A consideration of the times wherein A­theisme and Superstition have generally reigned.

TWo crimes are forbidden in this first Commandment of the Law: One, not to have a God; the other, to have more then one. These two sins are very ancient in the world: yet it seems that Atheisme was the first, or at least Profaneness, which comes ve­ry neer to Atheisme. We read not, that before the Flood there was any Idolatry amongst men: The holy History ( Gen. 6.) marking out the cause of their destruction, seems ra­ther to accuse them for having had [Page 42]no God at all, then for having had many. After the Flood, though A­theisme was on foot still in the world, yet was Idolatry far more generall. But as the corruption of mankinde began by Atheisme or Profaneness, it makes as though it would return thi­ther again. The first Ages have been Atheists, the following ages Idolaters, and the last, into which we are fallen, is already wholly disposed unto A­theisme. And when the Son of man comes, he shall not finde faith upon the earth.

By the example of the Pharisees and Sad­duces, is shewed, that God rather par­dons the Superstitious, then the Pro­fane.

The Pharisee was superstitious, but the Sadduce inclined to Atheism, seeing that he beleeved not the im­mortality of the soul, neither the re­surrection of the body, nor the life to come. Now we finde, that divers [Page 43]Pharisees (notwithstanding the envie and ill will with which they were fore-stalled) became capable of the Faith, and received the Gospel. One of the most eminent of this Sect, viz. Nicodemus, spent both his cost and his pains in the buriall of Christ. But never read wee of any Sadduce that was converted to Christianity. Not that God hath been wanting either in goodness or power to their conversi­on: but (as it seems) he would have it seen, that (in disdaining to make them his Disciples) he more detest­eth the profane, then the superstiti­ous. Such a Pharisee that had even persecuted the Church, was promo­ted as high as unto an Apostleship: But never any Sadduce came so much as to the quality of a Disciple.

The true Religion, the easiest. The folly of the Pagans affecting plurality of gods.

False Religions have a thousand [Page 44]objects, a thousand troublesome win­dings, and every of them trails the minde of man now into one danger, by and by into another. But true Re­ligion hath but one God, one Media­tour, one Sacrifice expiatorie, one ju­stifying Faith, one Baptisme, one mysticall Body, and one onely Spi­rit. How much the more we multi­ply this Union, so much the lesse have we of Religion.

But the poor Pagans took it clean contrary; for they that had the grea­test number of gods, counted them­selves most religious. It was the wisdom of the Greeks and Romans to seek all the gods they heard tell of, yea all they could imagine; think­ing, that to have many gods, was to have much Religion.

A consideration upon the Worship of Angels.

The most specious and fair seem­ing Idolatry was the adoration of An­gels, [Page 45]creatures so noble, and so far a­bove us. These celestiall spirits have sometimes come and spoke to men; but their communication was ever short; they did, as it were, but passe by, without ever permitting any to know them. Now it seems, that the Wisdom of God would that every of their apparitions should be but of small continuance, not to give time to the curiosity and feebleness of man, that inclines to Superstition, to ask them questions from the matter, or to idolatrize their presence. Of all mortall men that the Angels have longest held in discourse at one time, Saint John the Divine was He; who suffered himself to be carried away with an excesse of submission toward them, Apocalyps 19.22. And since that time, Angels have forborn to speak and commune with men.

Touching a kinde of Idolatry very subtill and usuall.

Many common people say, that [Page 46]they put their confidence in the true Religion, in their prayers, and in the justice of their cause, which is the same with Gods own. It will seem to them very strange, if one tell them that they deceive themselves; and that one must trust neither in Reli­gion, although true; nor in any of its duties; neither in our just right, though God himself be concern'd in it.

But they ought to consider, that we cannot nor ought not to put our confidence but in God alone. Religi­on is not God: Religion is the ser­vice that one renders to God, but it is not God. Even the very Ark of God that held the Tables of the Law, is called the might of God, and his glory; and yet it sufficeth, that it was taken, and carried about in triumph by his enemies, Psal. 78.61. Our faith is not rested upon a quality that God giveth unto a Cause, nor in the inter­est that he takes in it; but it is fastened and stayed on God himself, who is [Page 47]its proper object. This distinction, that many will judge unprofitable, and of little solidity, is notwithstanding necessary: and for want of taking heed to it, we fall into an imperceiva­ble Idolatry, and which is very com­mon.

Wherefore is it, that a man that hath false gods, leaves them not so easily, as ano­ther forsaketh the true?

The Israelites were sometimes less constant in the service of the true God, then the Pagans in the worship of their Idols. This is cast in their their teeth, Jerem. chap. 2. Go thorow the Isles of Kittim, and behold, &c. is there any Nation that hath changed their gods, which notwithstanding are not gods? But my people hath changed their glory into that which is nothing worth.

This is natural, and an effect of the weaknesse of humane judgment. Na­turall men desire to have a god that may have some proportion with [Page 48]themselves, and who may not be too far above the reach of their under­standing: Thence it comes, that if a man will make choice of a deity, he will rather chuse any God then the true. The true God is infinitely ex­alted above us; and between his na­ture and ours there is an immeasura­ble distance. But all other Deity that a man can imagine to himself, is found fitted unto mans capacity, and within some kenning; which is the reason that he the more easily fasteneth upon it, more willingly sets up his rest there, and more hardly forgoes it. And on the other side, it is more diffi­cult for him to adhere to a God that is so far both from our senses and under­standings.

Who is more wicked, he that adds to the Or­dinances of God, or he that detracts from them?

ALl the corruptions that happen in Religion come by one of these wayes; viz. either of addition, or substraction: Both are noted and censured within the perclose of the Bible, Apoc. 22.18, 19. Notwithstand­ing, it seems that one is more dange­rous and abominable then the other: One leads to Superstition, the other to Atheisme. Hee that adds to the rules God hath prescribed, becomes superstitious; and hee that takes thence, becoms a Libertine. One loads [Page 50]himself with superfluous burdens; the other shakes off the necessary yoak that God had imposed upon him. Now if a man takes away once one point of Religion, and takes away yet another, and continues always taking away, at the end no Religion is left him: So that we see that these cut­tings off and diminutions end at length in Atheisme, which is far worse then Superstition.

These two Sects, so famous in the History of the New Testament, viz. Pharisaisme and Saddueeisme, lodg­ed in these two extremities: The Pharisee sewed his Traditions to the Scripture, and annexed to it an infi­nite of ordinances. The Sadduce sup­prest a main part of the Scripture, yea all the Prophets except Moses: he annull'd the Resurrection of the dead, denyed the being of Angels and all Spirits, and in divers manners man­gled the Religion, turning it almost into Atheisme.

Sometime it falls out that the [Page 51]Scripture is gelded in favour of Su­perstition; the Church of Rome takes out of the Decalogue this second Commandment, or confounds it with the first, or withdraws it from the eys and ears of the people.

Of the nature of painting that represents the Historie of the Bible.

There are many things are more clearly set forth in a picture then in a discourse. The fabrick of the Ta­bernacle, the architecture of the Tem­ple; the dimensions, stories, and di­vers rooms of Noahs Ark, are more perceptible by us in a painting to the eye, then is the verbal description the Scripture gives us of it. A man ve­rily may behold the situation and length of the Land of Canaan better in a Chorographick Map, then in the History of Josuah:

But that which is the more evident and easie, is not neverthelesse the more excellent. These paintings are [Page 52]not divine, as are the words of the Scripture. A visible representation of Solomon's Temple is meerly a hu­mane figure; but the verball repre­sentation of the same Temple exhi­bited in Scripture terms is a divine work. The picture of a man crucifi­ed, is it as divine as the words of the Scripture describing the passion of Christ? or rather, is it comparable to a Sermon, in which Jesus Christ is drawn out before our eyes, and cru­cified among us? Gal. 3.1. Where is it authorized by God to plant Faith in our hearts? In many narrations a picture verily may serve for an help to the understanding of the Historie: but it can never be either instrument or object of our Faith.

None ever made any image of God, except God himself.

There is none but God can make the image of God: Only man, among all the visible creatures, is this Image: [Page 53]but hee cannot shape it in another matter; no, not in another man. A Father doth not so much as propa­gate it to his children: for though they also bear this image, yet they receive it not from him, but immedi­atly from God, who alone imprints in them his resemblance. The Scripture marks out this distinction, where it saith, that God made man after the likenesse of God: but that Adam be­gat Seth after his own likenesse, Gen. 5.1, 3. Man bringeth forth his chil­dren after the image of man; but God onely fashions them to the image of God. So the Soul, in which pro­perly consists the lines and lineaments of this divine Image, is not the work of man.

Why was it that God, who often appeared in a visible shape, would not manifest himself after this manner when he pub­lished the Law?

He caused himself to be seen by the [Page 54]Ancients of Israel, and under his feet there was (as it were) a paved work of Saphir stone, Exod. 24.10. He ap­peared unto Daniel in the shape of an old man, Dan. 7. He manifested him­self yet other times in a visible shape. But when hee came down to pro­nounce the Law, although he gave many illustrious tokens of his pre­sence, yet would he not appear in the figure of man, or do any other thing which might seem to represent him. Why not then, as well as in his other occurrences?

The Wisdome of God held it not fit to manifest himself under any re­semblance then, when he forbad to make any resemblance of himself: For seeing he never permitted his re­presentation (no not in the shapes like to those he had appeared under) it was not to the purpose to let one be seen then, when he forbade him­self to be represented under any. If he had appeared in any visible form, one might have thought, that it was [Page 55]lawfull to represent him, at least in the shape he shewed himself in then, seeing that it was at the publishing of the Law, which was given to learn men what they should do. God him­self tels us why in this action he for­bore to be seen after the sort that he had manifested himself in other re­velations; Deut. 4.11, 15, 16. Ye heard a Voice speaking, but ye saw not any like­nesse, &c. Yee have not seen any likenesse in the day that the Lord spake unto thee in Horeb out of the middle of the fire; for fear thou shouldest corrupt thy self, and shouldst make thee any carved image or re­semblance, which may represent any thing unto thee, &c.

If wee had the true pourtrait and very re­semblance of our Saviour Christ, taken from his own body; what account ought we to make of it?

Had I such a picture, I would keep it as most precious, not onely above [Page 56]all other painting; but as one of the most worthy objects of mans sight: But I would ever make more account of the least Christian then of such a Picture: For a Christian represents Christ a great deal better then any paint. A true humane body anima­ted not onely with a reasonable soul, but also with the spirit of Christ, doth it not more resemble Christ then a dead Crucifix, or a shape that ex­presseth nothing but some superfici­all lineaments? I say more; That if one would abuse this Picture, and ido­latrize it, I would do by it as Hezekiah did by the brazen Serpent, 2 Kings 18.14.

A notable difference betwixt one of the figures which represented Christ, and those that represented the Angels. And a consideration upon the matter.

In the Old Testament Christ was figured by the image of a Serpent set upon a pole, without the Tabernacle, [Page 57]in an open place: But the Angels were figured by the faces of men, ha­ving wings, placed over the Ark it self, in the most holy of Holies. If we consider these figures, and their placing, that of Christs was greatly inferiour unto that of the Angels: And if the true image of Christ did consist in outward lineaments, an hu­mane shape had been fitter there then that of a Serpent.

Whence is it, that in the Apocalyps, Jesus Christ (being man) is decyphered one­ly in parabolicall Figures, rather then in the naturall form of his own body?

We see him appear with seven Stars in his right hand, and a two­edged Sword going forth of his mouth: We see him clad with a robe dipt in blood, and mounted upon a white horse: Wee see him in the shape of a Lamb slain, having seven eyes and seven horns. But we never [Page 58]see him there, or in any other place of the holy History, in the figure of his own naturall visage: To teach us, That we ought rather to seek him in the description of his graces, then in the Idea of the feature of his visage.

What's the reason, that amongst all the wonders that God hath wrought, he ne­ver made an Image to speak?

God hath shewed forth an infinite of Miracles of all sorts, but never did he cause an Image to speak. There were Cherubins within the Taber­nacle, and in the Temple, and God caused his voice to be heard from un­der the mercy-seat, over which these Statues were placed; but wee read not that ever they spake word. The Son of God likewise never wrought any such miracle, nor his Disciples. God (without doubt) would not that men should have this pretence to co­lour their Idolatry. For if any image [Page 59]had spoken, they had easily beleeved that there had been some divine ver­tue inclosed in such a statue. And that's the reason the Divel did that which God would not: for he hath often spake in divers Idols, the bet­to oblige men to consult with, and serve them. In the 13 of the Revelat. vers. 15. this Mystery is counted a­mongst those that the second beast wrought, that he made an Image speak. Besides, although God should have made any speak, (as many sup­pose) yet should it be no more ado­rable then Balaams Ass, if it were again in the world.

Two sorts of sinners at which God mocks.

All sinners are worthy of Gods anger; but there are two are worthy of derision, as well as his indignation: One is the proud; the other, the Ido­later: and we read, that God mocks at both. At the proud; Psalm 2. Hee that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh at [Page 60]them, the Lord shall have them in derision. Esa. 14. he jears the King of Babylon, whose pride began to be followed with ruine. It seems also, that God mock'd at the pretensions of our great Grand-father, when he said, See, Man is become as one of us. He mocks like­wise at the Idolaters, Superstitious, and those that resort to Wizzards. So said he to the Israelites, whom he had chastened for their Idolatries, Cry to the gods ye have chosen, that they may deliver you, Judg. 10.14. Jer. 2.28. So the Prophet Elijah laughing at the Prophets of Baal, bid them cry very loud, that that Idol might hear them.

The admirable proportions that God holds in the dispensation of his judgements.

Here is a point marvellous dark, and a matter whose bottom it is im­possible to sound. Our understand­ing cannot conceive why God cha­steneth one more then another; why [Page 61]with such a kinde of punishment; why sooner or later; why in such measure; why so long time, or so short; and other reasons of such di­versities as therein are marked. Yet this Soveraign Wisdom doth nothing that is not perfectly regular, al­though his operations seem to us so out of order.

Sometime God looks to the nature and quality of the crime. When we are in affliction, it is not enough for us to know or say in generall, that it is fallen upon us for our sins: There are alwayes certain misdeeds amongst others, that are the particular cause of such and such judgements. So the Nations that God threatned by Amos, Chapt. 1. & 2. were guilty of many enormous sins; but there was one a­mongst the rest in every of them for which they were condemned. Da­mascus, for having broken Galaad with harrows of iron: Gaza and Tyre, for having delivered over the Jews into Captivity: Edom, for having pursued [Page 62]his Brother with the sword: Moah, for having burned the bones of the King of Edom, &c.

Sometimes God marks them that give the first example of evill, and handles them more harshly: So Je­richo, because it was the first Town that shut the gates against Israel, was exposed unto unmercifulness: So Amalek, for being the first that made war upon the people of God, was condemned to a finall destruction: So Nadab and Abihu, because they were the first breakers of the Ceremoniall Law, after the establishment of Aa­rons Priesthood, were devoured by fire: So Ananias and Sapphira, the first that belied God in the beginnings of the Christian Church, were miracu­lously punished.

Sometimes God hath regard unto the number of sins; seldome doth he punish a man, or a people for one fault: When he adjudged the Israe­lites, from twenty yeers old and up­ward, to die all in the wildernesse, [Page 63]that was by reason of a tenth Natio­nall sin that they had committed; for God already complained that they had tempted him ten times, Numb. 14. v. 22.

Sometimes God looks to the con­tinuance and measure of sins, and for­bears to punish them til they be come to a certain growth: He would not put Abraham into the possession of the promised Land, because that the ini­quity of the Amorites was not yet ful, Gen. 15.16.

Sometime God hath an eye to some circumstance that concerns the crime: For the forty dayes that the Israelites had imployed to discover the Land of Canaan, they were con­demned to an exile of forty yeers in the Desert, in detestation of their murmuring, Numb. 14.34. For having neglected the Sabbath of the Land, which they ought to have let rest once every seven yeers, they were captives out of their Land seventy yeers, 2 Chron. 36.21. King Hozias, [Page 64]for having presumed to enter into the holy place, and there taking upon him to execute the Office which ap­pertained not but to the Priests, was stricken with a disease, the judgment whereof belonged onely unto the Priests, viz. a Leprosie: and was dri­ven not onely out of the Temple, but out of the society of men.

Sometime God imployes one evill doer to punish another, that hath committed the like offence. There is even a secret analogie and conveni­encie in such judgements. The Ser­pent had inticed man to despise the fruits that God had given him, and had drawn him to covet one that God had forbidden him. The Israelites despise the Manna, the ordinary food that God had given them, and coveted the fruits of Egypt, that God had ta­ken from them. Their sin, like that of the Serpent, was punished by the biting of serpents that were sent a­gainst them, Numb. 21.5, 6.

Sometime God practiseth the law [Page 65]of retaliation, or otherwayes he sends punishments answering the form or nature of the crime; we have an example in Adonibezek, Jud. 1.7. and infinite more both in Scripture and experience.

Sometimes God looks upon the number of offenders, and of just men, and on the proportions which he findes between the offences of the one, and vertues of the other: had there been ten just men in So­dom, it had not been destroyed.

Sometimes sinners are handled according to the measure of know­ledge they have received; by this rule judgement begins at the house of God, and Jerosalem was destroy­ed before the Pagan Nations. 1 Pet. 4.17. Ier. 25.18. &c.

Sometimes God looks upon the persons of our Ancestors from whom he takes occasion to punish the children, chiefly when they fil up the measure of their Fathers, Mat. 23.32.

Finally, though God punisheth sinners, yet he punisheth them not alwayes for their sins, but sometimes for other causes, Iohn 9.2, 3.

Of whom are descended those Nations that go aked?

It is known there be many Nati­ons among whom nakedness is ac­counted no disgrace, a great part of the Inhabitants of Affris, and the Natives of the West- Indies walk without any other covering then their skins, and it is remarkable that the people there, (at least the Affricans) are come of Cham, one of Noahs three Sons. For the Histo­ry of Genesis chap. 10. describing the peopling of the World shortly after the Flood, makes it appear that the Posterity of Cham did for the most part settle themselves in Egypt, Ly­bia, and other neighbouring Coun­tries, whence doubtless they spred themselves through all the conti­nent [Page 67]of Affric, and the adjoining I­slands, and at last moved Westward: the brutish behaviour that is found at this day among these Nations, void of all shame, seems to have continued among them as a mark of their Grand-fathers impudence, who discovered his fathers naked­ness: Gen. 9.22. and this is wonder­ful, that after so many ages, such multitudes of people do yet express the turpitude of an Ancester remo­ved so many degrees.

The number of Generations named in this Promise.

Many brethren are accounted but for one Generation, because they are all within one degree of descent; so the 12. sons of Iacob together were but one Generation, and which is re­markable the 12 ^th. born after the de­luge: for in the Genealogy of Gods people we finde after Arphaxad (the first that was born from the Flood) [Page 68]12. Generations, till the 12. sons of Iacob: to wit. 1. Arphaxad. 2. Scela. 3. Heber. 4. Peleg. 5. Rehu. 6. Serug. 7. Nacor. 8. Thera. 9. Abraham. 10. Isaac. 11. Iacob. 12. the twelve Patriarchs. viz. Rubin, Simeon, &c.

Now taking the Generations in this sense, and reckoning them for so many degrees, we finde, that from the Creation till this present time, there have not been a thousand Ge­nerations as yet; and indeed it is impossible there should have been so many: For though every man that hath been since the Creation, should have been a father at the age of ten years, in a continual successi­on, yet there cannot be six hundred Generations, compleat seeing the World hath not lasted six thousand years as yet: but indeed the num­ber of Generations since Adam is far from a thousand. Jesus Christ, who was born a little before the four thousand year of the World, was but the seventy fift Generation from [Page 69] Adam; as may be seen in his Genea­logy; Luke 3.23, &c. by all which we may judge that the race from Adam will never reach till the thousand Generation; or else the World must necessarily continue longer then hitherto it hath done, which is against all probability.

But why then is it that God pro­miseth to shew mercy unto the thousand Generation, seeing that hath not yet been, nor (likely) shall ever be? The meaning is, that though the race of the faithful should extend it self to the thousand Generation, yet Gods mercies would extend it self as far.

Strange Exmples of divers Subjects, in which God hath manifested both his Mercy and Instice.

God hath shew in both these at­tributes of his joyntly, and yet se­verally, at the same time, and in the same respect. They have been dis­played [Page 70]in heaven in Adams Family, in the Ark; in Abrahams Tent; in that of Isaac; in the Kingdom of Israel; among the Apostles; and in the punishment of evil doers in eve­ry one of these places God hath ma­nifested notable examples, both of his justice and mercy: in heaven the good Angels were elected, and the evil spirits driven thence; In Adams Family, we have Abel and Cain; God regarded the Oblation of the one, and rejected that of the other; in Noahs Family we have Shem and Cham, the one is blessed, the other accursed; in the house of Abraham we finde Isaac and Ishmael; Gal. 4. the one the child of promise. the other after the flesh; in that of Isaac we have Iacob and Esau, the one beloved of God, the other hated of him; among the Kings of Israel there are David and Saul; the one according to Gods heart, the other rejected by God; among the Apo­stles St. Peter and Iudas; the one was [Page 71]received into mercy, the other pe­rished in despair; on the very Cross the two theeves, that were crucifi­ed with Christ, one of them obtain­ed grace, the other died in impeni­tence; the like we read in the Para­ble of the Publican and Pharisee in the Temple, the one returning to his house justified, the other was left in his pride; so in the last day two shall be in the same bed, the one shall be received, and the other shall be forsaken.

Why did God sometimes take such parti­cular care of the Patriarchs and their children, even of those [...]hat were wicked, and at this day h [...] m [...]kes no such addresses as he did th [...]n to them?

Surely the same affection that was in Hagar, when she thought her son would die, may bef [...]l divers o­ther mothers, to whom notwith­standing God will send no Angels to [Page 72]assure their childrens lives, or their future prosperity; Gen. 21.15. &c. ma­ny women also may be paired with Rebecca, when they carry twins as she did, and yet God will not send them an Oracle to let them know what shall befal their children, Gen. 25.22. Now among divers reasons of this extraordinary care which God had towards these persons we must know, that in them were compre­hended whole Nations, which Re­becca bore in her womb; Gen. 25.23. we must not think it then strange, for God to testifie a particular care of those whom he had appointed to be the fathers of Nations: Besides, those twins must be considered in a­nother quality, to wit, as God would make them examples and types of the great mistery of Electi­on and reprobation, as the Apostle sheweth, Rom. 9. v. 10. &c. So Hagar and Ismael were marked by the hand of God to be figures of another Mystery handled by the same Apo­stle, [Page 73] Gal. 4.24. the nativity and con­ditions of these persons, and most of the actions which seemed con­temptible and ridiculous, were full of mysteries, for which cause God did extraordinarily preserve and guide them.

Why God spent but six daies in Creating the World, and employed seven to over­throw the walls of Jerico?

This City which was the first the Israelites took in after their passing o­ver Iordan, was delivered to them without stroke. The walls whereof were beaten down, not by Engines, nor overthrown by springing of Mines, but onely by the presence of the Ark of God, accompanied with seven Priests sounding Trumpets of Rams horns, and compassing the City, by which means the whole walls fell down: But this processi­on continued seven daies; for first they went about Ierico for the space [Page 73]of six daies, every day once; after this on the seventh day the Town was encompassed seven times; and at the seventh time, when the horns sounded, and the people gave a shout for joy, the whole circuit of the walls fell down, so that the Town was wholly dismantled, Io­shua 6.

Now among the most remarkable passages of this overthrow, it may be wondered, why God, who in a moment with the breath of his mouth can beat down the strongest rampiers and fortifications, would imploy so many daies, and so long a train of reiterated formalities, be­fore the demolition of this place: and withall why this was not done till the seventh day, whereas the whole world was finished in the space of six daies. Must there be more time to destroy one Town, then to make the Universe? Surely in this example, as in infinite more, God would shew that his hand is [Page 74]slower in demolishing, then in esta­blishing in defacing the least of his work, then in forming the greatest thereof: and so that his justice reacheth no farther then the third or fourth Generation, whereas his mercy is extended to the thousand Generation.

Why God pronounceth the same word twice to the same purpose, against idle oathes?

VVEE finde that when God speaks to man he sometimes doubleth his words. In mens speeches those repetitions serve on­ly to make the discourse more em­phatical, or to make a greater im­pression on the minde and memory of the hearer: but in Gods language they are of another importance; when God uttereth one and the same speech twice, as it were with one continued threed, he sheweth it is irrevocable, and no waies to [Page 76]be altered. We know that some­times God hath repealed, and annihilated his declaratory senten­ces, as that which was uttered a­gainst Ninivie, which he threatned after 40. daies to destroy, yet he spa­red her a long time after this: but when God uttereth a speech twice together, he never revokes it: The Psalmist willing to express the im­mutable stability of an Oracle: saith: God hath spoken twice, I have heard the same twice, Psal. 62.12. that miraculous writing containing the ruine of Balthazer and his Kingdom, began with Mene, Mene, it is numbred, it is numbred; as if it would say, the reckoning is perfected, nothing re­mains to be accounted for, Dan. 5.25. We read also that sometimes God having expressed the same thing, by two different representa­tions; this doubling thereof did signifie that the decree was irrevo­cable, Pharaoh's two distinct dreams were but one thing in substance; [Page 77]for the Kine in the one, and the Ears of corn in the other, did signi­fie the same thing, notwithstanding this repetition of the same matter, although expressed under different figures, made Joseph say, that where­as the dream was doubled twice, the thing was established by God. Gen. 41.32.

Now it seems that Christ hath touched the same Mystery, when he commands that our speech should be yea, yea, nay, nay, Mat. 5.37. as if he would injoyn us to be con­tent with a double affirmation, or a double negation, in liew of super­fluous oaths, as being sufficient to express the stability of our speeches, after the example of Almighty God, who never repeals what he hath twice pronounced together.

Although in some things God hath dispen­sed with his law, yet he hath never dis­pensed with faith; also of the stability of Gods oathes.

Against the General Law, God commanded Abraham to kill his own son, against the same Law God au­thorised the Israelites to retain the jewels and Garments which they borrowed of the Egyptians, Exod. 12.35, 36. but he never commanded or permitted, either to speak or be­leeve a falshood, chiefly in Religion, the Commandments which forbad him are undispensable, and these frauds which they call pious, are the more Criminal; for there is no thing more repugnant to Religion, then to support her with lies, as it is also a horrid thing to violate faith under the shaddow of faith, that is to say of Religion.

In brief, if any hath power and authority to dispence with an oath, [Page 79]surely it is God, but this he never did, for when he swares a thing, he never revokes it: The Lord hath sworn and will not repent: if there God never dispense with an oath, why should any man dare to take upon him this power of dispensati­on either in himself or towards o­thers.

Why God never wrought any miracle an the Sabbath day, before the coming of Christ.

THE Old Testament is full of Miracles, divers whereof were done among the Patriarchs, in Egypt, in the desart, in the land of Israel, and even in the Captivity of Baby­lon; yet we do not read, that any of them were wrought upon the Sabbath day: but on the contrary we finde that the miracle of the Manna which lasted forty years, was interrupted and suspended every Sabbath; for the food which fell the six first daies of the week ceased on [Page 82]the seventh, so that upon that day this miracle failed: It is true, that the consequences and effects of a miracle hath sometimes passed on the Sabbath; as the fastings of Mo­ses and Eliah which lasted forty daies, in which time there were many Sabbaths; but this long ab­stinence, was onely the effect of a supernatural vertue which God had bestowed on them; now this gift in which consisted the miracle, was not found to be given on the Sab­bath day; otherwise in all probabi­lity, the sacred History would not have omitted this cicumstance in brief, 'tis impossible to they, that under the Old Testament any [...] ­cle hath been wrought on the [...]b­bath day, whereas the new T [...]s [...]a­ment observeth that this day wa [...] fa­mous for many miracles. If Moses, or Eliah, or any of the Prophets had done any miracle upon the Sab­bath, the Pharisees had not so boldly condemned the Son of God [Page 83]for violating the Sabbath, seeing he wrought miracles on that day; and he had not failed in this point to have produced examples, if there had been any; but he indeed was the first that ever did any miracle on the Sabbath.

This then that seemed to serve as a pretext for their reproof of Christ, was rather a means to ob­lige them to admire him so much the more; for this was an extraor­dinary miracle, and a marke of dig­nity far surpassing that of all the Prophets, by making that to be seen which none of them ever did; viz. To produce miracles on the Sabbath day; In a word, this was one of the prerogatives which God had reser­ved for his Son, and one of the works by which God would have it known, that he was Lord of the Sabbath, Mat. 12.8. To this I will add the ensuing observation.

Seven Sabbath daies which Christ hono­red by his miracles.

I will not speak of that which is known to all; namely, that with­out reckoning the Sabbath of every seventh day, there were besides se­ven daies yearly, in divers seasons, on which all servile work was for­bid by the Law, these were the first and last of the feast of unleaven­ed bread, that of the first fruits, that of the feast of Trumpets, the first and eighth of the feast of Ta­bernacles, and that of Expiati­on: all these universary daies are mentioned in the 23. chapters of Leviticus; we know also that in the feasts of Easter and Pentecost there were seven daies of rest.

But as the actions and sufferings of Christ are the perfection of all those things which are contained in the Old Testament, this seems to me worthy of admiration, that [Page 85]among the Sabbath daies which our Saviour honoured whilest he con­versed in this world, the History of the Gospel hath marked out seven, which Christ made famous by mira­cles; I will set them down accor­ding to the order of time, in which they fell out.

The first of these seven daies of Sabbath was sanctified by the cure of a Demoniac, of St. Peter's mother in law, and of some other infirm per­sons, Mat. 1.21. Luke 4.31.

The second by a wonderful cure of the Paralitic, who had been di­seased thirty eight years, Joh. 5.

The third by the healing of him who had a whithered hand, Luke 6.6.

The fourth by the curing of di­vers sick persons, notwithstanding the incredulity of the Galileans, Mark 6.1.

The sift by an unheard of miracle til then; a man born blind, who re­ceived his sight, John 9.

The sixth by another strange mi­racle of a woman that was bowed downward eighteen years, and cu­red of this infirmity, Luke 13.10.

The seventh by the cure of an Hydropic, Luke 14.1.

So in Christ we have the accom­plishment of the Sabbath, sanctified by those actions, which before were never seen upon that day.

In what things our Saviour is to be immi­tated.

God doth binde us to the obser­vation of the Sabbath by his own example, because he rested himself on that day: but must we immitate God in all his actions; there be ver­tues in him which we cannot immi­tate without sin or madness: to immitate his power, were not a ver­tue, but an insufferable pride, as that of Salmonius, or the King of Tyre, Ezek. 28.2. They that endea­vour to fast forty daies after the [Page 87]example of the Son of God, ought to consider that this fast was one of the effects of his power, which we ought to admire, for we cannot i­mitate it: and here let us observe, that among all the perfections in God, there is not any one of them proposed for our imitation, but his goodness; he never commanded us to follow his example, but in this one vertue; Be ye holy, as I am holy; Be merciful, as your Heavenly Father is merciful; Be perfect (to wit, in goodness) as your Father is perfect, Lev. 11. Luke 6. Matth. 5. and 6. So the sanctification of the Sabbath consisteth chiefly in the action of goodness and holiness.

Whence it is that in the History of the New Testament, we do not read that ever the Sadduces appeared on the Sabbath day?

There is nothing more frequent in the Gospel, then the proceedings [Page 88]of the Pharisees, chiefly on the Sab­bath daies: for on that day they are seen in the Temple, in the Syna­gogues, even in the fields, Mat. 12.1.2. on that day they are heard to censure the works of the Son of God, Iohn 9.14.15. Luke 6.7. On that day they visited and feasted each other. Luke 14.1, &c. But for the Sadduces that other famous sect, the sacred History makes no menti­on of them, when it speaks of any thing that past on the Sabbath day; it relates what they spoke or did in many occurrences upon divers daies, but it never speaks of any ap­pearance they made that day; so that although sometimes the Phari­sees and Sadduces have been found to­gether in the same place, yet this was never on the Sabbath; for we do not read that upon this day they ever met, nor that then the Sadduces disputed with Christ, or censured [...]is actions, or that they came i [...]to the fields to calumniate them, as i [...] ­compatible [Page 89]with the Sabbath, which the Pharisees were wont to do; and which is strange in the whole Histo­ry of the Gospel, we do not [...]nde that the Sadduces were ever [...]oun [...] in the Temple or Syn [...] [...].

Now to know the reason hereof we must presuppose that w [...] some have gathered out of the Rab­bins, that the Sadduces held among other of their errors, this, that it was not lawful to go out of their houses on the Sabbath day into any place whatsoever: this opinion was grounded on a false exposition of that passage in the Law, which or­dained that none should go out of his house on the seventh day, Exod. 16.29. The Sadduces inferred upon this, that if any did but step out from the door of his house on that day, he broke the Sabbath: The Pharisees on the other side proved, that upon the 7 ^th day, they were bound to repair to the Temple and Synagogues; because God com­manded [Page 90]that on the Sabbath day the people should assemble together, Levit. 23.3. Yet notwithstanding, the Sadduces upon that day would not go out of their houses; whence it is that in all the sacred Story, we do not finde that ever they shewed themselves on the Sabbath day.

In brief, under pretence of ob­serving punctually the Sabbath, they profaned it impudently, in an irre­ligious idleness, and impious Hypo­crisie.

Why the Law useth such an excellent sub­ject. viz. God's Rest, as a reason for the beasts to rest?

The same reason why God will have man to rest on the seventh day, obligeth him to suffer his ox and his asse, and all his cattle to rest then: viz. because upon that day God rested; but why will Almighty God bring his own example, as a reason for the rest of beasts, a subject so [Page 91]mean? Indeed humanity may in­duce us to give rest to the poor beasts that travel for us; but doeth this base subject of the beasts rest, deserve so noble and excellent a rea­son, as the rest of God himself?

We must observe here, one threed of the Lawgivers wisdom. The Law of God contains many points, which would be contempti­ble, because of their meanness, if there were not some provision a­gainst this: now to prevent this sligh­ting of them, God hath authorised them by the highest reasons that can be, by the severest comminations a­gainst those that infringe them, and by the richest promises to those that observe them: this is the reason why such grievous punishments are set down against him that shall taste leavened bread within the seven daies of Easter; this is the reason why that he who findes a birds nest must content himself with the young ones, and let the dam fly [Page 92]away, hath the promise of length of daies, which is the same that is annexed to one of the great Com­mandments of the Law, for those who honour their Father and Mo­ther, Deut. 22.6, 7. This is the rea­son why God forbids the eating of the flesh of creeping things, and backs this prohibition with a reason taken from his own example, Be you [...]) holy, because I am holy, Lev. [...] This is also the cause why [...]e inte [...]poseth his own example, in commanding the rest of beasts, for this ordinance being made in the fa­vor of so mean a subject, is the more considerable, in that it is annexed to such an high and excellent mat­ter, to wit, the rest that God took after the Creation.

Why none of the dead have been raised on the Sabbath day?

In my observations on the Creed, upon the Articles of Christs Resur­rection, [Page 93]I promised to handle this question: I must first then verifie the Hypothesis. I say that on the Sabbath day our Saviour cured ma­ny diseases, but never upon that day raised any that were dead, nei­ther in the Old nor New Testament do we read of any such resuscitation upon that day. Not the Sunaimtes son, that was raised by Elisha, for the History saith expresly, that it was not the Sabbath day, and the journey of Elisha and Gehazi, which they made, to raise the dead child, was against the rest of this day; 2 Kings 4.23. &c. neither he who was laid in the grave of the same Prophet, nor the sons of the Wi­dow of Nain, which were carrying to be buried, for they raised them there when they went to inter them: now the sanctity of the Sabbath de­barred them from burying on that day, 2 Kings 13.21. Luke 7.15. Not Lazarus of Bethany, for when he was raised, many Jews were come to his [Page 94]grave, which the holiness of the Sabbath would not have per­mitted. Those pious women who had prepared spices to embalm our Saviour's body, being pre­vented by the Sabbath, rested all that day, and went not to the Se­pulchre till the next morning, which was the 3 ^rd day after his death: not that those were raised with Christ, and appeared in the holy City, for these miracles fell not out, till the day after the Sabbath: not the daughter of Iairus, nor Tabitha, for then they were raised, when their Friends were performing their Funeral Ceremonies for them: Now these actions, such as are the burying of their dead, the washing and embalming of them, yea, the entring into an house where a dead corps lay, all these were prohibited on the Sabbath, as being incompati­ble with its sanctity, Matth. 92.3. &c. Acts 9.37. Not the Widow of Sa­repta's son, whose resurrection is [Page 95]mentioned without naming the day, which had not been omitted, if it had been on the Sabbath; not Euty­chus, who was raised by St. Paul, for this was on the first day of the week, the Sabbath being already past; and here it is remarkable, that this young man, the last of those that were raised, recovered life the same day that Christ returned from the dead. viz. on the Sunday.

Now why God never raised any on the Sabbath day, two reasons may be given.

The first is, because Christ him­self, who is the first born among the dead, and the chief of those that were raised, was not resuscitated on the Sabbath, but he suffered this day to pass before he would come out of his grave; besides, (as I observed on the Creed) Christ was not raised on the Sabbath to shew the union between him and others that were raised, of all which, none received life this day.

The other reason may be this, viz. This life is a time of travel, and the Sabbath was the time of rest, the wisdom of God would not that on the day which was ordained for the repose and rest of the living, the dead should be taken from their ease, and called back again to tra­vel.

Whence comes it as they say commonly, That Love and Affection useth to de­scend: Difference between Faith & Cha­rity: The words of Mal. 4.5. discussed.

VVE know why God the Law­giver hath ordained the du­ties of Children towards their Fa­thers, but hath not expressed the duty of Fathers towards their Chil­dren; the reason is, because the af­fections of Parents towards their Children is naturally greater, and needs fewer incitements then that of Children towards their Parents; this is the meaning of that common saying; that the Parents affection [Page 98]descends towards the Children, but the love of Children towards their Parents doth not so easily ascend.

Now we demand, how comes it that love rather descends then ascends? The reason is, because Love had its beginning in Heaven; God is the first that loved. I say Love had its original in Heaven, and came down into the Earth; and in this it differs from Faith, which had its beginning on Earth, and ter­minates in Heaven. By a secret in­stinct and natural affection, which is found in paternity, imitates that of God, which is Father of all, and who loved us before we loved him; as in affection the Father prevents the Child; so the Love of God to­wards us, doth infinitely surpass that which we bear towards him.

The Prophet in that passage which I quoted, speaking of the reuniting of disagreeing Families, saith, That the heart of the Fathers shall be conver­ted towards their Children, and the heart [Page 99]of the Children towards their Fathers. In the order of these words, the conversion of the Father towards the Child proceeds the conversion of the Child towards the Father; for we must presuppose, that as the Paternal affection is the first and strongest, so the heart of the Fa­ther is more easily reconciled, and sooner appeased then that of the Child.

Why the Law expresseth the Childrens du­ty to Parents by the word Honour, ra­ther then by the word Love.

Surely the Honour which is com­manded to be rendred to them, do­eth not exclude the Love which is due to them: But whereas unrea­sonable Creatures Love their little ones, and are beloved of them: The Lawgiver wills that this natu­ral affection, which ought to be in Man, should be cloathed with a more noble quality, then that which [Page 100]is found among beasts; for these are capable of natural affections, but man alone is capable of Honour; as well to give Honour, as to receive it.

Another reason why this Com­mandment speaks of Honour rather then of Love, in some regard a man owes more affection to his wife and children, then to his father and mo­ther; for he must forsake father and mother, and cleave to his wife; but in matter of Honour, the Parents have alwaies the preheminence; in our affections many times they have the second place, but in Honour and reverence they should still be first.

Wherefore the Law commanded Children to fear those that brought them into the world, namely, the Mother before the Father.

The Decalogue saith, Honour thy Father and thy Mother; but in the 19. [Page 101]of Leviticus ver. 3. it is said that e­very one should fear his Mother and his Father; here the Mother is first named: We must observe that in this passage the Law giver speaks of the fear which the children should have towards those that are the Au­thors of their Generation. The love which they carry to the child, causes sometimes that he fears them not, therefore God commands him to fear them. Now because the Mother hath the greatest part of this natural affection towards the child, and consequently is less feared; God hath inforced this obligation of the child towards the Mother, naming her first, before the Father in this commandment, which in­joyneth to fear them both: So this duty towards the Mother, being more subject to be infringed, is made so much considerable, in that it is put in the first place.

Why God in his titles doeth rather call Himself our Buckler, then our Sword.

VVHEN the Scripture expres­seth Gods protection, oppo­sing his arms to our enemies, it re­presents them rather defensive then offensive; sometimes he is called the Rock and Tower of his people, sometimes also our, Buckler; this was the first title that God assumed to himself, after the first war we read was in the world, Gen. 14. for thus he vouchsafes to speak to Abra­ham, I am thy Buckler; and after­ward he hath been many times ho­noured by this title, in that he [Page 117]would be called the Buckler of his people; but he would never be na­med their sword, but once, and af­ter that he was named their Buck­ler, Deut 33.29. this is to shew that the children of God are not proper­ly quarrellers, and if at any time they take arms, it is rather to de­fend then to hurt.

Since Moses there have been but three men, who received power to kill any miraculously; and the same who have miraculously inflicted death on the li­ving, have also given life to the dead. Reasons of the one and the other.

Among the miracles that God hath displayed by his servants, we read that sometimes they have put some persons to death, so Elijah made fire come down from heaven, which consumed two Companies of fifty men a peece, with their Cap­taines; so Elisha caused Bears to come out of the Forrest, which tore [Page 118]many of the Children of Bethel; so St. Peter by his word onely smote with death Ananias and Sapphira. These Executions could not be but just, being done by a supernatural power; notwithstanding God did not bestow this, but on very few; for since Moses, though many have had the gift of miracles, yet none have received this power of destroy­ing men by miracles, but these three, Elijah, Elisha, and St. Peter; neither would God have those, in whom he had placed this miraculous power, to make use thereof but very sel­dom: therefore Christ did justly reprove the Apostles, who would have imitated this Act of Elijah, Luke 9.54, 55. Moreover, those whom God had employed to inflict death upon some, he gave them power to bestow life upon others; as Elijah on the Widows son of Sa­repta; Elisha on the Shunamites son, and St. Peter on Tabitha, as being an Act more glorious to bestow life on [Page 119]the dead, then to take it from the li­ving; he would also shew, that for the more full authorising of the cal­ling of these great personages, they were employed as well to give life, as to destroy; otherwise, wicked men would have had some pretence in saying, that their God had power to kill the living, but not to restore the dead; which blasphemy was prevented by the wisdome of God.

The plot of the Priests in consulting to put Lazarus to death, Joh. 12.10.

Murther is more or less enor­mous in divers respects, now though the example which I set down here be extraordinary, it will serve ne­vertheless to shew how far the furi­ous spirit of murther extends it self. The son of God had raised one that was dead, the Priests endeavoured to bury this miracle, willing to send back to the grave a man that had [Page 120]been thence taken out, this was to commit a double murther upon the same person; as God had given twice life to Lazarus, (the one at his nativity, the other at his resurrecti­on) so this was as it were to make him die twice, in taking from him the second life, which he had re­established in the first.

A question: If the punishment of a criminal being interrupted by some ex­traordinary accident intervening, after the execution is begun, is it just to dis­charge him, of the punishment to which he was condemmed.

It hath hapned sometimes, that malefactors have fallen down from the Gibet upon the breaking of the rope, some have been taken down as dead, who yet have lived a good while after; some upon the Scaf­fold have had divers blowes in the neck by the sword, and yet the head not cut off. St. Ierem in his Epistle to Innocent mentions a strange exam­ple; [Page 121]and in the former age, one of our Martyrs being set upon the pile, where they thought to have burnt him alive, he died a natural and quiet death, before the fire was kindled.

But if it happen that a Malefactor who hath passed through all the sorts of a mortal execution should be yet found alive by some means not thought on, or foreseen by men; ought he be again exposed to pu­nishment? The providence of God who hath rescued him, seems to have given him letters of pardon: Justice also which did not condemn him to die twice seems to have received the satisfaction, which it required of him, seeing he hath undergone, if not death it self, yet at least the impression of death.

In this case, which may furnish matter for a fair debate, I distingish thus: there be some crimes so en­ormous, that they deserve more deaths then one, if a man could die [Page 122]oftner then once; so murtherers, sor­cerers, and others guilty of such hainous wickedness, should be car­ried back again to punishment, though they had been rescued by some interruption which might seem miraculous; it is to be presu­med that the justice of God, did stay the course of execution to in­crease rather the pain of death, then to remit the punishment; but as for lesser faults, chiefly those which Gods law hath not declared capital, and yet are such by the civil law, as theft, it seems that the Malefactor hath sufficiently suffered pain, if he hath tasted the half of death.

An allusion in the Apostles words, who ordains that the Sun go not down upon our anger, Ephes. 4.26.

The law commands that the Ma­lefactors body put to death, be bu­ried the same day; it is expresly forbid to let it hang all night on the [Page 123]Gallows Deut. 21.23. therefore as the Sun must not go down upon such a spectacle, though it be the body of a Malefactor justly punished by death, and whose punishment should serve for an example: Even so, our anger, though it proceed from a just resent of some injury done to us, yet it should never sleep with us; to this it seems the Apostles words do allude.

Why God though he approves not Poligamy nor unlawful diverces, which were free­quent in the old Testament, yet never forbad them, but by the last of all the Prophets?

THE question is not why God tolerated these sins among the Israelites. We know that the hard­ness of their hearts, did as it were extort this licence, Mat. 19.8. and for the same cause God did for a long time wink at this disorder, which was so common: For we do not read that he ever reproved any of those who had plurality of wives, or who put them away without just cause: onely in Malachi 2. v. 14, &c. [Page 125]He censureth their Poligamy, and unlawful divorces. But why this cu­stome which had been allowed by so long silence, and prescription of so many ages, was condemned at last? Or why did he delay to censure this custome, till the last of the Pro­phets; for Malachi was the last of them all.

The purpose of God was, that the Kingdom of Christ should be fa­mous; amongst other preheminences for its exact policy, far exceeding that which went before; for this end he suffered that of Moses to give way to some disorders, such as were Poligamy and Divorces, to make it known, that the government of Christ which cut off this tolleration, is more perfect then that of Moses: So that this politick Law of Israel, served to declare and advance that peece of holiness in Christ, and to shew the perfection of his govern­ment, then, when he came to sup­press the abuse which that ancient [Page 126]indulgence had supported.

Now as the time of his coming, and of this reformation did ap­proach, God would prepare the hearts of men: and whereas he was to put a period to the old Testa­ment, and meant not to send any more Prophets, it was needful that the last of them should make this preparation: So as for Poligamy and unjust Divorces, God did not prohibit them sooner, untill the Common-wealth of Moses, which was to give a lustre to that of Christ, should have its period; and so like­wise he would not put an end to the Old Testament until he had dispo­sed men to that reformation, which was to follow the coming of the Messiah; for after God was mani­fest in the Flesh, men have been ti­ed to a more exact purity; to this Christians are more bound, then the Israelites or Patriarhs were.

VVhy men are more subject to be ashamed in the Act of any sin, rather then in that of pride; and why more in Lux­ury, then in any other sin?

There is no sin of which man is not ashamed in the act thereof, or whilst he is committing it. So ma­ny blush when they lie or steal, or when they shew themselves sordid and close fisted, or when they play the Gluttons, and so in any other vitious act, although there be none to witness it. Onely the proud man sins still without shame; never was shame found in the act of pride. The reason hereof is, because the glory which a proud man affects or presumes to have in any action, is formally repugnant to shame: For it is impossible a man should be a­shamed of that, which he esteems tendeth to his glory.

As for the other question, we may say, that the more bestial a sin [Page 128]is, it is the more subject to secret shame: for the sin that reduceth a man to beast-like conditions, seem­eth to check him for the indignity and disgrace he offereth to himself: Now as venereal Luxury is the most brutish of all sins, so man is most naturally ashamed of it; as for such as have no shame, they are either innocents or beasts: innocency is in infants, beastiality in savages, and such as have lost their understan­ding, and in those also that are im­pudent in their turpitude, such as the Cyniks were.

What may be inferred upon this, that the Holy Ghost describing under divers si­militudes the spiritual beauty of the Church, makes no mention of painting?

The ornaments of the Spouse are mistically represented in divers pas­sages of Scripture, as Psal. 45. In the Canticles; In Ezek. 16. v. 10, 11, 12, 13. There she is set out in her chief [Page 129]apparel, both in regard of the stuff, and the fashion. Silk, Gold, Silver, pretious Stones, Pendants from the eares, Chains, Bracelets, the Dres­sings, and all things which serve for advantaging a natural beauty, may be read among the ornaments of the Church: but painting which was invented for imbellishing of the face, is never named in any of those de­scriptions; it seems that God hath re­jected this kind of disguise, in that he makes no mention of it among these ornaments which serve to re­present the beauties of his Church: Yea, this artifice is reckoned a­mong those of Jesabel onely, 2 King. 9.30.

A moral observation upon Sampson's loosing of his strength and sight, and how he recovered the one, but not the other.

This strong man having betrayed the honour of his Nazarites professi­on, [Page 130]on, the badg whereof consisted in his haires, lost this prodigious strength, which he kept till then, and so was overcome by the Philistims, who put out his eies; after some time that his hairs were grown again, his strength returned, but not his sight, for he died blind: It may be de­manded why God would restore him to his strength which was super­natural, but not to his sight also. We might speak much upon this question, if here there were the place to handle what is literal in the History. But it will suffice to observe this onely. Sampsons eyes were the cause of his fall; for hi­therto his unchast looks many times carried him into enormous faults, Judg. 16.1. into which he might have fallen again, had he recovered his sight with his strength. Which strength was restored to him again, that he might once more chastise the Philistims, and that he might die with them: but his eies which [Page 131]might have guided him out of pri­son, and conducted him hither and thither as before, and would have been yet ready, to make his heart wander again after lascivious ob­jects, were not at all restored to him.

Why Christ used the example of theeves to induce us to search for the King­dom of Heaven.

HE alledgeth him who having discovered a treasure in ano­ther mans ground, did not there­with acquaint the owner, but bought the field without giving him any share of his treasure, Matth. 13.44. this is a thing disputable; but he proposeth also to us the open in­justice of the Steward who cousned his Lord, Luke 16.1, &c. and after his example he exhorts to provide for our salvation. Now we know well that these similitudes tend on­ly to recommend wisdom to us; but [Page 133]not to approve of injustice: But I ask, is there no other wisdom but that of the thief, which might serve us for an example to walk to heaven by? chiefly seeing there are so ma­ny lawful actions among men, which wisdom might use for examples, without alledging these which coun­tenance injustice?

The intention of our Saviour in these similitudes, is to shew, that to attain heaven we must have a sin­gular care, and use extraordinary industry; the greatness of this spi­ritual wisdom, could notshew it self more, then by the actions of the greatest prudence, which can be found in the children of this world. Now among men there is commonly more prudence, spirit, and vivacity, and in a higher degree to be found in unlawful actions, then in those which are either good, or indifferent: this is by reason that lawful actions consist alwaies in a certain rectitude, whereas others [Page 134]are full of obliquity which requires more nimbleness and dexterity. Now whereas this sinful prudence makes use of all sorts of means law­ful and unlawful, in a more spati­ous field, where it can extend, and put it self into all postures, more then the wisdom of good men can, which is shut up within the bounds of vertue, by reason man is natural­ly more ingenious to evil; but a­bove all things, if we would see ex­amples of extraordinary and tran­scendent subtilities, we shall finde them among theeves; we knowthere is nothing more inventive, then one given to this vice; for many will rob with such dexterity, that the admiration they make by their industry, surmounts the dislike we should have of there iniquity; therefore the Scripture makes use of that subuject, in which it findes most worldly subtilty, to make us see how great the prudence of good men should be.

An observation upon this, that among Christ's Disciples, there is but one no­ted for avarice, but all are taxed for ambition.

Onely Iudas is markt out by name, and by his acts of covetousness, Iohn 12.6. but all the rest are shewed to be ambitious; for many times they strove for superiority, Luke 9.46. even at that time when their Master was waiting for his own death, Luke 22.24. two of them made jealousie among all the rest, when they de­manded to sit the one at Christs right hand, the other at his left.

It seems that as yet ambition was more universal then avarice; for al­though both these are rooted in the hearts of all men, yet the one hath a more general command then the o­ther: so ambition is more ancient then avarice; for sin began at A­dam's ambition; and in Scripture we read of many examples of am­bition, [Page 136]which appeared in the first ages of the world, before we finde any examples of avarice.

In brief, though both these be crimes, yet of the two avarice is the most unbeseeming man.

To one man onely God by divine means did shew the way to become rich

It is God who still giveth riches, and the lawful means to become rich. It is he also that giveth indu­stry, but yet he doth not furnish us with these, except by humane and natural means, which are under­standing, diligence, experience, and other qualities; he never used ex­traordinary revelations for men to enrich themselves, except to one man onely: this was Iacob, to whom God sent an Angel expresly from Heaven, to bestow on him the in­vention to make himself rich, Gen. 31.10, 11, 12. This is the onely ex­ample in all the Scripture; except [Page 137]we will add that of the Israelites, to whom God shewed the means to en­rich themselves by the Egyptian jewels, Exod. 12.35, 36.

Now it is a thing remarkable, that God hath not been sparing of his oracles, when there hath been question about providing for the necessities of his servants, or for gi­ving them advice of things requisite to their preservation, but to shew them the way to enrich themselves, his revelations in this point have been very rare; which notwith­standing in other cases he hath not been sparing of, as when he pro­vides for the security of his chil­dren; so he forbid Laban to wrong Iacob; or for their honour, so he advertiseth Abimelech not to med­dle with Abraham's Wife; or for their quietness, so many times he comforteth Jacob in his afflictions; or for confirming and encouraging them in their vocations; so some­times he hath spoken to Moses, Jo­shua, [Page 138]Gedeon, and others; or for giving them victory over their enemies, so he shewed the way to the Israelites how to surprise Hai; & to David, how he might entrap the Philistims; o [...] for preventing some inconvenience, so he advertiseth Isaac, not to go down into Egypt; and on the con­trary he gave order to Joseph the Husband of Mary the Virgin, to carry Christ thither, that was newly born, to avoid the fury of Herod: But to teach men by oracle how to inrich themselves, God never used, except one time onely, and for a special cause. So the Saints have sometimes desired revelations in case of necessity, but never for su­perfluity.

A conjecture upon the Jewish opinion, touching the just price of things ven­dible.

The Rabbins teach, that he who sells a Commodity in gross, ought [Page 139]not to gain above the fift part, that is to say, if the commodity hath cost five, he may sell it for six, and not above.

Now I know not upon what rule or example they ground this propor­tion; it may be they have taken it from that action of Pharaoh, who ha­ving purchased the property of all the Lands of Egypt contented him­self with the fifth of their yearly rent, then when he made restituti­on to his subjects, Gen. 47.24. it may be also, and with more probability, that they ground this upon that law which is contented, that he who injustly detaines his neighbours goods, should restore them with the addition of the fift part over and a­above, Lev. 6.5. Num. 5.7.

But these reasons are not conclu­ding, to prescribe an universal price or tax; the justice of valuations consisteth not precisely in an A­ [...]ome, but in a certain latitude, ei­ther more or less according, to cir­cumstances.

A Question: if he that hath made resti­tution of the goods unjustly detained, as also of all the profits and interests, and recompenced all the losses, hath he sufficiently discharged his conscience?

Zacheus was not content to restore fourfold for all that he had stoln, but also he bestowes on the poor the half of what remained of his goods lawfully gotten, Luke 19.8. Now though this example doth not serve as a rule in all its mea­sures, yet it is founded on a rule, in respect of its matter and sub­stance.

He that hath done evil is bound by the law of true repentance, to do good also; but this is not properly to do good, when one repairs onely the evil which he hath done; he therefore that restores onely what is not his own, cannot be said by this action to hav don good to his neigh­bour; for after restitution of that [Page 141]which he detained from another, he is bound also to give of his own where charity requires: the great­ness also of his bounty must answer in some fit proportion, to the great­ness of the robbery committed by him; for he that hath done much evil, is obliged to do also much good; not to pay the interest of Gods justice, which no man can sa­tisfie, but to express the fruits of repentance, which cannot be sin­cere, if it endeavours not to ex­ceed the greatness of the evil, by the greatness of the good. So he that hath restored all, hath not as yet cleared his conscience, because for detaining another mans goods, he must give some of his own, ac­cording to the greatness and extent of the evil he had done him. He that makes restitution of ill gotten goods remains yet charged with great obligations.

Sacriledge the first crime committed in the Church of Israel, after they en­tred into Canaan. And the first in the Christian Church.

To rob God is a more hainous sin, then to rob man; yet it is held a thing indifferent even among those, who are conscientious in all other things: yea, many there are who think it a point of the true Re­ligion, to suppress and annihilate all that their predecessors have conse­crated to the service of God; as though one could not be sufficiently reformed except he commit Sacri­ledge: this was the first sin that the Israelites perpetrated in the land o [...] Promise, and in the first City they Conquered, to wit, in Ierico, Iosh 7.1, &c. And this was also the first sin that appeared in the Christian Church, committed by Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5.1, &c. This fata [...] [Page 143]sin of the Church hath been punish­ed in both these beginnings, as well that of the Israelites, as that of the Christians, by miraculous and ex­emplary Judgments, to shew how excreable this crime is in the eyes of Almighty God.

Whether it be more injurious to call our neighbour fool, or knave? And why a man glorieth rather to be esteemed good then wise?

IT is not onely a reproach to a­scribe wickedness to our neigh­bour, but also to accuse him of folly unjustly. Now which of these two kinds of calumniation be most cri­minal, is a disputable question; yet a man is more sensible, (chiefly he that is of any spirit) if he be called a fool, then a wicked man. For al­though that outwardly, & in regard of inconveniences, men are more troubled if they be called wicked, [Page 145]yet inwardly, and in their secret, thoughts, they are more offended, if they be reputed fools: The rea­son is, because every one naturally desireth to be thought a man, that is a reasonable creature, of which degree he thinks himself degraded, if he be taxed of folly, which is the want of judgment or reason, and indeed essentiall to man. So divine justice condemneth him to greater punishments, who calls his brother fool, then him that is angry with­out cause, Mat. 5.22.

But then, how comes it, that no man (except he be a fool indeed) dare take upon him the title of wise; and yet every one dare call himself good, the cause also is plain; for though every man beleeves himself to be reasonable, and is offended at the name of fool, yet he knows that the name of wise, includes qualities not common to all, and which are not in the power of every one, for to have a good natural understand­ding, [Page 146]a quick apprehension, a good judgment, are perfections which every one cannot have, though he would never so fain; but to be good, that is to hav moral goodness, consisting in civil conversation only, there are none who think not them­selves capable thereof: therefore, as every one beleeves he may be a good man if he will, so every one dares call himself good, and that boldly, because he knows that com­mon belief gives him power to be so: but as for wisdom, which we know depends not on the will of a­ny person, none dare so bold­ly and openly assume this title.

An Oservation upon this; That in the Scripture God is oftner angry with mans wickedness, then he useth to laugh at their folly.

We may speak the truth irronical­ly, God himself useth sometimes [Page 147]this figure, namely, then, when he mocks Idolaters, and such as trust in Soothsayers, he invites them to try if their gods and Astrologers can deliver them, Iudg. 10.14. Ier. 8.28. Isa. 47.13. and then also when he mocks those who trust to the wisdom or power of Kings, Hos. 13.10. truly mans folly deserveth as much to be mocked, as his malice is worthy of our indignation: yet there is oftentimes more cause to be angry with the wickedness of the world, then to laugh at its vanity. So the Scripture sets out to us, how God is oftner angry with the wic­kedness of men, then he useth to laugh at their folly, and even then when he doth mock them, he is most incensed against them. Psalm 2.4, 5.

Is it lawful to divulge false news, if it may serve for the publick good?

For example, to appease a dis­contented people, or to incourage them when they are affraid; or to disperse a tumultuous conspiracy; or to divert the plots of an Enemy; Polititians make no scruple among other of their inventions to spread a false report, when they think it may produce some good effect: this seems to be countenanced by that of the Prophet Elisha, who led the Syrians into Samaria, making them beleeve, that he would conduct them elsewhere, 2 Kings 6. but to leave the opinions of Expositors upon that extraordinary example; the general rule of truth is still firm, for if it be not lawful to lie even for the glory of God, how much less for other causes; for is it reason that any estate, or weal pub­lick [Page 149]should be of greater consi­deration with us, then God him­self.

VVhy it is lawful sometimes to make shew of evil, but never lawful to make shew of good.

There is great odds between a formal lie, and a simple fiction, or resemblance; for the one is altoge­ther vitious, the other sometimes lawful, but with a distinction: We do not call him an Hypocrite who makes shew of evil, which he hath not, but him who makes shew of the good he hath not; the first is sometimes lawful, the other is never allowable; it is lawful for a good man to counterfeit the naughty man, as Salomon made shew to di­spatch the poor infant, 1 Kings cap. 3. but it were cousnage if a wicked man should counterfeit a good man; its lawful for a learned man to play the ignorant, but it were ridiculous [Page 150]presumption in an ignorant to make shew of learning; its lawful for a wise man to play the fool, as David did in the Court of Achis, but but its a trancendant folly for a fool to counterfeit the wise man; its lawful for a milde man to make shew of rigour, as Ioseph did out­wardly to his brethren, but there is nothing more detestable, then for a cruel man to make shew of mild­ness; and lastly, it is lawful for a friend to counterfeit the enemy, but for an enemy to play the friend, is horrible treachery.

Counterfeiting therefore is law­ful in the one, but not in the other; good and evil in respect of their es­sence lodge within man, not accor­ding to outward appearance; the inside may be good, though it doth not alwaies appear outwardly so, but the outside can never be good, if there be not goodness within: hence it is that sometimes good un­der the shape of evil is lawful, but [Page 151]evil is never lawful under the shape of good.

VVe may know a wicked man; but it is impossible to know a good man.

If I finde a man doing wickedly, I am not deceived, if I hold him for a wicked man; but when a man doth all the good he can, yet this is no infallible mark to assure me that he is a good man; for many do good things, either out of Hypocrisie, or some interest; such will give all they have to the poor, yea, will suffer willingly Martyrdom, who notwithstanding are void of Chari­ty, 1 Cor. 13.3. the works they do have truly a superficial goodness, but abusive, because the inside is naught. As true goodness then lodgeth within the heart, which to us is unknown, so we cannot know if such a man is truely good.

But then how shall we know him to be wicked, seeing wickedness as wel as goodness hath its abode with­in the heart? The reason of this difference is plain; an evil action never proceedes from a good heart, but an action that is outwardly good may proceed from an evil heart.

When the Scripture speaks of any man in Hell, it never names the man; and when it doth name him, it never ex­presseth the name of Hell; an observa­tion upon this matter.

The Parable in St. Luke chap. 16. nameth him who is in Abraham's bo­some, to wit, Lazarus, but gives no name to him that is in Hell! On­ly in general, calls him a rich man. I will omit the reasons which some alledge for this, and will onely say, that the Scripture never nominates those whom it mentioneth to be in [Page 153]Hell torments; and for this cause it is, that the rich mans name is past over in silence, whereas Lazarus is called by his name; so it speaks of divers spirits in prison, 1 Pet. 3.19. that is to say, in Hell, but mentio­neth none of them by name.

On the other side, when it names any that is dead in perdition, yet it never saith punctually, that he is in Hell; after Iudas the Traitor had hanged himself, the Holy Ghost who inspired the Apostles, was not ignorant where the soul of that wicked wretch was; yet he saith nothing else, but that he was gone into his place, Acts 1.25.

Now if God himself who knows the names of those which are in Hell, doth still forbear to utter them; how much more careful should we be, to refrain our selves in our verdicts, when we speak of the state and condition of those who are dead; although that his [Page 154]end may in some sort induce us to judge sinistrously: How rash then are they who dare insert into a Ca­talogue the names of those who are damned.

A sin committed by rule and order is more enormous, then that which is done in disorder and confusion.

A Sin that is committed with judgment, order, and formali­ty, is so much the more detestible: He that kills in cold blood, at lei­sure, and with Ceremony, is more blamable, then he that kills raishly, and without formality: the rea­son is, because in the one, the un­derstanding which is mans Counsel­lor acteth with complacency; but in him who is transported with pas­sion, it hath small power: as then man is not man without understan­ding, so it seems that he who offen­deth [Page 156]without the concurrence of the intellect, should not have his offence in so high a degree imputed to him: hence it is that we excuse mad men, when in their frantick fits they commit any outrage. Briefly, the more understanding there is in any crime, the more enormous it is, and a sin done orderly, is the more irregular.

The diversity of conflicts in man against himself.

That which I am to speak here is known sufficiently, touching the di­vers conflicts that be within man: but after the descriptions which have been given by divers, and will be material to reduce them into a brief summary; now the chief combats we are to speak of, be these.

Between one Passion and ano­ther; as sometimes fear is opposite to covetousness, and so one vice is [Page 157]encountred by another, as ambiti­on is sometimes restrained by ava­rice, or pleasure.

Between reason and the passions, as we have a thousand examples for this.

Between reason and natural sence; so some will be content to lose an arm for the preservation of the whole body; so David abstai­ned from drinking the water of Bethlem, although he was pinched with great heat and thurst, 2 Sam. 23.16, 17.

Between the conscience and the will, as oftentimes the one of these two resists the other.

Between the memory and the will, as sometimes we remember that which troubles us, and which we would willingly forget.

Between reason and reason it self, that is, one reason against another, as St. Paul, was inclosed on both sides, having causes which obli­ged him to desire a continuance of [Page 158]his life, and other reasons which made him willing to forsake the world, and to be dissolved, Phil 1.22, &c.

Between sense and faith; as Da­vid having judged of things accor­ding to appearance, concluded that in vain he had wasted his heart; but faith made him retract his words, and use a language quite contrary, Psal. 73.13, &c.

Between natural sense and god­liness, as the Martyrs which natu­rally abhor death, yet they received it with much alacrity; and as our Saviour expressing this reluctancy, saith to St. Peter, They will lead thee whither thou wouldst not, John 21.18.

Between the conscience and faith; the one casts us down by set­ting our sins before us, the other raiseth us up, by the consideration of Gods mercy.

And lastly, between the flesh and the spirit; that is, between corrup­ted [Page 159]nature and grace, which do strive against each other in all the faculties of the soul; as truth and falsehood, justice and injustice, pu­rity and impurity. This, this is that intestine war, which sets at variance the understanding, will, and affecti­ons, and indeed the whole man a­gainst himself, Rom. 7.15, &c.

Why some see more easily the defects of the memory, and of other faculties of the soul, then the defects of their judg­ment?

All unlawful desire presupposeth a corruption of judgment: if reason which is the eye of the soul were clear, all the other faculties would be pure, Matthew 6.22. but its hard for man to know when his judg­ment destroys him, or when it is de­ceived; if our memory fail in any point, we presently take notice of this defect, and likewise if our affe­ctions [Page 160]be faulty: but if our judg­ment miscarry, it is a hard matter to find it. The reason of this diffe­rence is, because it is with the judg­ment as with the eye, which see­eth all things except it self; our judgment judgeth of the defects which be in the other faculties of the soul; this is it which seeth and dis­cerneth them; but it seeth not its own defects except by a kinde of reflection, which is very weak and feeble; so that it can with facility judge of the other powers and qua­lities which are with it in man, but it can hardly judge of it self; whence it comes that a fool seeth not his fol­ly, though he seeth the other faults that are in him.