expressed in the Translation of our Service Book.  
This we see fulfilled in the story of the foregoing Chapter, when after our Saviour's ascension into heaven, to sit at the right hand of God, which was the day of his power or inauguration in his Kingdom, assoon as this Investment was published by sending of the Holy Ghost, presently such as believed in him, that is, submitted themselves to his power, and acknowledged him to be their King, dedicated their goods and possessions to his service, selling their lands and houses, and laying down the money at the Apostles feet; namely, to be distributed as were the sacred Offerings of the Law, partly to the maintenance and furnishing of the Apostles for the work whereabout they were sent, and partly for the relief of the poor believers, which belonged to Christ's provision.  
According to this example one Ananias with Sapphira his wife, consecrated also a possession of theirs unto God, and sold the same to that purpose; but having so done, covetousness tickling them, they purloined from the price, and brought but a part of the sum, and laid it down at the Apostles feet: Then said Peter, according to the words of the Text, why hath Satan filled thine heart (that is, made thee so daring: the like phrase we have Fsth. 7. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where is he whose heart hath filled him (we read it, That durst presume) to do so? and again, Eccles. 8. 11. The heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. In the former the Septuagint hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, emboldened; in the latter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is filled) to lie unto the Holy Ghost, and to purloin from the price of the field, etc.  
Which words contain two things; Ananias his sin, and his punishment therefore: His sin in the third and fourth verses: His punishment in the fifth, Ananias hearing these words, fell down and gave up the ghost.  
Concerning his sin, it appears by the relation I have already made, it was Sacrilege, namely, the purloining of what was become holy and consecrate unto God, not by actual performance, but by vow and inward purpose of the heart: for as it is well observed by Ainsworth, on Levit. 7. 16. out of Ma●mony in his Treatise of offering the Sacrifice, Chap. 14. Sect. 4, 5. etc. In vows and voluntaries it is not necessary that a man pronounce aught with his lips; but if he shall be fully determined in his heart, though he hath uttered nothing with his lips, he is indebted. And this is no private Opinion of mine, the Fathers so determine it: S. Augustine, that Ananias was condemned of Sacridedge, Quod Deum in pollicitatione fefellisset, (Serm. 25. de verb. Ap.) And in another Sermon, Ananiam d●traxisse de pecunia quam voverat Deo. (Serm. 10. de diversis.) S. chrysostom in his 12. Homily upon this place; Pecuniae illae, saith he, deinceps crant sacrae. Igitur qui voluerat suum vendere & distribuere, & postea de illis acceperit, sacrilegus fuerat. Again, Vides quod hoc crimen imputatur, eo quod pecunias suas accepit quas consecraverat; or, as the Greek, sacras fecerat. S. Jerome in his 8. Epistle, Ananias & Sapphira dispensateres timidi, imò corde duplici; & ideò condemnati, quia post votum obtulerunt, quasi sua, & non ejus cui semel ea voverant; partemque sibi alienae substantiae reservaverunt, praesentem meruere vindictam non crudelitate sententiae, sed correctionis exemplo. Caesarius brother to Gregory Nazianzen, in his fourth Dialogue expresseth the sin of Ananias thus; Semel Deo dicatum aurum, saith he, sacrilegio vulneratus alienaverat, interrogatus negaverat: He alienated the money dedicated unto God, being wounded with Sacrilege, and when he was asked thereabout, denied it. Lastly, Oecumenius, in whom we have the currant interpretation of the Greek Fathers, thus expounds the words of S. Peter to Ananias, Neque enim invitos vos trahimus; sed cum ultroneè vobis placuerit offerre Deo victimam, rursus vos ipsos ad proprium usum insumere, Sacrilegium indubiè est: And then adds, Ideo & Sacrilegorum poena sunt percussi: Quanam? morte. Also Asterius Bishop of Marpurg in Germany, who lived near the time of julian, in his Hom. in Avaritiam, calls Ananias and Sapphira, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
I quote these Fathers the more fully, because many of our late Commentators omit the main sin, and dwell upon the circumstances only, as hypocrisy, vainglory, covetousness, and the like. But we must distinguish between Ananias his fact, and the manner and circumstance thereof: The fact was Sacrilege: In the manner of doing, other sins attended as handmaids. It will be plain, if we ask but these two questions: First, what Ananias did? The Text will make answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He purloined of the holy money. This was his fact. Ask secondly, how and in what manner he purloined? The story will tell us, dissemblingly and hypocritically, making an appearance to the contrary. This than was but the manner and circumstance of his fact, and so the species of the fact not to be placed therein.  
Now this Sacrilege or Sacrilegious act committed by Ananias, is in the words of the Text partly expressed, partly aggravated from the inexcusableness thereof. In the expression is spent the third verse; the aggravation is in the fourth. The crime or fact of Ananias is expressed two ways: First, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, purloining of the sacred price. Secondly, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by lying unto, or deceiving the Holy Ghost. For both these I suppose to mean one and the same thing; namely, the same fact of Ananias two ways expressed. The first, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I translate by stealing or purloining, for so the word signifies: our English which renders it, Keeping back of the price, doth not sufficiently express the propriety thereof in this place: In another place it doth, Tit. 2. 10. where it renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, purloining; Exhort servants, saith the Apostle, to be obedient unto their Masters, and to please them well in all things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not purloining, but showing all good fidelity. The Vulgar in both places useth Fraudare, defrauding. In a word, the true signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is surripere, suffurari, aut clam subducta in commodum nostrum convertere: whence Beza turns it by Intervertere, Intervertit ex pretio; and in Titus, Intervertentes. In the same sense it is used by the Septuagint in two several places, both pointing at the sin of Sacrilege: One is in Achans story, josh. 7. 1. where what we read, Achan took of the accursed thing, the Septuagint renders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he purloined the accursed thing; that is, the thing that was consecrated to God, as all the silver and gold was, ch. 6. ver. 19 for which cause when God relates to joshua Israel's sin, as the reason of their flying before their enemies, he makes a distinction between Achans Sacrilege, and his theft and dissembling, ver. 11. of the 7. Chap. saying, For they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff. The other is, in 2 Mac. 4. 32. Menelaus his Sacrilege (who stole the sacred Vessels) is expressed by it; Menelaus (saith the Author) supposing he had got a convenient time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, stole certain vessels of gold out of the Temple, and gave some to Andronicus, and some he sold into Tyrus and the Cities round about.  
The second expression of Ananias his Sacrilege is by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deceiving or lying to the Holy Ghost; or as it is repeated immediately after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lying unto God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is fallo, frustro, mentior, To deceive, cousin, lie; (as also the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which peculiarly signifies Sacrilegious transgression, as Leu. 5. 15. and in the story of Achan, is in all those places (as elsewhere) rendered in Targum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to lie, and the substantive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a lie) and in Oaths and promises, Non servo, frango, not to keep, or to break them. So Ananias his sin, was a lying unto, or breaking of promise with God: for having vowed, or promised unto him in his heart the whole price of the field, he brought him but part thereof. Both expressions point out the same fact; which in regard of the matter, was stealing or purloining: in regard of the Vow and Consecration, a breach of promise or lying unto God. So that when Peter says in the third verse, Why hath Satan filled thine heart; to lie unto the Holy Ghost, and to purloin of the price of the land? The latter is the explication of the former; and is, as if it had been said, Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost, in purloining the price of the land?  
But what, will some man say, means this special expression of the Deity in the Person of the Holy Ghost? why is Ananias said, to have lied to the Holy Ghost, rather than to have lied unto God only? For lying unto God would bear the sense I speak of; should not then lying unto the Holy Ghost, seem to have something else, or something more in it? I answer, Ananias his lie or breach of promise is applied thus in special to the Holy Ghost, in respect of the prerogative of that Person, as to stir and sanctify, so to take notice of the motions of the heart: forasmuch therefore as Ananias his Vow and Promise which he broke, was not such as men could witness or take notice of, but such as his own heart or conscience only was privy to; hence it is said to have been done under the privity of the Holy Ghost, and he in the breach thereof to have lied unto him; because that which none but the inward man knoweth of, and is yet but in the purpose of the heart, is under his privity. There is a plain place Rom. 9 to this purpose, I say the truth in Christ, saith the Apostle, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost: that is, the Holy Ghost, who is privy to my conscience, bearing me witness, or my conscience which the Holy Ghost is privy to. Some other places of Scripture I could name, which may receive light from this notion, but I am loath to meddle with them.  
But for their interpretation, who expound this lying unto the Holy Ghost, of Ananias his hypocrisy, I cannot well see how it can stand; For Ananias dissembled not with the Holy Ghost, but with men; the Holy Ghost knew his heart well enough. And the hypocrite properly lies unto men, who guests only by the outside, and not unto God, who knows the heart.  
Others expound lying unto the Holy Ghost, as if it were lying to try whether the Holy Ghost in the Apostles could discover him or not: But this is an harsh and forced sense. As for that in the 9 verse, whereon it is grounded; viz. How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? The word Tempt, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is mistaken, the notion thereof in Scripture being otherwhile, to provoke God by some presumptuous fact to anger; as it were to try whether he will punish or not, to dare God. There is an evident place for this sense, Numb. 14. 22. Those men, saith the Lord, which have seen my glory and my miracles which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not harkened to my voice. 23. Surely, they shall not see the land which I swore to their Fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me, see it.  
And thus much of the bare description of Ananias his sin: Come we now to the aggravation thereof; While it remained, was it not thine? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? That is, before it was sold, was it not thine? and being sold, was not the money paid thee? was not the price in thine hand? Thou hast therefore no excuse for what thou hast done. For there were two cases which might have excused Ananias for bringing but part of the price: If either he had not been Dominus in solidum, the full Proprietary of what was sold; or had not received the whole price it was sold for. For, as for the first, it is a rule in Law, Quoties Dominium transfertur ad a●ium, tale transfertur, quale apud eum fuit, qui tradit. A man can sell no more than is his. So that if Ananias had been owner but in part, he had power to dispose but in part. Secondly, though he were Dominus in solidum, the full Proprietary of the field, and so had right enough to sell it, yet had not the whole price been received, and in his power and possession, he might still have been excused for bringing but part thereof. But Ananias could plead neither of these: for saith S. Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; whilst it remained unsold, did it not remain th●ne? or were't not thou owner? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and when it was sold, was not the money it was sold for in thy possession? The first words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; (though there be no such speech again in Scripture) yield the sense I speak of plainly enough, nor will they bear any other meaning, unless somewhat forsaking the letter, we should with others construe them to imply, that Ananias was not constrained or urged to sell his possession at all, but might have kept it still: Which sense is most commonly followed, and hath the authority of Oecumenius in the words before alleged; Neque enim (saith he) invitos vos trahimus, sed quum ultronsè vobis placuerit offerre Deo victimam, rursus vos ipsos ad proprium usum insumere sacrilegium est. Therefore Beza translates the words, Nun, si servasses (so he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) manebat tibi?  
True it is, this sense makes as much for the unexcusablenesse of Ananias, as the other: for could he have alleged that what he had done for the sale of his land, was done not spontè, but coactè, not willingly, but by way of constraint, it might have excused him: because that act only is taken to be of force in Law, which a man consents unto: But that which is done by constraint or compulsion, is not done with full and free consent, and therefore binds not. So this sense agrees well enough with the story, only it may seem somewhat to strain the words: Howsoever if you had rather follow it, because of the authority, I will not contend. Only note thus much, that the Syriack Translator inclines to the first sense; for he translates, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Nun tuus erat antequam venderetur.  
A second plea for the excuse of Ananias might have been in case he had not yet received the full price, and so had not the whole money in his hand. But this S. Peter also takes from him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; was it not when it was sold, in thy power? that is, was not the price it was sold for in thine hands? For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must here be understood for the price of what was sold, or the field reduced to money: otherwise the contrary would be true to that which Peter intimates, namely, that when it was sold, it was now no longer in his power, because he had sold it. But the same words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in thy power, I understand to be as much as, in thy possession, or in thine hand; meaning, as I have said, that he had received the price. For not only that which a man hath dominion and propriety in, but that also which he hath but in bare possession, is rightly said to be in his power: for in the Law Ius possessionis extends farther than Ius dominii, namely, as far as habere, to have a thing; Habere autem dicitur, non solùm qui rei dominus est, sed qui rei quidem dominus non est, sed rem tenet; that is, as they speak, corpore possessioni insistit. And in this sense the price which Ananias had received, is said to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in his power, that is, in his possession: which will not seem a forced exposition, if we consider that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same sense with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or in manu in the Hebrew; which implies not dominion only, but also bare possession. As it is said of Abraham's servant, Gen. 24. 10. That all the goods of his Master were in his hand; as well as of the rich miser's son, Eccles. 5. 14. That there was nothing in his hand; that is, he was a beggar. Both which might be expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as manus in Hebrew, yea and in Latin too, is well enough known to be put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
I confess there is another exposition usually given of these words, but it is such an one as directly contradicts the story; namely, that Was it not in thy power? should be, was it not in thy power to have kept the price when it was sold? But first there is no such word in the Text as to keep it, and so we are not bound to understand it. It is only said, was it not in thy power? And if any verb be to be understood to supply the sense, why should it not as well be the contrary? was it not in thy power, to dispose it according to thy Vow? intimating there might be some just impediment after the sale, whereby he could not; especially he could not get the money. But to expound, was it not in thy power? to be, was it not in thy power to have kept it? is directly against the drift of the story: For how did Ananias sin in bringing but part of the price, if he might have kept all? Is not his sin expressly placed in that he purloined of the price? what other fact of his is mentioned save only this? Nay, if this should be the meaning of the words, it would follow, a man might vow a thing unto God, and yet be at liberty when he had done, whether he would perform it or not: He might lie unto God, and yet be guiltless. Without doubt this exposition was it that so obscured the whole narration, that it could not appear, wherein Ananias his sin consisted. But his sin as I have already showed out of the Fathers, was Sacrilege, and of that kind whereof Solomon speaks, Prov. 20. It is a snare to the man who devours that which is holy, and after vows to inquire. He had dedicated the whole value of the field in his conscience, and the purpose of his heart was evident by the sale thereof to that end; and yet when he had done, he repented him, and brought but part thereof. This meaning is evidently contained in the body of the narration, and therefore such a sense of any part as cannot stand with this, is in no wise to be admitted. He that considers it, will perceive the necessity of what I say.  
Having thus cleared the words of the Text where there was any doubt or obscurity: Let us come to the Observations to be deduced thence; whereof the Relation affords us three evident ones: First, that Sacrilege is a sin against God, and not against men. Secondly, that that which is consecrate to God, must not be alienated to other uses. Thirdly, that it is an heinous sin which God thus severely punished. For the first, that Sacrilege is a sin against God, and not against men, is plain by the Text, Thou hast not lied, said Peter, unto man, but unto God. For whatsoever is sacred is his; yea, to be sacred is nothing else but to be set apart from man's interest to be Gods in a peculiar propriety and relation. To steal then or allenate that which is sacred, is to rob God and not man; for he is robbed whose the propriety is, but of sacred things God is the Proprietary and not man. It is an error therefore to be observed among the Expositors of the Decalogue, who rank Sacrilege as a sin of the eighth Commandment, when Sacrilege as Sacrilege is a sin of the first Table, and not of the second: A breach of the loialty we immediately owe to God, and not of the duty we owe to our neighbour. True it is, he that committeth Sacrilege, indirectly and by consequent, robbeth men too, namely, those who live of God's provision; but Sacrilege itself is the robbing of God. This is evident by that of the Prophet Malachi, Mal. 3. 8. Will a man rob God? yet ye have robbed me; (saith the Prophet in the person of God) But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In Tithes and Offerings. ver. 9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole Nation. 10. Bring ye all the Tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it, etc.  
The observation of this would be useful in the question of the due of Tithes; for the state thereof is not rightly framed, when the Quaere is made, Whether Tithes are due to the Ministers of the Gospel, meaning as a duty of the people unto them: we should say rather, Tithes are due unto God; for so is the style of the Scripture, All the Tithes are mine: these I give to Levi, and not you. God maintains not his Ministers at others charges, but out of his own Revenue which he hath reserved to himself: As was well observed by Philo the Jew, in his Book de Sacerdotum honoribus, where speaking of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that honourable maintenance, & without bodily toil, which God had provided for his Priesthood; to take away from them out of whose labours this maintenance did accrue, all occasion of upbraiding those who by God's assignment were to receive it, he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The people were commanded to bring their offerings first to the Temple, that thence the Priests might fetch them: It being not unworthy God himself, in token of gratitude for his infinite bounty and benefits, to take some part back again from him upon whom he had conferred so great benefits; and seeing himself the giver of all good gifts, stood in need of nothing, it pleased him to transfer that honourable maintenance, which was so returned him by way of thankfulness, upon those that served at his Altar, and ministered about holy things: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as he gives the reason) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they (the Priests) might take that their provision without being ashamed, as not coming from men, but from God the giver of all good gifts to every one. For they are his Ministers, and not the peoples, and therefore to receive their wages from their own Master who employs them, and not from them. The stating of the question thus, would make the way to the resolution of the controversy more easy, and less invidious, whilst we should plead for God and not for ourselves: for it is not needful that all which is given unto God should be spent upon his Ministers, though it be true that their maintenance should be out of his Revenue, and that honourable & competent. But there are many other uses for the employment of bona sacra, if there be more than is competent for them and theirs, building of Churches, defraying of such as are sent to Synods, and employed upon other occasions of the Church, furnishing of treasures for a Holy War, the relief of the poor, the Orphan, the Widow, the Captive, and the distressed: All which belong to Christ's provision.  
The second Observation is, That that which is consecrated to God, may not be alienated to other uses. The reasons whereof are; First, because none can alienate but he that hath the propriety, and is owner: Dominium transferre non potest, qui ipse Dominus non est: But in things consecrate to God, none hath the propriety but God. For certainly, a man cannot be said to have given that unto God, wherein he still reserves the Title to himself as the Owner: he that gives, transfers the Dominium from himself, unto him to whom the gift is made. If therefore that which is given to God, be Gods, then must those who go about to alienate it, dispose of that which is none of theirs: which, whether it be just or not, let any man judge.  
Secondly, to alienate that which is given unto God, is a breach of vow or promise made unto him; A lying unto him, as my Text speaks. And if it be a sin not to perform what was vowed in the purpose of the heart only, as we see it was in this story of Ananias, much more is it to revoke a vow already performed. Nor will it serve turn to say, This reason may indeed concern the person himself that vowed, that he should not revoke again what he hath vowed; but doth not take away from the Commonwealth, or public Magistrate their power to dispose of things subject to them. For howsoever it be true that every private person and his goods are under the tuition of the Public, and the interest the Public hath in either, cannot be given away by the sole act of a private person: yet in this case that rule hath place which is given by Almighty God, Numb. 30. concerning a Maidens vow in her Father's house, or a woman's vow under covert; That if the Father or the Husband hear the Vow, and the bond wherewith she bound her soul, and disallow it not, but shall hold his peace; then the vow shall stand: So when the Commonwealth or public Magistrate consents to and allows what is done, as in this case it is supposed they do, the vow and dedication is also irrevocable on their part.  
Hence in Scripture it is made an inseparable property of that which is sacred or Gods, not to be alienable: As in Ezek. 48. 14. it is said of the portion of land to be laid out for the Levites, They shall not sell it, neither exchange, nor alienate the first-fruits of the land; (mark the reason;) for it is holy unto the Lord. This was the reason likewise, why a Jew might not sell outright his possession in the land of Canaan, but only for fifty years' term, or until the year of Jubilee, because the whole land was holy, and God's land, and they but usufructuarii: So saith God, Levit. 25. 23. The land shall not be sold for ever, or outright; for the land is mine, for you are but strangers and sojourners with me: therefore in all the land of your possession, ye shall grant a redemption for the land. Where he saith, ye are strangers and sojourners with me; the meaning is, that as the Gentiles who became Proselytes, had no inheritance in the land, but dwelled therein as sojourners; so was all Israel in the sight of God, who would have none accounted Proprietaries of that land but himself, having acquired it by his own powerful conquest from the Canaanite. For although in the same land, some part were yet in a more special manner the Lords land, yet comparatively, & secundum quid, the whole land was sacred and His: As all Israel was a peculiar and holy people, though the Tribe of Levi were in a more special sort the holy Tribe. Now if that which was but in a more general sense holy and the Lords, might not be alienated; what shall we say of that which is holy and His in the most special manner of all? I speak all this while of that which is dedicated unto God absolutely, and not with limitation or for term of time only, for such Dedications I suppose there may be.  
Now if any shall ask me, whether this assertion, That things dedicate to God are unalienable, admits not of some limitations? I answer, It may be; and that in two cases; If either it can be proved, that the donation made unto God were a nullity; or showed, that God hath relinquished the right which once he had. But here the water begins to grow too deep for my wading; yet I hope I may say thus much, That whosoever he be that shall plead either of these two cases to acquit himself of Sacrilege, had need be sure in a point of such moment, that his evidence be good, and such as he can show good warrant for out of Gods own book: To go upon bare conjectures will not be safe. And for direction and caution in this case, I will add further, That not every sinfulness of the person who is the Donor, nor every default or blemish in the consecration, makes the act itself void. It appears in the story of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, in that oblation of Incense made by the two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation, whose service though it were so displeasing unto the Lord, that he sent fire from heaven to consume them; yet when all was done, he gave this commandment to Moses, Speak (saith he) unto Eleazar the son of Aaron the Priest, that he take up the censers out of the burning; and scatter thou the fire yonder, for they are hallowed. The censers of those sinners against their souls; Let them make of them broad plates for a covering of the Altar: For they offered them before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed, Num. 16 37, 38. Mark here; though they were offered by sinful men, and in a sinful manner, and were not to be used any more for censers, yet must they be applied to some other holy use, because they were become sacred by having been offered unto the Lord. So Rabbi Solomo jarchi, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Unlawful for common use, because they had made them vessels of Ministry.  
My last observation is raised from the judgement which befell Ananias; That it must needs be a heinous sin which God so severely punished, namely, with death: For there is no example to be found again in the whole New Testament, of so severe a punishment inflicted by the mouth of the Apostles, for any sin whatsoever. But this was the first consecration of goods that ever was made unto Christ our Lord, after he was invested to sit at the right hand of God: And this transgression of Ananias and Sapphira, the first Sacrilege that ever was committed against him; wherefore it was requisite that by the severity of the punishment thereof, he should now manifest unto men, what account he made, and how heinous he esteemed that sin; that it might be for an example to the world's end unto all that should afterward believe in his name to beware thereof. So saith S. Hierome, Ananias & Sapphira quia post votum obtulerunt quasi sua & non ejus cui semel eavoverant, praesentem manere vindictam, non crudelitate Sententiae sed correction is exemplo. For the first in every kind is the measure of that which follows; & though Sacrilege be not since punished by God as often as it is committed, by such a visible death, yet was it his purpose that by this first punishment we should take notice how great that sin was, and how displeasing in his sight, which was a punishment by the greatest visible judgement that could be.  
The like severe example to this, and for the like end, was that upon him who at first profaned the Sabbath day in the Wilderness by gathering sticks, Num. 15. 32, etc. who by the sentence of God himself was put to death, and stoned by the whole Congregation: That the Jews hereby might know, that howsoever the like were not ordinarily afterward to be inflicted for the like sin, yet that the gravity thereof in the eyes of God was still the same, which that first severity intimated.  
Furthermore, it is worthy to be noted, that we find three examples of such a kind of coactive jurisdiction, (if I may so term it) exercised either by our Saviour when he was here on earth, or by his Apostles; and all three for the profanation of that which was sacred. The first two by our Saviour himself against those that profaned his Temple, by buying and selling therein as a common place: For which at the first Passeover after his beginning to Preach the Gospel, he made him a whip and whipped such profaners out of it, saying, Make not my Father's house a house of Merchandise, joh. 2. 13. Another time, which was at his last Passeover, He overthrew the Tables of the Money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and would not suffer any to carry a Vessel through the Temple, telling them, that his house was made for an house of prayer, but they had made it a den of Thiefs; Mat. 21. 12. Mark. 11. 15. Luk. 19 45. The third example is this which the Apostle Peter exercised upon Ananias and Sapphira for Sacrilege. Whereby it should appear that how small account soever we are now adays wont to make of these two sins, yet in Gods esteem they are other manner of ones then we take them for.  
Another argument of the heinousness of the sin of Sacrilege is, that there was no sacrifice appointed in the Law to make atonement for the same, if it were committed willingly and wittingly; but only if it were ignorantly done: For so we have it, Levit. 5. 15. If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord, he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock.— And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and add the fifth part thereunto.— And the Priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. Thus if it were done ignorantly; but if wittingly and presumptuously, there was no atonement appointed for it: though for other sins there be, even to perjury itself: For, as it is in Mal. 3. 4. Will a man rob his God?  
Another proof and testimony of the heinousness of this sin, is that so ancient a custom in Dedications todade it with a curse; which to be no late custom (as some may suppose) taken up among Christians, but used both by Jew and Gentile before Christ was born, may appear by that Decree of K. Darius for the building of the Temple of Jerusalem, which concludes with this execration; The God that hath caused his name to dwell there, destroy all Kings and People, that shall put to their hand to destroy this house of God, which is at jerusalem. I Darius have made a Decree, let it be done with speed. Ezra 6. 12.  
From this custom it came, that Anathema signifies such a Donary given unto a Temple, and an accursed thing, or that which hath a curse with it. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew, a thing cursed and destined to destruction, and also a kind of offering or consecration which had a curse laid upon it, namely, a curse to him that should meddle with it. Which kind of consecration had this peculiar, that even the very individual might never be altered, changed, or redeemed upon any terms, Levit. 27. 28. whereas other offerings might, so that a valuable thing or better were given for them. Such a consecration (I mean a Cherem, or consecration under pain of a curse in the very individual) was that of the City jericho, as the First-fruits of the conquests of Canaan.  
To these Arguments I will add two or three examples to this of Ananias, of the punishment of this sin, and so conclude. To begin then with the beginning of all: Was not the first sin of Mankind, for which himself, his posterity, and the whole earth was accursed, a great and capital sin? But this if we look well into it, was no other for the species and kind of the Fact, than Sacrilege: Such the ancient Jews conceived Adam's sin to have been; namely, a species of theft; as may be gathered out of the Book De morte Mosis, where Moses is brought in deprecating death, and answering God that his case was not such as Adam's; for he transgressed by stealing, and eating what God forbade him to meddle with, and so was justly condemned, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; But who could Adam steal from, save from God only? And therefore I say the first sin of mankind for the Fact, was the sin of Sacrilege: For whereas among all the trees of the Garden, which God gave man freely to enjoy, there was one Noli me tangere, which he had reserved unto himself as holy, in token he was Lord of the Garden; Man by eating of this as common, violated the sign of his Fealty unto the great Landlord of the whole Earth, and committed Sacrilege: for which he was cast out of Paradise, and the whole earth accursed for his sake. Might I now say, that to this day many a son of Adam is cast out of his Paradise, and the labours of his hands accursed for meddling with this forbidden fruit? But to go on:  
Achan for nimming a wedge of gold, and a Babylonish garment of the devoted thing of jericho aforementioned, brought a curse both upon himself, and the whole Congregation of Israel.  
For the Sacrilege of Eli's sons, who not content with those offerings which God allowed them for their maintenance, rob him of his Sacrifices to furnish their own Tables; God gave not only his people, but even the Ark of his Covenant into the hands of the Philistines.  
For the Sacrilege of the seventh or sabbatical year, God caused his people to be carried captive, and the land lie waste 70. years. By the Law of Moses every seventh year the whole land was sacred unto the Lord; so that no man that year might challenge any right of propriety, either to sow his field, or prune his vineyard, or reap that which grew of itself, or gather the fruits of his vineyard undressed, only he might eat thereof in the field, as at other times any might of that which was none of his, as he traveled by, otherwise every man's field and vineyard was that year free as well to the Servant as the Master, to the Stranger as the Owner, to beasts as well as to men. The same year also were all servants and all debts sacred unto the Lord, and so to be released; whence that year was called The Lords Release. See Exod. 21. Levit. 25. Deut. 15. This consecration, being as much as the foregoing of the seventh part of every man's profits, the covetous Jews for many years neglected the observation thereof; For which sin the Lord, as himself professeth, caused them to be carried captive, and the land to lie waste seventy years without Inhabitant, till it had fulfilled the years of Sabbath which they observed not. For their Idolatry he gave them into the hands of the Gentiles their enemies: for their sabbatical Sacrilege, he added this unto it, that they should beside their bondage, be carried captives into a strange Country, and their land lie desolate 70. years.  
For the Sacrilegious profanation of Belshazzar, in causing the Vessels of God's House to be made his Quaffing-bowls for himself and his Lords, his Wives and his Concubines to carouse in; was the hand writing upon the wall sent, which did so affright him, that the Text says, His countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him so, that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. And the same night God's vengeance light upon him, Dan. 5.  
Lastly, in the days of the Greek Kings, God gave his own Temple and worship to be profaned, and his people to be trodden under foot by Antiochus Epiphanes a Gentile King; because they themselves had a little before profaned the same with sacrilegious hands, having betrayed the Treasures and Offerings of the same unto a Gentiles coffers, and sold the sacred Vessels to the Cities round about them. 2 Mac. 3, 4. & 5. cap.   
JOEL 2. 17. 
joel 2. 17.  Let the Priests, the Ministers of the Lord, weep between the Porch and the Altar, and say, Spare thy people, o Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach. 
THese words are part of a description of a Fast, as the Context before and after will tell you; and they contain a Rite or Custom wont to be used in such solemn deprecations, namely, for the Priests of the Lord, (who are to be the Intercessors and Mouth of the Congregation) not then, as at other times, to enter into the Temple, to offer and sanctify with Incense the prayers of the people at the Golden Altar before the vail, but to prostrate themselves without the door, between the Porch and the Altar of burnt-offering, as unworthy to approach the Throne of the Divine Majesty, or come over his Threshold, and therefore keeping a distance; as it is said also of the Publican in the Gospel, that when he 
Luk. 18. 13  came into the Temple or Courts thereof to pray, he stood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, afar off, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. For ye are to know, that the great or brazen Altar, called the Altar of burnt-offering, whereon the sacrifices were offered, stood not within or under the roof of the Temple, but sub dio, over against the door or Porch thereof in the middle of the Priests 
2 Chr. 15. 8 Ezek. 8. 16.  Court. For at the entrance into the Temple or House of God, Solomon built a large vestibulum, or Porch, on each side whereof stood those two famous Pillars of brass, the one called jachin, and the other Boaz: Between this Porch and the great brazen Altar (which stood without it) the Priests the Ministers of the Lord are here commanded to weep, and say, Spare thy people, o Lord, and give not thine heritage to Reproach.  
This Rite of humiliation, we find mentioned in two other places of the Book of Scripture: As first, in that humiliation of Ezra for the people's marrying of strange wives, Ezra 9 & Chap. 10. 1. where having rend his garment and mantle, he cast himself down (saith the Text) before the House of the Lord, (viz. before the door or Porch thereof;) weeping, and confessing, and said, Lord, I am ashamed to lift up my face to thee my God, for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens. Another mention we have thereof in 1 Mac. 7. 38. when Nicanor proudly threatened, that unless judas Maccabeus and his host were delivered into his hand, if ever he returned in safety, he would burn up the House of God: Then the Priests, saith the Text, entered in (namely, into the Courts of God's House) and stood between the Altar and the Temple, weeping and praying. Which passage the Greek Interpreter of that Book, did not well understand, when he rendered it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, before the Altar and the Temple. For joseph Ben Gorion hath expressly in the Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very words of joel in my Text, between the Porch and the Altar.  
A like custom whereunto, and as is probable taken up in imitation thereof, is that of ours, To read the Litany (or our Parce Domine, parce populo tuo) kneeling at a low desk in the body of the Church before the Chancel door, (as was ordered by the first Injunctions of our Reformation when Procession was taken away) or at the bottom of the steps or ascent unto the Altar, as is used in the Cathedral and Collegiate Churches.  
And this may suffice for explication of the Rite which the Prophet here describeth: Now the Lesson we are to learn from hence is, That the nature of a right and religious Fast consists in an humble demission and abjection of ourselves before Almighty God, out of the apprehension of the greatness of his Majesty, and our unworthiness to find any favour at his hands, whom we have so much provoked by our sins. For this to have been the meaning of that Ceremony, besides the natural signification of the deportment itself, appeareth by the Exordium I but now quoted of Ezra's confession, when he thus cast himself down before the Porch of the House of the Lord, weeping; Lord, I am ashamed (saith he) and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God: For our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up to the heavens. Besides, thus to humble and bring us down, is the end why God sendeth his judgements of Plague, Famine, or the like, for the aversion whereof these solemn supplications and assemblies are ordained. And therefore rightly at the beginning of our public worship of God are we admonished to be humble, by some of the first words we are to utter; O come let us humble ourselves, and fall down before the Lord with reverence and fear. Hence fasting and humbling a man's self go in Scripture for equipollent terms: My clothing was sackcloth, (saith David, Psal. 35. 13.) I humbled myself with fasting. So Ahab humbled himself, and thereby deferred his judgement, 1 King. 21. 29. Hezekiah humbled himself, both he and all the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, 2 Chron. 32. 26. Manasseh is said likewise to have besought the Lord and humbled himself greatly before the God of his Fathers, 2 Chr. 33.  
No disposition fit so and apt for devotion as humility; no more powerful means to prevail with God and appease his wrath, than this abjection of ourselves; Satis est prostrasse Leoni; Let me with reverence apply it unto the Majesty of God.  
For all Eminency is worshipped with humility, reverence, and submission, that is, as we are wont and rightly to speak, by keeping a distance. Therefore the sovereign or supreme Excellency of God must be adored with the lowest demission and greatest stoop the soul can make. We find by experience that that disposition of the eye, which fitteth us to behold the visible Sun, maketh a man blind when he looketh down upon himself: So here, the apprehension of the transcendent excellency of God, ten thousand times brighter than the Sun, if truly admitted into our hearts, will darken all our overweening conceit of any worthiness in ourselves. The greater we would apprehend his power, the more sensible must we be of our own weakness; The greater we acknowledge his goodness, the less goodness must we see in ourselves: The more we would apprehend his wisdom, the less we are to be puffed up with our own knowledge: As in a pair of scales, the higher we would raise one scale, the lower we pull down the other; so the higher we raise God in our hearts, the lower we must depress ourselves.  
Hence we find the humblest natures, and the most humbled condition, to be the fittest for devotion; I say, the humblest natures are the most pliable and aptest to Religion: whereas those which the world is wont to commend for brave spirits, of all others buckle the worst thereto: But let the world fancy what it will, God seeth not as man seeth; It is not the tallest Eliab, but the humblest David who is the man after Gods own heart; He that humbleth himself as a little child, the same is the tallest and goodliest soul for the Kingdom of God: The Stars in the Firmament howsoever they here seem small to us, yet are bigger than the earth; so he that is despicable and small here in the eyes of men, is there a great one in the eyes of God. Let those therefore that think all worth resides in a lofty and brave spirit, remember, that the Devil was a braver fellow than any of them all, and that his high and lofty spirit, was the cause of his downfall and Apostasy from his Creator, and so of that damnation to everlasting fire prepared for him and his Angels.  
And as the humblest nature, so the humblest or most humbled state and condition, is the fittest also for the exercise of devotion, as the poor and mean, rather than the rich and full. Wherefore Agur desired of God, not to give him more than food convenient for him, lest being full he should deny him, and say, Who is the Lord? Such likewise is the state of adversity and affliction, whence it is that God useth this discipline of his corrections and judgements, to make us crouch and bow down unto him, when he seeth us ready to forget him. Whence David, Psal. 94. 12. pronounceth the man blessed whom the Lord chastiseth; and Psal. 119. ver. 67, 71. Before I was afflicted, saith he, I went astray, but now I have kept thy word. It is good for me that I have been afflicted. For diseases, say the Physicians, must be cured by contraries: It was pride that caused the disloialty and rebellion both of men and Angels against their God and Maker; Whence it is that Syracides saith, Ecclus. 10. 12. The beginning of pride is when one departeth from God, and his heart is turned away from his Maker. 13. For pride is the beginning of sin, and he that hath it, shall pour out abomination. If pride be the beginning of our rebellion against God, then must lowliness be the proper disposition of those who fear and worship him; And so Tanto quisque est vilior Deo, quanto est pretiosior sibi.  
Now then to return to our Argument of Fasting; we may observe beside the ceremony specified in my Text, that all other Rites or Ceremonies used by the Ancients in this solemn devotion, or yet continued by us, imply nothing else but lowliness and humility, partly to work and beget it, partly to express and signify it. They are reducible to three heads: 1. of habit; 2. of gesture; 3. of diet. For habit, it was anciently sackcloth and ashes, by the coarseness of the sackcloth they ranked themselves, as it were, amongst the meanest and lowest condition of men; by ashes, and sometimes earth upon their heads, they made themselves lower than the lowest of the creatures of God: For the lowest of the elements is the earth, than which we use to say a man cannot fall lower, Qui jacet in terra, non habet unde cadat. For gesture, they sat or lay upon the ground, which in the Primitive Church was called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, humicubatio; a natural ceremony both to express, and ingenerate or increase this disposition of lowliness and abjection of ourselves; and as frequently practised by our devout Forefathers, as it is seldom or never used amongst us. It were a thing most comely, and undoubtedly most profitable, if either these ceremonies, or some other answerable to them, were revived amongst us at such times as these. If we were all of us this day attired, if not in sackcloth, (which perhaps suits not so well with the custom of our Nation) yet in the dolefullest habit of mourners; if we lay all grovelling upon the ground; would not such a rueful spectacle, would not the very sight of so uncouth an assembly, much afflict and move us? The mournful hue of Funeral solemnities, we know by experience, will often make them to weep, who otherwise have no particular cause of sorrow; how much more when they have?  
But the principal ceremony, and which we still retain, is abstinence from meat and drink, whence this kind of supplication hath the name of Fasting: the end thereof being as to bring down our bodies, thereby the better to humble our souls, so to express and testify the same. Moors animi sequuntur temper amentum corporis: If the body be full and lusty, the mind will be lofty and refractory, and most unfit and uncomposed to approach the Divine Majesty with reverence and fear. How uncomposed is that heart to sue to God for mercy, and aversion of his judgements, which is fraught with rebellious, unclean and lustful thoughts, like so many dogs barking within it? But these are all engendered and cherished by full feeding, and cannot be easily quelled unless they be starved: When I fed Israel to the full (saith the Lord jer. 5. 7, 8.) then they committed adultery and assembled by troops in harlots houses, etc. jeshurun (saith Moses in his Prophetical song Deut. 32. 15.) waxed fat and kicked, and forsook the Lord that made him, and lightly esteemed of the Rock of his salvation.  
Wherefore S. Paul was fain to pinch his body, and bring it down with Fasting; I keep under my body (saith he 1 Cor. 9 ult.) and bring it into subjection, l●st that by any means when I have preached unto others, I myself should be a castaway. Hilarion a religious young man, when after much abstinence and course diet he felt his flesh still unruly and rebellious; Ego, inquit, Aselle, faciam ut non Calcitres, nec te hordeo a●am, sed paleis, Fame & siti te conficiam: such is the danger of a pampered body, and such the necessity of keeping it under.  
But as Fasting is a Physical means (if it be used to purpose) to take down the loftiness of our minds and affections, by subtracting the fuel and foment of our lusts, which is full feeding; so is it a ceremony chosen for that natural effect it hath to signify and testify, that by reflection upon our vileness and unworthiness, we strike the sail of our high flying affections, and humble ourselves before the Majesty of Almighty God upon such occasions as these. For as we use feasting not only to beget, but also to express and testify our erection and cheerfulness of heart in times of joyfulness, (whence in the Old Testament, to rejoice before the Lord, is put for to feast before him;) So is fasting, when we would intend our devotions, used, not only as a means to further, but also as a ceremony; whereby we testify our sorrowful dejection and humiliation of mind before God.  
Well then, you see what is the chief end we are to aim at in this our solemn abstinence, namely, to take down our proud hearts, and bring them to a state of lowliness and humility, a disposition so acceptable and prevailing with God; to check our high-mounting passions, and allay the smoking flames of our unruly lusts; which as it is at all times requisite in some measure, whensoever we approach the Majesty of God to sue for mercy and forgiveness; so then especially, and in a more than usual manner, when God shakes the rod of his judgements over our heads, and biddeth us down and prostrate both soul and body before him, lest his wrath break us in pieces if we will not bow.  
He that hath attained this, hath fasted well; he that hath not, may hereby know, he hath not done enough, or not as he should do. If the boiling of our lusts be cooled and calmed; if the swelling conceits of worth in ourselves be taken down, with a true and feeling apprehension of our vileness and wretchedness through sin, which maketh us the most unworthy creatures in the world; if those ramping weeds of contempt and despising of others, be cropped and withered, (and these I can tell you will quite spoil a garden where many good flowers grow;) If after this manner we be affected, then are we humbled. If not, we are not sufficiently taken down; all our service is hypocrisy, nor will our devotions be accepted of that allseeing Majesty who resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.   
GEN. 3. 13, 14, 15. 
Gen. 3 13, 14, 15.  
13. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The Serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.  
14. And the Lord God said unto the Serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field: upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.  
15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.  
THE Story, whereof the words I have read are part, is so well known to all, that it would be needless to spend time in any long preface thereof; Who knows not the story of Adam's fall? who hath not heard of the sin of Eve our Mother? If there were no Scripture, yet the unsampled irregularity of our whole nature, which all the time of our life runs counter to all order and right reason, the woeful misery of our condition being a scene of sorrow without any rest or contentment: This might breed some general suspicion, that Ab initio non fuit ita, but that he who made us Lords of his creatures, made us not so worthless and vile as now we are, but that some common Father to us all, had drunken some strange and devilish poison, wherewith the whole race is infected. This poison saith the Scripture, was the breach of God's commandment in Paradise, by eating of the forbidden fruit: for which Adam being called to an account by the great Judge, and laying the fault upon the woman which God had given him for an helper, God vouchsafes, as ye hear in my Text, to examine the Woman, saying, What is this that thou hast done? And she answers, The Serpent beguiled me and I did eat.  
These words contain in them two parts; First, God's Inquisition accusing. Secondly, the woman's Confession excusing her fact. The first in the first words, And the Lord said unto the woman, etc. The second in the last words, And the woman said, The Serpent, etc. For the first words which God speaks being considered absolutely, are an indictment for some crime; as they are interrogative, they are an inquisition concerning the same, and therefore I call them an Inquisition accusing. So the second are a Confession, as the woman says, I have eaten; but with an excuse when she says, The Serpent beguiled me; and therefore I call them, a Confession excusing.  
In the Inquisition are two things to be considered, First, the Author and Person who makes it, which is the Lord God himself; So saith my Text, And the Lord God said unto the woman. Secondly, the Inquisition itself, What is this that thou hast done? In the Person who comes and makes this Inquest, being the Lord God himself, we may observe and behold his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his wonderful goodness, and unspeakable love to mankind, which here reveals itself in four most remarkable circumstances: First, in his forbearance; And the Lord said; When said the Lord? namely, not till Adam had accused her; she who was first in the sin, was last questioned for the same; and that too because her husband had appealed her. God knew and observed well enough the first degree, and every progress of her sin, he needed no information from another, yet as though he were loath to take notice thereof, as though he were loath to find her guilty, yea as though he were loath to denounce the punishment which his Justice required, he comes not against her until now; and that as though he were unwilling to come at all.  
If we look back into the story, we shall yet find a further confirmation thereof: How long did God hold his hand before he stripped the woman especially, of that glorious beauty of her integrity, and made her with opened eyes to see her shameful nakedness? She had at the first onset of her conference with the Serpent, sinned a sin of unbeleef of God, and yet God spared her: In the progress she sinned more in her proud ambition of being like to God himself, and to be wise above what was given her; and God yet spared her: She sinned when she coveted and longed once to eat of the forbidden fruit, when it began to seem more pleasing and desirable unto her then obedience to God's Commandment; and God yet spared her: At last she takes and eats thereof, and so came to the height and consummation of her sin, and yet behold and see the clemency and longanimity of our good God, he paused yet a while until she had given unto her husband also, and then, and not till then, he opened their eyes to see their woeful misery.  
A lesson first to us men, if so be we think the example of God worthy our imitation, to bear long with our brother as God bears with us; to admonish him, as it is in the Gospel, the first, second and third time, before we use him like an Heathen or a Publican; to forgive him seven times, yea, (as Christ says to Peter) if he repent and ask forgiveness, seventy times seven times.  
Secondly, this may be a cordial of spiritual comfort unto us sinners, though we make a shift to keep ourselves from the execution of sin, yet we find our hearts full of sinful thoughts, ungodly desires, and unclean lusts, and such like sinful motions from the infirmity of our flesh: which notwithstanding we cannot ever expel or be rid of, yet let us hope that God out of his mercy will bear with our weakness, and pass by our infirmities, who bore with the sin of our first Parents until it came to execution.  
The second circumstance is the temper of his Justice; in that he vouchsafes first to inquire of the offence, and examine the fact, before he gives sentence or proceeds to execution. The like example we have Gen. 11. where it is said, The Lord came down to see the City and Tower which the children of men had builded, afore he would confound their language, or scatter them abroad from that ambitious Babel, upon the face of the earth. Again, Gen. 18. the Lord says, I will go down, and see whether they of Sod●me have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. He from whom no secrets are hid, he that form the heart of man, and knows all the works we do; he that trieth and searcheth the heart and reins, even he will first examine the fact, will first hear what miserable man can say for himself, before his sentence shall pass upon him: not out of ignorance of what was done, for how should the omniscient God be ignorant? but out of his wonderful clemency, and unspeakable moderation towards man: I say, towards man, for to him alone he shows this favour; for as for the Serpent, we see, he vouchsafes not to ask him one question, nor to expect what he could say for himself, but presently without examination proceeds to judgement against him.  
Doth the great God, the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth, deal with so unspeakable a temper with his creature, and is vile man, a base earthworm, so austere unto his brother? It was the height of Eves whole ambition to be like unto God, but her offsprings ambition is to be most unlike unto him; He glories in mercy and clemency, we in rage and rash austerity: He hears his creature speak before he condemns him, we condemn our brother before we hear him speak. Be wise and learned ye Judges of the earth, let this great example of God be the pattern of your imitation; yea let no private man condemn another rashly, until he hath heard what he may say for himself, as God himself here vouchsafed to go before us.  
The third circumstance is God's condescent unto man, in that he sends neither Angels nor Ministers to examine our first Parents, and to make inquisition of their offence, but he comes himself in person to take notice thereof. When men are offended, especially great men, they will not deign to look upon, or to admit into their presence those that have offended them: How great therefore is this indulgence of Almighty God, who deigns here his presence to our most wretched and most naked Parents, who had so grievously sinned against him? How happily graced would a poor offender think himself, if he might be admitted to the presence of his Prince, there to say what he could either for his defence or excuse, or else to sue for mercy and move compassion? By how much therefore God is greater than the greatest Monarch of the world, even as much as they are greater than nothing; so much is this indulgence of God here expressed in my Text to Eve, as before to her husband, surpassing all the favour and condescent of men, who sent not for man, but came himself unto him; yea, who vouchsafed then to seek them out, when they ran away from him.  
Now all this is spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after the fashion of men, and therefore not so much to express what God himself did, as what men ought to do: Let it be a lesson therefore to those who are set over others, not to be too hard of access to such as are obnoxious unto them. If God himself vouchsafed so far unto his creature so wretched, much more should man unto his brother.  
The fourth circumstance is the manner of his speech to Eve, in that he that was the Lord God should so mildly speak unto her, What is this thou hast done? The Lord God said it, saith my Text, but who would not think it rather the speech of a familiar and condoling friend, then of so great a Judge, so greatly offended: here is no word of asperity, but of lenity, no menacing, no upbraiding terms, but only, What is this thou hast done?  
And should not we learn hence not to insult over such, whose offences make them liable either to us or others? should we upbraid, rail, triumph, and vomit our impotency upon them? certainly we seem not to remember what a gentle and commiserating Judge God is, or that ourselves are men, and have to deal with humane frailty, and man's miserable condition, which we ought to behold with pity, and not handle with bitterness.  
THE next thing is, the inquisition itself; What is this thou hast done? Some read, Why hast thou done this? expounding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But Eves answer following where she saith, I have eaten, plainly argues the question was what she had done, and not why she had done it: And therefore I take the words as our Translation hath them, and understand this manner of ask by God to be a scheme of admiration, and to imply an exaggeration of the woman's sin, as if he had said, O what an horrible sin is this thou hast committed? How grievously hast thou transgressed? O what hast thou done? And therefore, God enquiring of her sin with exaggeration, she makes answer with diminution; Indeed, she had offended because she had eaten, but yet the offence was the less, for the Serpent had deceived her.  
This then being the meaning of the words, let us behold in them the greatness of the sin of our first Parents, which made the Lord God himself to say, What is this thou hast done? The greatness of this sin I will first consider as it concerns them both in general, and then as in particular: The greatness of the sin in general appears in these four considerations.  
First, it was a transgression of such a Law, as was given only to prove man whether he would be under God or no: For the moral Law which was written and engraven in the hearts of our first Parents, and was for the doing of things simply good, and abstaining from things simply evil; such things as a good man would do, were there no commandment, and such things as he would not do, were there no prohibition; so that in these there was no trial whether man would obey God or no, only because he commanded him, and merely for obedience sake. And therefore had God ordained this Symbolical Law, prohibiting a thing in itself neither good nor evil, neither pleasing nor displeasing unto God, but indifferent, that man's observance thereof might be a profession and testimony, that he was willing to submit himself to God's pleasure, only because it was his pleasure. And that it might yet the more appear, God made not choice of such a thing as man cared not for, but of a pleasant and desirable thing, whereunto the more his inclination was carried, the more by his abstaining might his willing subjection be approved: The violating therefore of this Law, was an open profession, that he would not be under God, and renouncing of him to be his Lord. And this is the first respect, wherein appears the greatness of Adam's sin.  
The second consideration arguing the same is, that he on whom God had bestowed so many glorious endowments, whom he had as it were stuffed with so many excellent abilities, and adomed with so many precious graces, that he should sin against him, and set so light by his commandment: for of those to whom God had given so much, he might justly require and expect much: Therefore those whom God hath furnished with the best gifts, either of knowledge or other abilities, they, if they sin, sin most grievously: so that in this respect the sin of Adam and Eve exceeded the sins of their posterity, as much as their integrity did our corruption. The greater the person, the greater his sin: The sin of a Prince greater than the sin of a vulgar person, and therefore in the Law there was a greater Sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the Prince and Priest, then of the people.  
The third circumstance aggravating his sin, was the easiness of the commandment, and the easiness man had to keep the same, both in regard of himself, whom no itching concupiscence urged, as being altogether free therefrom; and not as we his offspring are continually vexed with the boiling thereof: Secondly, in regard of the thing itself he was to abstain from, being only one fruit, in so great a liberty of all the garden besides. How easily might he have abstained from one, to whom God had given the use of all saving this one? he wanted not to feed him, he wanted no variety of food, he had even enough to surfeit on; only to approve his obedience to Him who had given all the rest unto him, he was to abstain from one, and yet he would not: Quanta fait (saith S. Aug.) iniquitas in peccando, ubi tanta erat non peccandi facilitas?  
The fourth circumstance aggravating this sin, was the place, which was Paradise, as it were in Gods own presence, even afore his face: for as heaven above other parts of the world, is the place of God's special presence; so was Paradise above other parts of the earth, as it were an heaven upon earth: the place wherein he singularly revealed himself, and therefore an holy place and the Temple of God. Do not men, otherwise giving the loose rain to wickedness, yet abhor to commit it in God's Temple? How impudently contumelious was this sin therefore which was committed in God's very Presence-chamber?  
All these aggravations are common to both our Parents, which all laid together makes their sin as great as ever any was, saving the sin against the holy Ghost; for so the best Divines do think. But Eve adds one aggravation more to her weight, in that she was not content to sin herself alone, but she alured and drew her husband also into the like horrible transgression with her, whereby she was not only guilty of her own personal sin, but of her husbands also. And this added so much unto her former sum, that S. Paul, 1 Tim. 2. 14. speaks of her as if she had been the only transgressor; Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression: So great and horrible a thing it is in the Eye of God, to be cause or mover of another's sin: woe be unto them, who by any means are the cause of another's fall: And justly might God say to Eve for this respect though there had been no more, What is this that thou hast done?  
Now I come to the woman's excuse, The Serpent beguiled me. In which words are three things considerable: The author, the Serpent. The action, Guile. The object, Me.  
Concerning the author, the Serpent; two things are inquirable: first, what the Serpent was indeed▪ secondly, what Eve supposed him to be? For the first; I think none so unreasonable as to believe, it was the unreasonable and brute Serpent: for whence should he learn, or how should he understand God's commandment to our first Parents? Or how is it possible a Serpent should speak, and not only so, but speak the language which Eve understood? For though some there be who think that beasts and birds have some speech-like utterings of themselves, yet none that a beast should speak the language of man. It remains therefore, that according unto the Scriptures, it was that old deceiver the Devil and Satan, who abused the brute Serpent, either by entering into him, or taking his shape upon him. The last of which I rather incline unto, supposing it (as you shall hear presently) to be the law of spirits, when they have intercourse or commerce with men, to take some visible shape upon them, as the Devil here the Serpents, whence he becomes styled in Scripture, The old Serpent.  
Now for the second question, what Eve took him to be, whether the Serpent or Satan? If we say she thought him to be the brute Serpent, how will this stand with the perfection of man's knowledge in his integrity, to think a Serpent could speak like a reasonable creature? who would not judge her a silly woman now that should think so? and yet the wisest of us all is far short of Eve in regard of her knowledge then. Again, if we say she knew him to be the Devil; I will not ask why she would converse at all with a wicked spirit, who she knew had fallen from his Maker; but I would know, how we should construe the meaning of the Holy Ghost in the beginning of this Chapter, where he saith, The Serpent was the subtlest of all the beasts of the field which God had made; and so implies the woman's opinion of the Serpent's wisdom was the occasion why she was so beguiled: otherwise to what end are those words spoken, unless to show that Satan chose the Serpent's shape, that through the opinion and colour of his well-known wisdom and sagacity he might beguile the woman.  
For the assoiling of which difficulty I offer these propositions following: First, I will suppose there is a law in the commerce of spirits and men, that a spirit must present himself under the shape of some visible thing: For as in natural and bodily things there is no intercourse of action and passion, unless the things have some proportion each to other, and unless they communicate in some common matter; so it seems God hath ordained a Law that invisible things should converse with things visible, in a shape, as they are, visible: which is so true, that the conversing presence of a spirit is called a Vision or Apparition. And experience with the Scriptures will show us, that not only evil Angels, but good, yea God himself converseth in this manner with men. And all this I suppose Eve knew.  
Secondly, I suppose further, that as spirits are to converse with men under some visible shape; so is there a law given them, that it must be under the shape of some such thing as may less or more resemble their condition: For as in nature we see every several thing hath a several and suitable physiognomy or figure, as a badge of the inward nature, whereby it is known as by a habit of distinction; so it seems to be in the shapes and apparitions of Spirits. And as in a well governed Commonwealth, every sort and condition of men is known by some differing habit, agreeable to his quality; so it seems it should be in God's great Commonwealth, concerning the shapes which spirits take upon them. And he that gave the law, that a man should not wear the habit of a woman, nor a woman the habit of a man, because as he had made them divers, so would he have them so known by their habits; so it seems, he will not suffer a good and a bad spirit, a noble and ignoble one to appear unto men after the same fashion. And this also I suppose Eve knew.  
Now from these grounds it will follow, that good Angels can take upon them no other shape but the shape of man, because their glorious excellency is resembled only in the most excellent of visible creatures; the shape of an inferior creature would be unsuitable, no other shape becoming those who are called the sons of God, but his only who was created after Gods own image. And yet not his neither according as now it is, but according as he was before his fall in that glorious beauty of his integrity. Age and deformity are the fruits of sin; and the Angel in the Gospel appears like a young man, his countenance like lightning, and his raiment white as snow as it were 
Mar. 16. 5. Mat. 28. 3.  resembling the beauty of glorified bodies in immutability, sublimity and purity.  
Hence also it follows on the contrary, that the Devil could not appear in humane shape, whilst man was in his integrity, because he was a spirit fallen from his first glorious perfection, and therefore must appear in such shape which might argue his imperfection and abasement, which was the shape of a beast: otherwise no reason can be given, why he should not rather have appeared unto Eve in the shape of a woman then of a Serpent; for so he might have gained an opinion with her both of more excellency and knowledge. But since the fall of man the case is altered, now we know he can take upon him the shape of man, and no wonder, since one falling star may well resemble another: And therefore he appears it seems in the shape of man's imperfection, either for eyes or deformity, as like an old man, (for so the Witches say;) and perhaps it is not altogether false, which is vulgarly affirmed, that the Devil appearing in humane shape, hath always a deformity of some uncouth member or other; as though he could not yet take upon him humane shape entirely, for that man himself is not entirely and utterly fallen as he is.  
By this time you see the difficulty of the question is eased: now it appears why Eve wondered not to see a spirit speak unto her in the shape of a Serpent, because she knew the law of spirits apparitions better than we do. Again, when she saw the spirit who talked with her to have taken upon him the shape though of a beast, yet of the most sagacious beast of the field, she concluded according to our forelaid suppositions, that though he were one of the abased spirits, yet the shape he had taken resembling his nature, he must needs be a most crafty and sagacious one, and so might pry farther into God's meaning than she was aware of. And thus you may see at last, how the opinion of the Serpent's subtlety occasioned Eves fall; as also why the Dev●●, of all other beasts of the field, took the shape of a Serpent, namely, to gain this opinion of sagacity with the woman as one who knew the principles aforesaid.  
Here I observe that overmuch dotage upon a conceived excellency, whether of wisdom or whatsoever else, without a special eye to God's commandment, hath ever been the occasion of greatest errors in the world, and the Devil under this mask, useth to blear our eyes, and with this bait to inveigle our hearts, that he may securely bring us to his lure. It was the mask of the Serpent's wisdom and sagacity, above the rest of the beasts of the field, whereby he brought to pass our first Parent's ruin. The admired wisdom of the long living Fathers of the elder world, having been for so many ages as Oracles to their offspring, grown even to a people and Nation while they yet lived, was the ground of the ancient Idolatry of mankind, whilst they supposed that those to whom for wisdom they had recourse being living, could not but help them when they were dead. This we may learn out of Hesiod, The men, saith he, of the golden age being once dead, became 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they became godlings and Patrons of mortal men, etc. So the opinion of the blessed Martyrs superlative glory in heaven, was made the occasion of the newfound Idolatry of the Christian Churches, wherewith they are for the greater part yet overwhelmed. And the esteem which Peter had above the rest of the Apostles in regard of chiefdome, even in the Apostles times was abused by the old Deceiver to install the man of sin: This made S. Paul to say, the mystery of iniquity was even then working; and therefore laboured as far as he could to prevent it, by as 
2 Thes. 2. 7.  much depressing Peter as others exalted him. Nay, he puts the Churches in mind of this story of the Serpent's beguiling Eve, that her mishap might be a warning to them; 2 Cor. 11. 2, 3. I am jealous over you (saith he) with a godly jealousy, for I have espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a chaste Virgin to Christ. But I fear lest by any means as the Serpent beguiled Eve through his subtly, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. And to come a little nearer home, have not our Adversaries when they would get Disciples, learned this of the Devil, to possess them first with an opinion of superlative learning in their Doctors surpassing any of ours? I will say no more in this point, but that we ought so to prize and admire the gifts and abilities of learning which God hath bestowed upon men, that the polestar of his sacred word may ever be in our eye.  
THE next thing to be spoken of is, the action, Guile: and first, I shall show what it is: To beguile is through a false faith and persuasion wrought by some argument of seeming good, to bereave a man of some good he had or hoped for, or to bring upon him some evil he expected not. Practice hath made it so well known, that I should not need to have given any definition or description thereof, but only for a more distinct consideration: whereas therefore I said, that guile wrought by forelaying a false persuasion or belief, I would intimate, that it was nothing else but a practical sophism, the premises whereof are counterfeit motives; the conclusion an erroneous execution. Now as all practice or action consists in these two; The choice of our end; and the execution of means to attain thereunto: so is this practical sophism we call Guile found in them both, either when an evil end is presented unto us in the counterfeit of a good, and so we are made to embrace Nubem pro junone, and find ourselves deceived in the event whatsoever the means were we have used: or else we apply such means as are either unlawful or unsufficient to attain our end, as being so masked that they appear unto us far otherwise then they are. With both these sorts or parts of guile the Devil wrought our first Parent's ruin; first, by making it seem a thing desirable, and by all means to be laboured for, to be like unto God: which was an ambition of that whereof man was not only not capable, but such as little beseemed him to aspire unto, upon whom God had bestowed so great a measure of glorious perfections, as he seemed a God amongst the rest of the creatures. What unthankfulness was this, that he upon whom God bestowed so much, as he was the glory of his workmanship, should yet think that God should envy him any degree of excellency fit for him? for this was the mask wherewith the Devil covered both the unfitness and impossibility of the end he insinuated; but he beguiled them. Secondly, he puts the same trick upon them in the choice of the means to be used, which was to transgress the severe commandment of Almighty God: Had the aim been allowable, yet could not the means have been taken for good, but only of such as were beguiled, in that the Devil made the woman believe with his questioning the truth of God's commandment, that the danger was not great, nor so certain as it seemed; or that evil which might be in the action, would be counterveiled with the excellency to be attained thereby; the gloriousness of which end the Devil so strongly sounded, that it drowned in her imagination the least conceit of evil in the means. And as a man which always looks upward, sees not the danger in the path and way he walks in, until he tumbles into a pit; so was it here with our first Mother, when thus the Devil beguiled her.  
This first act of the Devil is that wherein we may behold as in a glass, the art he still useth to tempt 
Eph. 6. 11.  us unto sin, and bring us to utter destruction: All his method is nothing else but guile; he presents all things fair unto our face, and suffers not evil to appear before us in its own ugly shape, for so every man would fly from it: when he would tempt a man to covetousness, he calls it thrift; when to bribes, he calls them gratuities; when to intemperance, forsooth it is good fellowship; when to cruelty, it must be called justice; when to prodigality, it must be taken for no other but liberality, and such like. This is that which the Scripture saith, The Devil transforms himself into an Angel of light: when he draws to vice, he would seem to mean nothing but virtue; when he tempts to works of darkness, he presents them as the works of light; when he plots our ruin and everlasting undoing, he bears us in hand, that all aims at our welfare and felicity.  
This is that which is meant in the following verse, where it is said, The seed of the woman should bruise the Serpent's head, but the Serpent should bruise his heel; as though the Serpent should love to assault at unawares, and so as he might not be seen to intend any such matter before he had done the feat, and therefore his fashion should be to come behind a man, and as it were to catch him by the heel. For that this was the emblem of guile and deceitful dealing, it may be gathered from the story of jacob and Esau, when as Esau being beguiled of the blessing by the craft of his brother jacob, makes an allusion to his name; Well, saith he, may he be called jacob, for he hath beguiled me now these two times: Now jacob had his name in the beginning because he caught his brother by the heel, when he came out of the womb; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the heel, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is as much to say, as an Heeler, whence the allusion of Esau hath this sense, if we take it verbatim; My brother may well be called an Heeler, for he hath heeled me these two times: Now because to come behind a man, and take him by the heel was foul play, therefore of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an heel comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (dolus, fallacia) guile, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a verb signifying to deceive or beguile, which is the second sense that Esau would imply by his allusion, that his brother might well be called a Beguiler, because he had beguiled him now these two times. But of this I shall have occasion to speak more hereafter.  
Since therefore we have seen the Devil's practice, and learned that he works altogether by deceit, how wary should the consideration hereof make us to be in all the ways of our life? If we knew we had to deal with a man that used to beguile all that came into his fingers, in what continual jealousy and suspicion would we be? how would we cast about to find which way he might not circumvent us? how wary would we be to entertain any proffer from him? there could be nothing made seem so fair, but we would suspect some foul meaning to be in it. If we would be thus disposed in matters of lesser moment, how careful should we be in greater? if where the ability of deceiving is lesser, what manner of men should we be when we know the Arch-deceiver of the world is continually attending upon us, labouring to beguile us? should we here adventure upon any action rashly? No surely; but be first well advised. We should not be too confident in our own persuasions, lest they may prove the Devils suggestions: and though the reasons we apprehend be never so good, and the case seem never so clear, and the way we are to walk in never so secure, yet ought we to make some pause, and act a fit of jealousy afore we adventure.  
And thus much of the Serpent's action, Guile: Now I come to the object, Me. Me, that is, the weaker of the two. Me, so much endeared in the affection of my Lord, that he could not but do any thing at my request. Of these two respects I will speak in order; and first of the first. The Devil assaults us there where he finds us weakest, as here in this first sin he attempts the woman the weaker vessel; The Serpent beguiled me: for he knows this is the readiest way to overcome. A skilful Commander being to take a City, will not make his battery on that part of the wall, which is strongly fortified, (for so he might make his shot in vain;) but will assault it there where it is least defensible, where a breach will be easily made, and yet entering he becomes Master of the whole, how well fortified soever: even so the Devil will be sure to force us there where we are least able to resist; if he finds any part not well bulwarked with resolution, there he plants the Cannon of his temptation, and with an easy breach becomes Master of the whole piece.  
Hence we may learn what to esteem of those imperfect courses concerning the Commandments of God, too frequent among the sons of men: There are many who resolve firmly against divers kinds of sins, that they will never be drawn by any means to commit them, but they have always some one wherein they demur whether they should resolve to yield to or not, if occasion should be offered. Many will fortify themselves very strongly against the assaults of bribery, of covetousness, of theft, of promise-breaking, of drunkenness; but as concerning their lust they are unresolved what to do, if a temptation should assault them; & so in others, there is some other inclination but slenderly guarded, when for the rest they could glory how strongly they are fortified. But we must know, that when the Devil comes to assault us, he will pass by us where we are strength, and attempt us only there where our weakness lies; and then we shall find all our labour lost, and all our other strength to have stood us in little stead: For what will it boot to guard the walls of our City never so strongly, if but one part be left unguarded for the enemies to enter? Is not all the enemies? A Ship though in other parts never so sound, will sink, if but one leaking hole be left unstopped. Let us therefore survey our hearts diligently, and finding where we lie exposed to danger, there most to strengthen ourselves with resolution.  
And thus I come to the second respect, why the Devil made choice of the woman, namely, because of the vehemency of her husband's affection towards her; so that to have gained her was to have gotten him also: for he seemed to think that her strength in her husband's affection was more powerful to prevail with him, than his subtle motives were to overcome him; and indeed the event proved he was not much deceived. Hence we are to observe that the Devil taketh advantage of the vehemency of our passions, to work our overthrow, if he once find these to fasten his hold by, he than thinks he may lead us whither he list. To have gained our affections is as it were to have gotten a party within, which is a dangerous advantage to further the invasion of an enemy; especially when most of our passions are our favourites, which we can deny nothing they ask, and if they be once bribed, will work us wholly to the dispose of our arch-enemy. 
Eph. 4. 27.   
That we may not therefore afford the Devil this advantage, and as it were reach him a rope to hang us withal, it behoves us so to govern and temper our passions and affections, that they transport us not into the Devil's jurisdiction: which that we may the better do, it will not be unfit to set down some rules for performance thereof,  
First, therefore it is best to resist our passions at the beginning, and to use the same policy which Pharaoh did with the Israelites, that they might not overrun his Country, in killing all their infants as soon as they were born. While the sore is green Surgeons seldom despair, but festered once, they hardly cure it: So it is with the passions of our mind, when they are first growing, they are soon kerbed, but being a little entertained, they will hardly be subdued.  
The second means is, to inure ourselves to cross our passions when there is no danger, and to bridle ourselves sometimes from ordinary and lawful desires, that we may do it with more ease when we are in danger; for how can he hope to be able to master his passions when dangerous temptations assault him, who never used them to it in the time of his security? We know that men who would fit themselves for the Wars, will practise in the time of peace when there is no enemy near, and will toil and labour when they might be at rest, will lie hard when they may command a soft bed, will watch when they might sleep, and all to make themable to endure the like when they shall have need: the like must we do, that we may get an habit to cross and subdue our passions when we shall have need.  
The third means is, to fly occasions which may incense the passions whereunto we are inclined: Occasiones faciunt latrones, saith the Proverb, Occasion makes him a thief, which else might have been an honest man; wherefore he that commits himself to Sea in a boisterous tempest is worthy to suffer shipwreck; and he that willingly puts himself in the company of infected persons, may blame himself if he fall into their diseases.  
Lastly, but chiefly, when thy passions are most vehement, then seek for succour from heaven, fly under the wings of Christ as the chickens under the hen, when the kite seeks to devour them: beat at the gates of mercy, and crave grace to overcome thy misery: He is thy Father and will not give thee a Serpent, if thou ask him Fish: humble thyself before him, open thy sores and wounds unto him, and the good Samaritan will pour in both wine and oil, and thy passions shall melt and fall away as clouds are dispelled and consumed by the Sun.  
VERSE 14. And the Lord said unto the Serpent, etc. 
THese words contain in them the Serpent's doom and destiny, pronounced upon him by the great Lord of Heaven and Earth; They contain in them two parts: First, the reason of this sentence in the words, Because thou hast done this: Secondly, the sentence itself in the words following, Thou art cursed above all cattle, etc. The reason of this heavy doom is, Because he had done this. What This? namely, because he had beguiled the man and woman, which God had made, and caused them to transgress his great commandment. He therefore that is the cause and occasion of another's sin, is as hateful to God as the door, and is liable to as great, or rather a greater punishment than he: for the Serpent here for causing hath this doom, as well as the man and woman for doing. Nay, which is to be observed, his doom is the first read unto him, as if he were the archoffender, and not to the man or woman till he was done with: What should this mean, but that his fault being the mover, was more grievous in the eyes of God than theirs? which is the reason also, why the woman comes in the next place to have her sentence, because she had been a sin-maker, and was guilty not only of her own personal sin, but of her husbands also; whence the man who had sinned only himself, and not caused others to sin, had his judgement last of all. I might also confirm the same from the quality of their several judgements, in that the Serpent alone is doomed to be accursed, and no such word spoken either of the man or the woman.  
But I shall not need to tarry here to prove how horrible and fearful a thing it is to be the author of another's sin: We know they are the words of our Saviour, Mat. 18. 6, 7. woe unto the world because of scandals, and woe unto the man by whom a scandal cometh; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea. And S. Paul (1 Cor. 8.) would eat no meat as long as the world lasteth, rather than make his brother to offend. Would they would consider this, who are not content alone to sin themselves, but play the Devil in corrupting others. It seems they long to be double damned. I would also they would think of this, who make no conscience at all by extremities and vexations, and other grievances, to drive a man to perjury, and other grievous sins, and yet think themselves free, when they should know, that he that is the author of another's sin, makes another's guilt his own, and shall share in the punishment every whit as deep as he.  
But this shall suffice to have observed in the first part, the reason of the Serpent's doom. Now I come to the second, the doom itself: wherein the words as you see have all relation to the Serpent, for the Lord said unto the Serpent, Thou are cursed etc. Thou shalt go upon thy breast, etc. But because this Serpent was more than a brute Serpent, the Devil himself being the chief agent in this his instrument, it is a thing much controverted, upon which of these this curse is here pronounced. Some would have it spoken only of the brute Serpent, because here is a comparison made with cattle and beasts of the field, thereby accounting the Serpent one of that number. Besides, Satan they say was accursed before this time, and some of the words in this curse cannot well be applied to any but the brute Serpent, as that he should eat the dust of the earth, etc. Others would have this curse pronounced only upon the spiritual Serpent the Devil, because the brute Serpent was only an instrument abused by the Devil, and neither knew what was done, nor could do withal; and why should it therefore be punished? Others would divide the controversy, applying the first part of the curse in the 14. verse, to the brute Serpent, the latter in the 15. verse, to the Devil or spiritual Serpent; because as the latter of the promised seed of the woman, which should destroy the Serpent and his seed, must needs be meant of Christ and Satan; so the former words are most fitly appliable to the brute Serpent only: But against this may be said, that the same Thou and Thee spoken of in the first part of the curse, is all one with the Thou and Thee in the latter; and therefore of whatsoever the first is meant, of the same is also meant the latter. There is therefore a fourth opinion, that this curse is throughout pronounced upon both, both upon the Serpent and the Devil: In which, though there be some difference about the manner how, yet I embrace it as the truest, as not only conceiving it may be so, by the fitness of all the parts so applied to both; but think moreover that this only aught to be the meaning and no other, if it be conceived as I am now to show.  
For in the first place, the Devil when he beguiled man, came not as a naked spirit, but in the shape and figure of a Serpent, (as I have showed heretofore;) and therefore that his punishment in the manner might be suitable and answerable to his offence, he was to receive his doom likewise under the figure of a Serpent, and the style thereof framed unto a Serpent's condition: for it is the constant method of the alwise God to brand the punishment with the stamp of the sin, that the offender thereby might not only know what he felt, but also read why he suffered. Why was Adonibezeks thumbs and great toes cut off, but that he might read therein, as he did, his former cruelty? Threescore and ten Kings having their thumbs and toes cut off, gathered meat under my Table. As I have done, so God hath requited me. Why was Pharaoh with his Host rather drowned in the Sea, then slain in the field, but that all the world might read it was for his cruel Edict to drown all the male children of the Hebrews? Why did Absalon lie with David's Concubines, but to put David in mind that he had lain with Vriahs' wife? And why was the curse of the Devil shaped here in and unto the condition of the Serpent, but because he had beguiled man in a Serpent's shape?  
Secondly, for the Serpent; The fashion, excellency and subtlety of the Serpent above all the beasts which God had made, the Devil had abused to gain credit with the woman, that he was an excellent and a most sagacious spirit, and therefore might be able to pry farther into God's meaning than she could, which was the cause of her attention, and so of her ruin. For I have showed heretofore that the woman in the state of integrity knew well enough, that as it was the law of spirits in their commerce with men, to present themselves under the shape of some visible thing: so it must be likewise under the shape of some such thing, as may more or less resemble their condition: And that as the glorious spirits might take no other shape but of man, the glory of visible creatures: so the fallen spirits could not then afore man's fall, take any other shape but of a beast, thereby to bewray his abasement: yet because the Devil here took upon him the shape of the most wise and most excellent of beasts, he so bleared the woman's eyes with an opinion of his excellency and sagacity, that in a manner she forgot, or regarded not, that he was one of the evil and abased spirits, which was the ground of her miserable ruin and overthrow.  
Now because the excellency and sagacity of the Serpent had thus been the occasion of man's confusion, by being made the lying counterfeit of the Devil's excellency and wisdom, and the mask whereby he so covered his vileness, that the woman took him not to be as he was indeed: Therefore God in his wisdom thought good to change the copy, and henceforth to blur and deface that unhappy physiognomical letter, and by abasing the Serpent for the time to come, to make him an everlasting emblem and monument, wherein man might hieroglyphically read the malice, vileness and execrable baseness of that wicked spirit which had beguiled him, to hate him (as now we do the Serpent) with mortal hatred, and by his unlucky and brained fortune, to expect the Devil's destiny: In a word, that which was once used for a mask to cover the Devil's knavery, should for the future be a glass wherein to behold his villainy.  
These being the reasons which have led me to understand this curse in an equal sense, both of the brute Serpent and the Devil, and in the literal applied unto the Serpent, yet therein shaping out the malediction of the Devil, as truly as the Devil had taken upon him the Serpent's shape: Let us now come to the particular handling of the words; and first consider them, as they are the curse of the unreasonable Serpent. Secondly, as they include the Devil's malediction.  
But for the better understanding thereof, before we can proceed, two things are to be resolved: First, how it could be just with God to punish the brute Serpent, who was Instrumentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and had neither will to sin, nor yet knowledge of what the Devil had done; especially, if we suppose as I have hitherto, that the Devil took only the shape of a Serpent, which the Serpent could not do withal? for this argument hath driven some to affirm, that the whole curse was to be understood only of the spiritual Serpent, and not at all of the natural. But why should this stumble them more as concerning the justness of God, then that in Adam's censure in the 17. ver. where the whole earth is cursed for Adam's sake, Cursed be the earth for thy sake, etc. But what had the earth done? or how was it guilty of Adam's transgression? Again, in the sixth Chapter following it is expressly said, That because God saw the wickedness of man was great in the earth, he said, I will destroy both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air. But how were the beasts, the creeping things, and the fowls of the air partakers of man's wickedness? what had they done more then been abused by him? which they could not avoid he being their Lord and Master. And should not we think that Law of God just, Levit. 20. where if a man commit abomination with a beast, the beast is commanded to be slain as well as the man, who only had sinned? This proves that objection to be wholly insufficient: But yet the difficulty of the resolution, How this may stand with God's justice, remains as before; which therefore comes now to be resolved.  
First, we know that all the beasts of the field, all the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the Sea were made for the use and service of man in one kind or other, as he should have occasion to use them. Secondly, if man had stood in his first creation, the service of the creatures should have been suitable to his excellency and integrity, and so far more noble than now it is, that even the creatures might be partakers of his happiness then, that since they yet look for the glorious liberty of the sons of God to come. Thirdly, but when man was once fallen, the service of the creature was altered, and became a bondage of corruption, as S. Paul terms it, that is, gnoble & suitable to the corrupt condition of man under sin: those which should have been employed excellently for the use of his integrity, are now to serve him ignominiously according to his sin and misery; namely, either to be the means to punish him for his sin, or to relieve him in his misery. To punish him, all the creatures for his use are become base, corrupt and unworthy, and so nothing so useful for him as they had been: The earth will not bring forth for him, but with his labour and toil, and then too when it should bear him corn, it brings forth thorns and thistles: The creatures which should serve and honour him, do often seize upon him, and destroy him. And thus are the creatures employed for man's use, indeed but a woeful use to afflict and punish him for his sin all the days of his life. Another way notwithstanding they are useful and serviceable for his good, as helps to relieve and better him in this his condition of sin; as to be made documents of the wrath of God to move him to repentance, and emblems to know the condition of his most deadly enemy the Devil, and how he ought to abhor and hate him, and the hope and expectation of conquering and triumphing over him in the blessed seed of the woman. And for this use and service was the Serpent abased and made vile, according to his curse in my Text; that as he was made excellent to serve him in integrity, so he was now abased, to be made fit to do him the best service in his misery. And what injustice could this be in God? when he made him at first so as he made him for the service of man, and now when he marred him, he marred him likewise for man's service.  
The second thing to be resolved is, Whether this curse were pronounced only upon one individual Serpent; or whethet upon all Serpents in general; or upon some one only kind which the Devil had thus abused? Of one individual Serpent it cannot be, because there is mention here of the seed of the Serpent, and seed of the woman, which implies a generation of many Serpents; and besides, this curse was to be a monument not only to him but to all his posterity, as long as the world lasted, but one individual Serpent lived not so long. Neither is it credible to be spoken of all kinds of Serpents in general, because there is almost as great a variety of Serpents as of four footed beasts of several kinds and species, and why should any kind suffer, save that only which had been abused to offend? Besides, I make no doubt but divers kinds of Serpents went at the first Creation upon their breasts as now they do, and were every whit as base as now they are, excepting the general decay of all creatures since the fall. It remains therefore that it was only one kind of Serpent which bore this special malediction; and that such a kind as was not only the noblest of all the kinds of Serpents, but as it seems far excelling all the Creation besides (man only except) for beauty, wisdom and sagacity, but afterward by this curse became not only base than the rest of the beasts of the field, but even as base and vile as the vilest kind of Serpent. And therefore it could not be the Basilisk, as some have held, though it be the most poisonful of all others, and as it were a King among Serpents, as the name imports; for if Pliny and Solinus, who report the former, say true, this Serpent here accursed, should rather be any other kind then that, because the Basilisk (upon their report) goes with his breast and forepart of his body advanced, (erectus à medio incedens, saith Pliny, or as Solinus, mediâ corporis parte serpit, mediâ arduus est & excel sus) but this Serpent here was from the hour of his doom, to go for ever upon his breast, which I wonder they considered not, who from the advanced posture of the Basilisks body have conceived the clean contrary: For as by this example we may believe that the Serpent now accursed, did so before his curse; so that he should still do so, it is a most direct gainsaying of Scripture to imagine.  
But to come to the words of the doom; which, as you see, are first general; then particular. General in these, Thou art cursed above all cattle, and above, etc. What it is to be accursed, we shall know, if we first understand what it is to be blessed. To be blessed or happy, is nothing else, but an all-fruition of good, or to have a sufficient provision and furniture of good, both for being and well-being: So therefore that creature is happy and blessed which hath a sufficiency of all good for the being and preservation of itself; which wants neither endowments inward, nor means outward for the attaining of that end, whereof it is by nature capable. To be accursed is to have the contrary of this; to be despoiled either of endowments internal or inherent, without which it hath no dignity among the creatures; or external, without which it cannot live or preserve itself, but with much penury, difficulty, toil and danger. Whatsoever therefore among the beasts of the field, (for with such only is the comparison made) is for inherent perfections of all the most unworthy and base; or for the outward furniture of means for the preservation of that ignoble being by unprovision of all others the most wretched and miserable; this is that which is accursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field. And such was the Serpent's condition to be for the general.  
And now for the particulars; Let us go on and see how they are expressed, and that is in three things: First, To go upon the breast, or to have the posture of the body grovelling on the earth; whereby (as I shall show presently) is implied the abasement of the creature. Secondly, to have for meat the dust of the earth; wherein is shown its unprovision of food for the maintenance of its life, being of all beasts of the field to have the basest and coursest far. Thirdly, to be in continual, mortal, and irreconcilable enmity with man, both his Lord and the Lord of the rest of the creatures: from whom it should be in continual danger and fear of its life, and once espied be sure to have its brains dashed out by him. And which makes the misery so much the greater, to be no way able to be revenged of his enemy other then to come unawares behind him, and then neither not able to reach above his heel; as being most unequally matched, he walking aloft with his head and whole body advanced, while the miserable Serpent shall lie grovelling on the ground, ready to be trodden apieces under his feet.  
Of these three particulars let us speak severally; and first of the first, Upon thy breast shalt thou go. In the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which some turn, upon thy belly: which interpretation hath been one great cause of the difficulty to understand the meaning of this malediction: For if the shape of the Serpent were after the fashion it is now, it is not possible to imagine how it could ever have gone otherwise then upon the belly; for to think that ever it went an end, were a conceit more worthy to be derided then to be believed. By which means there appeared no other way of evasion out of this difficulty, but to affirm that the Serpent indeed went upon his belly from the beginning; but either it was not so toilsome to him, or not for a curse unto him till now, which for my part, it being so far from the letter of the Text, I could never yet believe. I had much rather in this follow the Vulgar, or Ieromes Translation, which reads, super pectus tuum gradiêris; for upon the belly I believe the Serpent went from the first Creation, but not upon the breast until this present malediction. The breast of the Serpent I call the upper part of the Serpent's body, from the navel to the head; the other part of the other half downward, with which though at the first he walked prone to and upon the earth, yet was the other part, his breast and head, reared up and advanced, until for having been abused to the ruin of mankind, he was now with his whole body to creep grovelling upon the earth. And perhaps thus much the Septuagint meant to insinuate by their Translation, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon thy breast, and thy belly; where it may seem that they rendered two words for one in the Text, for illustration, and for intimation of this, that whereas the Serpent before went only upon his belly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, now he should from henceforth walk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ upon his breast and belly too.  
As for the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used, there is no necessity at all to translate it, the belly, but rather some probability of the contrary in the etymology of the word: for though in the Hebrew the theme be not used, yet in the Chaldee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies incurvatus fuit, to bow downward, and seems to mean the inclination of the head and breast, or upper part of the body, to the earth, as may be gathered from that of Eliah, 1 King 18 42. where it is said, that Eliah went up to the top of ●armel, & pronum se abjecit in●terram, and put his face between his knees; for here the Targum useth this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the radix of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Again Mark 1. 7. in those words of john Baptist, There is one cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose; here for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, stoop down, the Syriack hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of as near a kin to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is the Syriack to the Chaldee. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itself is of rare use in the Bible besides in this place, and therefore we can receive no great help from the comparing of places. It is read again Levit. 11. 42. and that with a singular mark, as the Masorites have observed, for the Vau cholem in the last syllable is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a great Vau, and exactly the middlemost letter of all the Law of Moses; if their Arithmetic failed them not. But no particularity of signification can from that place be gathered, the speech being of creeping things, which go as well upon the breast as the belly, and the belly as the breast.  
Since therefore the word here used neither hindereth our opinion, nor much furthereth it, we will come to such other grounds as may prove our assertion, for the Serpents going with breast advanced afore the fall of man, and not grovelling till his malediction. And first let it be considered there is no impossibility of it in regard of the frame of the Serpent, which appears both by their advancing themselves when they assault a man, (which the Painters express in their Pictures) and also when they swim through the water, which is with their head and some part of their breast raised above water, even as a Swan holdeth up her neck, as I have heard affirmed by such as have been eye-witnesses: and lastly, Pliny and Solinus report of the Basilisk, that the Basilisk walks so still; as I showed a little before. And it may be as when the Giantlike stature of mankind was diminished after the stood in a manner throughout the world, and for many ages, yet was there by God's disposition, still a race of Giants left even till the time of David, for a monument and witness of the truth of a far bigger stature in former times, which else could not so easily have been believed or imagined. Such were the Zanzummims in Abraham's time, the sons of Anak in Moses, and Goliath in the time of David; and it may be there are yet some in some part of the world to be found. So I say, as these seem to have been preserved by God, as a memorial unto men, that they were not now as at the first; so it may be it was the will of God and is, amongst so many kinds of Serpents to preserve this one, that it should not as the rest go grovelling upon the earth, but might be as a monument of the truth of the malediction of the rest to all posterity. Thus much of the possibility, which would be far greater, if we should with S. Basil, Ephrem, Bar Cephas, and many others affirm that the Serpent had feet, namely, some short ones beneath the navel: for feet are not essential to the nature of a thing, as appears by the lame, who can live without them, and by others, sometimes by the defect of nature born without them. And those who can believe the wonderful change of man by his fall, of an immortal creature to become mortal; of one to have been born with all glorious endowments both of body and soul, now to be brought into the world the most unfurnished of the creatures. Those who believe the great alteration of the earth itself, when it was accursed for man's sin; the diminution of the time of man's life, and of his stature, even since the flood. Can any who believe these things, think it so incredible for the Serpent once to have had some small feet, and afterward to have had none, being a creature wherein God intended to leave a monument for ever? But of this I will determine nothing, neither doth my assertion simply depend upon it, but may well enough consist without it.  
But because possibility is not sufficient of itself alone to infer a probability, I have therefore one thing to add more thereto, namely, the reason and cause even in nature (supposing still Gods abasing of the Serpents first creation) of this alteration of the posture of the Serpent's gate from that it was at the beginning.  
First, we know the more excellent and sublime the nature of a creature is, the more it raiseth itself upward; the more ignoble and base, the more it falls downward. This we see in the elements themselves; the fire the most excellent and operative of the four, raiseth itself above the rest: The earth the basest and most unactive of all, is also of all the most dejected.  
Secondly, as there is this difference in the elements, so there is in the mixed bodies; some consisting of a more sublime and excellent temper, others of a more base and ignoble mixture: and that as in other, so amongst such creatures as live and move upon the earth.  
Thirdly, this their nobleness within discovereth itself in the body without, by advancing them naturally in their gate and gesture; whence man being of all creatures living upon the earth of the most excellent temper and sublimed condition of nature, is therefore of all other the most advanced in body:  
Pronáque cum spectant animalia caetera terram,  
Os homini sublime dedit, etc. Yea, experience will tell us, that even amongst men themselves, those who are of a more exalted nature, either by heroic temper, or predominancy of heat, are also more advanced in the posture of their bodies. Among beasts themselves, the basest is the most creeping, the noble Lion advanceth his head and breast so far as the frame of his body is thereof capable, and so the rest: and of all creatures we may observe besides, that such creatures have the most sagacity, who come most near to walk upright as a man doth.  
If therefore the Serpent were of so sublime a nature at the first, as thereby it was more subtle than any beast of the field which God had made, how could so excellent a temper, the ground of so much sagacity, but advance the body thereof, as far as the frame and shape thereof could admit? On the contrary, if afterward the Serpent became the most abased and accursed of all the beasts of the field, how should not this alteration of his former temper and disposition of nature, make the gesture of his body also suitable, by stooping and grovelling upon the earth? Who knows not that the natural position of man is erected agreeable to his excellency above other creatures having life and motion? and yet notwithstanding so much hath the dejection of his primitive nature for sin weakened in him this propension, that were it not for education, it is supposed, yea and by experience confirmed, that he would walk upon all four like a beast. And shall we wonder that the malediction of the Serpent, exceeding that of man's, should produce as much as this?  
So then to conclude this first particular of the Serpent's curse; I understand it, from the ground aforesaid, as insinuating the cause by the outward and sensible effect, according to the manner of the Scripture; namely, the abasement and fall of the Serpent's whole nature from his primitive perfection, discovered by the fall of his once advanced body, thenceforth to go grovelling upon the earth: Even as the despoiling of the nature of man, of the inward endowments of perfection, is by the same sacred trope, insinuated by his outward nakedness; that is, the obsruration of that glorious and celestial beauty, which he had before his sin: The difference whereof was so great; that he could not endure afterward to behold himself any more, but sought for a covering, even to hide himself from himself.  
And now I come to the second particular; Dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. The coursest diet that any living creature hath allowed him: None of the beasts of the field with whom he is compared, are thus poorly provided for; nay, not any other, unless the base earthworm, not worthy to be named among the creatures. Even with this vilest of creatures is now ranked that once so noble a creature, the Serpent. Which yet is not so to be understood, as though the Serpent did not sometime eat something else, for they sometime devour birds, frogs, and such like; but that this is the ordinary fare which God hath provided him, and if at any time he getteth any other, he goeth beyond his limits. Whence Esay 65. among the blessings of the new Jerusalem, this is reckoned for one, That the Serpent should eat dust; that is, be made contented with the diet God had appointed him, and not to encroach upon the food appointed for others.  
But why did God appoint him this food? I answer, even to continue him in that accursed and vile condition to which he had dejected him: For food is for the repairing and preservation of nature, and the goodness and badness thereof doth make the temper of the body better or worse. Hence according to the degrees of excellency in the creatures, their food is finer or courser: Plants suck the moisture of the earth; beasts live most upon plants, but man of the flesh of cattle, fowl, and fishes: Since therefore the Serpent was to have no better fare than the dust of the earth, as it argues the baseness of his nature, which can with such food be nourished; so doth it necessarily imply his continuance in that his dejection and vileness: whereas otherwise it were not impossible, because his nature for the essence is still the same it was, if his diet were as it had been, for him to improve himself more near to his primitive temper then now he is. But God who had decreed he should ever remain under this malediction, appointed also the means to retain him therein.   
VERSE 15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, etc. 
THE third and last particular remains to be treated of; I will put enmity between thee and the woman, etc. This no doubt intendeth in some things, more directly the spiritual Serpent than the brute; yet for the general it may and aught as well as the rest, to be expounded of the brute Serpent, as a glass wherein to behold the malice and destiny of the other the Devil. It containeth two parts; The Enmity, and the Event and managing thereof. For the enmity, how it is verified concerning the brute Serpent, experience telleth: It is some part of the happiness of the creature, to be the favourite of man who is the Lord thereof; what honour could betid it greater than this? But between the Serpent and Man is the most deadly enmity, and the strongest antipathy that is amongst the beasts of the field: Such an one as discovereth itself both in the natural and sensitive faculties of them both: For the first, their humours are poison each to other; the gall of a Serpent is man's deadly poison; and so is the spittle of man affirmed to poison the Serpent. For the sensitive antipathy, it appears in that the one doth so much abhor the sight and presence of the other; man's nature is at nothing so much astonished, as at the sight of a Serpent; and like enough the Serpent is in like manner affected at the sight of man; And that more especially, as the Naturalists affirm, of a naked man, than otherwise. As though his instinct even remembered the time of his malediction, when he and naked man stood before God to receive this sentence of everlasting enmity.  
And whereas the words of the Text do in special point out the woman in this sentence of enmity; the Naturalists do observe, that is greater and more vehement with that sex, then with the male of mankind: Insomuch that Rupertus affirmeth, that if but the naked foot of a woman doth never so little press the head of a Serpent before he can sting her, both the head and body presently dieth, which no cudgel, or other weapon will do, but that some life and motion will still remain behind: Hoc (saith he) ita est, ipsorum, qui per industriam exploraverunt, fide relatione comperimus. Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 20. You know my Author.  
The remaining words of my Text do express the managing and event of this enmity, which is far more dangerous and unlikely on the Serpent's part then on Man's; for man is able to reach the Serpent's head, where his life chiefly resideth, and where a blow is deadly: but as for the Serpent he shall not be able to prevail against man otherwise then privily and unawares, and that but in his lowest part, namely, when he shall pass him unseen, to sting him by the heel. And that this is the nature of a Serpent it appeareth in the words of Dans blessing, Gen. 49. Dan shall be a Serpent by the way, an Adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward. And to make an end of this discourse also, it is a thing to be observed in the nature of a Serpent, that assoon as he perceiveth man ready to throw or strike at him, he will presently roll his body for a buckler to save his head; even as though he had some impression of that doctrine, which God here read him in my Text, Ipse conteret tibi caput; Beware thy head.  
And thus hitherto I have considered these words as they are the curse of the brute Serpent; now I am to go over with them again, to show how they are propounded unto us by God, as a glass wherein to behold the Devil's malediction: the Serpent being made now the discovery of his vileness, which once he abused for a mask to hide it from the woman. As therefore the Serpent is the most accursed of all the cattle and beasts of the field; so is the Devil the most accursed spirit amongst all orders and degrees of spirits; namely, of the highest of Angels become the abjectest of spirits, more base & accursed then the most cursed damned soul, having little or nothing left him of that good which was suitable to a spiritual condition: and this is the state of the Devil for the general, answerable to that of the Serpent.  
Now for the particulars: The first is, Upon thy breast shalt thou go: How doth this befit the Devil? The Devil hath no bodily breast to go upon: But as I showed in the Serpent, that this grovelling signified the abasement of his whole nature from his primitive excellency; so in the Devil it signifies, his stooping down and falling from his most sublime and glorious condition. A wonderful stoop this was, when that which had been advanced as high as heaven, was made to fall down as low, yea lower then the earth itself; This is the Devils going upon his breast, this the grovelling of that once so highly reared posture; according to that description of jude ver. 6. who calls them the Angels that kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation: agreeable to that of S. Peter 2 Ep. c. 2. v. 4. God spared not the Angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell.  
The second particular is, The dust of the earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. The food wherewith spirits are fed, is analogical, spiritual and not corporal, we must therefore here seek out that, which in them hath the fittest resemblance with corporal food. The life of Angels consists in the continual contemplation of the excellent greatness, wonderful goodness, and glorious beauty of the essence of God, both as it is in itself, and as it is communicated unto his creatures. This is that which our Saviour intimates, Mat. 18. 10. Their Angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. The food of Angels whereby this their intellectual life and vegetation is strengthened and continued, is that unspeakable joy and delight which accompanies this contemplation of God, and which they find in the beholding of whatsoever else hath any conformity or sutableness with him, his power, his wisdom, his glory, his goodness: According to that in the Gospel, There is joy in heaven, and in the presence of the Angels of God, for one sinner that repenteth. This is that Manna which feeds the blessed Angels, and which makes them unweariable and unsatiable in their contemplation, and imitation of God, as corporal food enableth the body for the continuance of corporal works.  
And such as this had been the Devils fare, had he not fallen from his first estate by sin: whereas now in stead of that Manna, he is fain with the Serpent to feed of a food as course and as base as the dust of the earth; for as of a glorious Angel he is fallen to be a damned spirit; so is his diet answerable to continue him in that damnable estate; namely, a food clean contrary to that of the blessed Angels, and a very earth to their heaven; A most execrable joy, and a malicious delight in whatsoever is opposite to the power, the wisdom, the goodness, the glory of God his Creator: this is that he hungreth and hunteth after, and nothing but this. If there were no sin, no confusion, no misery of creatures in the world, the Devil would be soon starved; for this is that he preys after, this is that carrion he seeks for, when he goeth about, as S. Peter saith, like a roaring Lion seeking whom he may devour. I have read of a people of America, that will eat no flesh before it be stinking rotten, and then it seems to them most tender and delicate: These are of a diet like unto the Devil, for nothing but garbage and carrion are his dainties, the more rotten with sin, the more pleasing to his palate, that which stinks most in God's nostrils, that smells the sweetest in his.  
The last part of this curse remains, I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed, etc. In which we will first consider the parties who are to be at this deadly feud: Secondly, the event and success they have one against the other: For the first, the parties are on one side said to be the Serpent and his seed: on the other side, The woman and her seed. By the Serpent we are to understand Satan the Prince of darkness and Father of Devils: This Serpent's seed in the first place are the whole crew of Devils and damned spirits, who are fallen from their first estate and condition. These are the Serpent's firstborn, begotten by him not by corporal generation, nor as they are spirits, but by spiritual deformation, as they are Devils: For it is the opinion of Divines, that Satan fell first himself, and afterward propagated his Apostasy by drawing others after him, over whom therefore he worthily deserveth to have the principality and chiefdome; in which respect also were there no other, yet he might be called their Father, and they his sons or seed, as we know the use of the Scripture is, to call Princes Fathers, and Subjects sons. The latter offspring of the Devil being a second brood, are the whole company of wicked and reprobate worldlings: for that such as these are the spawn of that foul fiend, it appears clearly by the words of our Saviour to the Pharisees, joh. 8. 44. Ye are of your Father the Devil, and the lusts of your Father ye will do. And again, 1 joh. 3. 10. The children of God are opposed to the children of the Devil: Therefore Christ calls judas a Devil, joh. 6. And Paul Act. 13. 10. calls Elymas the Sorcerer, A child of the Devil. The case is plain: And as the Vanguard consisted of the first crew, so these latter are the Rear of Satan's Army.  
Now on the other side against this Army of Hellhounds, stand the Woman and the Woman's seed. The woman though only named, excludes not the man, who was to be at enmity with the Devil as well as the woman: But the reason of this unusual Trope, which calls the kind by the name of the weaker and inferior sex, is because of the words following, of ●he seed, wherein is contained the great mystery of Christ's Incarnation, under whose colours, and in whose power alone this Army is both to march and overcome: for this great Captain was to be, as you know, the seed of the woman only, and not of the man; A Virgin should conceive a Son, whose name is called Emmanuel. Whence it comes to pass, that some by seed, will have no other seed to be understood, but the person of Christ only; both because he is alone that seed of the woman, which is not the seed of man; and because S. Paul, Gal. 3. 16. in those words, In thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed, expoundeth seed singularly and individually of Christ himself alone. But if it be well observed, the case here is not the like; for the seed of the woman, is opposed to the seed of the Serpent, which seed cannot choose but be taken collectively for Satan and all his regiments of Devils and hellhounds. And why should not also the seed of the woman be understood of Christ mystical, that is, of Christ the Head with all his members, who are incorporate into him by faith into one mystical body? For although they are naturally the seed of man as well as of the woman, yet spiritually by this incorporation, they are the seed of the woman only, as is their Head with whom they are one: And this it is which makes them of the party against the Serpent, for till they once became the seed of the woman only, there was no enmity betwixt them.  
The seed therefore of the woman, I expound to be Christ and his Members: He 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the seed of the woman by nature, they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by their spiritual engra●ment into him. Hence appears the difference of these two Armies; First, in Satan's Army all march under their Father, who begot them; but Christ's Army sighteth under the Colours of their elder brother, the first begotten seed of the woman. Secondly, in their ranging Christ and his Army are as one body informed by one Spirit; the Devil is far more disunited. Thirdly, in their fight, for in Satan's Army every Soldier useth his own strength, and fights with his own weapons; but in Christ's Army the whole strength lies in Christ their General: All our Armour is on his back, and our weapons guided by the power of his hand. So we may learn out of S. Paul, Ephes. 6. 11, 12. Put on (saith he) the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness in this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  
Thus then having seen the marshalling of these two Armies, which are at so deadly an enmity, let us at last see the success of their skirmishes, and of the stratagems which they practise one against the other: these are described on the Devils part very terrible, that his head should be mauled. But on Christ's side the loss should be very small, the Devil prevailing but to the wounding or bruising of his heel.  
But what is this Head of the Serpent? and what the Heel of the woman's seed? Those who understand the seed of the woman singularly of the person of Christ only, make his head to be the Godhead, against which the Serpent could prevail nothing; but his heel to be the manhood, which the Serpent so bruised at his Passion, that the grave became his bed for three days together: This indeed is true, and no marvel, for the head is as it were the whole body's epitome. But we who have expounded the seed of the woman collectively, of Christ and his Members, must also in this mystical body find a mystical head, and a mystical heel: and so in like manner for the Serpent and his seed.  
The Head therefore, or if you had rather, Headship, is nothing else but Sovereignty: The Serpent's head is the Devil's Sovereignty, which is called ●rincipatus mortis, the Sovereignty of death; namely, both objectiuè and effectiuè; that is, such a Sovereignty as under which are only such as are liable to death both temporal and eternal; and such a Sovereignty whose power consists not in saving and giving of life, but in destroying, and bringeth unto death both of body and soul. Under the name also of death understand, as the Scripture doth, all other miseries of mankind, which are the companions of this double death I speak of: This is that damnable head of the Serpent, the Devilish Sovereignty of Satan. Now the Sword whereby this Sovereignty was obtained, the Sceptre whereby it is maintained, or as S. Paul speaks, the sting of this Serpent's head, is Sin: This is that which got him this Kingdom at the first, and this is still the right whereby he holds the greatest part thereof: Imporium iisdem artibus conservatur, quibus acquiritur.  
This Sovereignty of the Devil, which once overwhelmed nigh all the world, the woman's seed should break in pieces and destroy, which according to this Prophecy, we see already performed in a great measure, and the grounds laid long ago for the destruction of all that remaineth. As saith S. john Ep. 1. c. 3. v. 8. The Son of God is revealed for this purpose, that he might destroy the works of the Devil. And Christ himself said, that the time was come that the Prince of this world should be cast out; and bade his Disciples be of good cheer, for he had overcome the world. If you would see what a wonderful victory he hath long ago gotten of the Serpent, when after a terrible battle he overcame and destroyed the Sovereignty of the Serpent in the Roman Empire, see it described in the 12. of the Revelation, where a Michael (that is, Christ) and his Angels, fought against the great Dragon and his Angels, till the Dragon with all his Army was discomfited, and their place found no more in heaven, that is, he utterly lost his Sovereignty in that state; whence there was a voice in heaven, Now is come salvation, strength, and the Kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ. And what he will at the length do with the remainder yet of the Devil's Sovereignty, you may find in the 19 and 20 of the Revelation; For he must reign, as S. Paul saith, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet, until he hath destroyed all power, rule, and authority adverse unto him: And then, last of all destroying death by giving immortality to our raised bodies, shall surrender up his Kingdom unto his Father, as it is 1 Cor. 15.  
But Satan, saith my Text, shall prevail something against him, for the Serpent shall bruise his heel. What is this heel? Those who understood the seed of the woman singularly, as I told you, made it Christ's Manhood. But how we expound the seed Christ's mystical body, what shall we make the heel thereof? I could say that by it were only meant a light wound; or the Devils assaulting the Body of Christ ex insidiis, at unawares, for that is his fashion since the great overthrow, which our Michael gave him, to work his feats underhand, and to undermine our Lord in his members: But this though true is not full enough. It may seem therefore the fittest, to make hypocritical Christians, who profess Christ outwardly, but inwardly are not his, to make those the heel of his mystical body: for against such the Devil we know prevaileth somewhat, and by them annoyeth the rest of the Body with his venom, though he be far enough yet from impeaching our Lord's Headship, and Sovereignty. But will you give me leave to utter another conceit? If the blessed souls in heaven be the upper part of Christ's mystical Body, the Saints on earth the lower part of the same; may not the bodies of the Saints deceased, which lie in the earth, be accounted for the heel? for I cannot believe, but they have relation to this mystical Body, though their souls be severed from them, and yet must that relation be as of the lowest and most postick members of all. If you will admit this, than it will appear presently, what was this hurt upon the heel, when Christ had once mauled the Devil's head; for the Text seems to intimate that the Devil should give this wound after his head was broken.  
I will hold you in suspense no longer; read the 13. of the Revelation, and see what follows upon Michael's Victory over the Dragon, what the Devil did when he was down: He forms a new instrument of the wounded Roman Empire, by whose means under a pretence of the honour given to the precious relics of the Saints and Martyrs, he conveyed the poison of Saint-worship, and Saint-invocation into the Kingdom of Christ, with which wound of the heel, the Devil coming on the blind side, the true Church had been long annoyed and limpeth still.     

THE Christian Sacrifice, OR, The Solemn Worship in the EUCHARIST: Foretold by the Prophet Malachi, Taught by our blessed SAVIOUR, AND Practised by the Primitive CHURCH.  
BY JOSEPH MEDE, B. D. and late Fellow of Christ's College in CAMBRIDGE.  
LONDON, Printed by M. F. for JOHN CLARK, and are to be sold at his Shop under S. Peter's Church in Cornhill. MDC XLVIII.   

THE Christian Sacrifice.  MALACHI 1. 11. Abortu solis usque ad occasum, magnum erit nomen meum in Gentibus, & in omni loco offeretur Incensum Nomini meo, & Munus purum; quia magnum erit nomen meum in gentibus, dicit Dominus exercituum. 
THIS place of Scripture, howsoever now in a manner silenced and forgotten, was once, and that in the eldest and purest times of the Church, a Text of eminent note, and familiarly known to every Christian, being alleged by their Pastors and Teachers, as an express & undoubted Prophecy of the Christian Sacrifice or solemn worship in the Eucharist, taught by our blessed Saviour unto his Disciples to be observed of all, that should believe in his Name: And this so generally 
Mal. 1. 11.  and grantedly, as could never have been, at least so early, unless they had learned thus to apply it by tradition from the Apostles.  
For, in the age immediately succeeding them, being the second 100 year after Christ, we find it alleged to this purpose by justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, the Pillars of that Age: The former of them flourishing within little more than 30 years after the death of S. john, and the latter a Disciple of Polycarp S. john's Scholar. In the Age following, or third Seculum it is alleged by Tertullian, Zeno Veronensis, and Cyprian: In the fourth Seculum by Eusebius, chrysostom, Hierome, and Augustine, and in the after ages by whom not? Nor is it alleged by them, as some singular opinion or private conceit of their own, but as the received Tradition of the Church; whence in some Liturgies, (as that of the Church of Alexandria, commonly called the Liturgy of S. Mark) it is inserted into the Hymn, or Preface, which begins Dignum & justum est, the conclusion of the Hymn or Laud there being, Gratias agentes offerimus rationalem & incruentam, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seu, oblationem hanc, quam offerunt tibi Domine, omnes Gentes, ab ortu solis ad occasum, quoniam magnum Nomen tuum in omnibus Gentibus, & in omni loco incensum offertur Nomini tuo, & sacrificium purum.  
Thus you see the antiquity of Tradition, for the meaning and application of this Prophecy.  
But for the Christian Sacrifice itself, whereunto it is applied, what the ancient Church understood thereby, what, and wherein the nature of this Sacrifice consisted, is a point, though most needful to be known, yet, beyond belief obscure, intricate, and perplexed. He that shall make trial, will find I say true. A reverend and learned Prelate of ours acknowledges as much: Apud veteres Patres (saith he) (ut quod res est liberè fateamur) de sacrificio corporis Christi in Eucharistia incruento, frequens est mentio, quae dici vix potest quantopere quorundam, alioqui doctorum hominum, ingenia exercuerit, torserit, vexaverit. The reason of this obscurity hath grown partly from the changing of the notion of the Church thereabout in following times; partly by the violence of the controversies of this last Age; whilst each party finding the knot, and studying not so much the right way of untying it, as how to give the least advantage to the adverse party, have infinitely entangled the same, and made it more indissoluble than before.  
I have acquainted myself long with this Argument, and spent many a thought thereabout; using the best means I could conceive to be informed. Namely, Not so much to rely upon the opinions of modern writers, as to peruse and compare the passages of the Ancients themselves, and their Forms of Liturgies, out of which I was assured the truth might be learned, if I were but able to understand them.  
What I have found and learned, I desire to give an account of in this place, as I shall have occasion; the Argument being such as befits no other Auditory, but the Schools of the Prophets. Nor will the discourse be unprofitable for such, as mean to be acquainted with the writings of the Fathers and Antiquities of the Church: there being nothing in them so like to stumble the reader as this.  
To come then to the matter: where I will chalk out my discourse in this order.  
First, I shall premise, as the ground thereof, a Definition of the Christian sacrifice, as the ancient Church meant it.  
Secondly, Explain the meaning of my Text, by application thereto.  
Thirdly, Prove each part of the Definition, I shall give; by the Testimonies of the Fathers, Counsels, and Liturgies of the first and best Ages, interlacing therewith such passages, as may make for the better understanding either of the Testimonies I bring, or of the matter itself, for which they are brought.  

SECTION 1.  
TO begin with the first; The definition of the Christian sacrifice; under which name first know, That the ancient Church understood not, as many suppose, the mere Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, but the whole sacred Action or solemn Service of the Church assembled, whereof this sacred Mystery was then a prime and principal part, and as it were the Pearl or Jewel of this Ring; no public service of the Church being without it. This observed and remembered, I define the Christian sacrifice, ex ment antiquae Ecclesiae, in this manner:  
An oblation of Thanksgiving and Prayer to God the Father through Jesus Christ, and his Sacrifice commemorated in the Creatures of Bread and Wine, wherewith God had first been agnized. So that this sacrifice as you see hath a double object, or matter; First, Praise and Prayer, which you may call Sacrificium quod. Secondly, The commemoration of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, which is Sacrificium quo, the sacrifice whereby the other is accepted. For all the Prayers, Thansgiving, and Devotions of a Christian, are tendered up unto God in the name of Jesus Christ crucified. According whereunto, we are wont to conclude our Prayers with Through jesus Christ our Lord. And this is the specification, whereby the worship of a Christian is distinguished from that of the Jew. Now that which we in all our Prayers and Thanksgivings do vocally, when we say Per jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, the ancient Church, in her public and solemn Service, did visibly, by representing him according as he commanded, in the symbols of his Body and Blood: For there he is commemorated and received by us for the same end, for which he was given and suffered for us; that through him we receiving forgiveness of our sins, God our Father might accept our service and hear our prayers we make unto him.  
What time then so fit and seasonable to commend our devotions unto God, as when the Lamb of God lies slain upon the Holy Table, and we receive visibly, though mystically, those gracious Pledges of his blessed Body and Blood? This was that sacrifice of the ancient Church, the Fathers so much ring in our ears. The sacrifice of praise and prayer through Jesus Christ, mystically represented in the Creatures of Bread and Wine.  
But yet, there is one thing more my definition intimates, when I say through the sacrifice of jesus Christ commemorated in the Creatures of Bread and Wine, wherewith God had first been agnized. The Body and Blood of Christ were not made of common Bread and common Wine, but of Bread and Wine first sanctified, by being offered and set before God as a present to agnize him the Lord and giver of all: according to that, Domini est terra & plenitudo ejus. And, Let no man appear before the Lord empty. Therefore as this sacrifice consisted of two parts, as I told you, of Praise and Prayer, which in respect of the other I call sacrificium quod: and of the commemoration of Christ crucified, which I call sacrificium quo: so the symbols of Bread and Wine traversed both; being first presented as symbols of Praise and Thanksgiving to agnize God the Lord of the creature, in the sacrificum quod: Then by invocation of the Holy Ghost, made the symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ, in the sacrificium quo. So that the whole service throughout consisted of a reasonable part, and of a material part; as of a Soul and a Body of which I shall speak more fully hereafter; when I come to prove this I have said, by the testimonies of the Ancients.   

SECTION 2.  
ANd this is that Sacrifice which Malachi foretold, the Gentiles should one day offer unto God; In omni loco offeretur incensum Nomini meo & Mincha purum, quoniam magnum erit Nomen meum in Gentibus, dicit Dominus exercituum. Which words I am now, according to the order I propounded, to explicate and apply to my Definition.  
Know therefore, that the Prophet, in the foregoing Words, upbraids the Jews with despising and disesteeming their God; forasmuch as they offered unto him for sacrifice, not the best, but the lame, the torn and the sick; as though he had not been the great King, Creator, and Lord of the whole World; but some petty god, and of an inferior rank, for whom any thing were good enough. If I be a Father, where is mine honour? If I be Dominus, where is my fear? saith the Lord of Hosts unto you, O Priests that despise my name! and ye say wherein have we despised it? Ye offer polluted bread upon mine Altar, and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The Table of the Lord is contemptible; or, not so much to be regarded: that is, you think so; as appears by the baseness of your offering: For the Present shows what esteem the giver hath of him he honoureth therewith. But you offer that to me, which ye would not think fit to offer to your Prorex, or Governor, under the King of Persia: which shows you▪ have but a mean esteem of me in your hearts, and that you believe not, I am He that I am; because you see me acknowledged of no other Nation, but yours; and that ye have been subdued by the Gentiles, and brought into this miserable and despicable condition, wherein you now are; you imagine me to be some Topical god, and as of small jurisdiction, so of little power. But know, that howsoever I now seem to be but the Lord of a poor Nation; yet the days are coming, When from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place, incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the Heathen, saith the Lord of Hosts; it follows, though you have profaned it, in that ye say, the Table of the Lord is contemptible; whereas I am a great King, and my Name shall be dreadful among the Heathen.  
This is the dependence and coherence of the words. Now to apply them: Incense (as the Scripture itself tells) notes the Prayers of the Saints. It was also that, wherewith the remembrance was made in the sacrifices, or God put in mind: Mincha which we turn Munus, is oblatio farrea, an offering made of meal or flower baked, or fried, or dried, or parched corn. We, in our English, when we make distinction call it a meat-offering; but might call it a bread-offering, of which the Libamen, or the drink-offering, being an indivisible concomitant, both are employed under the name Mincha, where it alone is named.  
The Application than is easy; Incense here notes the rational part of our Christian sacrifice, which is Prayer, Thanksgiving, and Commemoration: Mincha the material part thereof, which is oblatio farrea, or a present of Bread and Wine.  
BUT this Mincha is characterised, in the Text, with an attribute not to be overpast; Mincha purum: in omni loco offeretur incensum nomini meo & Mincha purum; The meat-offering, which the Gentiles should one day present the God of Israel with, should be munus purum, or as the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Let us learn if we can, what this Purity is, and wherein it consisteth, or in what respect the Gentiles oblation is so styled. Some of the Fathers take this Pure offering, to be an offering, that is purely or spiritually offered: The old sacrifices both of the Jew and Gentile, were offered modo corporali, by slaughter, fire, and incense: but this of Christians should be offered only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as justin Martyr expresses it; whence it is usually called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a reasonable and unbloody sacrifice; namely, of the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Const. in Orat. ad Sanctor. coet. c. 12.  manner of offering it; Not that there was no material thing used therein, as some mistake, (for we know there was Bread and Wine) but because it is offered unto God immaterially or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only; which the Fathers in the first Council of Nice call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be sacrificed without sacrificing rites: This sense of Pure sacrifice is followed by Tertullian, as may appear by his words ad Scapulam; where speaking of the Christian Liturgy, Sacrificamus (saith he) pro Imperatore, sed quomodo praecepit Deus, pura prece; Non enim eget Deus, Conditor Vniversitatis, odoris aut sanguinis alicujus. Also in his third Book against Martion, cap. 22. In omni loco offertur incensum Nomini meo— & sacrificium mundum; that is, (saith he) gloriae relatio, benedictio, & hymni, which he presently calls munditias sacrificiorum: The same way go some others: But this sense, though it fitly serves to difference our Christian sacrifice, from the old sacrifices of the Jews and Gentiles, and the thing itself be most true; yet, I cannot see how it can agree with the context of our Prophet, where the word Incense (though I confess mystically understood) is expressed together with Munus purum: For it would make the literal sense of our Prophet to be this; In every place Incense is offered to my Name, and an offering without Incense. And yet this would be the literal meaning, if Pure here signified without Incense.  
Let us hear therefore a second Interpretation, of this Purity of the Christian Mincha, more agreeable to the dependence of the words; and that is a conscientia offerentis, from the disposition and affection of the offerer, according to that of the Apostle, Tit. 1. 15. To the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving, is nothing pure, but even their mind and conscience is defiled: They profess they know God, but in their works they deny him. The Jews offering was profane and polluted, because it proceeded not out of a due belief, and a conscience throughly persuaded of the greatness of their God; that he was the Creator and Lord of the whole earth, but rather some petty and particular god, like the gods of other Nations: But the Gentiles, who should see him not only the God of one Nation, but universally acknowledged over all the earth, should have no such reason to doubt, but firmly believe him to be the Great God, Creator of heaven and earth, and worship him as such, and so their offering be a pure offering, not polluted with unbelief. And it is to be observed, that all the ancient Christian Liturgies begin with this acknowledgement: For the sum of the Eucharistical Doxology, when the Bread and Wine is first presented before God, is comprehended in that of the Apocalypse, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, honour, and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.  
And to this way of interpreting the purity of the Christian sacrifice; to wit, from the conscience, and affection of the offerers, the Father's mostly bend: Irenaeus, lib. 4. cap. 34. Sacrificia non sanctificant hominem (non enim indiget Deus sacrificio) sed conscientia ejus, qui offered, sanctificat sacrificium, pura existens. Quoniam igitur cum simplicitate Ecclesia offered, justè munus ejus purum sacrificium apud Deum deputatum est. And a little after, Oportet enim nos oblationem Deo facere, & in omnibus gratos inveniri fabricatori Deo, insententia pura & fide sine hypocrisi, etc. Neither is Tertullian, whom I alleged before for the other interpretation, averse from this; for in his fourth Book Con. Marc. c. 1. Sacrificium mundum, that is, saith he, simplex oratio de conscientia pura. But this conscientious purity they seem to restrain, at least chiefly, to freedom from malice; as that singular purity whereby this Christian sacrifice is differenced from that of the Jew; because none can offer it, but he that is in charity with his brother; according to that in the Gospel, When thou bringest thy gift unto the Altar, and remember'st thy brother hath aught against thee— go first and be, etc. And therefore in the beginning of this Christian service, the Deacon was anciently wont to cry, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let no man have aught against his brother; and then followed osculum sanctum, the kiss of reconciliation. Thus the Fathers of the first Council of Nice, took Sacrificium purum, as appears Can. 5. where they expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which is offered omni simultate deposita.  
But according to this exposition, the purity of the Christian sacrifice will not be opposite to the pollution of the jewish, in the same kind, as it would, if more generally taken, but in another kind, and so the sense stands thus: You will not offer me a pure offering, but the Gentiles one day shall, and that with a purity of another manner of stamp, then that my Law requires of you. And thus I have told you the two ways, according to which the ancients understood this purity; and I prefer the latter, as I think they did.  
But there is a third Interpretation, were it backed by their Authority, (which I confess it is not) which I would prefer before them both: and I think, you will wonder with me, they should be so silent therein: Namely, that the title of Purity is given to the Christian Mincha, in respect of Christ whom it signifies, and represents; who is a sacrifice without all spot, blemish, and imperfection. This the Antithesis of this sacrifice, to that of the Jews, might seem to imply: For the Jews are charged with offering polluted Bread▪ upon Gods Altar; whereby what is meant the words following tell us: If you offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And if you offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? And in the end of the Chapter, Cursed be the deceiver, who hath in his flock a male, and voweth and sacrificeth to the Lord a corrupt thing. Now, if the sacrifice of the Gentiles be called pure, in opposition to this; is it not so called, in respect of that most perfect, unblemished, and unvaluable sacrifice it represents, jesus Christ the Lamb of God? I leave it to your consideration.   

SECTION 3.  
HAving absolved the two first things I propounded; given you a definition of the Christian sacrifice; and explained the words of my Text: I come to the third, and longest part of my task, to prove each particular contained in my Definition, by the testimonies and authorities of the Fathers, and writers of the first Ages of the Church. The Particulars I am to prove are in number six.  
First, That this Christian service is an Oblation, and expressed under that Notion by the utmost Antiquity.  
Secondly, That it is an Oblation of Thanksgiving and Prayer.  
Thirdly, An Oblation through jesus Christ commemorated in the creatures of Bread and Wine.  
Fourthly, That this Commemoration of Christ, according to the style of the ancient Church, is also a Sacrifice.  
Fiftly, That the Body and Blood of Christ, in this mystical Service, was made of Bread and Wine; which had first been offered unto God, to agnize him the Lord of the Creature.  
Sixtly, That this Sacrifice was placed in Commemoration only of Christ's sacrifice upon the Cross, and not in a real offering of his Body and Blood anew.  
When I shall have proved all these by sufficient Authority, I hope you will give me leave to conclude my Definition for true; That the Christian sacrifice, ex ment antique Ecclesiae, was, An Oblation of Thanksgiving and Prayer to God the Father, through jesus Christ and his sacrifice, Commemorated in the creatures of Bread and Wine, wherewith God had first been agnized.   

SECT. I.  
LEt us begin then with the first: That this Christian service is an Oblation, and under that 
2.  Notion expressed by all Antiquity. The names whereby the Ancient Church called this Service are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i. Oblatio, Sacrificium) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (a word if rightly understood of aequipollent sense) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Sacrificium Mediatoris, sacrificium Altaris, Sacrificium precis, sacrificium Corporis & sanguints Christi. It would be infinite to note all the Places and Authors, where and by whom it is thus called. The four last are S. Augustins; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be found with justin Martyr, and Irenaeus; whose antiquity is the Age next the Apostles. But, you will say, the Fathers even so early had swarved from the style of the Apostolic Age, during which these kind of terms were not used; as appears, by that we find them not any where in their Epistles and writings: But what if the contrary may be evinced? that this language was used even while the Apostles yet lived: For grant they are neither found in the Acts of the Apostles, nor in S. Paul and S. Peter's writings; yet this proves not they were not used in the Apostles times, no more than that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was not; whose case in this point is the same with the other. But to confine the Apostles Age, within the limits of Saint Paul's and S. Peter's lines, is a general mistake: For the Apostles Aage ended not till S. john's death Anno Christi 99 and so lasted as long within a year or thereabouts, after S. Paul and S. Peter's suffering, as it was from our Saviour's Ascension to their Deaths; that is, one and thirty years. And this too for the most part, was after the Excidium of jerusalem; in which time, it is likely the Church received no little improvement in Ecclesiastical Rites, and Expressions; both because it was the time of her greatest increase, and because, whilst the jews Polity stood, her Polity, for its full establishment, stood in some sort suspended. This appears by S. john's writings, which are the only Scripture written after that time, and in which we find two Ecclesiastic terms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the Deity of Christ; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the first day of the week; neither of both seeming to have been in use in S. Paul and S. Peter's time; and why may we not believe the like happened in others, and by name in these now questioned?  
Which, that I may not seem only to guess, I think, I can prove by two witnesses, which then lived; the one Clemens, he whose name, S. Paul says, was written in the Book of life; and the other Ignatius. Clemens in his undoubted Epistle ad Corinthios (a long time missing, but now of late come again to light;) In this Epistle the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is three times used of the Christian service, pag. 52. Debemus omnia (saith he) rite & ordine facere, quae Dominus nos per agere jussit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, praestitutis temporibus Oblationes & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obire: And a little after; Qui igitur praefinitis temporibus oblationes suas faciunt, accepti & beati sunt, Domini enim mandata sequentes, non aberrant. The other, Ignatius in his Epistle Ad Smyrnenses, hath both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Non licet (saith he) absque Episcopo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he calls, in a stricter sense, the first part of this sacred and mystical Service; to wit, the Thanksgiving, wherein the Bread and the Wine, as I told you, were offered unto God, to agnize his Dominion. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he calls the mystical Commemoration of Christ's Body and Blood; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the receiving, and participation of the same. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes used for the whole Action, and sometimes thus distinguished: Of this Epistle the learned doubt not; but if any one do, I suppose they will grant, that Theodoret had his genuine Epistles. Let them hear then a passage which he, in his third Dialogue, citys out of the Epistles of Ignatius, against some Heretics; Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt, quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem Servatoris nostri jesu Christi, quae passa est pro peccatis nostris. Here you see oblationes & Eucharistias exegetically join together. And so, I think, I have proved these terms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to have been in use in the Church, in the latter part of the Apostles Age.  
But what if one of them, namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were used sooner even in S. Paul's and S. Peter's time? In the first Epistle of Peter 2. 5. You are (saith he, speaking to the Body of the Church) a holy Priesthood, to offer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to God by jesus Christ. In the Epistle to the Heb. 13. 15. By him (that is, through Christ our Altar) let us offer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Sacrifice of praise to God continually. Why should I not think, S. Paul and S. Peter speak here, of the solemn and public Service of Christians, wherein the Passion of Christ was commemorated? I am sure the Fathers frequently call this sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And in some ancient Liturgies, immediately before the Consecration, the Church gives thanks unto God for choosing them, to be an holy Priesthood to offer sacrifices unto him, as it were alluding to S. Peter. Thus you see, first or last, or both, the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were no strangers to the Apostles Age.  
I will now make but one Quaere, and answer it, and so conclude this point: Whether these words were used (seeing they were used) properly, or improperly (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of the subject we speak of. I answer briefly. This Christian service, as we have defined it, is an Oblation properly; for wheresoever any thing is tendered or pretended unto God, there is truly and properly an Oblation; be it spiritual or visible, it matters not. For oblatio is the Genus; And Irenaeus tells me here, Non Genus oblationum reprobatum est; oblationes enim & illic, oblationes autem & hîc; sacrificia in populo, sacrificia & in Ecclesia, sed species immutata est tantùm. But as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Sacrifice, according to its prime signification, it signifies a slaughter-offering as in the Hebrew, so in Greek, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, macto. As the Angel in the Acts says to S. Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Peter, kill and eat. Now we in our Christian sacrifice, slay no offering, but commemorate him only that was slain, and offered upon the Crosse. Therefore our Service is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, improperly, and metaphorically. But if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be synecdochically taken, for an offering in general, as it is, both in the New Testament and elsewhere, than the Christian sacrifice is as truly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

SECT. II.  
NOw I come to the second particular contained in my Definition; to prove that the Christian sacrifice according to the meaning of the ancient Church is an Oblation of Thanksgiving and Prayer.  
My first Author shall be justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew; where, to the evasion of the Jews, labouring to bereave the Christians of this Text (by saying it was meant of the Prayers which the dispersed Jews at that time offered unto God in all places, where they lived among the Gentiles; which Sacrifices, though they wanted the material Rite, yet were more acceptable unto God, in regard of their sincerity, than those profaned ones at Jerusalem; and not that here was meant any Sacrifice which the Gentiles should offer to the God of Israel; to this evasion) justin replies, Supplicationes, & gratiarum actiones, quae à dignis peraguntur, solas perfectas esse, & Deo charas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ipse quoque affirmaverim; Has verò solas facere Christiani traditione acceperunt. If you ask, where, and how? he tells you, Nempe in commemoratione Alimoniae suae aridae juxtà & liquid, in qua & passionis, quam per seipsum pertulit Dei filius, memoria celebratur: It is a description of the Eucharist, wherein, as I have already told you, the Bread and Wine were first presented unto God, as the Primitiae to agnize him, the Giver of our food, both dry and liquid; and then consecrated to be the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ.  
My next Author shall be Tertullian ad Scap. in the place before alleged, Sacrificamus (saith he) pro salute Imperatoris;— sed, quomodo praecepit Deus, purâ prece: Non enim eget Deus, Conditor Vniversitatis, odoris & sanguinis alicujus: Haec enim Daemoniorum pabula sunt. The Gentiles so thought, that their Gods were refreshed and nourished with the smell and savour of their Sacrifices: Besides, in his third Book contra Marcionem cap. 22. In omni loco sacrificium nomini meo offertur, & sacrificium mundum, (to wit, saith he) Glori● relatio, benedictio & hymni; And Lib. 4. ca 1. Sacrificium mundum, scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura.  
Thirdly, Clemens Alexandrinus Lib. 7. Stromat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We (Christians) honour God by Prayer; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this we send up unto him, as the best and holiest sacrifice, honouring him by that most sacred Word, whereby we receive knowledge; that is, by Christ. Again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The sacrifice of the Church is an oration exhaled from sanctified souls: He speaks not of the private Prayer of every Christian, but the public Prayer of the Church, as a Body, as will be evident to him that reads the place, and appears by the words quoted; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Sacrifice of the Church; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exhaled, not from a sanctified soul, but, from sanctified souls. For to private prayer was not given this title of the Christian Sacrifice, but unto the public, which the Church offered unto God, when She presented herself before him, as one Body in Christ, by the mystical communion of his Body and Blood.  
This my next Author, Cyprian, will make plain in his 16 Epist. ad Mosen & Maximum. Nos quidem (saith he) vestri diobus & noctibus memores, & quando in sacrificiis precem cum pluribus facimus, & cum in secessu privatis precibus oramus; where we see the sacrifice of prayer to be, cum precem cum pluribus facimus; and distinguished from that we do, cum in se●essu privatis precibus oramus.  
These Authorities are all within the first three hundred years: to which I will add one of the fourth; Optatus Milevitanus Lib. 6. contra Parmenianum, where he thus expostulates with the Donatists for breaking and defacing the Altars of the Catholics: Quid est enim tam sacrilegum (saith he) quam Altaria Dei (in quibus & vos aliquando obtulistis) frangere, radere, removere? in quibus Vota▪ opuli, & membra Christi portata sunt; quo Deus omnipot●ns invocatus sit. Gather hence what parts the Christian Sacrifice consisted of; Vota populi, are the Prayers of the Church, Membra Christi, the Body and Blood of Christ, which the Prayers were offered with; both of them upon the Altar; For it is worthy your notice, that the ancient Church had no other place whereat she offered her public Prayers and Orisons, but that, whereon the memory of the Body and Blood of Christ was celebrated; that as they were joined in their Use, so might they not be severed in their Place.  
According to which use, and agreeable to this passage of Optatus, speaks the Council of Rheims, commanding the Table of Christ to be reverenced and honoured, Quia Corpus Domini ●bi consecratur, & sanguis ejus hauritur; Preces quoque & Vota populi in conspectu Dei à Sacerdote offeruntur.  
Furthermore, that the Christian Sacrifice was an Oblation of Prayer, and consisted in Invocation, is also another way to be evinced; Namely, because the Fathers, when they speak thereof, use the terms of Prayer, Oblation, and Sacrifice promiscuously, and interchangeably one for the other, as words importing the same thing.  
Tertullian Exhort. ad Cast dissuading a Widower from marrying again, because it would be uncomely in the Sacrifice of the Church, to make mention (as the manner than was) of more Wives than one, speaks thus; Etiam repete apud Deum pro cujus spiritu postules; pro qua oblationes annuas reddas; stabis ergo ad Deum cum tot uxoribus, quot illas oratione commemoras; & offerres pro duabus, & commemorabis illas duas per Sacerdotem de monogamia, ob pristinum de virginitate sancitum, circundatum virginibus & univiris; & ascendet sacrificium tuum cum libera front? Here postulatio and oblatio; oratio and offer; oratio and sacrificium are interchangeably put one for the other. So also in his Book De Oratione, are Oratio and Sacrificium; where he speaks of the kiss of Peace, and Reconcilement, used at the Eucharist; Quae oratio (saith he) cum divortio sancti osculi integra? quale sacrificium, à quo sine pace receditur?  
Augustine De Civit. Dei Lib. 8. cap. 27. speaking of the honour of Martyrs; Nec Martyribus (saith he) sacrificia constituimus— quis audivit aliquando fidelem stantem ad Altar (etiam super sanctum corpus Martyris) ad Dei honorem cultúmque constructum, dicere in Precibus; Offero tibi sacrificium, Petre, vel Paul, etc. Here Sacrificium is expounded by Preces, and Preces put for Sacrificium.  
And Lib. 22. cap. 8. concerning one Hesperius, a man of quality in the City whereof Austin was Bishop, who, by the affliction of his cattle, and servants, perceiving his Country-Grange liable to some malignant power of evil spirits, Rogavit nostros (saith S. Austin) me absent, Presbyteros, ut aliquis corum illò pergeret, cujus orationibus cederent; Perrexit unus, obtulit ibi sacrificium corporis Christi, orans, quantum potuit, ut cessaret illa vexatio; Deo protinùs miserante cessavit. The Priest was entreated to pray there, he went, and offered sacrifice and so prayed.  
For this reason the Christian Sacrifice is among the Fathers, by way of distinction, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sacrificium laudis; that is, of Confession and Invocation of God; to difference it from those of Blood and Incense. Augustine Lib. 1. contra Adversarios Legis & Prophetarum cap. 20. Ecclesia immolat in corpore Christi sacrificium laudis, ex quo Deus Deorum l●cutus vocavit terram à solis ortu usque ad occasum; Again Epist. 86. Sacrificium laudis, ab Ecclesia toto orbe diffusa, diebus omnibus immolatur; and elsewhere. And amongst the Greek Fathers this term is so frequent as I shall not need to quote any of them.  
Now this joining of the Prayers of the Church, with the mystical commemoration of Christ in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, was no after-Invention of the Fathers, but took its original from the Apostles times, and the very beginning of Christianity: For so we read of the first believers Acts 11. 24. that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Vulgar Latin turns, Erant autem perseverantes in doctrina Apostolorum, & communicatione fractionis panis, & orationibus; But the Syriack, Perseverantes erant in doctrina Apostolorum, & communicabant in Precatione, & fractione Eucharistiae; hoc est, Assidui erant in audiendis Apostolis, & sacrificio Christiano celebrando. Both which Translations teach us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Breaking of Bread, and Prayers, are to be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Exegesis thereof; namely, that this Communion of the Church, consisted in the breaking of Bread and Prayers; and so the conjunction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be exegetically taken, as if the Greek were rendered thus, Erant perseverantes in (audienda) doctrina Apostolorum, & in communicatione; videlicet fractione panis, & orationibus: And who knows not that the Synaxis of the ancient Christians, consisted of these three parts, Of hearing the Word of God; of Prayers; and commemoration of Christ in the Eucharist? Our Translation therefore here is not so right, which refers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and translates it, The fellowship of the Apostles.  
The Antiquity also of this conjunction we speak of, appears out of Ignatius, in his Epistles to the Ephesians, where speaking of the damage which Schismatics incur, by dividing themselves from the communion of the Church, he utters it in this manner: Let no man (saith he) deceive himself; unless a man be within the Altar, he is deprived of the Bread of God: And if the prayer of one or two be of that force, as to set Christ in the midst of them, how much more shall the joint prayer of the Bishop and whole Church, sent up unto God, prevail with him, to grant us all our requests in Christ? These words of Ignatius directly imply, that the Altar was the place, as of the Bread of God, so of the public Prayers of the Church; and that they were so nearly linked together, that he that was not within the Altar, (that is, who should be divided therefrom) had no benefit of either.   

SECT. III.  
THE second Particular thus proved, the third comes next in place, which is, That this oblation of thanksgiving and Prayer was made through jesus Christ commemorated in the creatures of Bread and Wine: Namely, they believe, that our blessed Saviour ordained this Sacrament of his Body and Blood, as a Rite to bless and invocate his Father by, in stead of the manifold and bloody Sacrifices of the Law; For that those bloody Sacrifices of the Law were Rites to invocate God by, is a truth, though not so vulgarly known, yet undeniable; and may, on the Gentiles behalf, be proved out of Homer and other Authors; 
* Sec 1. Sam. 7. 9 Ezra 6. 10. Psal. 116. 13. Prov. 15. 8. Baruch. I. 10. 11. 1 Mac. 12. 11. 2 Chron. 7. 1●.  on the Jews, by that speech of Saul, 1 Sam. 13. 12. when Samuel expostulated with him, for having offered a burnt-offering; I said, saith he, The Philistims will come down upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication to the Lord; I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt-offering: upon which place Kimchi notes, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (hoc est) Per manus holocaustorum precatio eorum, ut plurimùm, vel preces suas, ut plurimùm per holocausta Deo offerebant. The same is likewise true of their Hymns & Doxologies, as is to be seen 2 Chro. 29. 27. and by the words of the Chaldee Paraphrast jonathan, upon Exod. 38. 8. concerning the women that assembled at the door of the Tabernacle. Stabant (saith he) mulieres quae veniebant ad orandum, in Porta Tabernaculi juxta oblationem elevationis suae, & laudabant, & confitebantur, deinde revertebantur ad viros suos, & pariebant filios justos.  
It is further confirmed for Invocation in general, by that which the Scripture so often reports of Abraham and Isaak, That they built Altars where they called upon the Name of the Lord: The Altar was a place for Sacrifice.  
In stead therefore of the slaying of Beasts, and burning of Incense, whereby they called upon the Name of God in the Old Testament; the Fathers, I say, believed our Saviour ordained this Sacrament of Bread and Wine, as a Rite whereby to give thanks, and make supplication to his Father in his Name.  
The mystery of which Rite they took to be this; That as Christ by presenting his Death and satisfaction to his Father, continually intercedes for us in Heaven; so the Church on Earth semblably, approaches the Throne of Grace, by representing Christ unto his Father, in these holy Mysteries of his Death and Passion. Veteres enim (saith Cassander) in hoc mystico sacrificio, non tam peractae semel in cruse oblationis, cujus hic memoria celebratur, quam perpetui Sacerdotii & jugis sacrificii, quod in Coelis sempiternus Sacerdos offered, rationem habuerunt; cujus hic Imago per solennes Ministrorum preces exprimitur.  
This a Reverend and famous Divine of blessed memory, once of this Society, and interred in this place, saw more clearly, or expressed more plainly, than any other Reformed Writer I have yet seen; in his Demonstratio Problematis, and title de Sacrificio Missae: where he speaks thus: Veteres Coenam Domini, sen totam coenae actionem & formulam, vocarunt Sacrificium; tum aliis de causis, tum quia est commemoratio, adeóque repraesentatio Deo Patri, sacrificii Christi in cruse immolati: He goes on, Hoc modo fideles, etiam inter orandum, Christum offerunt Deo Patri victimam, dum scilicet ment affectúque ad sacrificium ejus unicum feruntur, ut Deum sibi habeant faciántque propitium: that which every Christian doth mentally and vocally, when he commends his prayers to God the Father, through Jesus Christ; making mention of his death and satisfaction: that in the public service of the Church, was done by that Rite, which our Saviour commanded to be used in Commemoration of him.  
These things thus explained, Let us now see, by what testimonies and authorities, it may be proved, the ancient Church had this meaning. I will begin with Saint Ambrose, because his testimony is punctual to our explication. Offic. lib. 1.mo cap. 48. ᵒ Ante (saith he) Agnus offerebatur; offerebatur & vitulus; nunc Christus offertur, sed offertur quasi homo, quasi recipiens passionem, & offered se ipse quasi sacerdos, ut peccata nostra dimittat; hic in imagine, ibi in Veritate, ubi apud Patrem pro nobis quasi advocatus intervenit. And in his Missa or Liturgy after the confractorium, the Priest prays in this manner; Ipsius praeceptum est Domine quod agimus, in cujus nunc te praesentia postulamus; Da sacrificio Authorem suum, ut impleatur fides rei in sublimitate mysterii; ut sicuti veritatem coelestis sacrificii exequimur, sic veritatem Dominici corporis & sanguinis hauriamus.  
An Author, which Cassander in his Consultations quotes without name, expresses this mystery fully; Non imptè à nobis (saith he) Christus occiditur; sed piè sacrificatur; & hoc modo mortem Domini annunciamus donecveniat: hoc ●nim hîc per eum humiliter agimus in terris, quod pro nobis ipse potenter (sicut filius pro sua reverentia exaudiendus) agit in Coelis; ubi apud Patrem pro nobis quasi advocatus intervenit; cui est pro nobis intervenire, carnem quam pro nobis & de nobis sumpsit, Deo Patri quodammodo pro nobis ingerere.  
My next Author shall be Eusebius; Demonstrat. Euangel. lib. 1. cap. 10. where mentioning that of the 23 Psalms, Thou hast prepared a Table before me, etc. Thou anointest my head with oil: Palam, saith he, in his mysticam significat unctionem: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: veneranda mensae Christi sacrificia; (he means the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hoc est, per quae litantes, aut propitiantes, supremo Deo rationales, incruentas, eique suaves victimas, in tota vita per eminentissimum ipsius Pontificem, offer edocti sumus. Here Eusebius affirms, that Christians are taught to offer unto God reasonable and unbloody sacrifices; that is, Prayer and Thanksgiving: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propitiating, or finding favour with God, through the venerable mysteries of Christ's Table; For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, litare, propitiare, or placare Numen, votum impetrare, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, gratum facere.  
Next I produce Cyrill of jerusalem (or more likely john his successor) Author of those five Catecheses' Mystagogicae; In the last of which, relating and expounding the meaning of that, which was said or done in the celebration of the Eucharist, according to the use of his time, amongst other things he says thus; Post absolutum spiritale illud sacrificium & incruentum cultum, after the thanksgiving and invocation of the Holy Ghost, upon the Bread and Wine, to make it the Body and Blood of Christ (of which he was speaking before) was done, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Super illa propitiationis hostia obsecramus Deum 
* 1 Mac. 12. 11.  pro communi Ecclestarum pace, pro tranquillitate mundi, pro Regibus, pro militibus, pro socils, pro aegrotis & afflictis, & in summa, pro omnibus iis qui egent auxilio; And this is the manner of the Greek Liturgies, immediately upon the consecration of the Dona, to be the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ, and the commemoration thereon of his Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Dionys. Areop. Ep. ad ●emoph. Therapeutam.  to offer to the Divine Majesty, as it were over the Lamb of God then lying upon the Table, their supplications and prayers, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. de Vita Constant. lib. 4. c. 45.  for the whole state of Christ's Church and all sorts and degrees therein, together with all other their suits and requests; and that ever and anon interposing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we offer unto thee, for these and these; that is, we commemorate Christ, in this mystical Rite for them. This Prayer therefore our Author cyril in the place aforequoted calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, supplicationem sancti & tremendi praejacentis sacrificii; and saith, that it is a most powerful prayer, as that wherein we offer unto the Divine Majesty, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Christ that was once slain for our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, propitiating the merciful God, for ourselves and others we pray for.  
And this is that, if I mistake not, which Tertullian means lib. de oratione cap. 11. where he says of the Christians, that they did Dominicâ passione modulari, & orare: Nos vero (inquit) non attollimus tantum manus, sed etiam expandimus; & Dominicâ passione modulantes, & orantes confitemur Christ's; id est, Christum. According to the dialect of the Scripture; Confitemur Domino, for Confitemur Dominum; For by commemorating Christ, and offering our prayers to the Father in his Name, we confess and acknowledge him, to be our Mediator; so Eusebius de Laude Const. calls it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To send up Prayers in his Name to the God of all.  
The same with Tertullian, means Saint Austin, describing the Christian sacrifice to be; immolare Deo in Corpore Christi sacrificium Laudis, lib. 1. contra Adversarios Legis & Prophetarum: cap. 20. Ecclesia (saith he) immolat Deo, in Corpore Christi, sacrificium Laudis, ex quo Deus Deorum locutus vo avit terram, à Solis ortu usque ad occasum, Psalm. 40.  
Lastly, that the representation of the Body and Blood of Christ in this Christian service, was intended and used as a Rite, whereby to find grace and favour with God, when the Church addressed herself unto him, (which is that I undertook to prove,) is apparent by a saying of Origen Hom. 13. in Levit. where treating of the shewbread, which was continually set before the Lord with incense, for a memorial of the children of Israel; that is, to put God in mind of them: he makes it in this respect to have been a lively figure of the Christians Eucharist; For, saith he, Ista est commemoratio sola, quae propitium facit Deum hominibus.  
All these testimonies have been express for our purpose: That the Thanksgiving and Prayers of the Church in the Christian sacrifice, were offered unto the Divine Majesty through Christ commemorated in the Symbols of Bread and Wine, as by a Medium whereby to find acceptance.  
There is, besides these, an usual expression of the Fathers, when they speak of the Eucharist; which though it be not direct and punctual, as the former, yet, I verily believe, it aimed at the same Mystery. Namely, when they say, that in this Sacrifice they offer Praise and Prayer to God the Father, through jesus Christ, the great Highpriest. I will quote an Example or two; Clemens, or the Author of the Constitutions, lib. 2. cap. 29. Vos hodie (saith he) o Episcopi, estis populo vestro sacerdotes & Levitae:— assistentes ad Altare Domini & Dei nostri, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, per jesum Christum, magnum Pontificem.  
The same Clemens in a more undoubted writing of his, to wit, his Epist. ad Corinthios, quoting that of the 50. Psalms after the Septuagint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the sacrifice of Praise shall glorify me; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;— and there is the way wherein I shall show to him that sacrificeth the salvation of God. This is the way saith Clemens, that is, the sacrifice of Praise is the way, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wherein we have found our salvation, jesus Christ, the Highpriest of all our offerings. The Fathers are wont to expound this place, of the Eucharist; and therefore I doubt not, but Clemens means of the same, and tells us that in this Sacrifice Christ the Highpriest of our offerings is found; that is, represented and commemorated.  
In the same style speaks Iust. Mar. Dial: cum Tryphone. Ne unum quidem est genus Mortalium, sive Graecorum, sive Barbarorum, sive quocunque nomine appellantur— inter quos per nomen cruci fixi jesu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Patri & fabricatori omnium non fiant. He is speaking of the Christian sacrifice, & our Text in Malachi; In omni loco offeretur incensum nomini meo, where by Nomen Dei he understands Christ, through whom, in this Sacrifice, our devotions are offered. So doth Ireneus, and others; Iren. lib. 4. cap. 33. Quod est aliud Nomen, quod in Gentibus glorificatur, quam quod est Domini nostri, per quem glorificatur Pater, & glorificatur homo:— quoniam ergo Nomen filii proprium Patris est & in Deo omnipotente per jesum Christum offert Ecclesia, bene ait secundum utraque, Et in omni loco offeretur incensum Nomini meo, & sacrificium purum.  
Now how this Incense and Sacrifice, which the Prophet saith the Gentiles should offer to the Name of God, may be expounded, Offered by the Name of God, to wit, by Christ, Origen lib. 8. contra Cels. will inform us; Vnum Deum (saith he) & unum ejus filium, ac verbum imaginemque, quantum possumus, supplicationibus & honoribus veneramur; offerentes Deo universorum preces per suum unigenitum; Cui prius eas adhibemus, rogantes ut ipse, qui est propitiator pro peccatis nostris, dignetur tanquam Pontifex preces nostras & sacrificia & intercessiones offerre Deo super omnia. That, which we offer to the Father by Christ, we offer first to Christ; that he, as our Highpriest, might present it to his Father. More passages hath Origen in the same Books of this kind.  
But I will not weary you too much in this rugged way; out of this which we have hitherto discoursed and proved, may be understood the meaning and reason of that Decree of the third Council of Carthage and Hippo. Vt nemo in Precibus, vel Patrem pro Filio, vel Filium pro Patre, nominet. Et cum Altari assistitur, semper ad Patrem dirigatur oratio. The reason; because the Father is properly the Object, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom; the Son only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by whom, in this Mystical service; and therefore, to direct here our Prayers and Thanksgivings to the Son, were to pervert the order of the Mystery, which is, as hath been proved, An oblation of Praise and Prayer to God the Father, through the Intercession of jesus Christ, represented in the Symbols of Bread and Wine.   

SECT. IV.  
THe fourth particular propounded was this; That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, or Lords Supper is a Sacrifice, according to the style of the ancient Church.  
It is one thing to say, that the Lords Supper is a Sacrifice, and another to say, that Christ is properly sacrificed therein. These are not the same; for there may be a Sacrifice, which is a representation of another, and yet a Sacrifice too: And such is this of the New Testament, a Sacrifice wherein another Sacrifice, that of Christ's death upon the Cross, is commemorated: Thus the Papists gain nothing by this Notion of Antiquity, and our asserting the same; For their tenet is, that Christ in this Sacrifice is really and properly sacrificed; which we shall show in due time that the Ancients never meant.  
To begin with this: As in the Old Testament the name of Sacrifice was otherwhile given to the whole action in which the Rite was used; sometimes to the Rite alone: so in the Notion and Language of the ancient Church, sometimes the whole Action or Christian service (wherein the Lord's Supper was a part) is comprehended under that name; sometimes the Rite of the sacred Supper itself, is so termed, and truly, as you shall now hear.  
The resolution of this Point, depends altogether upon the true Definition of a Sacrifice, as it is distinguished from all other Offerings. Which, though it be so necessary, that all disputation without it, is vain; yet shall we not find, that either party interessed in this question, hath been so exact therein, as were to be wished. This appears by the differing Definitions, given and confuted by Divines on both sides; the reason of which defect is, because neither are deduced from the Notion of Scripture, but built upon other conceptions: Let us see therefore, if it may be learned out of Scripture, what that is which the Scripture, in a strict and special sense, calls a Sacrifice.  
Every Sacrifice is an oblation or offering: but every offering is not a Sacrifice, in that strict and proper acception we seek. For Tithes, First-fruits Heavofferings in the Law, and whatsoever indeed is consecrated unto God, are oblations or offerings; but none of them Sacrifices, nor ever so called in the Old Testament: What offerings are then called so? I answer, Burnt-offerings, Sin-offerings, Trespass-offerings, and peace-offerings. These, and no other, are called by that name.  
Out of these therefore must we pick the true and proper ratio of a Sacrifice: It is true indeed, that these Sacrifices were offerings of beasts, of beefs, of sheep, of goats, of fowls; but the ratio of any thing consists not in the matter thereof; As the gowns we wear, are still the same kind of apparel, though made of differing stuffs: These Sacrifices also were slain, and offered by fire and incense: But neither is the modus of any thing the ratio or essential form thereof. That therefore may have the nature and formale of a Sacrifice which consists of another matter, and is offered after another and differing manner; Those we call Sacraments of the Old Testament, Circumcision and the Passeover, were by effusion of blood; ours are not, and yet we esteem them nevertheless true Sacraments; and so it may be here.  
To hold you therefore no longer in suspense, a Sacrifice, I think should be defined thus; An offering, whereby the offerer is made partaker of his God's Table, in token of Covenant, and friendship with him, etc. more explicately thus: An offering unto the Divine Majesty, of that which is given for the food of man; that the offerer partaking thereof, might, as by way of pledge, be certified of his acceptation into Covenant, and fellowship with his God, by eating and drinking at his Table. S. Augustin comes toward this Notion, when he defines a Sacrifice (though in a larger sense) opus quod Deo nuncupamus, reddimus, & dedicamus, hoc fine, ut sanctâ societate ipsi adhaereamus; for to have society and fellowship with God, what is it else, but to be in league and covenant with him?  
In a word, a Sacrifice is oblatio foederalis; for the true and right understanding whereof, we must know, that it was the universal custom of mankind, and still remains in use, to contract covenants and make leagues of friendship, by eating and drinking together. When Isaac made a covenant with Abimelec the King of Gerar, the Text saith, He made him and those that were with him, a feast, and they did eat, and drink, and rose up betimes in the morning, and swore one to another, Gen. 28. When jacob made covenant with Laban, after they had sworn together, he made him a feast, and called his brethren to eat Bread, Gen. 31. When David made a league with Abner, upon his promise to bring all Israel unto him, David made Abner and the men that came with him a feast, 2 Sam. 3. 
* Vide eti am jos 9 14. 15. Psa. 41. 10. Vir pacis meae in quo fidebam; qu● comedibat panem meum.  Hence in the Hebrew tongue, a covenant is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to eat; as if they should say, an eating; which derivation is so natural, that it deserves to be preferred, before that from the other signification of the same verb, which is eligere. And this will suffice for the custom of the Hebrews.  
Now for the Gentiles, Herodotus tells us, the Persians were wont to contract leagues of friendship, inter vinum, & Epulas, in a full feast, whereat their wives, children and friends were present. The like Tacitus reports of the Germans: Amongst the Greeks and other Nations, they eat bread and salt together. Unto which comes near that ceremony, somewhere used at weddings; that the Brdegroom, when he comes home from Church, takes a piece of cake, tastes it, then gives it to his Bride to taste it likewise; as a token of a covenant made between them. The Emperor of Russia at this day, when he would show extraordinary grace and favour unto any, sends him bread and salt from his Table: And when he invited Baron Sigismond the Emperor Ferdinand's Ambassador, he did it in this form; Sigismunde comedes sal & panem nostrum nobiscum. Hence that Symbol of Pythagoras' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Break no bread, is interpreted by Erasmus, and others, to mean, Break no friendship: Moreover the Egyptians, Thracians, and Lybians in special, are said to have used to make 
Vid. Turcicum ritum apud Busbequium, Epist. 1. 11.  leagues, and contract friendship, by presenting a cup of wine one to another; which custom we find still in use amongst our Western Nations; and what is our To pledge, but to take as a pledge of league and friendship? Yea it is a rule in Law, that if a man drink to him, against whom he hath an accusation of slander, or other verbal injury, he loses his Action, because it is supposed he is reconciled with him.  
Such now, as were these covenant-feasting and eatings and drink, in token of league and amity between men and men; such are Sacrifices between man and his God; Epulae foederales, wherein God deigneth to entertain man, to eat and drink with or before him, in token of favour and reconcilement. For so it becomes the condition of the parties, that he which hath offended the other, and seeks for favour, and forgiveness, should be entertained by him, to whom he is obnoxious; and not è contra, that is, that God should be the Convivator, and man the Conviva. To which end, the Viands for this sacred Epulum, were first to be offered unto God, and so made his, that he might entertain the offerer, and not the offerer him. For we are to observe, that what the fire consumed was accounted as, and called by himself, the meat of his fire-offerings; the rest was for his guests, which they were partakers of, either by themselves, as in all the peace-offerings, or by their proxies, the Priests, as in the rest; to wit, the Holocausts, the sin and trespass-offerings. The reason of which difference was, I suppose, because the one was ad impetrandum, or renovandum foedus; where therefore a Mediator was needful; the other, to wit, the peace-offerings, ad confirmandum & consignandum, only: wherein therefore they addressed themselves before the Divine Majesty with greater confidence. If any shall object, that the Holocaust was wholly burnt, and consumed, and so no body partaker thereof; I answer, it is true, the beast, which was slain, was wholly burnt, and so all of it, as it were God's Mess. But there was 
* Levit. 23. 13, 18. Num. 8. 8. & 15. 24. & 28. 20, 28, 31. & 29. 6, 11 19  a meat-offering, and drink-offering annexed thereunto, as a part of the holy feast; of which a handful only was burnt for a memorial, the remainder was for the 
* Leu. 7. 9  Priests to eat in the holy place; Besides, burnt-offerings were regularly accompanied with peace-offerings (as you shall find them in Scripture ordinarily joined together,) now in these the people that offered had the greatest share. In a word, that those who offered sacrifice, both among Jews and Gentiles, were partakers of the same, is a thing to be taken for granted; as appears by the warning God gave the Israelites, Exod. 34. That they should make no covenants 〈◊〉 ●e inhabitants of the land; lest when they went a ●…g after their gods, and offered a sacrifice unto the●●…ey might call them, and they also eat of their sacrifice. And by that Psal. 106. They joined themselves to Baal-Peor, and eat the sacrifices of the dead. By that of S. Paul; Hebr. 13. We have an Altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve at the Tabernacle; So that of this, there needs be no question.  
It remains only, we prove that these sacred Epulae, were Epulae foederales; and so our Definition will stand good: Now this will appear, first in general, by that expression of Scripture, wherein the covenant, which God makes with Man, is expressed by eating and drinking at his Table, Luk. 13. Those, to whom the Lord opens not, plead for themselves: We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets, etc. Cap. 22. Our Saviour's tells his disciples; I appoint you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed me; that ye may eat, and drink at my Table in my Kingdom. Apoc. 3. 20. Behold I stand at the door and knock; If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in unto him, and sup with him and he with me: But these passages, you will say, show rather how fitly sacrifices might be feasts of amity between God and men, then prove they were so indeed: Hear therefore such proofs, as I think come home to the point.  
First, Every sacrifice, saith our Saviour, Mark 9 is salted with salt. This salt is called Levit. 2. The salt of the Covenant of God; that is, a Symbol of the perpetuity thereof. Now if the salt, which seasoned the sacrifice, were sal foederis Dei: what was the sacrifice itself, but Epulum foederis?  
Secondly, Moses calls the blood of the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, wherewith he sprinkled the children of Israel, when they received the Law, the blood of the Covenam, which the Lord had made with them: This is, saith he, the Blood of the Covenant, which the Lord hath made with you.  
Thirdly, and above all, this may most evidently be evinced, out of the 40. Psalms; the whole Argument whereof is concerning sacrifices: There God saith, Gather my Saints together unto me, which make covenant with me by sacrifice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And vers. 16. of the sacrifices of the wicked, and such as amend not their lives; Unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and take my Covenant in thy mouth? seeing thou hatest instruction, etc. Statutes here, are Rites and Ordinances, and particularly those of Sacrifice, which who so bringeth unto God, and thereby supplicates and calls upon his Name, is said, to take the covenant of God in his mouth; Forasmuch as to invocate God with this Rite, was to do it by way of commemoration of his Covenant, and to say, Remember Lord thy Covenant, and for thy Covenants sake, Lord hear my prayer and supplication. For what hath man to do with God, to beg any favour at his hands, unless he be in Covenant with him? whereby appears the reason, why mankind, from the beginning of the world, used to approach their God, by this Rite of sacrificing; that is, ritu foederali.  
I add in this last place, for a farther confirmation; That, when God was to make a Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 15. he commanded him to offer him a Sacrifice; Offer unto me (saith he, so it should be turned) a heifer, a she-goat, and aram, each of three years old, a turtle Dove, and a young pigeon; All which he offered accordingly, and divided them in the midst, laying each piece or moiety one against the other; and, when the sun went down, God in the likeness of a smoking furnace, and burning lamp passed between the pieces, and so, as the Text says, made a Covenant with Abraham, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land, etc. By which Rite, of passing through the parts, God condescended to the manner of men; And note here, that the Gentiles, and Jews likewise, in their more solemn covenants between men and men, (which were made under pain of curse or execration) used this Rite of Sacrifice, whereby men covenanted with their God, as it were to make their God both a witness, and a party with them. And here the Jews cut the Sacrifice in sunder, and past between the parts thereof; as God did here with Abraham: which was as much, as if they had said, Thus let me be divided, and cut in pieces, if I violate the oath, I have now made in the presence of my God. The Gentiles, besides other ceremonies, used not to eat at all of these sacrifices, but to fling them into the sea, or bury them in the earth; as if they had said, If I break Covenant, thus let me be excluded from all amity and favour with my God; as I am now from eating of his Sacrifice. Hence came those phrases; secare foedus, in the Hebrew; of ferire, percutere & icere foedus; in Latin: of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Homer, à feriendis, percutiendis, & secandis sacrificiis in foederibus sanciendis; Though this manner of speech may be also derived from their ordinary Epula foederales, wherein they killed beasts, which the Ancients in their ordinary diet did not.  
Having thus seen what is the nature of a Sacrifice, and wherein the ratio thereof consisteth, it will not be hard to judge, whether the ancient Christians did rightly, in giving the Eucharist that name, or not: For that the Lords supper is Epulum foederale, we all grant, and our Saviour expressly affirms it of the Cup in the stitution; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This Cup is the Rite of the new Covenant in my Blood, which is poured out for many, for the remission of sins; evidently implying, that the bloody sacrifices of the Law, with their meat and drink-offerings, were Rites of an old covenant, and that this succeeded them as the rite of the 
* Eusebius (Demonst. Euang. lib. 9) vinum mysticum sacrosanctae Eucharistia vocat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Casaub. exerc. ad Ann. 32. N. 26.  new. That, that was contracted with the blood of beeus, sheep, and goats; but this founded in the blood of Christ: This parallel is so plain, as I think none will deny it. There is nothing then remains to make this sacred Epulum, a full sacrifice, but that the Viands thereof should be first offered unto God, that he may be the Convivator, we the Convivae or the guests.   

SECT. V.  
MY last task was to prove, that the rite of the Lords Supper is indeed a Sacrifice, not in a Metaphorical but a proper sense; and this, if the nature of Sacrifice be truly defined, is no whit repugnant to the reformed Religion.  
To evidence which I showed, that a Sacrifice was nothing else but a Sacred-feast, wherein God mystically entertained man at his own Table, in token of amity and friendship with him: which that he might do, the Viands of that feast were first made Gods by oblation, and so eaten of, not as of Man's, but God's provision.  
There is nothing then wanting to make this sacred Epulum, of which we speak, full out a Sacrifice, but that we show, that the Viands thereof were in like manner first offered unto God; that so being his, he might be the Convivator, man the Conviva, or the guest: And this the ancient Church was wont to do; this they believed our blessed Saviour himself did, when, at the institution of this holy Rite, he took the Bread and the Cup into his sacred hands, and looking up to heaven gave thanks and blessed: And, after his example, they first offered the Bread and Wine unto God, to agnize him the Lord of the Creature, and then received them from him again in a Banquet, as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of his Son. This is that, I am now to prove out of the testimonies of Antiquity, not long after, but next unto the Apostles times, when it is not likely the Church had altered the form they left her, for the celebration of this Mystery.  
I will begin with Irenaeus, as the most full and copious in this point; He, in his fourth Book cap. xxxii, speaks thus; Dominus Discipulis suis dans consilium Primitias Deo offerre ex suis Creaturis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi, nec ingrati sint▪ eum, qui ex Creatura est panis, accepit, & gratias egit; dicens, Hoc est corpus meum; & Calicem similiter, qul ex Creatura est, quae est secundum nos, suum sanguinem con fessus est; & Novo Testamento novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat, primitias suorum munerum in Novo Testamento.  
And Cap. xxxiii. Igitur Ecclesiae oblatio, quam Dominus docuit offerri in universo mundo, purum sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum; & acceptum est ei; non quod indigeat à nobis sacrificium, sed quoniam is qui offert glorificatur ipse in eo quod offered, si acceptetur munus ejus: Per munus enim erga Regem honos & aff●ctio ostenditur. He alludes to that in the first of Malachi, I am a great King, saith the Lord of Hosts.  
Ibid. Oportet nos oblationem Deo facere, & omnibus gratos inveniri Fabricatori Deo, Primitias earum, quae sunt ejus, Creaturarum offerentes; & hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola puram offert Fabricatori, offerens ei cum gratiarum Actione ex Creatura ejus.  
In the same place, Offerimus autem ei, non quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes Dominationi ejus, & sanctificantes creaturam. He alludes again to that in this Chapter of Malachi, Si Dominus sum, ubi est timor meus, O sacerdotes, qui offertis super Altare meum panem pollutum?  
My next witness shall be justin Martyr, in time elder than Irenaeus; He in his Dialogue with Tryphon, (the place defore alleged) telling the Jew, that the Sacrifices of Christians are Supplications and giving of Thanks; Has vero solas (saith he) facere Christiani traditione acceperunt, in commemoratione Alimoniae suae, aridae juxta & liquidae; in that thankful remembrance of their food both dry and liquid; in qua & passionis quam pertulit per se ipsum Dei filius, memoria celebratur: Here is a twofold commemoration witnessed to be made in the Eucharist; The first, as he speaks, of our food dry and liquid; that is, of our meat and drink by agnizing God, and recording him the Creator, and giver thereof: The second, of the passion of Christ the Son of God, in one and the same food. And again in the same Dialogue, Panem Eucharistiae in commemorationem passionis suae Christus fieri tradidit (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.) ut simùl gratias ageremus Deo, cum ob id, quod mundum, cum omnibus in eo Creaturis, hominis gratia condiderit, tum etiam, quod ab omni in qua fuimus miseria nos liberarit, Principatusque ac potestates perfectâ dissolutione dissolverit, per eum qui de consilio & voluntate ejus factus est patibilis. To which he immediately subjoins the Text, and applies it to the Eucharist. Thus justin Martyr.  
My third witness is Origen in his VIII. Book Contra Cels. Celsus (saith he) thinks it seemly we should be thankful to Daemons and to offer them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but we think him to live most comely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that remembers, who is the Creator: unto whom we Christians are careful not to be unthankful, with whose benefits we are filled and whose Creatures we are; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, And we have also a Symbol of our thanksgiving unto God, the Bread which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Where note, that the Eucharistical Bread is said to be a Symbol, not only of the Body and Blood of Christ, but a Symbol of that Thanksgiving, which we render to the Creator through him.  
Again, in the same Book, where Celsus likewise would have mankind thankful unto Daemons, as those to whom the charge of things here upon earth is committed, and to offer unto them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Primitias & supplicationes. Origen thus takes him up. Celsus Deum nesciens, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 persolvat Daemonibus; nos mundi Creatori placere students (or gratum facientes, Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Panes, cum gratiarum actione & precibus pro datis, oblatos comedimus, Corpus sanctum quoddam per precationem factos. Mark here, Bread offered unto God, with Prayer and Thanksgiving pro datis, for that he hath given us, and then by prayer made a holy Body, and so eaten.  
Thus much out of Fathers, all of them within less than two hundred and fifty years, after Christ; and less than one hundred and fifty, after the death of Saint john.  
The same appears in the forms of the ancient 
Vide etiam Can. Apostol. II. (al. III.) Can. XL. Synod. Carthag. Can. VII. Edicti Theophili Alexandrini apud Balsamon.  Liturgy, as in that of Clemens, where the Priest in the name of the whole Church assembled speaks thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Offerimus tibi Regi & Deo, secundum ejus (id est, Christi) ordinationem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hunc panem & hoc poculum, gratias tibi agentes, eo quòd nos (he speaks of the whole Church) dignos fecisti astistere in conspectu tuo, & fungi sacerdotio tibi. Rogamusque te, ut benignè aspicere digneris super haec dona, proposita in conspectu tuo; Tu qui nullo indiges Deus, & complaceas tibi in ipsis, in honorem Christi tui, etc.  
Again, Pro dono oblato Domino Deo oremus, ut bonus Deus suscipiat illud, per intercessionem Christi sui in coeleste Altare suum in odorem suavitatis.  
Yea, in the Canon of the 
* In Ordine Romano, dimissu Ca techamenis. Rubrica habet; Postea incipiunt cantores cantare offertorium, & populus dat oblationes suas, id est, panem & Vinum; & offerunt cum Fanonibus, id est, velis candidis; primò malculi, deinde Foeminae, novissimè Sacerdotes & Diaconi; sed solum panem, & hoc ante Altar: Tunc acciplens Archidiaconus à subdiaconis oblat●s, ponic tantas super Altar, quantae possunt populo sufficere ad communionem. Videatur Theod. in hist. de Theodosio offerente, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. l. 4. c. 17. Consul Cyprian. de Op. & Eleemos.— Quae in Dominic●m sine sacrificio venis; quae partem de Sacrificio, quod pauper obtulit, sumis: August, de Temp. Serm. CCLI. Oblationes quae in Altaria consecrantur offerte; Erubescere debet homo idoneu, si de aliena oblatione communicaverit.  Roman Church, though the Rite be not used, yet the words remain still; as when the Priest, long before the Consecration of the Body and Blood of Christ, prays, Te clementissime Pater, per jesum Christum Dominum nostrum supplices rogamus, ut accepta habeas, & benedicas haec dona, haecmunera; and other like passages, which now they wrest to a new found oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ, which the ancient Church knew not of.  
But, of all others, this Rite is most strongly confirmed, by that wont of the Ancient Fathers, to confute the Heretics of those first times (who held the Creator of the world, to be some inferior deity, and not the Father of Christ) out of the Eucharist: For, say they, unless the Father of Christ be the Creator of the world, why is the Creature offered unto him, in the Eucharist, as if he were? would he be agnized the Author, and Lord of that he is not?  
Here Ireneus, Adversus Haeres. lib. 4. cap. 34. Haereticorum Synagogae (saith he) non offerunt Eucharisticam oblationem quam Dominus offerri docuit; Alterum enim, praeter fabricatorem, dicentes Patrem, ideo, quae secundum nos Creaturae sunt, offerentes ei cupidum alieni ostendunt eum, & aliena concupiscentem: and a little after, Quomodo autem constabit eyes, eum panem, in quo gratiae actae sunt, Corpus esse Domini sui, & Calicem sanguinis ejus, si non ipsum Fabricatoris mundi filium dicant; id est, verbum ejus per quod lignum fructificat, & defluunt fontes, & terra dat primum quidem gramen, post deinde spicam, deinde plenum triticum in spica?  
From the same ground Tertullian argues against Martion; contra Marc. lib. 1. cap. 24. Non putem (saith he) impudentiorem, quam qui in aliena aqua alii Deo tinguitur; ad alienum Coelum alii Deo expanditur; in aliena terra alii Deo sternitur; super alienum panem alii Deo gratiarum actionibus fungitur; de alienis bonis ab alium Deum nomine ele●mosynae & dilectionis operatur.  
Origen against the same Heretic useth the same Argument; Dialog. Advers. Marc. 3. paulo ante finem. Dominus aspiciens in coelum gratias agit: Ecquid non agit conditori gratias? cum panem accepisset, & poculum, & benedixisset, quid? alterine pro Creaturis conditoris benedicit? an potius illi qui effecit & exhibuit?  
Lastly, this oblation of the Bread and Wine is employed in S. Paul's parallel of the Lords Supper, and the Sacrifices of the Gentiles: You cannot (saith he) be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and the Table of Devils; namely, because they imply contrary Covenants, incompatible one with the other. A sacrifice, as I told you, being Epulum foederale; Now here the Table of Devils is so called, because it consisted of Viands offered to Devils, (so S. Paul expressly tells us) whereby those that eat thereof, eat of the Devil's meat; Ergo, The Table of the Lord is likewise called his Table, not because the Lord ordained it, but because it consisted of Viands offered unto him.  
Having thus, as I think, sufficiently proved what I took in hand, I think it not amiss, to answer two questions, which this discourse may beget. The first is, How the Ancients could gather out of the Institution, that our Saviour did as hath been showed? I answer, they believed, that he did as the Jews were wont to do; But they did thus. How will you say doth this appear? I answer, it may appear from this, The Passeover was a Sacrifice, and therefore the Viands here, as in all other holy Feasts, were first offered unto God. Now the Bread and Wine, which our Saviour took when he blessed and gave thanks, was the Mincha or meat-offering of the Passeover: If then he did as the Jews used to do, he agnized his Father and blessed him, by oblation of these his Creatures unto him, using the like or the same form of words, Benedictus tu Domine Deus noster, Rex mundi, qui producis panem è terra; And over the Wine; Benedictus tu Domine Deus noster, Rex mundi, qui creasti fructum vitis: Moreover the Church ab initio applied that precept of our Saviour, Mat. 4. 23. If thou bring thy gift to the Altar, etc. to the Eucharist; for they believed, that he would not enact a new law concerning legal Sacrifices, which he was presently to abolish; but that it had reference to that oblation, which was to continue under the Gospel.  
The other question is: If all this be so, how is not our celebration of the Eucharist defective, where no such oblation is used? I answer, this concerns not us alone, but all the Churches of the West of the Roman communion, who, as in other things they have depraved this mystery, and swarved from the primitive pattern thereof, so have they for many Ages disused this oblation of Bread and Wine, and brought in, in lieu thereof▪ a real and hypostatical oblation of Christ himself; This blasphemous oblation, we have taken away, and justly, but not reduced again that express and formal use of the other: Howsoever, though we do it not with a set ceremony, and form of words; yet in deed and effect we do it, so often as we set the Bread and Wine upon the Holy-Table: For whatsoever we set upon God's Table, is ipso facto dedicated, and offered unto him: According to that of our Saviour Mat. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Altar sanctifies the gift; that is, consecrates it unto God, and appropriates it to his use: In which respect, it were much to be wished, that this were more solemnly done, than it is usual; namely, not until the time of the administration, and by the hand of the Minister, in the name and sight of the whole congregation, standing up, and showing some sign of due and lowly reverence, according, as the Deacon was wont to admonish the people in Ancient Liturgies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: erecti ad Dominum, cum timore & tremore stemus oblaturi.   

SECT. VI  
THe sixth, and last thing to be proved was, That Christ is offered in this Sacrifice commemoratively only and not otherwise. Though the Eucharist be a Sacrifice (that is, an Oblation) wherein the offerer banquets with his God, yet is Christ in this Sacrifice no otherwise offered, then by way of commemoration only, of his Sacrifice once offered upon the Cross; as a learned Prelate of ours hath lately written, objectiuè only, not subjectiuè. And this is that, which our Saviour himself said, when he ordained this sacred Rite, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; This do in commemoration of me.  
But this commemoration is to be made to God his Father, and is not a bare remembering or putting ourselves in mind only, (as is commonly supposed) but a putting of God in mind; For every Sacrifice is directed unto God, and the Oblation therein, whatsoever it be, hath him for its Object, and not man. If therefore the Eucharist be Sacrificium Christi commemorativum, as ours grant, then must the commemoration therein be made unto God: and if Christ therein be offered objectiuè, that is, as the object of the commemoration there made, (as that learned Bishop speaks) if the commemoration of him, be an oblation of him, whom is this oblation, that is, commemoration, made unto, but God?  
Well then, Christ is offered in this sacred Supper, not hypostatically, as the Papists would have him, (for so he was but once offered) but commemoratively only, that is, by this sacred Rite of Bread and Wine, we represent, and inculcate his blessed Passion to his Father; we put him in mind thereof, by setting the Monuments thereof before him; we testify our own mindfulness thereof unto his sacred Majesty, that so he would, for his sake, according to the tenor of his Covenant, in time be favourable and propitious unto us miserable sinners.  
That this, and no other offering of Christ in the blessed Eucharist, the Ancient Church ever meant, or intended, I am now to show, by authentical testimonies.  
First, by the constant form of all the Liturgies; in which, after the reciting of the words of Institution, is subjoined, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, commemorantes, or commemorando offerimus.  
Clemens, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That is, commemorantes igitur Passionem ejus, & mortem, nec non ex mortuis resurrectionem atque in coelos ascensionem— offerimus tibi Regi Deo hunc panem & hunc caliem; Mark here, commemorantes offerimus, that is, offerimus commemorando; Commemorando autem apud Deum, cui offerimus. This is the tenor of all the Greek Liturgies, save that some, in stead of offerimus tibi hunc Panem & hunc calicem, have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, offerimus tibi tremendum hoc, & incruentum sacrisicium; as that of Jerusalem (called S. james his Liturgy.) Others, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as that of S. chrysostom: Others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tua ex tuis, as that of Basil; and of Alexandria (called Saint Marks:) but all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, commemorantes offerimus.  
In the same form runs the Ordo Romanus, Memores Domine nos servi tui, sed & Plebs tua sancta Christi Filii tui Domini Dei nostri, tum beatae Passionis, nec non ab inferis resurrectionis, sed & in Coelum gloriosae ascensionis, Offerimus praeclarae Majestati tuae, de tuis donis ac datis, hostiam puram, sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, panem sanctum vita aeternae & calicem salutis perpetuae; note here also memores offerimus.  
Which Ivo Carnotensis explains thus; memores offerimus Majestatituae, (id est, saith he, oblatam commemoramus per haec dona visibilia) hostiam puram— sanotam, immaculatam, etc. Et hanc veri sacrificii commemorationem postulat sacerdos ita Deo Patri fore acceptam, sicut accepta fuerunt munera Abel, etc. Thus he.  
Memores therefore, in the Latin Canon, is commemorantes, which the Greek expresses better 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the sense whereof that we may not doubt, hear the explication of that great Council of Ephesus in this manner. Annunciantes Mortem unigeniti Filii Dei, jesu Christi, & resurrectionem ejus atque in coelum ascensionem pariter confitentes, incruentum in Ecclesiis celebramus sacrificii cultum.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore is Annunciantes & confitentes. But unto whom should we confess, but unto God? To him therefore, and not unto ourselves is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be made, which Christ commended to his Church, when he said, Do this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for my commemoration, or in remembrance of me.  
In the Council of Ephesus, Cyril of Alexandria was chief Actor and Precedent; and it is to be noted, that the Liturgy of the Church of Alexandria (usually called S. Marks) hath in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the selfsame words, Annunciantes & confitentes, which I now quoted out of the Council for an explication of the same: which argues, as I take it, cyril to have been the penman of the Decrees of the Council, and the Liturgy of his Church to have then run in this form.  
I shall need allege no more of the Latin Liturgies; there is no material difference amongst them: So that, if you know the form of one, you know of all: I will add only out of S. Ambrose an Explication following those words, of the Institution, Do this in remembrance of me; expressed in this manner, Mandans & dicens ad eos, Quotiescunque hoc feceritis, toties commemorationem mei facietis, Mortem meam praedicabitis, resurrectionem meam annuntiabitis, adventum sperabitis donec iterum adveniam.  
This may suffice for Liturgies▪ Now let us hear the Fathers speak.  
I quoted heretofore a passage out of justin Martyr, affirming a twofold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be made in the Eucharist; The one of our food, dry and liquid, (as he speaks) that is, of our meat and drink, by agnizing, and recording him the Lord and giver of the same: The other an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same food 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the passion of the Son of God: The first of these commemorations is made unto God; for to whom else should we tender our thankfulness for the Creature? Ergo, The second commemoration of the Passion of the Son of God, is made to him likewise.  
My next Father is Origen, Homily 13. In Leu. c. 24. where comparing the Eucharist to the Shewbread which was every Sabbath set for a Memorial before the Lord: Ista est, saith he, meaning the Eucharist, commemoratio sola, quae propitium facit Deum hominibus. Where note, that both this commemoration is made unto God, as that of the Shewbread was; and that the end thereof is to make him propitious to men: According to that of S. Augustin l. 9 c. 13. Illa quae in coena Christus exhibet, Fides accepta interponit inter peccata nostra & iram Dei, tanquam satisfactionem & propitiationem.  
My next witness is Eusebius Demonst. Evan. li. 1. cap. 10. Post omnia, saith he, speaking of Christ, mirabilem quandam victimam sacrificiúmque eximium Patri suo operatus, pro nostra omnium salute obtulit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Memoriam nobistradens loco sacrificii Deo continuè offerendam. And again toward the end of that Chapter having cited this place of Malachi, which I have chosen for my Text, and alluding thereunto, Incendimus, saith he, propheticum illud Thymia●a— sacrificamus & incendimus aliàs quidem memoriam magni illius sacrificii, secundum mysteria ab ipso tradita, celebrantes, Eucharistiamque pro salute nostra religiosis hymnis & precibus Deo offerentes; alias nosmetipsos totos ei consecrantes, ejusque Pontifici verbo corpore animoque dicantes.  
But above all other, S. chrysostom speaks so full and home to the point, as nothing can be more; to wit, Hom. 17. in Epist. ad Hebraeos, upon these words cap. 9 v. 26. But now once in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself: Quid vero, saith he, nos nonne quotidie offerimus? He answers, Offerimus quidem, sed mortem ejus commemorando, & ipsa una est hostia, non multae: Quomodo una est, non multae? Quoniam semel fuit oblata; Illa illata fuit in sancta sanctorum, hoc est, illius figura & ipsa illius [veritas:] And a little after, Pontifex illo noster est, qui hostiam illam obtulit, quae nos mundat. Illam nunc quoque offerimus, quae tunc fuit oblata, nec consumi potest. Hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hoc in commemorationem fit illius, quae tunc fiebat. Hoc enim facite, inquit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Non aliam hostiam, sicut pontifex [judaicus,] sed eandem semper facimus, vel potius sacrificii Memoriam operamur; Graecè, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; what can be more expressed than this is? Primatius is short, but no less to the purpose. Offerunt quidem, saith he, Sacerdotes nostri, sed ad recordationem mortis ejus, in 10. cap. ad Hebraeos. S. Augustin calls it Memoriale sacrificium in his Book against Faustus.  
In a word, the Sacrifice of Christians is nothing but that one Sacrifice of Christ once offered upon the Cross, again and again commemorated; which is elegantly expressed by those words of S. Andrew, recorded in the History of his Passion, written by the Presbyters of Achaia: where AEgeas the proconsul requiring of him to sacrifice to Idols, he is said to have answered thus; Omnipotenti Deo, qui unus & verus est, ego omni Die sacrifico, non thuris fumum, nec taurorum mugientium carnes, nec hircorum sanguinem: sed immaculatum agnum quotidiè in Altari crueis sacrifico; cujus carnes postquam omnis populus credentium manducaverit, & ejus sanguinem biberit, Agnus qui sacrificatus est integer perseverat & vivus. This Riddle though AEgeas the Proconsul were not able to unfold, I make no question but you are: And here I conclude.   
FINIS.