NOW I have read my Text, let mee call upon you to heare the word of God. For these words, eyther through the ignorance or peevishnesse of some, were not commonly taken for such. This verse, with some others, in this par­cell of sacred Writ, being generally held Apo­cryphall; insomuch that the whole Epistle was called in question, and scarcely obtayned to bee accounted within the verge of the Canon. Per­haps not without some ground: for that this story of Michael, and that Prophecy of Enoch, mentio­ned in the 14 verse, are not to be found any where in Scripture. And although Saint Peter (out of whom our sacred Plagiary, Saint Iude hath taken [Page 2] most of his Epistle) have the same sense in gene­rall termes, 2. Pet. 2. That the Angels which are greater in power and might, bring not a rayling accusation, &c. Yet that Michael did ever contend with the Divell, and contending did use such mo­deration, we read not any where recorded, but by our Apostle in this place. Some say therefore, that this story was a common tradition amongst the Hebrewes, and from them our Apo­stle had it. Others, that it might be some Booke then extant, which is since perished. Clemens A­lexandrinus, and Athanasius, name one intituled [...]; the Ascention of Moses: out of which probably it might be taken. And why not so, since Saint Paul before him, quoted Ara­tus, Menander, and Epimenides. Certayne it is; that many bookes of Scripture are lost: As the bookes of the Battels of the Lord, Num. 21.14. Jos. 10.13, mentioned by Moses. The booke of the Righteous cited by Io­shua, the bookes of Shemaiah the Prophet, Iddo the Seer, and Nathan the Prophet: many of the workes of Salomon, and much of the Chronicles. Out of one or other of which this story might be inserted, and receive like authority with those which are of as obscure antiquity. Moses doth no where report how Iannes and Iambres withstood him, Saint Paul doth, 2. Tim. 2.3. and more then that too: for he sayth, that our Saviour was seene of more then of five hundred brethren at once, 1. Cor. 15. And that tacentibus Evangelistis, the E­vangelists saying no such thing. Saint Luke bids us remember what our Saviour sometime sayde, [Page 3] It is better to give then to receive: but yet makes no quotation for it, Act. 20.35. And it is easily to be supposed (sayth Iustinian) that the Apostle would not use a feigned instance in so serious a matter, In Loc. or not rather an undoubted truth, wheresoever recei­ved. I will not follow the matter so hard upon my Author, as scrupulously to question where he had it, since I finde it heere. I conclude with him (and that no meane Author) both modestly and confidently: Vt ut est ex Iudâ certum est hanc Histo­riam esse Canonicam: Cor. a La­pide in Loc. From whence soever it bee taken, it is in Iude Canonicall. Truth is truth, where ever found, which distild from the pen of the holy Ghost, becomes divine verity. A story by tradition, or Apocryphal, may be true, many times is, to which if the sacred Spirit please to set his hand, and deliver it to us as his act and deede, must necessarily be authenticall.

Not to hold you long in a perchance unnecessa­ry Quaere. The words in generall, are an Histori­call narration of a certaine contention, occasional­ly had betweene Michael the Archangel, and the Divel, at the funerall of Moses. And they offer themselves to your consideration, under these par­ticulars: First, The contention it selfe, Hee strove against the Divell, and disputed about the body of Mo­ses. Secondly, His demeanour, or behaviour in this contention, He durst not bring a rayling accusa­tion, &c.

In the first of these, observe, 1. The persons striving, Michael the Archangel, and the Divel. 2. The matter of their strife, or about what they [Page 4] strove, The body of Moses. 3. The maner of their striving, how they strove, and that is by way of disputation or discourse, They disputed. The se­cond Generall. His behaviour it selfe, He durst not &c. and that is set downe, 1. Negatively, Hee durst not bring a rayling, &c 2. Affirmatively, He sayd, The Lord rebuke thee. Of which, in order, as God shall assist me, your Christian patience en­courage me, and my weake memory suffer me.

First, of the Contention it selfe: and therein, first of the persons contending, Michael &c.

First, of the first person contending, Michael the Archangel.

This name is one of those sixe names of An­gels, which some have reckoned to bee found ex­prest in Scripture. It imports, according to Ety­mologie, Power or fortitude. Michael interpreta­tur quis ut Deus: Who is so strong as our God? Whether this be the Archangels proper name, or no, may be a question. Since some have doubted whether Angels have any proper or particular names whereby to be distinguisht, assigned them by God: and have concluded the contrary. viz. that those blessed spirits have not any proper or peculiar names. The which opinion Zanchy hath thought most probable, and seemes to maintayne. And as for those names which were given them in Scripture, 1. they were given them onely for a time, to be distinguisht by, while they were in employment among men: 2. to denote and imply their office, and message, about which they were sent: and so Gabriel signifieth, the fortitude of God: [Page 5] even that fortitude, he would have him to exercise at this or that present time, about this or that pe­culiar designe. So Raphael hath his name from healing or curing diseases, which was the mayne intent of his comming to Tobit. Tob. 3.17. And the Angel of the Lord, namely Raphael, was sent to heale them both. So Michael signifying pow­er, is brought in as a Champion of the Church of God, Dan. 12.1. And under that name he defen­deth the Elect against the Dragon, Apoc. 12.7. And so of the rest. And thus as they are names of office, so were they not appropriate or perpe­tuall; but eyther continued to them for the same purpose, or transferred to some who should per­forme the same office, at the good will & pleasure of Almighty God. Ne (que) enim unus tantum Angelus curandis morbis praefectus est, sed alii etiam ad idem faciendum mitti aut solent aut possunt. Nomen igitur Raphaelis unius Angeli proprium esse credendum non est: & idem de aliis dicendum esse, quis dubitet? Zanch. l. 3. de Oper. Dei, c. 1.

And that they have names in Heaven, may seeme improbable, in this respect, because the same reason holdeth not. It might bee requisite, that whilest they were on Earth, they should have names, in regard of the weake capacity of humane Nature, who cannot otherwise or well distinguish things but by their names; which was the reason why Adam at the first, imposed names upon all creatures. As likewise to confirme the reality of their appearance, which otherwise might bee thought fantasticall, or a meere deceptio visus, or [Page 6] to confirme their predictions, by the name of him that foretold them; and so the Angel tels Mary his name, I am Gabriel. And Manoah did at least desire the name of the Angel which appeared to him for that purpose. Or rather for some reason best knowne to him that imposed them. But this reason ceaseth in Heaven, where not onely God himselfe knoweth every Angel, but every Angel knowes every of his fellows in particular. Besides, neyther have they any voyce, as being spirits, whereby names are to be expressed; inasmuch as all things in Heaven are done after a spirituall ma­ner, by divine revelation, or otherwise in an ex­pressible sort. Thus farre goeth Zanchy. And thus farre I lead the Curious, whom I leave to their leysure to determine of so unnecessary a quae­re. And if any will be further troublesome, I must answer him as the Angel did Manoah, Iudg. 13.18. about the same question; Why askest thou thus after their names, since they are secret? Neyther whether they have or not, can bee knowne: and in the silence of the Holy Ghost, to determine any thing, may be rash and unwarrantable.

The Arcbangel.

This name is observed to be alwayes given to the better Angel, and is still found in the singular number; which hath given occasion to some, to doubt, whether there are more thē on Archangel, or no: That there are many or more, may be with­out question. The general & more proper collecti­on hence, is this, that there are orders and degrees in Heaven amongst those blessed and glorious spi­rits: [Page 7] an Archangel supposeth an Angel, and so of the rest. However in this particular, the Schooles may seeme to have beene too curious, Who out of Saint Paul have added Thrones, Do­minations, Vertues, Principalities, Coloss. 1. Out of Ezekiel Cherubims. Out of Esay Seraphims: and this done, take their pen and definitively set downe nine orders or degrees. But how they will make them good, thats the Question: for that the deduction is weake and unwarrantable, not able to oversway the contrary opinion of many other Learned, who though they hold some kinde of order and subordination amongst the Angels, yet they are not so bold as to assign in particular their degrees and orders: and to affirme a thing so re­mote from our understanding, were necessary ey­ther some evident reason, or more firme authority then can be alleadged for so determinate a num­ber: Esse Sedes, Dominationes, &c. That there are Thrones, and Dominations, and Principalities, &c. I doe firmely beleeve, sayth S. Austin; and that they differ in some sort, but how I know not, nor do I think my selfe disparaged by that ignorance. And for my owne part, when I should have occa­sion to occupy my busines in such great waters as these, I would rather desire to be commended for my neat stroake in swimming over them, then for my skill in diving into them.

Well, an Archangell he is, Vnus de Principibus, De Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 9. S Post ca­sum. a chiefe or principal Angel, as Vatablus there, Dan. 10.13. The great Prince, Dan. 12.1. Bellarmine affirmes, that Michael ever since the fall of Lucifer, [Page 8] is Head of the glorious Angels: but he doeth not tell us how he came to be chosen in Lucifers room. Others, that he is the tutelar Angel of the Church Catholike, and of the Head thereof, the Pope; with many other offices which they put upon him without warrant, and to little purpose. Some more probable then any of these, have thought that he was that very same Angel, which condu­cted the children of Israel over the Red Sea, and in the Wildernesse, in their voyage to the land of Canaan. This I am sure of, notwithstanding these opinions, he was reputed by Daniel, the chiefe Pa­tron of the Iewes, and the Defender of Gods people; and therein a type of Christ, the true Sa­viour of his Church. And so wee may conclude him heere as being now set in opposition against the Divel, in a cause tending to the same purpose. And so much of the one party contending, Micha­el the Archangell. The other is the Divell: Lu­cifer, as, tis supposed, and so the Prince of Divels, to be the Antagonist to the Prince of the Angels. However there is impar congressus, an unequall match, and not likely to prevayle. Hee was once a puissant spirit, & of redoubted prowesse, whilest he stood intire; but having caught so damnable a fall as he did, hee was never since able to recover the strength he then lost, and obtaine conquest in what ever quarrell he did engage himselfe, as the issue of this present conflict will proove. I shall therefore passe over his person, with the observa­tion of his malice and boldnesse; who, as if not conscious of his owne weakenesse by his fall, dare [Page 9] yet beare up, and affront the Captaine of the Hea­venly Host. His malice will not suffer him but to contend, though without hope of victory: strive the will, be it at never so great disadvantage. Our Savior himselfe must not baulke his assault, thogh he get nothing by the attempt, Mat. 4. As for Saint Michael and he, it seemes contention was ordina­ry betweene them; wee still finde them fighting together. Michael and his Angels, against the Di­vell and his Angels, in a solemne set Battell. And if we will understand there, by Michael, Christ, as S. Austin doth; Per Michaelem intellige Christum. It may confirme the care of our Saviour over his Church, who will never suffer it to want a Cham­pion, though himselfe go in person to the Battell. And by that meanes, the Divel and his forces shall still be routed and put to flight: And in this stands our comfort, that maugre all his malice, wee shall be able to be conquerours, yea more then conque­rours, in him that loveth us, and gave himself for us. Roare he may, Lion as he is; fasten he cannot: seeke his pray he must, if happily hee can so finde it, readily fetch it he cannot: wait hee must upon God for what he hath; Gods permission is the Di­vels commission: where he pleaseth to give up his right, there onely the Divell takes possession: and of this we are sure, that he will never fayle those who put themselves under the shadow of his wings. And thus much of the persons conten­ding. Come wee now to the matter of their con­tention, in the next words: ‘The body of Moses.’

There are that hold that Moses never died, and interpret Gods burying of him, Deut. 34.6. of his Translation or [...]; and some of the Fathers have made mention of a Booke intituled to that purpose, [...] the ascension or as­sumption of Moses into Heaven, as after we reade of Elijah. The which they rather beleeve, be­cause they are sayd both of them to appeare, Matt. 17.2. and talke with Christ in the transfiguration. Others have thought, that though Moses indeed died, yet God did not bury him, but that God appointed him the place of his Sepulchre, and he there made a Cave, into the which he entred and dyed, accor­ding to the word of the Lord, and had no other maner or ceremony of interring or inhumation: and so it came to passe, that no man ever yet knew of his Sepulchre. But it is certaine, that both these are false: For first, that Moses died is evident, So Mo­ses the servant of the Lord died, Deut. 34.5. And that being dead, he buried not himselfe, is likewise plain in the words that follow, that The Lord buried him. Ʋerse 6. And had it not beene so, his Sepulchre had ne­ver continued to this day unknowne. Let Moses bu­ry himselfe never so secretly, the Divell would have beene privy to it, (as we see he is heere not­withstanding) and no doubt would have easily acquainted those with it, whom it might concern for the future. It is certayne enough then, that God buried him: that is, as Interpreters generally agree, by the Ministry of the Archangell in the Text, or at least together with some other appoin­ted for that purpose, Michael yet having the chief­est [Page 11] hand in the designe. And surely some neede there was: Moses is no sooner dead, and going to his grave, but the Divel would have arrested the corps: and hence grew the present contention be­tweene Michael and him.

The contents of this strife, hath bred a various conceit amongst Interpreters, and as it ordinarily falleth out in matters of this nature, one sayth one thing, another, another. Ten severall opinions are cited by Lorinus concerning this matter. I for­beare to cite them. The most generall and setled determination is: That whereas Michael would have buried Moses privately, as God commanded, the Divel would have him buried openly and in publike view. And whereas Michael would not have his Sepulchre knowne, the Divel laboured by all meanes to publish it. Upon this, Michael re­sists him: the Divel urgeth the contrary, and hence arose the strife.

The Divels intent, as it could not be good, so it might easily be ghest: viz. to wit, that thereby he might draw the people of Israel to Idolatry, which were happily too prone already. Which God knowing, prevented them in This, as a further oc­casion, conveying his body away from them.

It is easie to be conceived, that they who wor­shipt the Brazen Serpent, might in time to come, worship the setter up of it. Neyther could those many signes and wonders which he did amongst them, chuse but heighten the conceit of a deity, and cause them to worship him as a God after his death, whom they so extraordinarily honoured [Page 12] in his life. Their present estimation must needes be easily improoved into future superstition. Be­sides they had sometime heard that of God to Moses, Exod. 7.1. I have made thee a God to Pha­raoh, and Aaron shalbe thy Prophet. And what comment they might have made upon those words, may probably be imagined. And though a dead body may seeme but a cold argument to perswade divinity, and a spectacle of Mortality might well have dasht the conceit of a Deity; Yet considering how foolish superstition hath ever beene, Superstitio semper stolida: Superstition was ever foolish. Illos pro diis vene­rantur quo­rum sepul­chra habent. Lact. And how feazable a thing it is in it selfe; it will not be hard to conceive how the bo­dy of Moses might easily have become an Idoll. What were all those numberlesse Deities, Anti­quity so fondly and devoutly worshipt? Were they not men, famous in their generations, and the glory of their times? as the Wiseman speaketh, Good Kings, Honourable Parents, Noble Bene­factors, Couragious Warriours. And to this Ar­nobius & Lactantius have ascribed the first original of all Idolatry. viz. the superstitious having of mēs persons in admiration after their deaths. Iupiter, Mercury, Saturne, &c. what were they but men, who for their benefits and deserts came at the first to be accounted for deities. And what? Was Mo­ses behinde any of these, yea what were they in re­spect of him? There arose not a Prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. In all the signes and wonders which the LORD sent him to doe in the Land of Aegypt to Pharaoh, and [Page 13] to all his servants, and to all his land, and in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terrour which Moses shewed in the sight of all Israel. Deut. ult. v. 10. 11. 12. Could all Israel know this and not bee rapt with more then an ordinary conceit of his person, after his death, whom they welnigh adored in his life. To put this out of question, it was, without doubt, the cause why God hid his body. Neither can there bee any reason assigned why hee should so doe, saith Cor. a Lapide, but lest the Iews should worship him. This the Divel wel knew, In Loc. and that made him so earnestly contend for his body, only that he might make an Idoll of it.

And if this may yet be thought incredible, let his dayly practice prove it by experience. What greater superstition hath hee brought in, in these later dayes, then by these meanes? What pilgri­mages; prayers, devotions, have beene given in way of homage to the Shrines of deceased Mar­tyrs? What a treasure of precious reliques hath hee raked out of the dusty graves of departed Saints, with which he besots the misled fancyes of these dayes? We cannot but see to what excel­lent purpose the body of Moses would have ser­ved; when we see so many armes, legges, hands, feet, & fingers of Martyrs, to be had in such reve­rent if not divine estimation. Good reason there was therfore, that Michael should stand up in the defence of it, & vindicate it out of his hands who would so have prostituted it to idolatrous uses.

Thus wee see what the Divel would have done had he had his will. Yet see the diligence of the [Page 14] cunning deceyver: Omnem movebit lapidem: Hee will not leave any stone unmooved, to promote his intentions, no not a grave stone. The Divel would fayne bee trying experiments on Moses body. The grave shall not bee free from his ma­lice, if he can prevayle: neyther at least shall they be free from Impusture, where realities fayle. If God will not let him touch the dead bodies of his Saints, yet he doth often make use of their shapes: If the substance be denied him, the apparition shall serve turn to deceive. If Saul stand in need, Samuel shall come up in the very mantle he used to weare in his life time. But let it be our wisdome to know these sleights, and our Christian courage to resist them. And thus much of the matter about which they contended, The body of Moses. I proceede to the maner, how they contended, and that was by way of disputation or discourse; ‘Altercabantur, They disputed.’

Touching Angelicall locution (to which this particular of my Text hath reference;) It hath beene an ancient question among the Fathers, and occasioned by divers places of Holy Writ. The Seraphims stood upon it, &c. Esay 6.2.3. And one Cryed to the other, Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God of Hosts. Out of which that of Saint Ambrose in his Te Deum, To thee all Angels Cry aloud, &c. To thee Cherubim and Seraphim continually doe cry. So Zach. 2. Behold the An­gel which spake in me, went foorth, and another Angel went foorth to meet him, and Sayde unto him. More expresly in the new Testament. Saint [Page 15] Paul sayth, If I shall speake with the tongues of men and Angels, 1. Cor. 13. Which words have given much occasion of dispute about this matter. However the words in themselves are interpre­ted as spoken hyperbolically, or by way of con­cession, that is supposing the Angels had tongues. But in this point Saint Hierome seemeth to have gone as farre as sobriety may safely venture, and I conclude with him: Illud immobiliter tenendum esse nullo modo in silentio agi militiae coelestis officia, &c. This is to bee holden, without doubt, from the forenamed places of Scripture. That the ser­vices of the Heavenly Hoast are not performed in silence, and that the Angels have their maner of tongues, though farre different from all humane. Now, as for their maner of spirituall speech, or expression of their Angelical thoughts one to ano­ther, thats the difficulty. And I hope there is none heere that will desire any satisfaction in a mat­ter of so sublime speculation. As for my owne part, I thinke that most true which Saint Austin pronounceth concerning this doubt: Ne (que) sciri, ne (que) affirmari posse, quanam ratione Angeli vel ad aurem forinsecus vel in animo intus loquantur ho­minibus, aut aliquando locuti sunt: That it cannot be knowne or declared any way, how they speak; eyther outwardly in our eares, or inwardly in our hearts, or amongst themselves one with another. Multa nobis cognoscenda in coelo reservavit: sayth Zanchy very well, God hath reserved many things to be then known when we come to heaven; and of which sort is this Quaere.

It may suffice for our present purpose to know that this contention or disputation, was reall, not imaginary or feigned. And as for what past in their discourse, though we know nothing, yet we may well suspect the contention to be very sharpe on both sides: Michael standing in the cause of God, in the fulfilling of his command: and the Divel standing in his owne, the advancement of his malicious desires. Who, notwithstanding the badnesse of his cause, yet being defeated of his in­tent, must needs bee especially enraged, to have a limitation set on his power, in a matter that so much concerned him to effect; and to be enjoined silence in a secret, the disclosing of which, must needs have beene so advantagious. Heereupon we may necessarily conceive him (as his nature is) to have burst out into bitter blasphemies and cursed speaking. And as it is commonly knowne to bee the practise of those that be of the weaker side, and are put to the worst, to make up that in opprobri­ous slanders, ignominious taunts, and blasphemous rayling, which his weakenesse and impotency could not bring to passe against so potent an Ad­versary. And this must also be very remarkeable, as it seemes to bee the ground of the Holy Ghosts observation; who much cōmends the Archangel in that he did not, par pari referre, returne the like for the like, evill for evill, rayling for rayling, re­viling for reviling, but rather sayd mildely, The Lord rebuke thee.

The Holy Ghost wittingly conceales the scan­dalous and blasphemous language of the Divel, [Page 17] as being not to be imitated by us, and to which we are prone enough of our owne selves. And expresseth the patient answer of Michael at large, to remayne upon record for a paterne for all men to follow. And of which in the next place I have undertaken to treat of: to wit, the behavi­our of the Archangel in this contention, Hee durst not bring a rayling accusation against him, but sayd, The Lord rebuke thee: which is my second Gene­rall.

In these words lie the force and substance of the Text: And they contayne in them a perfect patterne of Evangelicall modesty: The which I shall commend unto you according as the cir­cumstances which may bee gathered out of the Text have set it foorth. And first, I shall consider it as seated in the subject of the Text, in the Pro­noune Ille, Hee. The which that hee may appeare the more eminent, the Holy Ghost sets him foorth with all his titles, and writeth his name at length, Michael the Archangel: or as the Originall more expressively, & emphatically, [...], with a double Article. A mighty and pow­erfull Angel, no doubt; yet in the exercise of that power, how calme, how patient. The Di­vell himselfe with all his rayling cannot force a bitter speech from him. The accuser of mankind, the scorne of Angels, with all his urging inve­ctives, cannot extract from him any other, but The Lord rebuke thee.

I cannot better expresse this extraordinary ver­tue in him, then by looking how farre the contra­ry doth prevayle in our selves. With whom it is usuall in this case, in stead of suffering tearmes of reproach, to vie rayling with rayling, and reviling with reviling, from which wee seldome desist till our tart language hath fretted off the skin of our Brothers reputation. How doth a poore word misplaced oftentimes like a stone throwne into the water, multiply it selfe into almost numberlesse billowes of contention; and of one word in the speech, become a hundred in the reply. It were well to be imagined what we would doe, if wee had somewhat of Saint Michaels power, who have so little of his patience. Which if wee chance to get at any time, good God, how do we lord it? We are presently at our senties qui vir siem, you shall know what a maner of man I am. And in conclu­sion, and as if we had our power for no other end, but to serve our owne turnes in this kinde, wee im­ploy it to little other use, then to revenge our selves upon our weaker brother. In this generall defect, I can but guide you to the example heere set before us. Michael did not so, who being an Archangel, and of greater power then wee (in the words of Saint Peter) durst not bring so much as a rayling accusation. So much for the person.

Secondly consider in the time, when it was shewne, in these words, When contending.

The Sea is calme when no winde blowes upon it, and the roughest dispositions are temperate, when not provoked. Contention stirreth up [Page 19] wrath, and what will wee not doe when wee are angry? To be angry and not fin, est plus quam hu, manum: more then mans nature is now supposed, capable of. Let but a matter of variance happen betwixt us, How quickly are wee moved? Let us but fall out, and then wee tell one another their owne: and that in such reprochfull speeches, as if we meant to right our selves by rayling, just like yong gamesters who throw away their cudgels, and go to hand blows: we leave our legall way of defence, and fall fowle upon each others persons: and who commonly so violent, as they (who like the Divel in my Text) have the worst cause. Foole and Raca, as if we past neyther for Hell, nor the Councill, may be taken for civill termes, amongst us at such a time. Then is commonly the time, we bring our rayling accusation against our brother: then effluet, all shall out. Then whatsoever favour, friendship, or familiarity, hath betrayed to our knowledge, makes escape into the eare of the stan­der by, to the disgrace of each other. This and the like, if not worse, is the effect of our contenti­on. But what doth Michael: this did not he. He contends, but reviles not; reasons, but railes not; disputes, but exclaimes not; yea prevailes against his adversary, yet meddles not with his person. And how well were it if our variances and disa­greements could bee debated with the like mode­ration? In the meane time I leave those that are guilty heerein, to consider, since they are not Mi­chaels, who they must needs be? and while they follow not him, whose imitators they must neces­sarily [Page 20] acknowledge themselves. I passe to the next particular, in which the patience of Michael is shewne, and that is in regard of the person hee contended withall, The Divell. If any thing might be likely to move him, it were to be ghest the un­worthinesse of his Adversary might. Let us bee heerein our owne judges, what wee our selves would doe in the like case: what doe we disdayne more, then that our inferiour should affront us? Should we see a base beggar dare to contend with us, in any matter that concernes us, how hardly should we forbeare to set upon him with contu­melious words, and tell him his owne in downe right termes. And yet there is some comparison between him and us, where as there was none be­twixt him and the Divell. Admit a peasant should raile on a mighty Prince, would we not admire his patience? or would there not be sonnes of Zerviah enow by, to call him dead dog for his paynes. And certainly, what could bee more unworthy this glorious Saint, then the opposition of a damned spirit: the power of darkenesse set against the po­wer of God, the accuser of the brethren, against the Champion of the Church: Hell to vaunt it selfe against Heaven: and how could Michael chuse but tell him so? Thou enemy of Mankinde, thou minister of darkenesse, thou heyre of perdi­tion, thou vassall, thou murderer, thou tempter, thou destroyer, who art thou that opposest thy selfe against the messenger of the living God? And yet Michael forbeares. And what shall I now adde to perfect the commendations of so high deserts? [Page 21] What can I further adde to illustrate the unpara­leld patience of the Archangel?

And yet I may seeme to have sayd too much by all I have sayd hitherto already by that that fol­lowes: He Durst not bring a rayling accusation. That he did not was a marvell: but if hee durst not, no wonder if he did not. And this may seeme, in­dignum Michaele, unworthy of Michael, and de­rogate from his worthy example. Feare is little better then patience perforce. But this is as praise worthy as the rest. He durst not, because he would not, Estius in loc. Et ideo nollet cum posset ne nos faciles essemus ad maledicendum cuiquam: Therefore hee would not when he could, that he might not bee an example to us of doing the like. And Saint Hierome more emphatically: Merebatur quidem diabolus maledi­ctum, sed per Archangeli os blasphemia exire, non de­buit: The Divell indeed deserved malediction, but it became not an Archangel to pronounce it: He deserved a rayling accusation, but it stood not with the dignity of so great a person to bring it. Blasphemy and cursed speaking ought not to pro­ceed from sacred lips: Michael will regard his own person before his revenge, which how just soever, yet was not he a fit instrument to inflict it.

And now, Beloved, let the same minde bee in you which was in him. It concernes us likewise to stand upon eur reputation. Let us consider what we are, Christians: an honourable title, and not to bee staynd with blasphemy. When the fro­wardnesse of our nature would prompt us to un­civill language, meminerimus nos Christianos esse, [Page 22] remember wee that wee are Christians: and then say, Merentur quidem impii maledicta, sed per os Christianorum exire non debent: Wicked men de­serve cursing for cursing, but that must not pro­ceed out of Christians mouthes. Wee are Chri­stians, and ought therefore rather to learne of Christ, to be lowly and meeke; Learne of me for I am lowly and meeke; Mat. 11.29. not rendring evill for e­vill, nor rebuke for rebuke, 1. Pet. 3.9. Wee are heyres of blessing, 1. Pet. 8.9. And therefore blesse them that curse you, Matt. 5.44. Yea blesse, I say, and curse not, Rom. 12.14. Let your patient minde be knowne to all men, Phil. 4.5. Wee are reviled, and yet we blesse, sayth Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 4.12. And all this because wee are Christians: Memento nominis tui. I have heard of some, that have forgotten it: remember thy name which thou so often forgettest, tis Christian. Speak but Christian from thy heart, and then revile if thou canst. Michael could have rayled; but stay, Ego sum Michael: and then [...]; He durst not bring a rayling accusation.

But yet another reason remaynes; why Micha­el would not curse. Hee remembers, as hee was now Michael, so the Divell was once Lucifer. And therefore he would not doe it: Lorinus in Loc. Ob excellentiam na­turae quam agnoscebat in diabolo: for the excellen­cy of that nature he acknowledged in the person of the Divel. Quamvis alioqui jure posset maledice­re, although otherwise for his sinne and defection from God, he could have deservedly reviled him. The Divel was once an Angel of glorious excel­lency: [Page 23] at cecidit, but he fell from that estate. Once he was in the height of splendour, and had his name from it, The bright morning starre; at ceci­edit ista stella, but that star is fallen. As a creature, so yet he is excellent, though accursed as a Divel; he is an Angel still though an evill one.

And according to this is that of a good Author true, Maledicere est adeo illicitum, ut peccatum sit ma­ledicere diabolo: It is so farre unlawfull to curse, that it is a sin to curse the Divell. Yea the Son of Syrach himselfe saith: When the ungodly curseth the Divel, he curseth his owne soule, Ecclus. 21.27. And the reason heereof is well rendred by Lorinus: Quia similis est ipsi Diabolo impio, nec dig­nus est hic maledicto nisi propter impietatem, &c. Be­cause in regard of sin, he, that is the ungodly man, is like the Divel, & He deserveth not to be cursed but for his sin: & what man is he that sinneth not? so that so far as a man judgeth the Divel, so far he condemneth himselfe. And whereas wee curse him as a cause of our sinne, (as too many doe) and yet neverthelesse obey him, we may bee thought to returne the malediction on our selves, as being accessary to our owne sinne. Let us not therefore rayle on the Divel, but resist him: let us not ac­cuse him, but defie him. If wee will curse him as the author and cause of our sinne, let us not obey him when he tempts us to it.

And if this must bee our demeanour and beha­viour towards the Divel, It may teach us also a further lesson, namely how to deale with our bre­thren; that we ought to distinguish betweene the person and the offence, the man and his sin. The [Page 24] person of our brother should bee sacred with us, and therefore inviolable, however his maners bee wicked and intolerable. And although the wic­ked have deserved evill at our hands, let us not re­vile them, as being men, and bearing the same stampe and image of the Creator. And yet they are more then so too, they are Christians, so also to be forborne. If their sinnes offend us, thats all we can plead; Well, let him that first findes fault, cast the first stone. Certaynly in many things we offend all, as sayth Saint Iames. Iames. 3.2. And if any man dare be so bold as to say with the proud Pharisie, I am not as this Publican my brother; I wil say with the Publicane, Lord be merciful to me a sinner.

And therefore as for those whose heat will not suffer them to let passe by injuries done unto them by their ungodly brethren, Let them take heede how they encroach upon Gods right: we may be too violent in our owne cause, and many times meet with an Adversary that may bee too potent for us. And the safest way in this case is, to com­mit our cause to God, who is able, and to whom properly it belongeth to wreake our injuries, and require them at the hands of the wicked that rise up against us. 1 Samuel. 24.12.13. David will say, The Lord Iudg be­tweene me and thee, and the Lord avenge me &c. let us refer our cause to God. And as hee did in the like case, being slanderously intreated of his e­nemies, Psal. 55. So let us cast our burden upon the Lord: It is the last particular observable in Michaels behaviour, Hee durst not bring a rayling accusation, but sayd, ‘The Lord rebuke thee.’

The Archangel, though a mighty one, as his name imports: the power of God: yet when hee would rebuke the Divell, he calls to mind then, he was a Servant, and so it was not in his commission: and though one of his names gave him power to do his office, yet the other might put him in mind of his service: Though he were an Archangel, yet but a ministring spirit, a delegate, or at most a Ca­ptayne of those that were in the same Commissi­on with him. And being so, it was his office only to bury Moses. If any should resist him in the execu­tion of it, the matter was to be referd to the higher power: the servants injury is the masters to re­venge, not his owne; so he accounts it. Hee durst not bring a rayling accusation himselfe, but sayd, The Lord rebuke thee.

The Application is pregnant. As it will not be for our honour, who take upon us the title of Christians, to revile: so will it not bee for Gods honour, that we should take the sword out of his hands. Though we are Christians, yet remem­ber we that we are but servants: and if any shall disturbe us in his service, tis our Masters injury as well as our owne; yea and his onely, as much as belongs to revenge. Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, yea mine, and I will repay it. In the mean time, let our armes be our patience; our shield our suffering; our guard our silence. Let the wic­ked curse, it is their nature: let us hold our peace, tis our grace. If Rabshekah rayle, it is the King: yea the King of Heaven that commands, answer him not a word. If Shemei curse it is David, yea [Page 26] it is the God of David, that saith, Let him alone, and let him curse, I will requite thee good for his cursing, if not this, yet another day. In the meane space, if our tongues must needs bee speaking, let them be blessing: if we must needs bee answering, let us be praying: if we needs must bee revenging, let us be reconciling. Let us love our enemies, let us blesse them that curse us, let us pray for them that despitefully use us: so shall we be children of our Father which is in Heaven, and consequently heyres of that Kingdome which he hath prepared for us; and not only for us, but for all those that in patience and well doing expect his appearing; when our Savior shall say unto us, Come ye blessed children of my Father, inherit the Kingdome prepared for you from the beginning of the World.

Now to God our heavenly Father, to Christ our mercifull Redeemer, to the holy Ghost our ever blessed Comforter, bee all prayse, power, might, majesty and dominion, &c.