Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	call_v	day_n	sabbath_n	6,611	5	9.9211	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70260	Several tracts, by the ever memorable Mr. John Hales of Eaton Coll. &c. Viz. I. Of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. II. Paraphrase on St. Matthew's Gospel. III. Of the power of the keys. IV. Of schism and schismaticks, (never before printed by the original copy.) V. Miscellanies	Hales, John, 1584-1656.; Hales, John, 1584-1656. Tract concerning sin against the Holy Ghost.; Hales, John, 1584-1656. Tract concerning schisme.	1677 (1677)	Wing H276A; Wing H280; ESTC R14263	61,040	260

is not meant the very next immediate Instant of time to that when he spake the last words going before but such a convenient portion of time wherein the twelve Disciples might have gone about those parts whereunto they were sent and returned back again So St. Matthew having spoken newly of Christs dwelling in Nazareth when he was a Child of about two years old immediately subjoyns In those days came John the Baptist as if John had come within some few days after his coming into Nazareth when we know there passed eight and twenty years between Scholar I believe it as you say and therefore shall pass to that which doth more trouble me and that is What that was which the Disciples did which was not lawful on the Sabbath day Master How come you to be troubled at that Is it not said in plain Terms they plucked the Ears of Corn did eat them Why should not you think that this was their fault Scholar I shall tell you why To my thinking there are three things said 1. That they went through the Corn. 2. That they plucked the Ears 3. That they eat them Now whether all these or one of these was their Fault I cannot tell and I shall tell you the Reason of my doubt First It is true that their very Walking might have been their fault because it was not lawful on the Sabbath to walk above the space of two thousand Cubits and we know not how far Christ the Disciples might have come that day But yet methinks if that had been it they should have reproved Christ as well as his Disciples because 't is very likely they walk't the one as much as far as the other Secondly It is true that their plucking the Ears of Corn might have been their fault but yet methinks it should not in regard the Law is so clear in the 23. Deut. 25. When thou comest into the standing Corn of thy Neighbour then thou mayst pluck the Ears with thine hand but thou shalt not move a Sickle unto thy Neighbours standing Corn. And truly why that which is so plainly lawful at another time should be unlawful on the Sabbath being it is so far from being any kind of labour or servile work I cannot imagine 3. It 's true that they did eat them and I cannot see what fault there is in that unless you can shew me Mast And peradventure I shall shew you more in that than you thought on It is true that the general consent of Expositors runs on their plucking the Ears upon the Sabbath-Day as being the thing condemned by the Pharisees for an unlawful thing But I think they would be much troubled to prove it The custom and manner of the Jews especially since the times of the Macchabees being to allow Acts of greater labour and pain than the plucking of an Ear namely waging War against their Enemies the Travelling of Carryers and Merchants with such others even on the Sabbath-Day I should rather encline to think that their Fault was Eating especially if that be true which the very Heathen Poets tax and scoff them so with namely their Sabbath-Fasts For if all things be well considered I believe there will more be said for this than for the other Crime And if a man will go no further than that Answer which our Saviour makes for them he he shall find ground enough to be of this opinion For if the pretended fault had been working or labouring our Saviour Christ might have easily laid his Answer upon Joshua or upon many others who did greater work than this upon the Sabbath But laying it as he doth upon David and upon his Eating that which was forbidden He seemes to Answer one unlawful Eating with another when Necessity was a sufficient dispensation for both I do not oblige you to believe this as a positive Truth but only tell you that as much may be said for the one as the other but if you would be sure to know what their fault was you had best put them both together and you will not miss Scholar I thank you for this Light I wish you could give me as good in my next Objection Master I shall do my best what is that I pray Scholar Our Saviour saith in the third Verse of this Chap. that David did eat of the Shew-Bread and they that were with him and the Holy Ghost saith 1 Sam. 21. 1 where this History is recorded That there was no man with him for it is said there that Ahimelech the Priest was afraid at the meeting of David and said unto him Why art Thou alone and why is no man with Thee How shall I reconcile this Contradiction to my Thinking Master The truth is The Words of our Saviour in St. Matthew are too plain and evident than to admit of any other Construction but that there were some other men with David and if they could admit of it yet St. Mark would put all out of doubt for he saith expresly that David did eat the Shew-Bread and gave it to them that were with him Mark 2. 26. And therefore when the Priest saith that there was no man with him in Samuel it is best to understand that of no man in sight because peradventure David might have caused them to withdraw for the present till he had got relief from the Priest both for himself and them And this I conceive the best Satisfaction unto that doubt Scholar I think it not improbable but before I leave this story of David I pray tell me how it comes to pass that our Saviour saith David entred into the House of God in v. 4. of this Chap. when as yet the House of God was not built i. e. when as yet there was no Temple Master It was well Objected and the Answer to be given is this That our Saviour calls that place where the Tabernacle then was The House of God which afterwards became the proper appellation of the Temple Scholar It is very likely Now if you please let us pass from this Answer concerning David to that concerning the Priests in the 5th V. where Christ saith That the Priests on the Sabbath-Day prophane the Sabbath and are blameless What doth he mean by that Master In those words our Saviour useth another Argument in behalf of his Disciples which they call an Argument from the less to the greater to justify their Plucking and their Eating on the sabbath-Sabbath-Day Amongst the Jews the Law of the Sabbath was ever so to be interpreted as that it hindred not the Works of the Temple and therefore it was a kind of Rule in the Jewish Law that in the Temple there was no Sabbath From this submission of the Law of the Sabbath to the works of the Temple Our Saviour argueth to that which is greater than it The works of a Prophet who was above a Priest His Answer is in brief this The Priests by their works in the Temple upon the Sabbath were

Points therein discust are no other than the subject of every common Pamphlet and sufficiently known that I may so say in every Barbers Shop Yet because you require my Opinion of matters there in question I willingly afford it you though I fear I shall more amuse you with telling you the Truth than the Disputants there did by abusing you with Error For the plain and necessary though perhaps unwelcome Truth is that in the greater part of the Dispute both parties much mistook themselves and that fell out which is in the cōmon Proverb sc Whilst the one milks the Ram the other holds under the Sieve That you may see this Truth with your Eyes I divide your whole Dispute into two Heads the one concerning the Eucharist the other concerning the Churches mistaking it self about Fundamentals For the first It consisteth of two parts of a Proposition and of a Reply The Proposition expresses at least he that made it intended it so to do though he mistakes the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist The Reply doth the like for the Church of Rome in the same Argument Now that you may see how indifferently I walk I will open the mistakes of both parties that so the truth of the thing it self being unclouded of Errors may the more clearly shine forth The first mistake common to both is That they ground themselves much upon the words of Consecration as they are called and suppose That upon the pronouncing of those words something befalls that action which otherwise would not and that without those words the action were lame Sir I must confess my ignorance unto you I find no ground for the necessity of this doing Our Saviour instituting that Holy Ceremony commands us to do what he did leaves us no Precept of saying any words neither will it be made appear that either the blessed Apostles or Primitive Christians had any such Custom Nay the contrary will be made probably to appear out of some of the antientest Writings of the Churches Ceremonials Our Saviour indeed used the Words but it was to express what his meaning was had he barely acted the thing without expressing himself by some such Form of Words we could never have known what it was he did But what necessity is there now of so doing for when the Congregation is met together to the breaking of Bread and Prayer and see Bread and Wine upon the Communion Table is there any man can doubt of the meaning of it although the Canon be not read It was the farther solemnizing and beautifying that holy action which brought the Canon in and not an opinion of adding any thing to the substance of the action For that the words were used by our Saviour to work any thing upon the Bread and Wine can never out of Scripture or Reason be deduced and beyond these two I have no ground for my Religion neither in Substance nor in Ceremony The main Foundation that upholds the necessity of this form of action now in use is Church-Custom and Church-Error Now for that Topique place of Church-Custom it is generally too much abused For whereas naturally the necessity of the thing ought to give warrant to the practice of the Church I know not by what device matters are turned about and the customary practice of the Church is alledged to prove the necessity of the thing as if things had received their Original from the Church-Authority and not as the truth is from an higher Hand As for the Churches Error on which I told you this Form of action is founded it consists in the uncautelous taking up an unsound ungrounded conclusion of the Fathers for a religious Maxim St. Ambrose I trow was he that said it and posterity hath too generally applauded it Accedat verbum ad elementum fiat Sacramentum By which they would perswade us against all experience that to make up a Sacrament there must be something said and something done whereas indeed to the perfection of a Sacrament or holy Mystery for both these are one it is sufficient that one thing be done whereby another is signified though nothing be said at all When Tarquinius was walking in his Garden a Messenger came and asked him what he would have done unto the Town of Gabij then newly taken He answered nothing But with his Wand struck off the tops of the highest Popies and the Messenger understanding his meaning cut off the Heads of the chief of the City Had this been done in Sacris it had been forthwith truly a Sacrament or holy Mystery Cum in omnibus Scientiis voces significent res hoc habet proprium Theologia quòd ipsaeres significatae per voces etiam significent aliquid saith Aquinas and upon the second signification are all Spiritual and mystical senses founded So that in Sacris a Mystery or Sacrament is then acted when one thing is done and another is signified as it is in the Holy Communion though nothing be said at all The ancient Sacrifices of the Jews whether weekly monethly or yearly their Passover their sitting in Boothes c. These were all Sacraments yet we find not any sacred forms of words used by the Priests or People in the execution of them To sum up that which we have to say in this Point the calling upon the words of consecration in the Eucharist is too weakly founded to be made argumentative for the action is perfect whether those words be used or forborn And in truth to speak my opinion I see no great harm could ensue were they quite omitted Certainly thus much good would follow that some part though not a little one of the superstition that adheres to that action by reason of an ungrounded conceit of the necessity and force of the words in it would forthwith pill off and fall away I would not have you understand me so as if I would prescribe for or desire the disuse of the words only two things I would commend to you First That the use of the Canon is a thing indifferent And Secondly That in this knack of making Sacraments Christians have taken a greater liberty than they can well justify First In forging Sacraments more than God for ought doth or can appear did ever intend And Secondly In adding to the Sacraments instituted of God many formalities and ceremonial circumstances upon no warrant but their own which circumstances by long use begat in the minds of men a conceit that they were essential parts of that to which indeed they were but appendant and that only by the device of some who practised a power in the Church morethan was convenient Thus much for the first common mistake The Second is worse than it You see that both parts agreed in the acknowledgment of the real presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist though they differ in the manner of his Presence and application of himself to the receiver though the

not thought to prophane the Sabbath and therefore there is less reason that my Disciples who are Prophets should be thought to prophane it in doing of that which is a less work than theirs And that this is the Scope of his Reply will appear by that which follows when he saith That in this place there is One greater than the Temple in the 6th Verse For the truth is every Prophet was greater than the Temple that is he was obliged in no case to the Laws Customs of the Temple but might sacrifice out of it when he pleased as appears in the practice of Eliah And whereas it may be Objected That the Priestly Function on the Sabbath could not be performed without the Labour of Offering but the Prophetical Function of the Disciples might be performed on the Sabbath without plucking ears and eating The answer is that both our Saviour and his Disciples were so intent upon their Prophetical Employment that as elsewhere they forgat to take Bread So here they either forgat or had no time for the provision of victuals before the Sabbath whereon to feed on the Sabbath Scholar I apprehend your meaning and desire you to make the force of Christs third Argument as evident unto me which follows in the seventh Verse where he saith But if ye had known what this meaneth I will have mercy and not sacrifice ye would not have condemned the guiltless Master His meaning is no more but this That when two Laws seem to clash so against one another that both cannot be kept the better is to be observed and the worse omitted The Law which willeth us to do good to all men and to further them in the means of their Salvation which to a Christian is a Law Moral never to be omitted is better than the Law which willeth us not to work or eat upon the Sabbath which is onely a Law Ritual Christ could not intend to teach and the Disciples intend to prepare and fit the minds of the people to be taught and withall intend the preparing of such things as were requisite to the strict observation of the Sabbath And therefore in Equity the Law of the Sabbath ought to give place to the Law of Instructing the World in the ways of Happiness and not to have justled with it Schol. I conceive this Argument but yet methinks there follows somewhat like a Reason which I do not yet conceive in the next verse For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath Pray shew me what the meaning is of that Master They that by the Son of Man here understand Christ or the Messias do mistake for in that acceptation of the Words the Reason doth not hold for if Christ had meant onely that he as the Messias was Lord of the Sabbath and so could abrogate it at his pleasure then what needed all the three other Arguments that went before By the Son of Man therefore is to be understood every common ordinary man as appears most evidently by that of St. Mark 2. 27. The Sabbath was made for Man and not Man for the Sabbath Besides at this time Christ neither had preached nor would have others to preach that He was the Messiah and a good while after this as you may see in Matth. 16. 20. He charged that they should tell it no man c. The sense therefore of the words is this That which is ordained for another thing ought to give place to that thing for which it is ordained But the Sabbath was ordain'd for Man every Man therefore it ought to give place unto Him namely when a thing so nearly concerning Man as his Salvation steppeth in between For to be Lord of the Sabbath is to dispose and order the Sabbath unto his own use and to have a Right so to order and dispose it Scholar I thank you for the pains and because I have put you to so much already I shall trouble you with nothing concerning the next Story of the man which had the withered hand because I think I do well enough understand it only let me desire you to give me your opinion why when our Saviour Christ had healed him and divers other men of their diseases It is added in the 16th verse of this Chapter And he charged them that they should not make him known Master Truly that which was the cause of his secess or his withdrawing himself from them in the Verse before may very well be conceived the cause also of this injoyn'd silence namely that He might be fafer from all violence and force But they which say that He did it out of charity to those Pharisees who did seek his life say not amiss as Origen reports of Aristotle that he withdrew himself from Athens not for his own sake but for the Athenians sake lest he should give them an occasion of committing another murther after the murther of Socrates Hitherto as yet this Zeal and endeavours of the Pharisees to maintain the Traditions of their Elders and the Religion of their Fathers might seem somewhat excusable and therefore Christ adding Miracle to Miracle did wait for their repentance and amendment in the mean time preventing them by escapes and concealing of himself from doing him any violence or mischief till such time as that resisting the Light and Testimony of their own Conscience as some of them did very shortly after as we shall see anon they had more deservedly drawn upon themselves the guilt of that innocent blood which afterwards fell upon their heads So that when Christ charged them that they should not make Him known He meant only that they should not discover where He was that so with the more silence and less opposition He might do the business of his Father and this sense is agreeable to that which follows out of the Prophet Isaiah in the 17 18 19 20 and 21 Verses Schol. I take it to be so indeed but in these words out of Isaiah there is somewhat which does much trouble me how to understand and that is the latter part of the 20. verse where it is said Till he send forth Judgment unto Victory Pray what do you take to be the meaning of those words Mast I shall run through the whole words of the Prophet and by that you will better understand that part These words of the Prophet Isaiah are produced by St. Matth. for a confirmation of that Meekness Humility Quietness and Silence with which the great business of our Salvation was to be dispatched For by these words I will put my Spirit on Him is understood the Spirit of Meekness Gentleness and Humility which was emblem'd in the Dove when it came upon him and by those words and he shall shew Judgment unto the Gentiles is understood the preaching of the Christian Law and therefore if you mark it in the 42 of Isaiah and the 4th verse it is added as an explication of the word Judgment going before And the

Exercise against all established order both in State and Church For indeed all pious Assemblies in times of persecution and corruptions howsoever practised are indeed or rather alone the lawful Congregations and publick Assemblies though according to form of Law are indeed nothing else but Riots and Conventicles if they be stained with Corruption and Superstition FINIS Miscellanies WRITTEN By the ever Memorable Mr. JOHN HALES of Eaton-Colledge c. Printed 1677. Miscellanies How to know the Church MArks and Notes to know the Church there are none except we will make True Profession which is the Form and Essence of the Church to be a Mark. And as there are none so is it not necessary there should be For to what purpose should they serve That I might go seek and find out some Company to mark This is no way necessary For glorious Things are in the Scriptures spoken of the Church not that I should run up and down the World to find the persons of the Professors but that I should make my self of it This I do by taking upon me the Profession of Christianity and submitting my self to the Rules of Belief and Practice delivered in the Gospel though besides my self I knew no other Professor in the World If this were not the Authors end in proposal of the Title it is but a meer Vanity To the Description of the Church The Church as it imports a visible Company in Earth is nothing else but the Company of Professors of Christianity wheresoever disperst in the Earth To define it thus by Monarchy under one visible Head is of novelty crept up since men began to change the spiritual Kingdom of Christ to secular Pride and Tyranny and a thing never heard of either in the Scriptures or in the Writings of the Ancients Government whether by one or many or howsoever if it be one of the Churches contingent Attributes it is all certainly it is no necessary Property much less comes it into the Definition and Essence of it I mean outward Government for as for inward Government by which Christ reigns in the Hearts of his Elect and vindicates them from spiritual Enemies I have no occasion to speak neither see I any reference to it in all your Authors Animadversions How Christ is the Head of the Church From the Worlds beginning till the last hour of it the Church is essentially one and the same howsoever perchance in Garment and outward Ceremony it admits of Difference And as it was from the beginning of the World so was it Christian there being no other difference betwixt the Fathers before Christ and us but this As we believe in Christ that is Come so they believed in Christ that was to Come Jesus Christ yesterday and to day and the same for ever Reference unto Christ is the very Essence of the Church and there neither is nor ever was any Church but Christ's and therefore the Church amongst the Jews was properly and truly Christian quoad rem as we are Now as this Church at all times is Christ's Body so is Christ the Head of it For it is as impossible for the Church as for the Body to be without its Head it is not therefore as your Author dreams Christ came not to found a New Church or to profess a Visible Headship of it That Relation to this Church which we express when we call him the Head of it is one and the same from the Beginning to all Eternity neither receives it any alteration in this respect because the Person in whom this Relation is founded is sometimes Visible sometimes not 'T is true indeed the Head of the Church sometimes became Visible but this is but contingent and by Concomitancy For Christ the second Person in the Trinity becoming Man to Redeem this Church and manifest the way of Truth unto it It so fell out that the Head of the Church became Visible Of this Visibility he left no Successor no Doctrine no Use as being a thing meerly accidental I ask Had the Church before Christ any Visible Head if it had then was not Christ the first as here our Teacher tells us If it had none why then should the Church more require a Visible Head than it did from the Beginning To speak the Truth at once All these Questions concerning the Notes the Visibility the Government of the Church if we look upon the Substance and Nature of the Church they are meerly Idle and Impertinent If upon the End why Learned Men do handle them it is nothing else but Faction Of Peter's Ministerial Headship of the Church In your Authors Paragraphs concerning the visible Encrease or Succession of the Church there is no Difference betwixt us As for the Proofs of Peters Ministerial Headship this first concerning his being the Rock of the Church that cannot prove it For Peter was the Rock then when our Saviour spake but then could he not be the visible Head for Christ himself then was living and by our Teachers Doctrine supplied that room himself Peter therefore howsoever or in what sence soever he were the Rock yet could he not be the visible Head except we will grant the Church to have had two visible Heads at once Secondly The Keys of Heaven committed to Peter and Command to feed his Sheep import no more than that common Duty laid upon all the Disciples To teach all Nations for this Duty in several respects is exprest by several Metaphors Teaching as it signifies the opening of the way to life so is it called by the name of Keys but as it signifies the Strengthning of the Soul of Man by the Word which is the Souls spiritual Food so is it called Feeding Thus much is seen by the Defenders of the Church of Rome and therefore they fly for refuge to a Circumstance It is observed that our Saviour delivered this Doctrine to Peter alone as indeed sometimes he did in this it is supposed that some great Mystery rests For why should our Saviour thus single out Peter and commend a common Duty to him if there were not something extraordinary in it which concerned Him above the rest This they interpret a Preeminence that Peter had in his Business of Teaching which they say is a Primacy and Headship inforcing thus much that all the rest were to depend from Him and from Him receive what they were to preach For Answer Grant me there were some great Mystery in it yet whence is it proved that this is that Mystery For if our Saviour did not manifest it then might there be a thousand Causes which Mans Conjecture may easily miss It is great boldness out of Causes concealed to pick so great Consequences and to found Matters of so great weight upon meer Conjectures Thirdly The Prayer for Confirmation of Peters Faith whence it came the Course of the Story set down in the Text doth shew It was our Saviours Prevision of Peters danger to relapse which danger he had certainly run

into had not our Saviour extraordinarily prayed for confirmation of his Faith And the Precept of confirming his Brethren is but that charitable Office which is exacted at every Christians hand that when himself had escaped so great a Wrack to be careful in warning and reclaiming others whom common frailty drives into the like Distress These Circumstances that Peter is first named amongst the Disciples that he made the first Sermon and the like are too weak Grounds to build the Soveraignty over the World upon and that he spake Ananias and Sapphira dead argues spiritual Power but not temporal But that Peter called the first Council in the Acts is a Circumstance beyond the Text for concerning the calling of the Council there is no word all that is said is but this that the Disciples and Elders met no Syllable of Peters calling them together That Peter was 25 Years Bishop of Rome is not to be proved out of Antiquity before St. Hierom who shuffled it into Eusebius Chronicle there being no such thing extant in his Story Yea that he was Bishop at all as now the name of Bishop is taken may be very questionable For the Ancients that reckon up the Bishops of Rome until their times as Eusebius and before him Tertullian and before them both Iraeneus never account Peter as Bishop of that See And Epiphanius tells us that Peter and Paul were both Bishops of Rome at once by which it is plain he took the Title of Bishop in another sence than now it is used For now and so for a long time upward two Bishops can no more possess one See than two Hedge-Sparrows dwell in one Bush St. Peters time was a little too early for Bishops to rise Answer to the Bishop of Romes Practice of Supremacy To the first That so many of the Bishops of Rome were Martyrs what makes that to the purpose Is Martyrdom an Argument of the Supremacy To the second That Victor indeavoured to excommunicate the Asiatick Bishops is true but withall it is as true that he was withstood for his Labour For the Bishops of Asia themselves did sharply reprove him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Words of Eusebius and Irenaeus wrote against him for it To the third That the first four Councils were called by the Popes is an open Falshood for in the two first the Bishops of Rome are not so much as mentioned save only as persons cited In the two last they are mentioned only as Petitioners to the Emperour There are extant the Stories of Eusebius Socrates Ruffinus Theodoret Sozomenus the Acts of the Councils themselves at least some of them the Writings and Epistles of Leo Bishop of Rome In all these there is not one word of the Pope farther than a Supplicant and the whole calling of the Bishops together is attributed to the Emperour Take for Example but the last of them Leo Bishop of Rome was desirous that some things done in a meeting of Divines at Ephesus should be disannulled for this he becomes a Suitor to Theodosius the junior to have a General Council but could never procure it of him After his death he continues his suit to Marcianus Successor to Theodosius who granted his request But whereas Leo had requested the Council might be held in Italy the Emperor would not hear him nay which is more the Pope upon good reason had besought the Emperor to put off the day design'd for the holding of the Council but the Emperor would not hear him So that Leo could do nothing neither for the calling the Council nor for the Place nor for the Time And all this appears by Leo's own Epistles If the Popes could do so little well near 500 years after Christ how little could they do before when their horns were not yet so long The Plea of the Protestants concerning the Corruption of the Church of Rome which by them is confessed sometimes to have been pure is no more prejudicial to Christs Promise to his Church that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her than the known corruption of the Churches in Asia in St. Johns time or of other Churches after The Close of all is a Demonstration A Word unfortunately used by your Author to bewray his Logick For indeed a Reason drawn from so poor and empty a sign falls many bows wide of demonstrative Proof First it is false that all the rest of Patriarchal Sees are extinct The See of Constantinople yet stands and shews her Succession of Bishops from St. Andrew till this day as well as the Church of Rome can from St. Peter The See of Alexandria yet subsists and the Bishop of that place calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judge of the World as my self have seen in some of his Letters a Title to which he hath as good Right as the Bishop of Rome hath to be the Worlds Sovereign If any reply they are poor in misery in persecution and affliction this can make no difference since with Christ there is neither rich nor poor but a new Creature And again their case now is as good as was the Bishops of Rome under the Ethnick Emperors for their Lot then was no other than those Bishops is now But grant that it had lasted longest what then some of them must needs have consisted longer than the other except we would suppose that they should have fallen all together Peradventure the reason of her so long lasting is no other but that which the Cyclops gives Ulysses in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ulysses should be eaten last of all However it be this Vaunt seems but like that of the wicked Servant in the Gospel tardat Dominus venire and we doubt not but a day of the Lord shall overtake him who now eats and drinks and revels with the World and beats his fellow Servants FINIS * Plin. Nat. Hist l. 28. c. 10.