Works

S. MARK 1. 15.

WHilest our Blessed Savior preached here on earth, what else, in likelihood, could the argument of his preaching be, but the Mystery of Christian Religion, or way of attaining Salvation through himself? Accordingly this Brief of his Sermons, recorded by our Evangelist, contains no less than the Sum of all Christian Divinity. For the Knowledge of the Kingdom of God, and the means how to attain to be a member, and so to have interest in the benefits and privileges of the same, (which is Salvation) containeth the Sum of all a Christian is either to know or do. The first of which ( The knowledge of the Kingdom of God, ) is in the first words, The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; of which I have spoken already. The second is contained in the next words, Repent ye, and believe the Gospel; of which I am to speak now.

None can be Members or Citizens of the Kingdom of God, but only those who are the Sons of God: The means to become the Sons or Children of God, is by Regeneration or New-birth. This is the Mystery our Savior told Nicodemus of, when he came to him by night; Except a man (saith our Savior) be born again, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John 3. 3. Now Regeneration, or New birth, consists of these two parts, Repentance towards God, and Faith towards Christ; according to that which the Apostle Paul told the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, Acts 20. 21. that he had testified both to Jews and Greeks, Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ; that is, the whole mystery of Regeneration, whereby a man becomes the Child of God, and a member of his Kingdom. Where we are to note (and it will serve us to understand these things the better) that Repentance, properly and distinctly taken, looks towards God the Father; and Faith unto Christ our Mediator. The one is our returning unto God, from whom we are gone astray by sin: the other, the means or way of our return unto him, by Christ, without whom we can neither be reconciled to our heavenly Father, nor perform any service acceptable unto him.

These two therefore our Savior distinguisheth, when he saith, Repent, and believe the Gospel; the one looking to his Father, the other to himself. Both joined together make the New birth or a new man: even as in natural generation, the Soul being united with the Body makes a natural man; Repentance here being as the Body or Matter, which Faith in the Gospel of Christ inlivens and informs as a Soul. Those therefore who make Faith a part of Repentance, understand by Repentance the whole Regeneration of a sinner. Otherwise, if Repentance be taken precisely and distinctly, as it is here by our Savior, then is not Faith a part, but a necessary concurrent of Repentance; as the Soul is no part of the Body, but concurs therewith to the making of a Man.

And thus much I held needful to speak of Repentance and Faith in general, to make my way the more straight and easy to the handling of them severally and apart; which now I come unto. And first to begin with that which is first, Repentance.

REPENTANCE is A turning of the whole heart from Satan and Sin, to serve God in newness of life. I say, from Satan and Sin, because he that lives in Sin, serves the Devil, and belongs to his jurisdiction. And therefore in our Baptism, which is the Seal of our New birth, we profess our Repentance by renouncing the Devil and all his works; that is, the works of Sin wherewith he is served: and then we swear fealty to God, saying, I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, &c.

The Definition I have given, you shall find full and whole in our Savior's words to S. Paul, when he appeared to him going to Damascus, Acts 26. 18. as S. Paul himself reporteth them; namely, that he would send him to the Gentiles, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God; that they might receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified. Which voice S. Paul there saith V. 19. he was obedient unto; and thereupon went and shown first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance, V. 20. The Commission therefore given him in the words aforesaid was, To preach Repentance.

And howsoever the name of Repentance be by a custom of speech restrained only to that Sorrow and Remorse for sin which is but the beginning of our Turning; yet, if we will speak according to Scripture, (as we must do when we expound it) the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , translated Repentance, is of a larger extent, signifying not only those pangs of Contrition wherewith Repentance begins, but the whole change and journey (as I may so speak) of the Soul of a sinner, leaving the service of the Devil, and turning to the service of God. For this word in the New Testament answers to that of Turning and Returning so frequent in the Old; as appears not only by the Syriac which so renders it, but by those places in the New Testament where the one is put to explain the other; as in that of S. Paul now quoted. And that the word, Turning, is of as large sense as I speak of, I shall need go no further for proof, than to the words of our Savior to S. Paul even now mentioned. But this will appear better by the ensuing Discourse of the Parts of Repentance.

Repentance (as any one almost may gather by the Definition given thereof) hath two parts, according to the two terms, à quo, & ad quem; An aversion or turning away, and A conversion or turning unto. An aversion or turning away from Satan and Sin; that is the first part: then A conversion or turning unto God by newness of life; that is the second part. The one is a falling off from the Creature, the other a betaking to the Creator.

The first some call Mortification, from that phrase in Scripture of Dying to sin, ( Rom. 6. 11. Col. 3. 3.) that is, of ceasing to be the servants of sin. The second, Vivification, from that Scripture-phrase of Living to God, ( Rom. 6. 11. Gal. 2. 19.) that is, of beginning to be to Godward; the first receiving virtue from Christ's death, the other from his resurrection.) For to live, in the Scripture notion, is as much as to be; to die, as not to be. Because therefore to turn away from Satan and Sin is to renounce them, and to be no more (theirs) under them; it is called Dying to sin: and because to turn unto God by newness of life is to become his, and be that to him which before we were not; it is called Living unto God.

But the more usual name of the first part of Repentance, or the act of aversion and turning away, is Contrition; a term borrowed from the Old Testament. The other part is simply called Conversion unto God, (or by some, Reformation or Newness of Life. ) I shall use some of these terms, so as not to neglect the rest. And the first part of Repentance I will call Contrition, or Dying to sin, as the most easy expression; of which I shall now begin to speak.

Contrition, or Dying unto sin, hath sometimes the whole name of Repentance and Turning given to it; namely, as often as the thing to be turned from is solely mentioned. As Heb. 6. 1. we have repentance from dead works. S. Peter saith to Simon Magus, Act. 8. 22. Repent of thy wickedness. S. Paul, 2 Cor. 12. 21. speaks of repenting of uncleanness, and sornication, and lasciviousness. In all which, and the like places, Repentance seems to signify only Contrition, or the act of aversion and turning away from sin. Otherwise, as I have already said, it signifies the whole act of our turning, from the beginning to the end: as appears plainly, either when both terms are mentioned, or but the thing or term to be turned unto: as Acts 20. 21. Repentance unto God; and Act. 26. 20. where S. Paul saith, that he preached both to the Jews and Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God. For no man can turn unto God, unless he first have turned from the Devil.

But to leave words, and come to the matter. Contrition, or Dying unto sin, is such a Compunction of the Heart for the same as is joined with a purpose to leave and forsake it. Not every Compunction for sin is true Contrition, but such a Compunction only as is joined with a purpose to leave and forsake it. Contrition hath therefore as you see, two parts or degrees. The first is, A Compunction of the Heart for sin; the second, A Purpose to forsake and renounce sin. The one is a turning away from sin, in the affections or passions of the Mind; the other is a turning of the Will.

Compunction is a turning in the affections and passions of the Mind; and that not of one passion only, but of every passion wherewith we abhor and fly a thing as evil; as Fear, Grief, and Hate: for we must turn with our whole hearts. Fear leads the rank, and trembles at the wrath of God and dreadful Judgment to come, when it shall be said to every unrepentant sinner, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his Angels, there to be tormented forever and ever. For Fear is of an evil to come.

Next comes Grief, and laments that ever it was committed, whereby we have incurred so great an evil as to become vassals of Satan, and the loss of so great a good as the favor of Almighty God, yea of so good and gracious a God as saith again and again, As I live, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his ways, and live. What wretch would have lost the favor of such a God as this? O that it were to do again! I would never do it. For we grieve at the presence of evil and absence of good, as we joy in the contrary.

Thirdly comes Hate, and begins to loath and detest sin as a thing not only hurtful, but ugly and abominable, a soul and beastly thing, most contrary to and unbefitting the nature and excellency of a Reasonable creature, as man is. For we hate that which is contrary, and love what is agreeable to us.

These are the several motions and degrees of that Compunction of Heart whereby a Repentant Soul turneth from his sin. And that this is the order of them, may appear, because that is always first which may be without the rest. Now a man may tremble at God's judgments for sin and wrath to come, and yet not grieve for them; yea a man may tremble and grieve too for his sins, and yet not hate and loath them.

But all these repentant passions of Compunction, though diverse in themselves, yet are wont to be comprehended under the name of Sorrow and Remorse for sin: Not as though that were the only passion in our Compunction; but because all passions of the Mind which spring from the apprehension and sense of evil are grievous and painful, and so may, as by a general name, be comprehended under the word Sorrow: as the contrary passions, being pleasing and delightful to nature, may be, and are wont to be, comprehended under the name of Pleasure. For Dolor and Voluptas, Pain and Pleasure, divide all our Passions between them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , saith Aristotle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Every action of ours is attended with some either pleasure or pain. Though yet there be among the doleful passions a passion peculiarly called Tristitia or Sorrow; and among the delightful passions one likewise in special called Laetitia or Joy.

But all this Fear and Trembling at the wrath of God to come for sin, this Sorrow for sin, this Hating and Loathing of sin, will not make our Contrition full and perfect, unless our Will also do his part, and resolve to forsake and leave it. For so I defined true Contrition, or Dying to sin, to be A compunction of the Heart for sin, joined with a will and resolution to forsake it.

Hath then the wrath of God Almighty, and the everlasting woe denounced to all impenitent sinners, made thee fear and tremble? Hath thy trembling been seconded with a true and hearty sorrow for thy sins? Hath thy sorrow been such as brought forth hate and loathing of sin, so that sin appeared ugly and abominable unto thee? Hath there then followed a Will to be rid of it, a Purpose to forsake and leave it? Then art thou truly contrite and dead to sin-ward. With this last act thy service of sin gave up the ghost. Thou hast turned away, bidden farewell, and shaken hands with Sin and Satan.

An Effect of this Contrition is Confession: when out of a contrite and wounded heart, we acknowledge and lay open our sins before the face of Almighty God (our heavenly Father) begging pardon and forgiveness for them. A Duty always necessary to be performed to God himself, whom we have chiefly and principally offended; and in some cases also convenient to be made unto his Ministers, not only for advice, but for consolation, by that power and authority which God hath given them to exercise in his name, according to that, Whose sins ye remit, shall be remitted. For if we confess our sins, (saith S. John 1 Epist. 1. 9.) he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness; and Proverb. 28. 13. He that covereth his sins, shall not prosper; but whose confesseth and forsaketh them, shall have mercy.

THUS have we seen the several degrees and steps of Contrition and Dying to sin: Trembling at the fearful doom and vengeance due unto it; Grieving for it; Hating and loathing of it; a Will and Purpose to forsake and leave it; together with the common Effect of them, Confession. And so now we are arrived at the main Cardo and hinge of Repentance, the Ioynt where the two parts thereof, Aversion and Conversion, meet and are knit together: For where the Act of Aversion from sin endeth, there Conversion unto God begins. The last Act of turning from sin was that of the Will, to forsake and leave it: The same Act is the beginning of our turning unto God. For no man can resolve to forsake and leave sin, but he must purpose also to lead a new life to God: Nor can any man have a purpose to lead a new life, but he must withal resolve to leave sin. This is then the main Ioynt of Repentance, where the Spirit and Grace of God (the vis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of our Regeneration, which from the beginning stirred our hearts) gives that great and powerful lift which doth the deed.

Here and not before now, that Faith in the Gospel, which applies and reaches hold of Christ, first comes in to give life unto Repentance, as a Soul unto a Body. Which union of Faith and Repentance (as I said in the beginning of this Discourse) makes the Regeneration of a spiritual man; as the union of the Soul with the Body makes the generation of a natural man. And as in natural generation, the Soul is not infused at the first conception, but after the Body hath been in some measure fashioned and formed: So in our Regeneration, or generation spiritual, Justifying Faith, or that Faith whereby the Soul flies unto and relies upon Christ, hath no place till Repentance be come to the last degree of Contrition. For then our Savior inviteth a sinner to come unto him, and not till then: Come unto me, saith he, all ye that labor, and are heavy laden, (that is, all ye that are contrite, and groan under the burden of your sins,) and I will ease you. Till then he invites them not, as being not till then fit to be eased; For the whole hath no need of the Physician, but the sick. I speak not of an Historical faith, whereby a man believes in general, that Christ is the Savior of mankind; nor of a Legal, wherewith a man believes the punishments and threatenings of the Law, (for these may be, yea are, before Repentance:) but of a Saving faith, which applies Christ as a salve to a sick and wounded soul.

BUT now, to dwell no longer upon the connection of the two parts, let us see what are the degrees also of this second part, namely, of Turning and Living unto God, by a new and reformed life, answerable to the degrees of the former part, which was Dying and Turning from sin. Where first we are to know, that because Turning to a thing, and Turning from a thing, are motions of a contrary nature; therefore the degrees of our Turning unto God are to be ranked in a clean contrary order to those of our Turning from sin. For the first degree here, is the Act of the Will, which as it concluded our Turning from sin, by resolving to forsake it, so it begins our Turning unto God, by a firm purpose of Heart to serve him thenceforth in newness of life. After this, the Affections begin to act their parts answerably, and as it were to echo the good choice the Will hath made.

First Love, when a man begins to find himself affected and enamored with this change of life. After Love comes Delight, when the Penitent takes some pleasure in doing the duties whereby God is served, and finds joy and comfort in his favor. From whence in the third place springs Hope of the reward; namely to be partaker of the glory and life to come, promised unto all those who unfeignedly turn to God, and set themselves to do his will. But we must know, that these Affections appear not all at once, nor in like measure, but according as a man's growth and proficiency in Conversion is more or less.

Howsoever the inseparable Effects of this second part of Repentance are good works, or, as the Scripture calls them, works worthy of, or meet for, or beseeming Repentance; that is, works of Religion towards God, and of Righteousness towards men. I shown (saith S. Paul, Acts 26. 20.) first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. Without such works, he that saith he is turned unto God, and yet doth them not, is a liar and deceives his own soul.

THUS much of the second part of Repentance. I will conclude this whole Discourse with these two excellent descriptions of Repentance in the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel, which contain the Sum of what I have hitherto spoken concerning the same.

For thus saith Isaiah, chap. 1. 16. Wash ye, make ye clean, put away the evil of your doings from mine eyes, saith the Lord, cease to do evil: This is the first part of Repentance. V. 17. Learn to do well, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow: This is the second part.

Ezek. ch. 33. v. 14, 15. thus; When I say unto the wicked (saith the Lord) Thou shall • surely die; if he turn from his sin, [there is Contrition, the first part] and do that which is lawful and right; If he restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the Statutes of life, without committing iniquity [here ye fee the fruit of a New life, the second part] he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Acts 5. 3, 4, 5.

IN the 110. Psalm, where our Savior is Prophetically described in the Person of a King, advanced to the Throne of Divine Majesty, glorious and victorious, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool, &c. amongst other Kingly Attributes and Graces it is said, (if it be translated as it should be) That his people in the day of his power should offer him Free-will-offerings; that is, bring him Presents at the day of his Inauguration or Investment, as a sign of their Homage. For so was the manner of the East to do unto their Kings: and therefore when Saul was anointed King by Samuel, it is said of those sons of De • ial, which despised and acknowledged him not, that they brought him no presents: But of Messiah's people it is said, Thy people in the day of thy power (that is, the day when thou shalt enter upon thy power, or the day of thy Investment) shall be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a people of free presents, or shall bring thee Free-will-offerings. It is an Elliptical speech, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and rightly expressed in the Translation of our Service-Book, Thy people shall offer (or bring) the Free-will-offerings.

This we see fulfilled in the Story of the foregoing Chapter, when after our Savior's ascension into heaven to sit at the right hand of God, which was the day of his power or Inauguration in his Kingdom, as soon as this his Investment was published by sending of the Holy Ghost, presently such as believed in him, that is, submitted themselves to his power, and acknowledged him to be their King, dedicated their goods and possessions to his service, selling their lands and houses, and laying down the money at the Apostles feet; namely, to be distributed as were the sacred Offerings of the Law, partly to the maintenance and furnishing of the Apostles for the work whereabout they were sent, and partly for the relief of the poor Believers, which belonged to Christ's provision.

According to this Example one Ananias with Sapphira his wife consecrated also a possession of theirs unto God, and sold the same to that purpose; but having so done, covetousness tickling them, they purloined from the price, and brought but a part of the sum, and laid it down at the Apostles feet. Then said Peter (according to the words I have read) Why hath Satan filled thine heart (that is, made thee so daring) to lie unto the Holy Ghost, and to purloin from the price of the field, &c?

The words I have read contain two things; Ananias his Sin, and his Punishment therefore. His Sin in the third and fourth verses; his Punishment in the fifth, Ananias hearing these words, fell down and gave up the ghost.

Concerning his Sin, as appears by the relation I have already made, it was Sacrilege, namely, the purloining of what was become holy and consecrate unto God, not by actual performance, but by vow and inward purpose of the Heart. For, as it is well observed by Ainsworth, on Levite. 7. 16. out of Maimonid. in his Treatise of offering the Sacrifice, Chap. 14. Sect. 4, 5. &c. In vows and voluntaries, it is not necessary that a man pronounce ought with his lips; but if he shall be fully determined in his heart, though he hath uttered nothing with his lips, he is indebted. And this is no private Opinion of mine, the Fathers so determine it: S. Augustine, that Ananias was condemned of Sacrilege, quod Deum in pollicitatione fesellisset, because he had deceived God, had been false to him in what he had promised him. And in another Sermon, Ananiam detraxisse de pecunia quam voverat Deo, Ananias purloined and kept back part of the money he had devoted to God. S. Chrysostom in his 12. Homily upon this place; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. The money or price of the land being by Ananias devoted to God's service, henceforth became sacred. And therefore he that, after he had voluntarily sold his estate with a purpose to have all the money distributed for the use of the Church, durst yet notwithstanding purloin and take part thereof to his own private use, was clearly guilty of Sacrilege. Again, in the same place, You see that Ananias is most justly charged with Sacrilege, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because he took back again part of that money which he had made sacred by devoting it unto God. S. Jerome in his 8. Epistle, Ananias & Sapphira dispensateres timidi, imo cord duplici; & ideo condemnati, quia post votum obtulerunt quasi sua, & non ejus cui semel ea voverant, partemque sibi alienae substantiae reservaverunt; praesentem meruere vindictam non crudelitate sententiae, sed correctionis exemplo: Ananias and Sapphira were distrustfully covetous, false and double-hearted in disposing the money they received for the sale of their estate; and being therefore condemned, because that after their Vow they presented the price of their estate as if it had been their own still, and not God's, to whom they had given it by vow, and withal kept back and reserved to themselves part of that which was no more theirs, but another's, viz. God's; upon these accounts they did most worthily deserve that punishment of Death. Nor was this condemning of them to such a punishment an over-severe or cruel sentence; but an useful exemplary severity, that others might amend and fear to transgress in the like manner. Caesarius brother to Gregory Nazianzen, in his fourth Dialogue, expresseth the sin of Ananias thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He alienated the money dedicated unto God, being wounded with Sacrilege; and when he was asked thereabout, denied it. Lastly, Oecumenius, in whom we have the currant interpretation of the Greek Fathers, thus expounds the words of S. Peter to Ananias; — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. We were far from compelling or forcing you in the least to sell your estate: But whenas you were pleased of your own accord to offer it as a Sacrifice to God, for you afterwards to withhold any part of what ye had given to God for the use of the Church, and to keep it for your own use; this without question is plain Sacrilege. And then adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And therefore they received the punishment due to Sacrilegious persons: what's that? even Death itself. Also Asterius Bishop of Amasea, who lived near the time of Julian, in his Hom. against Covetousness, calls Ananias and Sapphira 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , persons guilty of Sacrilege even in their own Offerings.

I quote these Fathers the more fully, because many of our late Commentators omit the main Sin, and dwell upon the circumstances only, as Hypocrisy, Vain-glory, Covetousness, and the like. But we must distinguish between Ananias his Fact, and the manner and circumstance thereof. The Fact was Sacrilege: In the manner of doing, other sins attended as handmaids. It will be plain, if we ask but these two questions: First, What Ananias did: The Text will make answer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He purloined of the price, the holy money; This was his Fact. Ask secondly, How and in what manner he purloined: The story will tell us, dissemblingly and hypocritically, making an appearance to the contrary. This then was but the manner and circumstance of his Fact, and so the species of the Fact not to be placed therein.

Now this Sacrilege or Sacrilegious act committed by Ananias is in the words of the Text partly expressed, partly aggravated from the inexcusableness thereof. In the expression is spent the third Verse, the aggravation is in the fourth.

The Crime or Fact of Ananias is expressed two ways. First, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [unspec 1] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , purloining of the sacred price. Secondly, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by lying unto, or deceiving, the Holy Ghost. For both these I suppose to mean one and the same thing, namely the same Fact of Ananias two ways expressed. The first, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I translate by stealing or purloining, for so the word signifies. Our English which turns it Keeping back of the price, doth not sufficiently express the propriety thereof in this place: In another place it doth, Tit. 2. 10. where it turns 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , purloining; Exhort servants, saith the Apostle, to be obedient unto their Masters, and to please them well in all things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not purloining, but showing all good fidelity. The Vulgar in both places useth Fraudare, defrauding. In a word, the true signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is surripere, suffurari, aut clam subduct a in commodum nostrum convertere; to steal or take away privily, or to convert to our own use and advantage what was so closely purloined. Whence Beza turns it by Intervertere, Intervertit ex pretio, He purloined, or closely and cunningly took unto himself, part of the price; and in Titus, Intervertentes. In the same sense it is used by the Septuagint in two several places, both pointing at the sin of Sacrilege. One is in Achan's story, Josh. 7. 1. where what we read, Achan took of the accursed thing, the Septuagint renders, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he purloined of the accursed thing, that is, the thing that was consecrated to God, as all the silver and gold was, Chap. 6. Ver. 19. For which cause when God relates to Joshua Israel's sin as the reason of their flying before their enemies, he makes a distinction between Achan's Sacrilege and his theft and dissembling, Ver. 11. of the 7. Chap. saying, For they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff. The other is in 2 Macc. 4. 32. where Menelaus his Sacrilege (who stole the sacred Vessels) is expressed by it; Menelaus (saith the Author) supposing he had got a convenient time, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , stole certain vessels of gold out of the Temple, and gave some to Andronicus, and some he sold into Tyrus and the Cities round about.

The second expression of Ananias his Sacrilege is by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , [unspec 2] deceiving, or lying to, the Holy Ghost; or, as it is repeated immediately after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , lying unto God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is fallo, frustro, mentior, to deceive, cozen, lie; (as also the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which peculiarly signifies Sacrilegious transgression, as Lev. 5. 15. and in the story of Achan, is in all those places (as elsewhere) rendered in the Targum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to lie, and the substantive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a lie ) and in Oaths and Promises, Non servo, frango, not to keep, or to break them. So Ananias his sin was a lying unto, or breaking of promise with, God: For having vowed, or promised unto him in his heart, the whole price of the field, he brought him but part thereof. Both expressions point out the same Fact; which, in regard of the matter was stealing or purloining; in regard of the Vow and Consecration, a breach of promise or lying unto God. So that when Peter says in the third verse, Why hath Satan filled thine heart, to lie unto the Holy Ghost, and to purloin of the price of the land? the latter is the explication of the former, and is as if it had been laid, Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost, in purloining the price of the land?

But what, will some man say, means this special expression of the Deity in the Person of the Holy Ghost? why is Ananias said to have lied to the Holy Ghost, rather than to have lied unto God only? For lying unto God would bear the sense I speak of. Should not then lying unto the Holy Ghost seem to have something else, or something more in it? I answer; Ananias his lie or breach of promise is applied thus in special to the Holy Ghost in respect of the Prerogative of that Person, as to stir and sanctify, so to take notice of the motions of the Heart. Forasmuch therefore as Ananias his Vow and Promise which he broke was not such as men could witness or take notice of, but such as his own Heart and Conscience only was privy to; hence it is said to have been done under the privity of the Holy Ghost, and he in the breach thereof to have lied unto him; because that which none but the inward man knoweth of, and is yet but in the purpose of the Heart, is under his privity. There is a plain place Rom. 9. 1. to this purpose; I say the truth in Christ, (saith the Apostle) I lie not, my Conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost; that is, the Holy Ghost, who is privy to my Conscience, bearing me witness, or my Conscience which the Holy Ghost is privy to. Some other places of Scripture I could name which may receive light from this notion, but I am loath to meddle with them.

But for their interpretation, who expound this Lying unto the Holy Ghost of Ananias his Hypocrisy, I cannot well see how it can stand: for Ananias dissembled not with the Holy Ghost, but with men; the Holy Ghost knew his Heart well enough. And the Hypocrite properly lies unto men, who guess only by the outside, and not unto God, who knows the Heart.

Others expound Lying unto the Holy Ghost, as if it were Lying to try whether the Holy Ghost in the Apostles could discover him or not: But this is an harsh and forced sense. As for that in the 9. verse whereon it is grounded, viz. How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? The word Tempt, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is mistaken; the notion thereof in Scripture being otherwhile, To provoke God by some presumptuous fact to anger, as it were to try whether he will punish or not, to dare God. There is an evident place for this sense, Numb. 14. 22. Those men, saith the Lord, which have seen my glory and my miracles which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice, 23. Surely, they shall not see the land which I sware to their Fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it.

And thus much of the bare description of Ananias his Sin: Come we now to the aggravation thereof; While it remained, was it not thine? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? That is, Before it was sold, was it not thine? and being sold, was not the money paid thee? was not the price in thine hand? Thou hast therefore no excuse for what thou hast done.

For there were two Cases which might have excused Ananias for bringing but part of the price: If either he had not been Dominus in solidum, the full Proprietary of what was sold; or had not received the whole price it was sold for. For, as for the First, it is a Rule in Law, Quoties Dominium transfertur ad alium, tale transfertur quale apud eum fuit qui tradit. A man can sell no more than is his. So that if Ananias had been owner but in part, he had power to dispose but in part. Secondly, Though he were Dominus in solidum, the full Proprietary of the Field, and so had right enough to sell it; yet had not the whole price been received, and in his power and possession, he might still have been excused for bringing but part thereof. But Ananias could plead neither of these: for, saith S. Peter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; whilst it remained unsold, did it not remain thine? or wert not thou owner? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and when it was sold, was not the money it was sold for in thy possession? The first words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; (though there be no such speech again in Scripture) yield the sense I speak of pliantly enough, nor will they bear any other meaning; unless somewhat forsaking the letter, we should with others construe them to imply, That Ananias was not constrained or urged to sell his possession at all, but might have kept it still. Which sense is most commonly followed, and hath the authority of Oecumenius in the words before alleged;— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c We were far (saith S. Peter to Ananias and Sapphira) from compelling you in the least to sell your estate: But when as you were pleased of your own accord to offer it as a Sacrifice and Free-will-offering to God, for you afterwards to withdraw any part of what ye had devoted to God, and take it to your own use; this is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , downright Sacrilege without all controversy and dispute. Therefore Beza translates the words, Nonne, si servâsses, (so he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) manebat tibi?

True it is, this sense makes as much for the unexcusableness of Ananias as the other: For could he have alleged, that what he had done for the sale of his land was done not sponte, but coacte, not willingly, but by way of constraint; it might have excused him: Because that act only is taken to be of force in Law which a man consents unto; but that which is done by constraint or compulsion, is not done with full and free consent, and therefore binds not. So this sense agrees well enough with the story, only it may seem somewhat to strain the words: Howsoever if you had rather follow it, because of the authority, I will not contend. Only note thus much, that the Syriac Translator inclines to the first sense; for he translates, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Was it not thine before it was sold?

A second plea for the excuse of Ananias might have been in case he had not yet received the full price, and so had not the whole money in his hand. But this S. Peter also takes from him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Was it not, when it was sold, in thy power? that is, was not the price it was sold for in thine hands? For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must here be understood for the price of what was sold, or the Field reduced to money: otherwise the contrary would be true to that which Peter intimate • , namely, That when it was sold, it was now no longer in his power, because he had sold it. But the latter words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in thy power, I understand to be as much as, in thy possession, or in thine hand; meaning, as I have said, that he had received the price. For not only that which a man hath dominion and propriety in but that also which he hath but in bare possession, is rightly said to be in his power. For in the Law Ius possessionis extends farther than Ius dominii, namely, as far as Habere, to have a thing: Habere autem dicitur, non solùm qui rei dominus est, sed qui rei quidem dominus non est, sed rem tenet; that is, as they speak, corpore possessioni insistit. And in this sense the price which Ananias had received is said to have been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in his power, that is, in his possession. Which will not seem a forced exposition, if we consider that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath the same sense with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or in manu, in the Hebrew; which implies not dominion only, but also bare possession. As it is said of Abraham's servant, Gen. 24. 10. that all the goods of his Master were in his hand; as well as of the rich miser's son, Eccles 5. 14. that there was nothing in his hand, that is, he was a beggar. Both which might be expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as manus in Hebrew, yea and in Latin too, is well enough known to be put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 power.

I confess there is another Exposition usually given of these words, but it is such an one as directly contradicts the story; namely, that Was it not in thy power? should be, Was it not in thy power to have kept the price when it was sold? But first there is no such word in the Text as to keep it, and so we are not bound to understand it. It is only said, Was it not in thy power? And if any Verb be to be understood to supply the sense, why should it not as well be the contrary? Was it not in thy power to dispose it according to thy Vow? intimating there might be some just impediment after the sale, whereby he could not; especially if he could not get the money. But to expound, Was it not in thy power? to be, Was it not in thy power to have kept it? is directly against the drift of the story: For how did Ananias sin in bringing but part of the price, if he might have kept all? Is not his sin expressly placed in that he purloined of the price? what other Fact of his is mentioned save only this? Nay, if this should be the meaning of the words, it would follow, a man might vow a thing unto God, and yet be at liberty, when he had done, whether he would perform it or not; he might lie unto God, and yet be guiltless. Without doubt this Exposition was it that so obscured the whole Narration, that it could not appear wherein Ananias his Sin consisted. But his Sin, as I have already shown out of the Fathers, was Sacrilege, and of that kind whereof Solomon speaks, Prov. 20. 25. It is a snare to the man who devours that which is holy, and after vows to inquire. He had dedicated the whole value of the Field in his conscience and the purpose of his heart, as was evident by his sale thereof to that end; and yet when he had done, he repented him, and brought but part thereof. This meaning is evidently contained in the body of the Narration, and therefore such a sense of any part as cannot stand with this, is in no wise to be admitted. He that considers it, will perceive the necessity of what I say.

HAVING thus cleared the words of the Text where there was any doubt or obscurity, let us come to the Observations to be deduced thence; whereof the Relation affords us three evident ones.

• 1. That Sacrilege is a Sin against God, and not against men.
• 2. That that which is consecrate to God, must not be alienated to other uses.
• 3. That it is an heinous Sin which God thus severely punished.

For the First, That Sacrilege is a sin against God, and not against men, is plain by the Text, Thou hast not lied (said Peter) unto men, but unto God. For whatsoever is sacred, is his; yea, to be sacred is nothing else but to be set apart from man's interest to be God's in a peculiar propriety and relation. To steal then or alienate that which is sacred, is to rob God, and not man; for he is robbed whose the propriety is, but of sacred things God is the Proprietary, and not man. It is an error therefore to be observed among the Expositors of the Decalogue, who rank Sacrilege as a Sin of the Eighth Commandment: when Sacrilege as Sacrilege is a Sin of the First Table, and not of the Second; a breach of the loyalty we immediately owe to God, and not of the duty we owe to our neighbor. True it is, He that committeth Sacrilege, indirectly and by consequent robbeth men too, namely, those who live of God's provision; but Sacrilege itself is the robbing of God. This is evident by that of the Prophet Malachi, Mal. 3. 8. Will a man rob God? yet ye have robbed me, (saith the Prophet in the person of God:) Lut ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In Tithes and Offerings. Ver. 9. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole Nation. Ver. 10. Bring ye all the Tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house; and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it, &c.

The observation of this would be useful in the Question of the due of Tithes; for the state thereof is not rightly framed, when the Quaere is made, Whether Tithes are due to the Ministers of the Gospel; meaning as a duty of the people unto them. We should say rather, Tithes are due unto God; for so is the style of the Scripture, All the Tithes are mine: these I give to Levi, and not you. God maintains not his Ministers at others charges, but out of his own Revenue which he had reserved to himself: As was well observed by Philo the Jew, in his Book de Sacerdotum honoribus, where speaking of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that honorable maintenance and without bodily toil, which God had provided for his Priesthood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to take away from them out of whose labors this maintenance did accrue all occasion of upbraiding those who by God • s assignment were to receive it, he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. The people were commanded to bring their offerings first to the Temple, that thence the Priests might fetch them: It being not unworthy God himself, in token of gratitude for his infinite bounty and benefits, to take some part back again from him upon whom he had conferred so great benefits; and seeing himself, the Giver of all good gifts, stood in need of nothing, it pleased him to transfer that honorable maintenance, which was so returned him by way of thankfulness, upon those that served at his Altar and ministered about holy things: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (as he gives the reason) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because they (the Priests) might take that their provision without being ashamed, as not coming from men, but from God the Giver of all good gifts to everyone. For they are his Ministers, and not the people's; and therefore to receive their wages from their own Master who employs them, and not from them. The stating of the Question thus would make the way to the resolution of the controversy more easy, and less invidious, whilst we should plead for God, and not for ourselves. For it is not needful that all which is given unto God should be spent upon his Ministers; though it be true that their maintenance should be out of his Revenue, and that honorable and competent. But there are many other uses for the employment of bona sacra, the sacred Revenues, if there be more than is competent for them and theirs; building of Churches; defraying of such as are sent to Synods and employed upon other occasions of the Church; furnishing of treasures for a Holy War; the relief of the poor, the Orphan, the Widow, the Captive and the distressed: All which belong to Christ's provision.

Thus much of the First Observation: Now I come to the Second, That that which is consecrated to God may not be alienated to other uses. The Reasons whereof are,

1. Because none can alienate but he that hath the propriety and is Owner; Dominium transfer non potest qui ipse Dominus non est: But in things consecrate to God, none hath the propriety but God. For certainly a man cannot be said to have given that unto God wherein he still reserves the Title to himself as the Owner. He that gives, transfers the Dominium from himself unto him to whom the gift is made. If therefore that which is given to God, be God's; then must those who go about to alienate it, dispose of that which is none of theirs: which whether it be just or not, let any man judge.

2. To alienate that which is given unto God is a Breach of Vow or Promise made unto him; a lying unto him, as my Text speaks. And if it be a Sin not to perform what was vowed in the purpose of the Heart only, (as we see it was in this Story of Ananias; ) much more is it to revoke a Vow already performed. Nor will it serve turn to say, This reason may indeed concern the person himself that vowed, that he should not revoke again what he hath vowed; but doth not take away from the Commonwealth or public Magistrate their power to dispose of things subject to them. For howsoever it be true, That every private person and his goods are under the tuition of the Public; and the interest the Public hath in either cannot be given away by the sole act of a private person: yet in this case that Rule hath place which is given by Almighty God, Numb. 30. 3, &c. concerning a Maiden's vow in her Father's house, or a Woman's vow under covert; That if the Father or the Husband hear the Vow, and the bond wherewith she bound her soul, and disallow it not, but shall hold his peace; then the vow shall stand. So when the Commonwealth or public Magistrate consents to and allows what is done, as in this case it is supposed they do; the vow and dedication is also irrevocable on their part.

Hence in Scripture it is made an inseparable property of that which is Sacred or God's, not to be alienable. As in Ezek. 48. 14. it is said of the portion of land to be laid out for the Levites, They shall not sell it, neither exchange, nor alienate the firstfruits of the land; (mark the reason;) for it is holy unto the Lord. This was the reason likewise why a Jew might not sell out-right his possession in the land of Canaan, but only for fifty years term, or until the year of Jubiliee; because the whole land was holy, and God's land, and they but Vsnfruct • aries. So saith God Levite. 25. 23. The land shall not be sold forever, or out-right, for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me: therefore v. 24. in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land. Where he saith, ye are strangers and sojourners with me; the meaning is, That as the Gentiles who became Proselytes had no inheritance in the land, but dwelt therein as sojourners: So was all Israel in the sight of God, who would have none accounted Proprietaries of that land but himself, having acquired it by his own powerful conquest from the Canaanite. For although in the same land some part were yet in a more special manner the Lord's land; yet comparatively and secundum quid the whole land was Sacred and His. As all Israel was a peculiar and holy people, though the Tribe of Levi were in a more special sort the holy Tribe. Now if that which was but in a more general sense holy and the Lord's, might not be alien • ted; what shall we say of that which is holy and His in the most special manner of all? I speak all this while of that which is dedicate unto God absolutely, and not with limitation or for term of time only; for such Dedications I suppose there may be.

Now if any shall ask me, whether this Assertion, That things dedicate to God are unalienable, admits not of some limitations; I answer, It may; and that in two cases: If either it can be proved that the Donation made unto God were a nullity; or shown that God hath relinquished the right which once he had. But here the water begins to grow too deep for my wading; yet I hope I may say thus much, That whosoever he be that shall plead either of these Cases to acquit himself of Sacrilege, had need be sure in a point of such moment that his evidence be good, and such as he can show good warrant for out of God's own Book: To go upon bare conjectures will not be safe. And for direction and caution in this Case, I will add further, That not every sinfulness of the person who is the Donor, nor every default or blemish in the Consecration, makes the act itself void. It appears in the story of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, in that oblation of Incense made by the two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation; whose service though it were so displeasing unto the Lord, that he sent fire from heaven to consume them, yet when all was done, he gave this commandment to Moses, Speak (saith he) unto Eleazar the son of Aaron the Priest, that he take up the censers out of the burning, and scatter thou the fire yonder; for they are hallowed. The censers of those sinners against their souls; let them make of them broad plates for a covering of the Altar: for they offered them before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed, Numb. 16. 37, 38. Mark here; Though they were offered by sinful men, and in a sinful manner, and were not to be used anymore for Censers; yet must they be applied to some other holy use, because they were become sacred by having been offered unto the Lord. So Rabbi Solomon Rashi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Vnlawful for common use, because they had made them vessels of Ministry.

My last Observation is raised from the Judgment which befell Ananias; That it must needs be a heinous sin which God so severely punished, namely, with death: For there is no Example to be found again in the whole New Testament of so severe a Punishment inflicted by the mouth of the Apostles for any sin whatsoever. But this was the first Consecration of goods that ever was made unto Christ our Lord, after he was invested to sit at the right hand of God; and this transgression of Ananias and Sapphira the first Sacrilege that ever was committed against him: Wherefore it was requisite that by the severity of the punishment thereof, he should now manifest unto men what account he made of and how heinous he esteemed that Sin; that it might be for an Example to the world's end unto all that should afterward believe in his name to beware thereof. So saith S. Jerome, Ananias & Sapphira, quia post votum obtulerunt quasi sua, & non ejus cui semel ea voverant, praesentem meruere vindictam, non crudelitate Sententiae, sed correctionis exemplo. Ananias and Sapphira most worthily deserved to be so severely punished, viz. with death; because that after their vow they presented the price of their estate as if it had been their own, and not God's to whom they had given it, and withal kept back and reserved to themselves part of that which was no more theirs, but another's, viz. God's. Nor was this an over-severe and cruel sentence, but an useful exemplary Severity, that others might amend, and beware of offending in the like kind. For the First in every kind is the Measure of that which follows: and though Sacrilege be not since punished by God, as often as it is committed, by such a visible death; yet was it his purpose that by this First punishment we should take notice how great that Sin was, and how displeasing in his sight, which was a punishment by the greatest visible judgment that could be.

The like severe Example to this, and for the like end, was that upon him who at first pro • aned the Sabbath-day in the Wilderness by gathering sticks, Numb. 15. 32, &c. who by the sentence of God himself was put to death, and stoned by the whole Congregation: that the Jews hereby might know, that howsoever the like were not ordinarily afterward to be inflicted for the like sin, yet the gravity thereof in the eyes of God was still the same which that First severity intimated.

Furthermore, it is worthy to be noted, that we find three Examples of such a kind of coactive jurisdiction (if I may so term it) exercised either by our Savior when he was here on earth, or by his Apostles; and all three for the profanation of that which was sacred. The first two by our Savior himself against those that profaned his Temple, by buying and selling therein as a common place: For which, at the first Passover after his beginning to preach the Gospel, he made him a whip, and whipped such profaners out of it, saying, Make not my Father's house a house of Merchandise, John 2. 16. Another time, which was at his last Passover, He overthrew the Tables of the Money-changers, and the seats of them that sold Doves, and would not suffer any to carry a Vessel through the Temple; telling them, that his house was made for an house of prayer, but they had made it a den of Thieves, Matt. 21. 12. Mark 11. 15. Luke 19. 45. The third Example is this which the Apostle Peter exercised upon Ananias and Sapphira for Sacrilege. Whereby it should appear that, how small account soever we are now-a-days wont to make of these sins, yet in God's esteem they are other manner of ones than we take them for.

Another argument of the heinousness of the sin of Sacrilege is, That there was no Sacrifice appointed in the Law to make atonement for the same, if it were committed willingly and wittingly; but only if it were ignorantly done. For so we have it, Levite. 5. 15, 16. If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord; he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a Ram without blemish out of the flock.—And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and add the fifth part thereunto.—And the Priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. Thus if it were done ignorantly; but if wittingly and presumptuously, there was no atonement appointed for it: though for other sins there be, even to Perjury itself. For, as it is in Mal. 3. 8. Will a man rob his God?

Another proof and testimony of the heinousness of this Sin, is that so ancient a custom in Dedications to lade it with a Curse: Which to be no late custom (as some may suppose) taken up among Christians, but used both by Jew and Gentile before Christ was born, may appear by that Decree of King Darius for the building of the Temple of Jerusalem, which concludes with this Execration; The God that hath caused his Name to dwell there, destroy all Kings and people that shall put to their hand to destroy this House of God which is at Jerusalem. I Darius have made a Decree, let it be done with speed. Ezra 6. 12.

From this custom it came, that Anathema signifies both a Donary given unto a Temple, and an accursed thing, or that which hath a curse with it. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Hebrew a thing cursed and destined to destruction, and also a kind of offering or consecration which had a curse laid upon it, namely, a curse to him that should meddle with it. Which kind of Consecration had this peculiar, that even the very individual might never be altered, changed, or redeemed upon any terms, Levi • . 27. 28. whereas other offerings might, so that a valuable thing or better were given for them. Such a Consecration (I mean a Cherem, or Consecration under pain of a curse in the very individual) was that of the City Jericho as the First-fruits of the conquests of Canaan.

To these Arguments I will add two or three Examples to this of Ananias, of the Punishment of this sin, and so conclude. To begin then with the beginning of all: Was not the First sin of Mankind, for which himself, his posterity and the whole earth was accursed, a great and capital sin? But this, if we look well into it, was no other for the species and kind of the Fact than Sacrilege: Such the ancient Jews conceived Adam's sin to have been, namely, a species of Theft; as may be gathered out of the Book De morte Mosis, where Moses is brought in deprecating death, and answering God that his case was not such as Adam's; for he transgressed by stealing, and eating what God forbad him to meddle with, and so was justly condemned, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : But who could Adam steal from, save from God only? And therefore I say the First sin of mankind for the Fact, was the sin of Sacrilege: For whereas among all the Trees of the Garden, which God gave man freely to enjoy, there was one Noli me tangere, which he had reserved unto himself as holy, in token he was Lord of the Garden; Man by eating of this as common, violated the sign of his Fealty unto the great Landlord of the whole Earth, and committed Sacrilege: for which he was cast out of Paradise, and the whole earth accursed for his sake. Might I not say, that to this day many a son of Adam is cast out of his Paradise, and the labors of his hands accursed, for meddling with this forbidden fruit? But to go on.

Achan for nimming a wedge of gold and a Babylonish garment of the devoted thing of Jericho aforementioned, brought a curse both upon himself and the whole Congregation of Israel.

For the Sacrilege of Eli's sons, who, not content with those offerings which God allowed them for their maintenance , robbed him of his Sacrifices to furnish their own Tables, God gave not only his people, but even the Ark of his Covenant, into the hands of the Philistines.

For the Sacrilege of the Seventh or Sabbatical year, God caused his people to be carried captive, and the land to lie waste seventy years. By the Law of Moses every Seventh year the whole land was sacred unto the Lord, so that no man that year might challenge any right of propriety, either to sow his field, or prune his vineyard, or reap that which grew of itself, or gather the fruits of his vineyard, or undressed; only he might eat thereof in the field, as at other times any might of that which was none of his, as he travelled by; otherwise every man's field and vineyard was that year free as well to the Servant as the Master, to the Stranger as the Owner, to Beasts as well as to Men. The same year also were all Servants and all Debts sacred unto the Lord, and so to be released; whence that year was called The Lord's release. See Exod. 21. Levite. 25. Deut. 15. This consecration being as much as the forgoing of the seventh part of every man's profits, the covetous Jews for many years neglected the observation thereof: For which sin the Lord, as himself professeth, caused them to be carried captive, and the land to lie waste seventy years without Inhabitant, till it had fulfilled the years of Sabbath which they observed not. For their Idolatry he gave them into the hands of the Gentiles their enemies: for their Sabbatical Sacrilege he added this unto it, that they should, beside their bondage, be carried captives into a strange Country, and their Land lie desolate seventy years.

For the Sacrilegious profanation of Belshazzar, in causing the Vaessels of God's House to be made his Quassing-bowls for himself and his Lord's, his Wives and his Concubines to carouse in; was the hand-writing upon the wall sent, which did so affright him, that the Text says, His countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. And the same night God's vengeance lighted upon him.

Lastly, In the days of the Greek Kings God gave his own Temple and Worship to be profaned, and his people to be trodden underfoot by Antiochus Epiphanes a Gentile King; because they themselves had a little before profaned the same with Sacrilegious hands, having betrayed the Treasures and Offerings of the same unto a Gentile's coffers, and sold the Sacred Vessels to the Cities round about them, 2 Maccab. 3, 4. and 5. Chapters.

PROVERBS 30. 8, 9.

THESE words are a part of the Prayer of Agur, a man for wisdom ranked with Solomon; and one of the two things he desired of God not to deny him before he died. The first was concerning his inward and spiritual estate, Remove far from me vanity and lies, that is, all impiety and sinful hypocrisy: for so David expressed them, Psal. 4. 2. O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn God's glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing? The second is concerning his outward estate, Give me neither Poverty, nor Riches; Feed me with Food convenient, &c.

This second suit contains two parts: 1. His Request: 2. The Reason thereof. His Request is doubly expressed; first Negatively, what he would not have; then Affirmatively, what he would have. The Negative part in these words, Give me neither Poverty, nor Riches: the Affirmative in these, Feed me with Food convenient for me. Then follows the Reason, Lest I be full and deny thee, &c.

Nevertheless this Request, though two ways expressed, is not to be conceived as two, but one Request; both ways tending to the same purpose: For he that would be neither poor nor rich, must needs be in the middle; and he that hath neither too little nor too much, must needs have a competency or food convenient for him. Therefore Agur reckons of this but as one petition, when he saith in the former verse, Two things have Irequired of thee; deny me not them before I die. Else the things that he required would be three, if this of my Text made two.

Again, for the understanding of this compound suit, we must not so conceive it as if he prayed absolutely against Riches, or absolutely against Poverty; (for so the Prayer were unlawful, Poverty and Riches being of themselves things indifferent, and the blessing of God may go with both:) But it is a Prayer of choice, or a comparative prayer; as if he had said, Rather than either Poverty or Riches, Give me, O Lord, if it be thy will, the Mean between both: Feed me with Food convenient for me. For though all three estates be indifferent, yet comparatively and for choice the middle is the best and happiest condition. Such speeches by way of Opposition or Antithesis, yet implying in their sense a choice or Protimesis, are frequent in Scripture. I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: not to be understood as though God forbade Sacrifice; but thus, I had rather have mercy than sacrifice. So in S. Matthew, Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven: not to be understood as a plain prohibition to lay up earthly treasures, but by way of choice or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rather lay up treasures in heaven, than treasures upon earth; Have a greater care of the one than of the other: And many the like, for it is a frequent expression.

Thus having made the way plain and open to my Text, I come now to consider the [unspec I] several parts thereof: and First, The Request or Thing prayed for; where, of the two ways whereby it is expressed, I must, for the more easy unfolding thereof, begin with the Affirmative, Feed me with Food convenient for me. For if this be understood, we cannot be long ignorant of the other: If we know the Mean once which Agur chooseth, we shall soon guess what he understands by Riches and Poverty, the Extremes which he refuseth. Feed me (saith he) with Food convenient for me. This convenient food is in the Original 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Panis dimensi mei, The bread of my competent allowance. The Septuagint turns it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Things fit and sufficient: Symmachus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Competent diet: The Chaldee Paraphrast, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bread or Food sufficient for me; for so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies; for it is the word for Sufficit, in the 15. verse of this Chapter, Four things say not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Sufficit, It is enough; it is the word for Sufficient, Exod. 36. 7. where it is said of the offering for the Tabernacle, that which was offered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was sufficient for all the work; and in 2 Sam. 24. 16. where God says of the plague, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sufficit, It is enough.

Now by Bread or Food the Hebrew understands All provisions for the use of life: so competent Food is a competent Maintenance: Which to be the true meaning of this Panis dimensi, Agur's deprecation of Poverty on the one side, and of Riches on the other, is a firm demonstration: For what else can it be but a state of Competency which he begs as the Mean between Want and Superfluity?

And this is even that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that daily bread, which Christ our Lord in his Prayer hath taught us all to pray for; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or, as S. Luke hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Give us day by day our daily bread: Where the meaning in general is indifferently well agreed upon; but much ado there is what this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should signify. But not to trouble you with the rehearsal of so many varieties of interpretation as the singularity of this word hath begotten, some nearer, some altogether wide of the mark; the plain truth is, That as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a word like unto this, was first devised by the Septuagint; so was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this prayer made by the Evangelists in imitation thereof; neither of both being anywhere to be found but in Scripture only. For the Septuagint of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying Abundantia, Exuperantia, abundance and superfluity, formed the Adjective 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to express the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Peculiar people, rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Supernumerary people, a people wherein God had a Superlative propriety and interest, above and besides his common interest to all the Nations of the world: For so he saith, Exod. 19. 5. Thou shalt be unto me 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Peculiar people above all people, for all the earth is mine: as if he should say, But you shall be mine in a degree above the rest.

According to the Example and Analogy of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (I say) the Evangelists here formed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies an Abundance or Superfluity, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Being, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ultra or super, as it were an Over-Being; so would 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify a Sufficiency, as it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that which is adequate to Being, or, as Soudas hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Fit for our Being and Supportance, Therefore as of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abundance, the Septuagint made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abounding: so the Evangelists of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Sufficiency, made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sufficient. And this is agreeable to the Syriac Translation, the Language our Savior spake, which hath here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The bread we have need of. Thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Sufficient bread, and opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Superfluous and Superabounding bread. All which will appear most clearly and elegantly, if we do but parallel these two words in the Petition by way of Antithesis in this manner, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Superfluous and Superabounding bread; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Sufficient bread, give us, O Lord, this day.

And thus we have seen that this Prayer of Agur, in my Text, is the self-same with that our Savior taught us in the Gospel; which Tremellius well observing in his most elegant Hebrew Catechism, renders that petition in these very words of Agur, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as though our Savior had reference to them.

Now for the right understanding of this Sufficiency we are to pray for, we must know, that a Competency is twofold: Either in regard of Nature, which sufficeth to support a man in his natural life and health: or secondly, a Competency in regard of a man's condition, which is sufficient to support and maintain him in that condition, order, degree and calling wherein God hath placed him. Both these degrees of Sufficiency are meant in the Prayer our Savior taught us, Give us this day our daily bread; and in this of Agur, Feed me with food convenient for me, namely, for Agur. For perhaps that may not be sufficient for Agur's condition, which might suffice for another. But if Agur's condition were such as some man's is, that he needed no more than was convenient to maintain himself in his natural life and health; then the Competency he must pray for is no more than a Competency in regard of Nature. If Agur be a Master of a Family; then that is his Competency which is convenient to maintain his wife, children and household. If Agur be a Public person, a Prince or a Ruler of the people; then that is Agur's Sufficiency which will conveniently maintain him in that condition.

For the Competency which Agur prays for is that, which if he want, he is in poverty; if he exceed, he is rich. Now our own Reason will inform us, that those means which would make a private man rich, a King may have, a Peer may have, and more too, and yet be exceeding poor. In a word therefore, as Zebah and Zalmunna said to Gideon, Iud. 8. 21. As is the man, so is his strength; the like may I say here, As is the man, so is his Competency. And in whatsoever condition God hath placed thee, thou mayest, yea thou oughtest to pray for a convenient Food to maintain the same; but to ask more thou hast no pattern, neither in this, nor in the Prayer which Christ himself hath taught thee.

HAVING thus fully explicated (as I think) these first words of Agur's Prayer; let us now see what Observations they will afford us, before we come to the Reason in the words following, where indeed is the marrow of the Text.

First therefore, If we ought with Agur to pray against Poverty, Then is that Monkish affecting of Poverty no point of Piety; their voluntary and vowed Poverty, as they would make us believe, neither a State of Perfection, nor a Religion acceptable to God. We know well enough what the Poverty of Monks and Friers hath been for many hundred years, not a State of Perfection (God knows) but a State of Hypocrisy: For what Poverty is that, I pray you, where a man is said to be poor, and to have forsaken all, because he hath nothing in proper, and yet hath a rich and plentiful share in the common? But suppose it were as they say it is, and as amongst the ancient Monks it was indeed, and perhaps still among some of their begging Friers; yet, I say, such a willful Poverty is neither a State of Perfection, nor a Religion acceptable to God: For if it were, it could not be lawfully prayed against, nor a competent sufficiency prayed for: But, Give me not poverty, (saith Agur) but seed me with food sufficient for me.

[unspec 1] But they allege the Counsel of our Savior to the young man in the Gospel, Matth. 19. 21. If thou wilt be perfect, go sell that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. Doth not Christ prescribe Poverty here as the way to eternal life?

A Ship in a storm is sometimes in that danger, as there is no way to save her but to throw her lading into the Sea; The Body sometime cannot be saved, unless an arm or a leg be cut off. If this young man's Soul were in danger of some such spiritual Gangrene through his great possessions, then was this counsel of our Savior a personal and particular advice unto him: but extraordinary cases are not to be made an ordinary practice. But I think this was not this young man's case, for the Text saith, Our Savior loved him, when he heard his replies, &c. And therefore I answer, that our Savior spake this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Trial-wise; as he did to the woman of Canaan, when, to prove her constant Faith, he told her, He was not sent but to the lost sheep of Israel; and as he did to Moses, Numb. 14. 12. when, to prove or stir up his zeal in praying, he threatened utterly to destroy his people Israel; I will (saith he) smite them with pestilence, and disi • herit them, and will make of thee a greater Nation than they. So our Savior spake here to the young man by way of Trial, to prove him, and to make him see and acknowledge how much he was deceived, how far short he was of that Perfectness of heart he deemed to be in himself, who thought he could have been willing and ready to do anything for the attainment of everlasting life: Master, (saith he) what shall I do, that I may inherit everlasting life? I have done all I know, command me anything else what thou wilt, I am ready to undertake it. Our Savior answers, By this shalt thou approve thy perfectness with God, if thou canst be willing for his sake to sell all that thou hast, and give it unto the poor. And this was a Touchstone indeed; for the Text says, He went away sorrowful. And I make no doubt, but if many among us, who think themselves some-body, would examine themselves upon this point, they would find their hearts deceive them egregiously, and that they were not the men they took themselves to be. Art thou rich, and yet couldst thou be willing to forsake all thou hast to follow Christ? This is a scouring Trial indeed. And yet should every true Christian be thus affected, to forsake all in the purpose and estimation of his heart, that he may be one of Christ's: For, He that loveth father and mother, houses and lands, better than him, (he that hath not forsaken them in his estimation and resolution,) is not worthy of him. And this is that forsaking of the world in purpose and affection, to prefer Christ before the world, whereof S. Peter chiefly spake, Luke 18. 28. Loe, we have left all, and followed thee, (that is, we have set all at naught to follow thee,) and yet Peter kept his house still at Capernaum. I leave it to be considered, whether such as these be not the poor in spirit, Matth. 5. 3. that is, who in spirit and affection have renounced the world, and esteem of Christ above all riches. For these words are but once found in Scripture, and S. Luke seems to imply as much as I say, when he relateth the words as spoken to and of the Apostles only; Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God. But I will not contend for it.

Secondly, The Patrons of Monkery allege the Practice of the Primitive Church, Acts 2. 45. & chap. 4. 34, 35. who sold their lands and possessions, and laid down the money at the Apostles feet. I answer, They were Jews that did so, and none but [unspec 2] Jews that did so. Shew me the like done among the Gentiles, when the Gospel came amongst them: Which of all S. Paul's Epistles give any such Precept, or intimate any such thing? But as for the Jews; those who once believed in Christ, believed also the woeful destruction of their own Nation to be within a few years after; and therefore they thought good, while there was yet time, to improve their Lands and Possessions to the best use, which they should not many years enjoy. And the occasion was now fit, at the first preaching of the Gospel and gathering of a Church to Christ, to furnish the Apostles and others for this service and employment. And therefore when the Gospel was also spread among the Gentiles, the Apostles were so careful to make Collections in all the Churches for the relief of the poor Saints at Jerusalem, even those who at the first had disfurnished themselves of all, and at whose charges, as may be supposed, the Gospel was at the beginning preached among the Gentiles. Rom. 15. 26, 27. 1 Cor. 16. 1. 2 Cor. ch. 8, and ch. 9.

And seeing I have entered thus far into the question of Monkery, I will take leave to examine two more Examples which they bring to that purpose, though not so near to the matter of my Text as the former.

Thirdly therefore, The Patrons of Monkery allege the Example of the Rechabites, [unspec 3] of whom we read Ier. 35. 6, 7. that according to an Ordinance wherewith their Father Jonadab bound them, they drank no wine, built no houses, sowed no seed, neither planted nor possessed vineyards or fields; but lived in tents all their days. Which singularity of life seems not only to resemble, but to warrant that of Monkery, in those two main points of forsaking possessions, and abstaining from meats; seeing God himself in that place commended those Rechabites for observing this Ordinance of Jonadab their Father.

But I answer; This of the Rechabites was no matter of Religion, as that of Monks is, but a mere civil Ordinance grounded upon a National custom: For the Rechabites were of the race of the Family of Hobab the Kenite, Moses's Father-in-law, as you may read 1 Chron. 2. 55. Now the Kenites were Midi • nites and the Midianites were dwellers in Tents from the beginning. This I prove, 1. Becau • e the Arabi • ns of those parts were such both then, and still are at this day. 2. The Ishmaelites and Midianites dwelt together, insomuch that their names are consounded in Scripture, or interchangeably used the one for the other. For Gen. 37. 25, 28. those Merchants to whom Joseph was sold are promiscuously called sometimes, Ishmaelites, sometimes Midianites, as if they were both one people; as indeed they both descended of Abraham, the one by his handmaid Hagar, the other by his second wife Keturah. So Judge. 8. 24. the Midianites which Gideon vanquished are called Ishmaelites. They had (saith the Text) golden ear-rings for they were Ishmaelites. Now it is apparent in Scripture that the Ishmaelites or Hagarens used to dwell in Tents, whence 1 Chron. 5. 10. it is said, the Reubenites in the days of Saul made war with the Hagarites, who fell by their hand; and they dwelt in their tents throughout all the East-land of Cilead. Besides, of the Ishmaelites were those famous Scenite-Arabians, mentioned in Scripture so oft under the name of the Tents of Kedar. Such therefore as the Ishmaelites were, may we deem the Midianites also to have been, who dwelt with them: and to put it quite out of doubt, we have so much told us in Scripture, in the prayer of Habakkuk, cha. 3. 7. I saw, saith he, the Tents of Cushan (or Arabia) in affliction, and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble.

This custom of their Nation and Country did that Midian Tribe of the Kenites (of which was the Father-in-law of Moses ) still observe, after they came to live in Canaan with the Israelites. So we read Iud. 4. 11. that Hober the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the Father-in-law of Moses, severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh. See 1 Chron. 2. 55. according to Jerome. And this manner of living they seem to have retained, partly for to be a Badge and Cognizance of the Nation whence they were descended, and partly to live the more securely in the land where they were strangers, either from the envy of the Jews at home, or danger of enemies abroad, to whom by this means they should be the less subject, as having neither houses to fire, nor lands to be taken from them, but only cattle wherewith they lived, and tents • which they removed hither and thither as opportunity served for pasture to feed them: Even as Abraham lived while he sojourned as a stranger in the land of Canaan, and in imitation of whom, being their Ancestor, perhaps this custom was derived to the Midianites his children.

Howsoever at length it seems these Kenites, allured by the more pleasant living of the Israelites, began to change this custom of their Ancestors; which occasioned Jonadab the son of Rechab, a famous Kenite, to renew it again, and bind his posterity to observe it; and to that end he forbad them altogether to drink any Wine, lest desire thereof might occasion them to plant Vineyards, and so to build Houses as the Jews did, and so to forsake the custom of their Nation; as perhaps licorousness of Wine before had caused many of them to do. For certain it is that Ionadeb renewed but that which their Ancestors had observed long before he was born. And thus you see it was no order of Religion which they bound themselves unto, but a maintenance of a Civil custom. And therefore the wild Arabians and Tartars, who at this day live in like manner, are as good a Pattern to warrant Monkery by as they.

[unspec 4] But there is another Example yet, wherein they put great confidence, as being established by God himself; and that is of the Nazarites in the Law, who bound themselves by a solemn vow to a singularity of life, not much unlike that of Monks, (especially those of the ancient form) as to separate themselves unto the Lord, to drink neither wine nor strong drink, nor suffer a razor to come upon their heads, and to be accounted in a special manner holy unto God above other men.

I answer, If this be the sample from which Monkery is derived, there needs no other Argument utterly to overthrow it; and therefore it is as ill chosen as could be. For this Law of Nazarism is one of the things expressly named, which the Apostles decreed at the Council of Jerusalem should not be imposed upon the Gentiles who believed in Christ. Look Acts 21. where S. Paul having made a Nazarite's Vow at Cenchrea for a certain time, according to the manner, James and the Elders of the Church at Jerusalem advised him to join himself with four others who had the like Vow upon them, (and the time thereof also as Paul's was then to be fulfilled, for they were seldom perpetual,) and to take and purify himself according to the Law with them, that the Jews might take notice he was conformable to the Laws and Orders of his own Nation, till God should dissolve the same. But as touching the Gentiles, (saith James verse 25.) we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing. Is not this plain enough? If therefore Law of Nazarites be the Pattern of Monkish Orders, the Apostles decreed the Gentiles should observe no such thing. And for the Jews, God hath now also dissolved their Temple and all their Legal Worship.

THUS much for the first Observation against superstitious and affected Poverty; nor shall I need stay longer upon this part of Agur's Prayer, Give me not Poverty. There are not many of us willingly guilty on this side. I come therefore to the other side, whence my second Observation shall be, That we ought not to covet nor seek after Abundance and Excess in these outward things; but to have our aims and desires stinted at such a Competency only, as is convenient to maintain us in that condition and state wherein God hath placed us. Whatsoever is more than this, is Sin: For what we have no pattern in the Word of God to pray for, we have no warrant to covet or seek for. In the Pattern for all our Prayers, The Lord's Prayer, our Savior alloweth us to pray for no more but a competency, Give us day by day our daily bread; that is, not a superfluous and superabounding bread, but a sufficient bread we pray thee, O Lord, to give us this day and every day. Agur in my Text, Give me neither Poverty nor Riches; feed me with food convenient for me. Jacob in his vow, Gen. 28. 20. If the Lord (saith he) will give me food to eat, and raiment to put on, The Lord shall be my God, &c. Food he desires, but food to eat; Clothing he desires, but clothing to put on; so much as was sufficient for him and his to eat: so much as was sufficient for him and his to wear: this Jacob desires, but no more. And under these two words, Food and Raiment, are comprehended all things needful for the maintenance of life; as may appear by the following words v. 22. where Jacob promiseth, that if God will grant him this his suit, of all that he should give him he would pay the Tenth unto him. But in the whole Book of God there is no Prayer to be found for Superfluity and Abundance.

I would not be mistaken: I say not, it is unlawful to have and enjoy Riches and Abundance, if God give them; but unlawful to covet and seek after them. I know, the things of themselves are indifferent, and the good creatures of God made for the use of man, if man abused them not; yea, plenty and abundance of them are called the gifts of God, and, which is more, the blessings of God: The blessing of God (saith Solomon, Prov. 10. 12.) maketh rich: and it is the usual phrase of Scripture to say of those that became rich, that God blessed them. And they are Blessings indeed, when God offers them, but no Blessings to such as covetously hunt and gape after them. Abraham was rich, Jacob was rich, Solomon and David were rich; I mean, they had abundance wherewith God blessed them: But which of all these, or any oother holy man in God's Book, do we find to have longed for, craved or labor'd after more than a portion convenient for them? which of them made their desires carvers of such abundance? No: Desire of abundance and superfluity • ures not with the heart of God's servants. Jacob indeed became rich, but desired (as you heard) but meat to eat, and raiment to put on. Solomon a King, for whose estate the greatest measure of these things was most behooveful, yet when God (1 Kings 3. 5, 9.) gave him his choice to ask what he would, and he would give it him; he asked neither riches nor honor, but a wise and understanding heart; wherewith God was so well pleased, that he tells him, Because he had not asked riches nor honor; therefore he would give him both riches and honor in that abundance, as no king on earth should be like him. When Riches come thus, they come then indeed as Blessings: For God gives them as well-pleased, and accordingly as he sees them good for those to whom he gives them; and sends his Grace with them, that those who have them may use them to his glory and their own good.

On the contrary, To men whose hearts could never say, If God will give me but sufficient and convenient for me, I will lay me down and be at rest, and crave no further; to those whose hearts are restle's and mad after abundance and excess of wealth, whose desires are without all bounds in seeking after Riches: Experience may tell us, that to such as these Riches seldom or never prove a Blessing when they get them, but a Curse. He that maketh hast to be rich, (saith Solomon, Prov. 28. • 0.) shall not be innocent. They that will be rich, (saith S. Paul, 1 Tim. 6. 9. speaking of such as could not rest with a Competency) fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. We use to say, that those who have great losses are undone: but here, he that getteth much is undone.

Wouldst thou then be happy and blessed in the enjoyment of these outward things, then desire no more in thy heart than thou mayest lawfully ask of God in thy Prayer: Follow the counsel of Solomon, Prov. 23. 4. Labor not to be rich, cease from thine own wisdom; viz. to seek to be rich, which is human wisdom, but indeed plain folly. Let neither thy desires nor thy aims out-bound this of Agur's, to have food convenient for thee. If God sees it good for thee to have more, he will give it thee, and offer thee the means and opportunity thereof, without thy seeking. But if he sees it not good for thee, why wouldst thou have it? Thou hast enough already, if thou hast convenient. Howsoever, God hates a large and restless desire: Therefore be not covetous, be not greedy of much; lest if thou come by it, God give it thee not in mercy, but in wrath and displeasure.

My third Observation is, That a Competency, or the Middle estate between Want and Superfluity, is in choice to be preferred, as the best and happiest condition. We see Agur preferreth it before the rest, and that his choice was a Wise man's choice, we cannot doubt, when the Scripture records it as a piece of his Wisdom: yea, even the Wisemen of the Heathen were not ignorant thereof. The reason is apparent, because it is the most free from such dangers as both Extremes are subject unto; which Agur mentioneth in the Reason of his petition, to be perils of Irreligion towards God and Injustice towards man: Great evils both of them, endangering the state of the Soul. But I must not speak of them particularly here, they belong to the Second part of my Text: and we shall not need look so far; for not only in that, but even in outward respects, we shall find this middle estate to be the safest condition. The low shrubs, Beasts will brouze them, and trample upon them; the high Trees are most subject to the violence of Tempests; when those of a middle size are free from both. So a poor estate is subject to contempt, and so to be wronged and injured of everyone that will: The rich and mighty are envied, and obnoxious to the rage of troublesome times, being looked upon a