CHAP. I.

SECT. 1. BEcause I intend (by GODS gracious assi­stance) to explain at large the nature both of humane souls and bodies (so farre as con­cerns a Divine) and to bring to light things hidden, secret, and strange; and more espe­cially to unfold the estate and passages of mens souls in their origination, and likewise in their separation from their bodies: also in their particular [Page 2]judgement, and their conduct or conveyance to pleasure or pain, with all the known occurrences which present themselves ab instanti terminativo vitae, from the last minute of life, till the said souls shall discern the approach of CHRISTS second coming. And because I may (if GOD grant me life) in a second Tractate write of the Resurrection; and generall Judgement, and of the same humane souls, from the first instant of CHRISTS glorious appearing, till they are placed with their bodies in their eter­nall mansions; and of their blisse or punishments, with other particularities which concern that new World: In these re­gards I have chosen this Text, Heb. 9.27.

[...] For these are words of great force and moment, serving aptlie to my purpose, as including and containing whatsoever may be expressed or conceived, concerning this subject, under these two Propositions,

• 1. It is appointed unto Men once to die.
• 2. After this (is, or cometh) Judgement.

First, the particular Judgement immediately upon Death: Secondly, the generall Judgement, in that great day of Retri­bution; of which in due time hereafter, if it please GOD.

2. Now because whatsoever is ambiguous and of divers si­gnifications, is an enemie to the understanding, and that we are counselled by Luther to avoid [...] in matter of Religion, as we would flee from a Devil; let me remove doubtfulnesse from the words, and drawing away the overshadowing veil or curtain of ambiguity, seek for the true sense of each term que­stionable. And first of the first, [...] It is appointed. Some things man appointeth, and GOD some others. This appoint­ment is the sanction, not of Man, but of GOD. Of things ap­pointed by GOD, some are so Lege naturae institutae, some destitu­tae: some primitively, some occasionally. This appointment came lege naturae destitutae, saith Gorranus: à DEO ultore, saith Bosquier in his Terror Orbis; the Elements having permission to destroy themselves, and the things compounded of them: GOD not onely driving Adam out of Paradise, but, by fire and sword fortifying against his approach the way of the tree of life, even whilest Adam lived, saith Epiphanius Haeres. 64: yea till the Floud (if Saint Chrysostome misguide us not) with strange and uncouth assistance of armed spirits: which were not [...], terrible and horrible visions; of affrighting fire in one place; of fire in the fashion of a flaming sword in an other place; of dreadfull shapes of beasts otherwhere; as Theodoret, and after him and from him, Procopius Gazaeus do fancie: but indeed there were true Angels, or Cherubims; and a flaming sword which turned every way, Genes. 3.24. More then one [Page 3]Angel, and more then two (I know not how many) and per­haps many swords; every Angel having at least one sword, a two-edged sword (as some will have it) which they brandished and flourished with, to the terrour of our sinfull parents. For what should more Angels do with one sword onely? There­fore the flaming sword is to be understood for more swords, the singular for the plural, by a Synecdoche, the certain number for the uncertain; which is usuall in Scripture: or els, besides the astonishing sight of Angels, prepared by an unknown man­ner and means to defend the straits and passages unto EDEN, there was a sword also which turned it self every way; Acies gladii sese vi­brantis & vertentis. The edge of a sword brandishing, and turning itself, as Tremellius and the Interlineary Bible do read, and that most agreeable to the Ori­ginal. Again, of things appointed by GOD consequentially: first, some have been wholly abrogated, as the Leviticall cere­monies; which now are not onely Non tantùm mortuae sed etiam mortiferae. Vide Aquin. 1.2. quaest. 103. art. 4. dead, but also deadly, causing just damnation to the users of them: because they deny in effect that Christ, who is the substance of those types, is incarnate. It is true, that awhile after Christs resurrection the Jewish rites continued; for the Synagogue was to be brought honourably to her grave; and at Jerusalem especially, S. James advised S. Paul to observe the Ceremonial Law: yea there were fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem after Christs time; who all successively were of the circum­cision, and one Mark was the first uncircumcised Bishop in the time of Adrian, after the destruction both of the Temple and Citie, saith Niceph. lib. 3. cap. 25. Nicephorus. But in other places it was otherwise: for though S. Paul did circumcise Timothie, because of the Jews which were in those quarters, Acts 16.3. (which he might well do, by reason the mo­ther of Timothie was a Jewesse) yet Titus, Gal. 2.3. being a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised, no though he was at Jerusalem. Yea S. Paul telleth the Gentiles, with great majestie and solemnitie, Gal. 5.2. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. Secondly, the things appointed by GOD have been redeemed, as the first-born, Exod. 34.20. and tithes, Levit. 27.31. and these being instituted by GOD to one end, were by their redemption purchased to other uses; yet made they no gain, but redeemed them at a dearer rate: see Numb. 18.16. and Levit. 27.31. Thirdly, some other things appoint­ed by GOD have been dispensed withall. Thus circumcision, while the Israelites travelled in the wildernes, and awhile after, was omitted above fourtie yeares, and again resumed into pra­ctice, Jos. 5.2. Thus the Passeover, by one that was not clean, or was in his journey, might be forborn, Numb. 9.13. To this third kinde and sort of things by GOD appointed, do I reduce this in my text. This appointed death is not wholly abrogated, it is not redeemed; and yet sometimes it hath been, sometimes it shall be dispensed withall (of which hereafter) and yet for [Page 4]all this dispensation, it is truely said, [...]. not It Was ap­pointed, as having reference to what onely was past; but It Is appointed. It is a yoke, that neither our fathers did, nor we shall ever shake off: and not onely labour and travell is an Ecclus 40. [...]. heavy yoke upon the sonnes of Adam, but much more death. Neither hath the worlds redeemer freed us from the stroke, but from the curse of death; for even hitherto,

The grave yet gapeth: and though myriads of myriads have died before: though Paracelsus promised immortality in this life, (and perhaps therefore was cut off in the prime of his yeares) yet death is Job. 30.23. and 21.33. the house appointed for all living: and every man shall draw after him, as there are innumerable before him. Of the longest liver hath been said in the end, [...], His life is past: or as the Romanes, when they were loth to say one was dead, spake significantly to the sense, yet mildly by this word Vixit, Ecclus 14.17. He had his time, he did sometimes live. And it is the condi­tion of all times, THOU SHALT DIE THE DEATH.

3 [...] The universall note or particle is not added. It is not said, [...] yet sure it is included, and so meant; Not Christ himself, the destroyer of death, is exempted; nor his thrice-blessed Mother, nor fair Absalom, nor strong Sampson, nor wise Solomon, nor craftie Achito­phel. It is appointed to all, men and women; no sex is freed, no nation priviledged, no age excepted. If some few have been dis­pensed withall, I will say with S. Augustine, Alii sunt humanarum limites rerum, alia di­vinarum signa virtu­tum: alià naturaliter, alia miral iliter siunt. Aug lib. de Cura pro mortuls gerenda cap. 16 Other are the bounds of humane things, other the signes of divine power: some things are done naturally, and some miraculously. We speak of the ordinarie course. It is appointed for all men TO DIE, [...]. Death is a name of sundry significations, and it is taken diversly: for there is

Aug. De Civit. Dei lib. 13. cap. 12. If it be demanded, saith S. Augustine, what death God meaneth to our first parents, Whether the death of the body, or of the soul, or of the whole man, or that which is called THE SECOND DEATH; we must, Consitle, si placet, in­geniosum ejus Tra­ctatum, cap. 15. ejus­dem libri. saith he, answer, He threatneth all. The death of the soul began immediately upon their eating; and is evidenced by their hiding themselves, and shame to be seen. The death of the bo­dy presently seconded it, Theod. in Gen. quaest. 38. it suddenly becomes mortall, saith The­odoret. The sentence of mortality GOD called death, in Symma­chus his exposition: For after the divine sentence, every day (that I may so speak) he looked for death, as it is in the same Theodoret. As we now expect the resurrection and life eternall every mo­ment: so Adam every minute looked for death; I am sure he de­served it. Peter Martyr on 1. Cor. 13.12. Our first parents perish­ed [Page 5] Primi parentes quum transgressi sunt, illico periêre: quoniam mors nequaquam alia censen­da, quàm recessus à vi­ta: nec vitam habemus citra Deum. Quare mortui sunt, quia à Deo recesserunt; & eorum anima non fuit à corpore avulsa, sed in eo quo­dammodo sepulta: in praesentia, non vitam, sed mortem vivimus. so soon as they transgressed: because no other death is to be imagi­ned but a departure from life, and we have no life out of God. There­fore they died, because they departed from God: and their soul was not snatcht away from their bodie, but in a manner buried in it. For the present, our life is not a life, but a death. Of the bodily death onely are the words of my Text to be understood, being a prime commentarie on Genes. 3.19. Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. It is appointed for men [...], Once to die. Quod casus in diabolo, id in homine mors. What fall is in the devil, that death is in man. They fell but once, we die but once. We must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. 2. Sam. 14.14. Waters once spilt embrace the dust, and are not gathered up again, nor can be spilt again. Christ tasted death for every man, Hebr. 2.9. As Christ being once dead, dieth no more, death hath no more domi­nion over him, Rom. 6.9. so is it regularly and ordinarily with all other, one corporall death sufficeth. It is appointed unto men ONCE to die.

4 [...], But after this the judgement. Let me speak of the words severally, and then in a lump or masse together. That these articles, Post, tum, mox, modò; After, then, anon, pre­sently, and the like, are taken at large for some yeares before or after: you may see it proved in Alb. Gent. disput. ad 1. lib. Maccab. cap. 3. Al bericus Gentilis. The Scri­pture thus, Genes. 38.1. At that time (But it was ten yeares, saith Tremellius) Exod. 2.11. It came to passe in those dayes: and he meaneth fourty yeares. Matt. 3.1. In those dayes: that is, twenty and five yeares after. Luke. 23.43. To day is taken for presently. Aretius hath it, [...], Ʋpon that, or presently after that. And questionles that is the meaning: for though [...] After may be in­terpreted long-after, as the word proximus, contrarilie, doth not enforce necessarily a nearenes: Proximus huic, longo sed proximus intervallo, said Virgil excellently; He was next, but a great di­stance between: yet in the holy Scripture, [...], after that, doth most times rather intimate the procedure and order of things done, then intend a large intercedencie of time. John 19.28. [...] After that, Jesus saith I thirst: you must not un­derstand it, long after, not yeares, moneths, weeks, dayes, or houres after that; for our Saviour hung upon the crosse not a­bove foure houres, and many things were said and done before this. So in this place, [...] doth not evidently inferre a spa­cious distance of time, but by the words after that, we may say is meant, not long after, but presently, or thereupon, judgement cometh after death. Which I the more confidently do so inter­pret, because I know no place in the divine Writ, where [...] doth signifie a vast and immense longitude of time: but there are also, besides them, other evident words, arguing such paw­ses and spaces of times: As also, because the word [...] or post it­self is so expounded by Pererius on John 5.4. Post motionem aquae, significat idem ac st di­ctum fuiss [...]t, Postquam coepta erat motio, & turbatio aquae. After the trou­bling [Page 4] [...] [Page 5] [...] [Page 6]of the water, signifieth as much as if it had been said, After the moving and troubling of the water was begun, saith he: for the in­firm did wait and expect the moving of the water, ver. 3. and the impotent man said to Christ, ver. 7. I have no man to put me into the pool, when the water is troubled; that is, so soon as the water beginneth to be troubled: for the [...], the first de­scendant into the water, [...], after the troubling, was healed. Therefore you must expound the word after, for imme­diately after, instantly there upon. For if he had first stepped in, he had been healed: whereas if you expound, after the motion, that is, a long while after, he might indeed have been put into the water, but never the nearer to be healed. So also [...], John 5.19. and divers other places evince, that the phrase implieth not length of time intervenient, but rather an histori­call narration of things succeeding, and sometimes depending one of the other. So here, first death, after that, (i) shortly after that, cometh [...], judicium, judgement. Judgement is taken two wayes; first, for the assenting or dissenting of the intellect; in this sense we say, I like or like not such a mans judgement: so judgement is taken for ones opinion, perswasion, or determina­tion. The Text is not meant of judgement in this sense. Second­ly, it is used for an act of justice, giving to every man what be­longeth to him. Thus is it here taken. An act of justice not pro­ceeding from man, but from GOD, and terminated upon man. The judgements of GOD upon man are manifold, both in this present life, and in the life to come. The judgement here men­tioned, is the judgement after death. And of judgements after death there are two,

• Private of souls,
• Publick of bodies and souls.

Whether of these two judgements is to be understood, we hope to finde out, when we have considered the last thing pro­pounded, the words in a lump together, [...], Af­ter that the judgement.

5 That there are two judgements after this life, we take it here for granted; but by GODS assistance it shall be, in a fitter place of this discourse, demonstrated at large. But whether the generall judgement of souls and bodies be especially here meant, or the private and particular judgement of souls, or both of them, is the question now, and must be determined by autho­rity and reason.

Oecumenius is for the first way, and wittily interprets these words; as if it had been said, When all and every one which ever were in the world, are dead; then followeth, after the universall death, universall judgement. To him assenteth Bell. de Purgat lib. 2. cap. 4. Bellarmine, and the book of Esdras long before either of them, 2. Esdr. 14.35. After death shall the judgement come, when we shall live again, &c. where the generall judgement is pointed at, and not the particular. And [Page 7]from hence S. Paul may be thought to have borrowed the words. I answer, that the Apostle had them not from that au­thor; for there is neither Greek, nor Hebrew copie of that book of Es­dras, Bell. de Verbo Dei, lib. 1. cap. 20. saith Bellarmine, from S. Hierome: onely it is preserved in Latine, and no Councel ever held it as canonicall, saith Bellar­mine. Again, I can finde no passage of either of these books of Esdras cited in the New Testament; though out of other apo­cryphall books there be divers things taken. And though Am­brose cited the second book of Esdras (commonly called the fourth book of Esdras) in his book de Bono mortis, and in his se­cond book on. Luke, and in his second epistle to Horatianus; yea, though Sixt. Sen Bib. Sanct. lib. 1. Sixtus Senensis saith of Ambrose, that Ambrose thought Esdras wrote this book by divine revelation, and that S. Paul did follow Esdras in those things which he hath con­cerning the diversitie of order of glory, of brightnes in the elect when they shall be raised: yet Sixtus Senensis himself esteemeth not the book to be either canonicall, or deutero-ca­nonicall, but meerely apocryphall: and in it, he saith, are Quaedam suspecta do­gmata, regulis orthodoxae fidei apertè contradiceu­tia. some suspected doctrines manifestly gainsaying the rules of orthodox faith: and he instanceth in the 2. Esdr. 4.35, 36, 39, 41, 42. fourth chapter, maintaining, Omnes animas detine­ri quibusdam abditis promptuariis in inferuo. that all souls are kept in certain hidden floores or chambers in hell, till the generall judgement. Sixtus Senensis addeth, that S. Ambrose seemeth to approve of this opinion. Also, saith he, in chap. 6. vers. 49. there are fabulous Jewish fooleries, of Henoch and Levia­than, two fishes. Upon these grounds I may confidently say, that though some ignorant people might be seduced by this book, (and thence, perhaps, arose the error of the souls not be­ing judged till the resurrection) yet S. Paul would never take a testimony from that book, which hath such palpable un­truths, and is not extant in Greek or Hebrew. Moreover it hath no place vouchsafed in Arias Montanus his Interlineary Bible: nor doth Emanuel Sa comment on any word of it: and Bellarmine himself marvelleth why Genebrard would have it held canonicall. Estius saith, Liber ille non habet autoritatem in Ecclesia Est. in 2. Sent. Dist. 19. num. 4. That book hath no authoritie in the Church. But I return to the first exposition.

The generall judgement may be meant, and is involved; I will not deny it. Yet these reasons perswade me, that the par­ticular judgement is not excluded. First, if the Apostle had in­tended it onely of the generall judgement, it is likely he would, as he doth in other places, have used fittest expressions, and terms properly advancing to that sense: as thus, At the second coming of Christ, or, At the end of the world, or, When the corru­ptible hath put on incorruption, or, After the resurrection cometh judgement. But, since it is written, It is appointed for men to die, and after that cometh judgement; to interpret it onely of the ge­nerall judgement, is, in my opinion, to leave a [...], a great gulf between death and judgement: which hiatus will hand­somely [Page 8]be filled up, if there be reference to the particular judgement.

Secondly, what if I say, that the words do denote rather the not passing of judgement while we live, and the beginning of it to be shortly after death, excluding judgement in this life, and placing death rather before judgement, then any great di­stance betwixt death and judgement? according to the native use of the words [...], of which before.

The second exposition is of Gregory de Valentia, Tom. 4. Disp. 1. quaest. 22. punct. 9. who ap­plieth the words to the particular judgement immediately up­on death. So doth Ludovicus de ponte Vallis Oletani, Part. 1. Meditat. medit. 9. who sets it down as a veritie of faith, De particulari judicio animae, quod sit proximè post mortem, judicium singulorum exerceri in­visibiliter statim post eujusque mortem. Concerning the particular judge­ment of the soul, which is done immediately after death; every one is judged invisibly presently after his death: and evinceth it by this Text. So doth Joannes Viguer. Instit. pag. 692. Viguerius. Bus. initio Panarii Antidotorum spiritu­al. Busaeus the Jesuite like­wise accounteth Secundum novissi­mum est judicium par­ticulare mortem proxi­mè consequens. the second last thing, to be the particular judge­ment following death immediately; the severitie whereof, saith he, Job the holy patient feared. Job 31.14. What shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? S. Am­brose on this place hath it thus, Post mortem judicabi­tur unusquisque [...]uxta userita sua. Every one shall be judged after death according to their own deservings. Which words do point at the particular judgement, saith Suarez. Lastly, lest I may seem too eager against the second book of Esdras, let me borrow a testimony or two from thence. 2 Esdr. 9.11, 12. They that loth­ed my law, while they had yet libertie and place of repentance open unto them, must know it after death by pain. And 2. Esdr. 7.56. While we lived and committed sinne, we considered not that we should BEGIN to suffer for it AFTER DEATH. Whence we may pro­bably collect, That the beginning of punishment is immediately after death, upon the particular judgement; and the increase or additament at the generall judgement. 2 That some are in torments before the generall day of retribution. 3 That the beginning to suffer, is not after a long time, (GOD onely know­eth how long) but after death, yea presently after it. All these proofs on each side make way for the third and best interpre­tation, That the Apostle meaneth not onely either of these judgements, but both of them. Benedictus Justinian on these words, thus, Post eujusque obitum, sequitur judicium pri­vatum, in quo quisque suarum actionum red­dit urus estrationem: post finem mundi erit judicium omnium, tum hominum tum daemo­num. After every ones death private judgement follows, in which every one is to give an account of his actions: after the end of the world shall be the judgement of all, both men and devils. Of both the Apostle may be understood, saith he. So also Salmeron, and Hugo Cardinalis, and Carthusianus. Oecolampadius thus, Sive speciale judicium intelligas, sive generale, uihil refert. Whether you understand the speciall judgement, or the gener all, it matters not.

Thus have I brought you back to the point where I first be­gan: That this text is fitted to my intentions, affording me just liberty to write whatsoever may be conceived or expressed, [Page 9]concerning the estate of humane souls in their animation or in death, or after it in the life future; because the words must be expounded of both judgements. And now the text being clea­red from ambiguities, the termes explained, the state being made firm and sure, not rolling and changeable; and being fixed upon its basis and foundation, three questions do seem to arise from the first words of the text, and each of them to crave its answer, before I come to my main intendment.

First, How and when Death came to be appointed for us?

Secondly, Whether Adam and his children, all and every one without priviledge or exception, must and shall die? It is appointed for men to die.

Thirdly, Whether they that were raised up from the dead at any time, did die the second time? It is appointed to men once to die.

O Gracious LORD, who orderest all things sweetly, and who dost dispose whatsoever man doth purpose; I humbly implore thy powerfull guidance, and enlightning assistance, in all this work, for his sake, who is Alpha and Omega, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, thy onely SONNE, my bles­sed SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST: Amen.

CHAP. II.

1. TO the full answering of the first question, how or why Death was appointed for us, I shall need to cleare but these two points;

Thus sinne was the mother of death, thus we were appoint­ed to die, because of sinne. As a preparative to the first of these two points, I hold it fit to demonstrate, that Adam at first was made an immortall creature.

Concerning Adams soul, and the spirits of all men descended from him, that they are immortall, I hope to prove it so sound­ly in an other part of this tractate, that I will fear no other re­proof but this, that I bring too much proof for it. There­fore supposing, or rather borrowing that truth (which by [Page 11]GODS grace shall be repayed with interest) I now come to shew that Adams bodie was created immortall.

Immortall I say, not as GOD is immortall, who neither had beginning, nor shall have end; with whom is no shadow of change, much lesse any reall, substantiall change; who hath, as all other good things else, so, immortalitie eminently; and so eminently, that our Apostle in some sort excludeth all others, and appropriateth it to him, saying, 1. Tim. 6.16. GOD onely hath immortalitie.

Neither was the body of Adam immortall, as the Angeli­call spirits, and souls of men, which had a beginning, but shall have no end: Nor immortall, as the counsels of GOD, which had no beginning, but shall have an end.

His bodie was not eternal, but eviternal, or immortall; not absolutely immortall, but conditionally: it should never have tasted death, if he had not first tasted of the forbidden fruit. Immortall, not as if it could not die, but because it might and could have lived ever. He had not non posse mori, and so he was mortall; he had posse non mori, and so was immortall. As mortall is taken for earthly, animall, and contra-distinct to spiri­tuall, so his bodie was mortall and terrene, not spirituall or ce­lestiall: As he could not possibly die, unlesse he had sinned, his very bodie was immortall.

In the Schoole-phrase, thus: both mortall and immortall are taken two waies,

• Mortall, for one
  • who must needs die: thus Adam was not mortall in innocency, but by sinne was made mortall.
  • who can die: thus was he mortall, yet onely in sen­su diviso; because he could sinne, therefore could die.
• Immortall, for one
  • who cannot die: so Adam in innocency was not immortall, save onely in sensu conjuncto:
    Adam in natura sua habuit mortalitatem quandam, scilicet apti­tudinem moriendi: it à aliquam immortalita­tem in natura sua ha­buit, id est, aptitudinem quâ poterat non mori.
    he was immortall and could not die, unlesse he sinned.
  • upon whom there is no necessity laid that he should die: thus was he simply immortall.

Lumbard thus, Adam had in his nature some mortalitie, an aptnes to die; so he had in his nature some immortality, that is, Pet. Diac. de Gratia Christ. lib. 1. cap. 6. Fulg. lib. 2. cap. 13. Max. Profess. Fidei snae, cap. 8. to wit an aptnes by which he might not die. 2. Sent. dist. 19. lit. F.

Further, as some have said, Adam was neither mortall, nor immortall (for thus wrote Petrus Diaconus, and Fulgentius, Corpus Adae ante pec­catum, & mortale se­cundum aliam; & im­mortale secundum ali­am causam dici poterat. De Genesi ad literam lib. 6. cap. 25. and Maxentius) so others have written, that Adam was made both mortall and [...]mortall: and all and every one of these in some sense is most true. Augustine saith that Adams body be­fore sinne may be said to be mortall in one respect, and immortall in another, as he there proveth at large. Hierome hath a different strain, and an unusuall phrase in one of his Epist. ad Paulum Concordiensem. epistles: wherein [Page 12]he maketh the body to be eternall, till the serpent, by his sinne, prevailed against Adam; and ascribeth a second kinde of immortality to the body, because some of the first ages lived so long a time, as about, or above 900 yeares.

Even they who say Adams body was mortall, agree in sense with me. They distinguish thus, It is one thing to be mortall, and another thing to be subject to death. If they grant to us, that he was not obnoxious to death, and could not die without finne, I will not be offended much, though they say he was mortall. As this our flesh, which now we have, is not therefore not to be wounded, be­cause there is no necessitie that it should be wounded: so the flesh of Adam in paradise was not therefore not mortall, because there was no necessitie that it should die, De peccat. Meritis & Remis l. 1. c. 3. saith Augustine. So that this is but a meer logomachy. They who call him mortall expound them­selves, that he could not mori, unlesse he had sinned; and I mean no more, when I say he was immortall; that is, he could not have died in the state of innocencie: without a precedent trans­gression he could not have been subject or obnoxius to death. They say, though he should not have died, yet he was mortall: I say, he was therefore onely immortall, because in that blessed estate he could not die. Whether of these two contraries, Mor­tall or Immortall, do best fit Adam before he sinned, let the rea­der judge.

As bodies are compounded of contrarieties, they are subject to dissolution; to the evidencing whereof, let me recount what Holcot saith on Wisedome 12.22. upon these words, We should look for mercy.

2 Aristotle, saith Holcot, spake these his last words, IRE­IOYCE THAT I GO OUT OF THE WORLD, WHICH IS COMPOUNDED OF CONTRARIES; BECAUSE BACH OF THE FOURE ELEMENTS IS CONTRARY TO OTHER, AND THEREFORE HOW CAN THIS BODY COMPOUNDED OF THEM, LONG ENDURE? Then he dyed, and the Philosophers prayed for him, saith Holcot. And because he did scorn to be be­hinde the Philosophers in love to Aristotle, Holcot himself secondeth their prayers, thus, Ille qui suscipit aui­mas philosophorum, sus­cipiat animam tuam. He that receiveth the souls of Phi­losophers, let him receive thy soul. This he speaketh to Aristotle, by a part of that little Rhetorick that Holcot had, or was used in his dayes: or otherwise it might be the prayer of the Philo­sophers related by Holcot; for the words are doubtfull. No marvell therefore if after this, our Christian Peripateticks, the Divines of Culleyn, have made Aristotle a Saint, as they did, if we beleeve Corn. Agr. De Va­nit. Scient. Cornelius Agrippa, and perhaps prayed to him as devoutly as others prayed for him. Dinis annumerant. They count him among the Gods, saith Agrippa in his 45 Chapter, though Agrippa himself be of a contrarie opinion; for he saith, Ipsis Daemouibus di­gnum factus sacrificium Aristotle killed himself, being made a sacrifice worthy of the Devils. Sure I am, [Page 13]I have read in a book Of the life and death of Aristotle, in the beginning whereof the Poët prayeth to GOD from heaven to help him to write, concerning Aristotle, acceptable things: and to speak in his words,

From whence the commenting questionist examineth, Whe­ther Aristotle would have been in an high degree the great champion of the Christian faith, if he had lived after Christs time. And he resolveth affirmatively: because Aristotle had the best intellect among all the creatures under the sunne: for supernaturals (saith he) are given according to the disposition of na­turals, Cum conatu hominum. with mens endeavour; grace distilling on man, according as he well useth the talent of nature. But at the end of that book, the Expositor strikes all dead in these words, Concludendo finaliter & cum veritate, dico, &c. Concluding fi­nally, and with truth, I say, that Aristotle (who heartily implored the mercy of GOD, praying, ENS ENTIUM MI­SEREREMEI. O BEING OF BEINGS HAVE MER­CY ON ME,) by an holy and bodily death is translated Ad solium aeternae bea­titudinis. to the Chair of Estate, the Seat-royall, and Throne of everlasting blisse. Yea, he holds the man mad who doubts hereof; because Aristotle had the knowledge of the Almighty, because he loved GOD as the fountain of all goodnesse, because Aristotle was as necessary before the incarnation of Christ, as the giving of grace necessarily presupposeth nature. Whereupon he pre­sumeth that Aristotle was Praecursor Christi, in uaturalibus, sicut Joan­nes Baptista fuit prae­cursor, ad praeparandam ipsiplebem perfectam, in gratuitis; & fuit unus ex iis in Lege Veteri, qui per gratiam perso­nalem fuerunt de Lege Nova. the forerunner of Christ in naturals, as John the Baptist in supernaturals; and that he was one of them in the Old Law, who by a personall grace were of the New Law. Just as the Fathers say, David was a man in the Old, not of the old Te­stament.

If Aristotle had grace, if he be the fore-runner of Christ, if he be placed in eternall happinesse, it is a question not unwor­thy these curious times, Whether they sinned most who prayed unto him; or Holcot, or the Philosophers cited by Holcot, who prayed for him.

And without just offence to Aristotles Lycaeum, I hope I may say, though Jofrancus Offusius, that great Mathematician, in his preface to Maximilian, which is before his book Of the divine power of starres, saith, that Aristotle was the High-priest of Philosophers, yea Vir coelestis. Hens. Prolegom. in Non­num. an heavenly man, saith Heinsius: others have deified him. Yet, there were divers Philosophers, from [Page 14]Aristotles death till some hundreds of yeares after Christs time, who were in greater estimate among all the learned of those times, then ever Aristotle was; and perhaps there may be a farre perfecter body of Philosophie compiled from the dispersed tenents of other ancienter Philosophers, and more accordant to truth and Scriptures, then ever could be gathered from Peripatericall principles.

Theodoret in his fift book De curandis Graecorum affectibus (as some have it) or De Graecarum affectionum curatione, lib. 4. which some do intitle De Naturâ, hath these words; Aristoteles animam corruptibilem esse impu­denter asseruit, aequè ac Democritus & Epicu­rus. Aristotle hath impudently affirmed that the soul was corruptible, as much as Democritus and Epicurus. Again, Who be now the Presidents of the Stoicall sect, and who are the defenders of the doctrine of Ari­stotle the Stagiritan? &c. And as for Plato, who made many speeches of the immortalitie of the soul, he could never perswade that asserti­on, no, not to Aristotle his own hearer.

Concerning Plato, Augustine saith he was most eagerly stu­dious; and Vives there addeth, that Justin Martyr, Eusebius, and Theodoret report, that Plato translated many things out of Hebrew books into his own. And Numenius, a Philosopher, said, Quiuam hodie inve­niuntur Stoicae sectae praesidentes? quive eti­am sunt qui Aristote­lis Stagiritae doctrinam corroborant? &c. A [...] Plato quidem, qui com­plures sermones de ani­mae immortalitate disse­ruit, nè Aristoteli qui­dene, auditori suo, per­suasit eam positionem. Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 8. cap. 11. What is Plato, but Moses atticizing, Moses the Athenian?

Hierome Dialog. adversus Pelagianos lib. 1. bringeth in the Orthodoxal (though personated) Atticus against the feigned hereticall Critobulus, saying thus, [...]; I care not what Aristotle, but what Paul teacheth. And on Ecclesiastes 10.15. The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them, Neque enim mihi cu­rae est, quid Aristoteles, sed quid Paulus doceat. Reade, saith he, Plato, peruse the subtilties of Aristotle; Lege Platonem, Ari­stotelis revolve versu­tias. and, That text is fulfilled upon them. Though there he nibble at Plato, aswell as he biteth A­ristotle, yet others have stiled him The divine Plato. And when Plato so often in his works saith thus, Antiqui perhibent: In priscis habetur Ora­culis. The ancients do affirm, It is in the old Oracles, and the like; he points not at his master Socrates, or the preceding Pythagoras, but to those learned Sages and ancient Magi, who delivered these depths to the Egyptians, as they did to him.

Augustine thus, Therefore I was willing to treat of this point with the Platonicks, because their books are better known. For both the Greeks, whose tongue excelleth among the Gentiles, have highly extolled them, and also the Latines; being moved hereunto, either by their excellency, or by their glory and renown, or by their sweet­nesse, &c. So much for the great esteem of Plato hath Augu­stine. Ludovicus Vives on this place addeth, that from the dayes of Plato and Aristotle till the reigne of Severus the Em­perour, Aristotle was rather named then read or understood. Then arose Alexander Aphrodisaeus, to expound Aristotle: yet Plato was more in request, Ideo cum Platonicis placuit hanc causam agere, quia eorum sunt literae uotiores. Nam & Graeci, quorum lingua in Gentibus praeeminet, eos magnâ praedicatione celebrârunt, & Latini; permoti earum vel ex­cellentiâ, vel gloriâ, vel gratiâ, &c. Aug. De Civit. 8.10. untill Schools were publikely erected in France and Italy, that is, so long as the Greek and Latine tongue flourished. Then falleth an heavy censure. Crebrior in manibus hominum & notior, us­que ad Scholas in Gallia & Italia publicè consti­tutas, id est, quamdiu Graeca & Latina lingua viguerunt. After that sciences [Page 15]began to be theatricall, Postquam theatricae coeperunt esse disciplinae, omnisque earum fructus existimatus est, posse disputando fucum fa [...]ere & os obturare & pulverē ante oculos jacere, idque imperitissim â peritiâ, & nominibus ad libitum confictis, accommoda­tiores ad rem visi sunt libri Logici & Physici Aristotelis. and all their profit was thought to be able to deceive in disputing, and throw dust before the eyes by a most igno­rant dexteritie and with words coyned at pleasure, the Logick and Physick books of Aristotle seemed to be more fit.

And now was Plato not named; and though Vives confesseth he thinketh Aristotle no lesse learned then Plato, yet he calleth Plato the most holy Philosopher, nor can endure to have him neg­lected. And when Scaliger saith, Mancipia paucae lecti­onis, qui in rebus divi­nis an eferunt Plato­nem Aristoteli. Jul. Scal. Exercit. 365. sect. 3. They be slaves of small read­ing, who in divine things preferre Plato before Aristotle, he speak­eth partially, neglecting diviner words of Plato then those cited out of Aristotle, and straining the words cited to a more celestiall sense then ever they were intended: as if Aristotle had a knowledge of the Trinitie, and apprehended it above humane reach: and therefore is by him stiled the divine man.

Augustine saith, Plato and the Platonicks were so farre pre­ferred before others, in the judgement of posterity, that when Aristotle, a man of excellent wit, and though not comparable to Plato for eloquence, yet surmounting many others, had set up the Peripatetick sect, and (even while his master lived) by his excellent fame Plurimos discipulos in suam haeresin congre­gâsset: tamen recentio­res Philosophi nobilissi­mi, quibus Plato se­ctandus placuit, nolue­runt se dici Peripate­ticos aut Academicos, sed Platonicos. Aug. De Civitate Dei lib. 8. cap. 12. had gathered very many disciples unto his sect: yet the most noble later Philosophers, whom it pleased to fol­low Plato, would not be called Peripateticks or Academicks, but Pla­tonicks. Vives on this place of Augustine confesseth, that Ari­stotle was before Plato in varietie of knowledge, &c. above most, in wit and industry; above all, skilfull in arts; that the Greeks called Aristotle [...] now both the same Greeks called Plato [...], and the Latines DIVINUM. These things are ill observed by Vives. First, though Laërtius bringeth the saying of Plato, Aristoteles in nos re­calcitravit, ut in ma­trem pulli. Aristotle hath kicked against us, as colts against their damme; yet others deny that he taught publickly in Pla­toes life-time. Vives little remembreth, that the precedent words of S. Augustine may incline to the contrarie; besides other authorities, aswell as Laërtius. Secondly, that Augu­stine his term haeresis, in the Greek, is but secta in the Latine; yet, by Vives his leave, S. Augustine could & would have said Congregâsset in suum Lycaeum, in suam scholam, partem, sectam, di­sciplinam, or any othersuch word, rather then in suam haeresim, un­lesse Augustine had intended to lay some aspersion upon Aristo­tle by the word of haeresis, which is homonymous. Thirdly, Vi­ves reporteth, without his authour, that Plato should say of his two disciples, Xenocrates and Aristotle, that the former needed the spurre, and Aristotle the bridle: whereas Cicero in his third book De Oratore ascribeth the saying to Isocrates, con­cerning two of his disciples, Theopompus and Ephorus; Epho­rus the dull, Theopompus the witty and apprehensive: more distinct­ly, Suidas saith, it was spoken of Theopompus Chius, not Theopompus Gnidius. Again, Vives is mistaken in taxing [Page 16]Plotinus for obscuritie, Nè degeneraret à more sectae. lest he should degenerate from the cu­stome of the sect. Whereby he would insinuate, that either Pla­to was obscure, or Plotinus, an Aristotelian: when S. Augu­stine accounteth Plotinus among the famous Platonicks, in the same place; which Suidas also confirmeth. For Plotinus his disciples were the great Origen, and Porphyrius, and divers other famous Platonicks; and as all the Platonicks did Pytha­gorize, so did all the Fathers Platonize; and Plato was in that high esteem, that it was an ancient Proverb, Jovem, Graecè loqui si vellet, non aliter lo­quuturum quìm Plato­nem. That if Jupiter would speak Greek, he would speak no otherwise then Plato.

I return from the comparison of Plato with Aristotle, and from the oscitancy of Vives to the old matter.

Strong delusions rightly befall them, who make Philo­sophy equall to Divinity, and ascribe asmuch authoritie to Aristotle as to Moses or the Prophets, or to any Apostles or Evangelists, and who do answer their Texts with equall reve­rence. If they pray to them, or for them, let them see to it.

I proceed from the Philosophicall axiome, That no Body compounded of contraries can perpetually endure (which was spo­ken onely of the decayed estate, beyond which Philosophers could not aspire, and not of the state of integritie, which is our Quaere; and I come to a passage of Divinitie tending that way. It is true, that Adam was made of earth, or rather of the dust of the ground, Genes. 2.7. of the worst of the elements, and the worst part of it: God framed man dust of the ground, as it is there in the Original: Not of the dust, or earth of Paradise, but of other earth, Vives in Aug. De Ci­vit. 13.24 Pulvis aridus inidoneus erat ad plasmandum. as it is in the Chaldee Targum, saith Vives: of earth severed and distinct from that blessed garden. Cor­nelius à Lapide the Jesuit saith, Drie dust was unfit for to be formed; as if God could not work but like a potter, by fit and necessary materialls: and he citeth Tertullians words, God by adding some fat liquour, Deus addito opimo li­quore, in limum & quasi argillam coagulavit. cruddled it into slime and clay, as it were. I say, though God had done so, yet he could have done otherwise; he could have made Man of water without earth, or of earth without water, or of any some-thing, or of nothing. I will confesse de facto, Pulvis humectus. Aug. De Civit. 13.24. with Augustine, it was wet dust, because it is said, Genes. 2.6. There went up a mist from the earth, and wa­tered the whole face of the ground; (Augustine readeth it, Fons a­scendebat: the Chaldee Paraphraze hath it, Nubes; but properly it is a vapour or a mist) and immediately, The Lord formed Man. Now it was of earth out of Paradise: for the Lord took the Man, (therefore he was before created) and put him into the garden, to dresse it, and keep it, Genes. 2.15. (therefore he was out of it ere he was put into it) & after Adam sinned, God sent Adam forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, or that ground, from whence he was taken, Genes. 3.23. (therefore the ground from whence he was taken, was a different ground from Eden, from whence [Page 17]he was expelled; and so Adam was not molded or framed of the earth or dust of Paradise. All this being granted, I say, God could frame as lasting and as good a body, and as durable against the force of contrarietie, of the dust out of Paradise, as of the dust of the Garden. And questionles Adam was made of the earth before it was cursed, and why not then equall to the earth of Paradise? So that my Position is not yet shaken, The contrarie disposition of the elements had not forced dissolution, but Adam had an immortall body. Which that you may the rather beleeve, let me confirm it by reason and authoritie.

3. The first reason is this; Death cometh not but by out­ward violence, or inward distemper: in which regard, Death is divided by Aristotle into these two branches, Violent, Arist. lib. de vita & morte. Natu­rall. But Adam should not have been subject to externall or in­ternall force, or dyscrasie, if he had not sinned: Therefore he had a bodie that, during innocency, was immortall, and not subject to death. The Assumption is onely questionable. Con­cerning the former member of it, I evidence it thus: Before Man was created, the dominion over the Creatures was reserved for him, and fore-promised Genes. 1.26. so soon as he was created, the dominion was assigned over to him, verse. 28. And if no beast hurt Noah, or his familie in the Ark (though everie Creature imitated Adam, and rebelled against him their Lord, as he did against his Lord God) much lesse could they have hurt Adam persevering in innocencie. During which estate, the lambe and the wolf, the lion and the dragon would not have hurt one another: much lesse would they have hurt Man: least of all, would the issue of Adam have done him violence, or have said as the wicked in the Gospell, This is the heir, let us kill him, and divide the inheritance, Matt. 21.38. For, then there had been no distinction of Lord, Heir, and Servant, nor strife for inheritances.

It is too too true, that the higher bodies and the heavenly powers do now, besides their ordinarie influences, sometimes dart down among us hurtfull and noxious qualities, the work­ers of sicknes and destruction; so that in divers Regions have been Epidemical & popular diseases: which in the great conjunction of Planets falleth out, saith Prolemee, Alcabitius, with other Astronomers. But then the heavens should have dropped plen­tie, & poured down health, and no bane-full qualitie could have descended from them. As for lightning and thunder, and the now-right-ayming thunderbolts, the armies of Gods wrath and messengers of death, either there should have been none (the aire then needing no purifying) or at least not hurtfull or dan­gerous.

Lastly, if Satan could have used outward violence, and de­stroyed Adam or his posteritie that way; perhaps he would [Page 18]never have brought in Death by the back-doore of sinne, and never have undermined him by such hidden baits, and lurking temptations.

Likewise, inward distemper he had none, nor could have: and thus it appeareth;

There is a twofold temperature,

• Ʋniformis, all humours being exactly in the same degree;
• Difformis, one humour ruling & prevailing over the rest.

The first may be called temperamentum ad pondus, which is proportion Arithmetica, when all the foure qualities are equally weighed and tempered: so that there is no predominancie, no superioritie, nor can be; but all parts are equipondiall and even.

The second is termed temperamentum ad justitiam, which is Geometrica proportio, when the foure qualities hang unevenly in the balance, yet fitted to the best service and use of the body. Whether of these two tempers was in Adam, I will not define; But if there were in his bodie difforme temperamentum, it was so perfect, yea equal in in equalitie, as was fit for such a bodie, as might be fit for such a soul: & such was the mixture of humours, by the divine hand of God compounding them, that both he and we should have lived, in the flower of youth, for ever, if Adam had not offended. What the bodilie constitution of the first A­dam was, may be thought to be the same or the like of the se­cond Adam: to whom the Psalmist singeth, Psal. 45.2. Pulchruisti prae filijs hominum, Thou art fairer then the children of men: Per­pulchruisti, as Vatablus rendereth it: which can not be so pro­perly understood of Solomon, as of Christ: who not onely su­perabounded in all vertues, (and vertue is fairer then the mor­ning-starre, saith Aristotle) but also in all comely proportion, and bodilie beautie. Prae filiis hominum; quare & non prae An­gelis? quid voluit di­cere prae filiis hominum, nisi quia homo? Then the children of men: why not then the Angels? What means he by saying, Then the children of men, but be­cause he is a man? as S. Augustine on the place reasoneth most acutely; inferring, that not Christs divinitie, but even his hu­mane nature is in this place commended for beautie. Though the Prophet saith of him, Esai. 53.2. He had no form nor comeli­nes, yet he speaketh it in the person of the Jews, and as they thought, saith Hierome on the place: Or, he had no comelines in his own apprehension, as Christ himself in great humilitie might undervalue his own worth. Thirdly, I may expound all passages seeming to vilifie Christs bodily shape, onely compara­tively, with reference unto his divinitie; thus the bodily beau­tie of Christ is not to be nam'd, or to stand in competition with the Deitie. Fourthly, and most properly, in my opinion, Esa [...] describeth Christ as he was to be in his Agonie and Passion; his body rent and torn with rods, so rufully, that David in the first and literal sense (if not in that sense onely) compareth the tor­mentors [Page 19]to plowers, and the dintes, impressions, and the brui­sed bloudy concavities and slices, to furrows, The plowers plowed upon my back and made deep furrows: his face spit upon, his tem­ples gored and bleeding by the Crown of thorns which was not onely platted on his head, but fastned in it by the beating with canes; his body black-and-blew by their striking; his hands and feet digged throughout with great nails, that I may use the metaphor of the Psalmist, rather digged, foderunt, then pierced, to shew the latipatencie of his wounds; his side so rent a sunder, so broad and wide, that Thomas thrust his hand into it. Take Christ, as bearing our griefs, as wounded for our transgressions, as bruised for our sinnes, as weltered in his strea­ming blood, I will say as Esai said of him; or as the Psalmogra­phist, I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people, Psal. 22.6.

But consider him before his Passion; In ejus facie syderéum quiddam illuxit. To­tum ejus corpus fuitspe­ciosum; quia formatum virtute Spiritus Sancti, in cujus opere non po­test esse error aut de­fectus. Lyran. in Ps. 45. There shined some starrie thing in his face, saith S. Hierome, and his whole body was beautifull, because formed by the power of the holy Ghost; in whose work there can be no errour nor defect, saith Lyranus. Thou art fairer then the children of Adam (so it is in the Originall) Augustine, Cassiodorus on the place, and Chrysostom Homil. 18 on Matth▪ expound it of Christs corporeall feature. I think I may say, if Christ exceeded not Adam, yet he was equall to him. The first Adam was made out of virginall dust, the second out of virginal flesh and bloud; both of them being fra­med by the miraculous hand of God: but miracles do more exceed naturalls, then naturalls do artificialls. What is thy be­loved more then another beloved, O thou fairest among women? say the daughters of Jerusalem to the Church, their Mother, Cant. 5.9. She answereth in the next verse, My beloved is white and ruddy; a goodly person (as the Bishops Bible readeth it) or, as the late Translation hath it, the chiefest among ten thousand. Partium congruentia cum quadam coloris suavitate. Aug. De Civit. 22.19. Whether beautie be to be defined Aptnesse of parts with some pleasantnesse of colour, as S. Augustine opineth, or, A convenient medly of white and red especially, as from this place may seem probable; certain it is, Christ wanted no comelines, nor be­autie; though he had no womanish or effeminate shape, Tom 4. Disput. 1. quaest. 14. punct. 2. but such as was most befitting a man, saith Gregorie de Valentia. Thou art beautifull, O my love, as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, Cant. 6.4. and, Thou art all fair, there is no spot in thee, Cant 4.7. In which regard, perhaps, it was, that though the humors of Christs bo­dy did increase with the increase of his bodie, and grew up from infancie to puerilitie, from it to juvenilitie, thence to virilitie; yet there was so harmonious a proportion, if not of weight, yet of justice, that we read not any one part of Christs bodie to have been out of tune, excepting in his Agonie and Passion, when his very bones were out of joint: nor is he recorded to [Page 20]have been sick at any time, nor so much as inclining to sicknes, all his life. Non suscepit infirmita­tes individui, sed spe­ciei. He took not upon him the infirmities of particular men, but of mankinde: as to be weary, to mourn, to weep, to be hungry, thirstie, to suffer, to die. As for sinne and diseases flow­ing from sinne, he was subject to none, nor to personall de­fects; but onely to the generall defects of humane bodies. In­deed it is said, [...]. Bas. in Regu [...]is brevi­or [...]us quaest. 177. Esai 53.4. Surely he took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses: but Basil expounds it thus, He bare our sicknesses; not that he did transferre them upon himself, but because he healed those that were sick Where he semes to remove all sicknes from Christ.

Besides Adam his excellent temper, consider his food; he had all the trees of the garden for meat, except the forbidden one. The healthie waters about Paradise he had for drink: Wholsome things he knew from hurtfull (if any hurtfull things were:) His giving them names doth prove, that he was acquaint­ed with their natures. As for taking too much or too little, it could not be, whilest his soul was innocent and spotlesse. For he had originall justice, which in the use of lawfull meats should subject his senses and his appetite unto reason. As for clothing, he needed it not: Innocency apparelled him, till he put off the robe of righteousnes; and so it should have continued. Lastly, as Adam in Paradise had a deep sleep which fell upon him, Genes. 2.21. which, I confesse, was extraordinarie; so Augu­stine, Aug. De Civ. t. 14.16. Tertul. De Anima. cap. 24. Tertullian, and the School after them, do yeeld, that ordi­narie sleep was not excluded out of Paradise; but in the night he was allowed sleep. So that Adam enjoying all things necessarie, delightfull, or convenient, which concerned his bodie, we may safely conclude the first reason, That since neither outward force, nor inward distemper could befall Adams body, if he had continued in innocencie, his body should never have tasted of death; and so was, and so should have been immortall. And this will yet more plainly appeare, if we will weigh the reasons following.

4. Among the trees of the garden there was the tree of life, which Adam had libertie freely to eat of.

Some think it was appointed as a means to translate Adam to immortalitie without sicknes or death. Others say, it would hinder the losse of naturall heat and radicall moisture: whereby though yeares or age, yet weaknes, or de crepitnes should not come nigh him. Others say, that it being once tasted should bring perfect immortalitie, even such immortalitie as we should have after the Resur rection. See Bellarmine de Gratia primi ho­minis, cap. 28. and Mr. Salkeld in his Treatise of Paradise, where in some whole Chapters he hath laboriously collected, and co­piously explained the various opinions concerning the tree of life. Take my gleanings after their full vintage, and taste what I have gathered.

Though Lumbard, Sent. 2. Dist. 29. Lit. F. questioneth, Whether Adam before his sinne did eat of the tree of life, and out of Augustine concludeth there, That they did eat; as it was commanded, that they should eat of every tree, fave one: yet I can no way agree with him. This his errour is grounded on an other, which he hath cited Distinct. 9. of the same book, in the letters B and C, That Adam was commanded to eat of the tree of life; and that he should have sinned, if he had not used it. For first, It was not a command, but a permission. God gave the use of the tree no otherwise to man, Genes. 1.29. then to the beasts and fowls the green herbs, verse 21: but this was by way of indulgence, not of command. Secondly, Genes. 2.16. Of every tree of the garden thou may'st freely eat. And though it be in the Hebrew, Eating thou shalt eat, yet it implieth no absolute precept. Thirdly, Genes. 3.2. the woman saith, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; she saith not, We musteat, or We are charged; much lesse, presently, so soon as we see them, or before we do other things. Fourthly, Genes. 9.3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. Are we commanded to eat every beast, and every herb? then whosoever forbeareth any one, sinneth. Or was there in this a difference between the grant unto Adam, and the grant unto Noah, and their posterities?

The second errour is of Lumbard, That Adam did eat of the tree of life. His proof out of Augustine falleth short, even as it is cited, though the place is mistaken by him, and the words maym'd. Indeed Augustine thus. Rectè profectò intelli­guntur primi homines, ante malignam persua­sionem, abstinuisse à ci­bo vetito, atque usi fuisse concessis; ac per hoc, & caeteris, & prae­cipuè ligno vitae. De peccat. Meritis & Re­mis. 2.21. Certainly it is well thought, that our first parents, before that malicious persuasion, did abstain from the forbidden food, and used such things as were granted them, and consequently the rest, specially the tree of life. * Note first, He saith granted, not commanded: as Noah ate not of every thing granted to him, yet Noah spent many hundred yeares more time after the Floud, then Adam did in Paradise. Neither can I think Adam in that estate so addicted to his belly, that he in so short a time would cat of so many, of all, and every tree. Se­condly, Rupertus saith, The eating of the tree of life but once, Rup. in Genes. l. 3. cap. 30. had made them live for ever. Augustine moreover addeth, It is no where read in Genesis, Aug. Cont. Adversar. Legis & Prophet. 1.15 that Adam in Paradise did not eat of the fruit of the tree of life; of which place by and by. Now as Augustine is directly against me in the second point, he is as directly against them in the first point: Ʋtendi ad escam omni ligno, quod in Para­diso erat, acceperant po­testatem. Ibidem. They had received power to eat of every fruit that was in Paradise. To strengthen their side, Augustine an­nexeth this reason, What is more absurd then to beleeve that he would eat of other trees, and not of that? saith Augustine. I answer, perchance Adam thought that he had no need of that tree, as yet, as knowing both that he should not die, if he did not sinne, and that the time of his translation was not come. Nor did [Page 22]those or the like thoughts savour of sinne, or ignorance. Au­gustine in this point is incoherent to himself, saying, Gustus arboris vitae corruptionem corporis inhibebat. The taste of the tree of life did hinder the corruption of the body. Again, Vitae arbor, medicinae modo, corruptionem omnem prohibebat. The tree of life, by way of physick, did prevent all corruption. But, say I, if corruption seised not on Adam, till he sinned; what needed Adam, till he sinned, use that medicine? since the sick have need of physician and physick, and not the whole. If Adam had eaten of the tree of life before he had eaten the forbidden fruit, God would have kept him from the forbidden fruit, as after he kept him from the tree of life: or els the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good & evill had not caused destruction, the ap­ple had not been deadly; but Adam should have lived immor­tally. This will not seem strange, if you weigh what followeth.

If after Adam had sinned, he had taken of the tree of life, and eaten the fruit; he had lived for ever, Genes. 3.22. for els, what needed God to have placed such a watch and ward against him? Again, if Adam might have lived everlastingly, for all Gods threat, yea though he had now a dead body, when God debard him from the tree of life, if he had but eaten of it, he should also have lived for ever, if he had eaten of it before he sinned. But, saith Augustine, Post peccatum, Adam potuit indissolubilis ma­nere si à Domino per­missum il li esset edere de arbore vitae. Aug. lib. quaest. Vet. & Novi Testam. c. 19. Tom. 4. After sinne Adam might have remained indissoluble, if God had given him leave to eat of the tree of life. The conclusion reacheth home against Augustine, That Adam ate not of the tree of life, before he ate of the forbid­den fruit. I think the malice of Satan egged Adam on to taste first of the unlawfull fruit, the usher of death, though the tree of life stood next unto it (for both the tree of life was in the midst of the garden, Genes. 2.9. and the tree of knowledge of good and evill was also in the midst of the garden, as appeareth in the same place, and more plainly Genes. 3.3.) If any be so curious, as to enquire what was the form and figure of the gar­den of Eden, when two trees are just in the midst of it; I answer, We must not take the word Midst strictly or Mathema­tically, but at large, or Rhetorically. When the Shunamite said, 2. Kings 4.13. In medio populi ego habitans sum, it is well rendred by our late Translatours, I dwell among mine own people; not as if the words inforced, that she dwelt exactly in the midst of them. The like Hebraism is used by Abraham, Genes. 18.24. Si fortè fuerint quinquaginta justi in medio civitatis; that is, Fiftie righteous within the citie; not as if all the fiftie dwelt together in the exact middle of the citie. David also useth the like phrase, Psal. 102.24. Take me not away in the midst of my dayes: in which place, as well as in the propounded difficultie, we must not be too strict or rigorous upon the letter. The like is in Esay 5.8.

The last touch we will give at this point is thus; God turned Adam and Eve out of Paradise, and by Cherubims and a sword kept away the tree of life; so that neither Adam, nor his poste­ritie [Page 23]should be able to approach it. And perhaps the Cherubims were purposely placed to confront Satan and his evill Angels, lest they might bring to Adam and Eve, or to their posteritie, the fruit of the tree of life: for if we had been immortally mi­serable & cursed, as Satan himself is, was as much as he desired. So great a vertue had the tree of life, if once it had been eaten.

Let me adde in the third place, If Adam had not sinned at all, nor at all eaten of the tree of life, yet he had not died: for death was appointed for sinne and for nothing els. Bonaventure saith, Impossibile est 'ut si­mul consistant innocen­tia & corruptionis poena. Bonav. in 2. Sent. dist. 19. art. 2. It is impossible that innocencie and the punishment of corruption should stand together.

But to what use was then the tree of life? The question was made of old by an adversarie to the Law and the Prophets: Ista arbor quae in Pa­radiso fructus vitae fere­bat, cui proderat? That tree which bare fruit of life in Paradise, to whom was it pro­fitable? I confesse Augustine answereth, To whom but first to our first Parents, the man and the woman placed in Paradise? But that is the point to be proved. Again, Augustine there saith, Enoch and Elias eat of that tree, but (saith he) we must not hastily say that any other eateth of it: but how unlikely are these things? The adversarie of the Law and the Prophets might better have been answered, That there was no more use of that tree, then of others which were untasted (for no man can think, that they tasted of every one in so short a time.) Or what inconvenience ariseth if we say, A profered curtesy not accepted came to no­thing? What can the adversarie conclude from thence? for God profereth salvation and the means thereof to many, who do not accept of it; the fault being on Mans part, and not on Gods

To finish this point, I resolve, There was no use made of the tree of life, as it fell out. If it be further questioned, What might have been the use thereof? I answer, That the exact specialties can not punctually be known. Probable it is, that the tree of life might have conferred much to the existence of life, though not to the essence. Adam should have lived howsoever, and that immortally, if he had not transgressed Gods commandement: the tree of life might have been conducible to his better being; yea to his best being: by it he might have been changed from his terrestriall not-dying estate, or immortall life, to a celesti­all; and not onely an immortall, but an unchangeable eternall life. In which regard, perchance, the tree of life is stiled Genes. 3.22. The tree [...] hachajim, of lives, as profitable (if tasted) both to Adams present life, which was in time to have its con­summantem finem, though not consumentem; its end, though not its death; and also to his future and more happie life, which should never have end. I summe up all with Augustines words, Cibus aderat, nè Adam esuriret; potus, nè siti­ret; lignum vitae, nè il­lum senecta dissolveret: nullus intrinsecus mor­bus, nullus ictus metuc­batur extrinsecus. De Civit. 14.20. There was meat, lest Adam should hunger; drink, lest he should thirst; a tree of life, lest old age should dissolve him: no inward disease, no outward blow was feared.

A new Quaere may be made, Whether if Adam after his sin had eaten of the tree life, his posteritie as well as himself had lived for ever? My answer setleth on the negative; because Adams action had been personall, not representative or ideall; and his posteritie was neither to answer for his second sinne, or after-offences, nor to have received any benefit by his good deeds succeeding his fall: but he stood alone for us, and we were in him onely as he had power to keep or break the first com­mandement.

And now am I come to the second Topick place, by which I undertook to prove that Adams body had been immortall, if he had not sinned; and that is Authoritie.

5. Not S. Augustine alone, but a whole Councell where he was present, to wit the Milevitan Councell, is strong on our side. Quicunque dixerit A­dam primum hominem mortalem factum, it à ut sive peccaret, sive non peccaret, moreretur in corpore, hoe est, de corpore exiret; non pec­cati merito, sed necessi­tate naturae; Anathema sit. Whosoever shall say that the first man Adam was made mortall, so that whether he had sinned or no, he should have died in body, that is, gone out of the body; not for the desert of sinne, but by the ne­cessitie of nature; let him be accursed. And this curse fell heavy upon the Pelagians, who did think that Adam should have died, though he had not sinned: for so they held, saith Lib. de Haeresibus cap. 88. Augu­stine. Cajetan thus: In 1. Cor. 15.53. In the state of innocencie Adam had a corrup­tible body, in regard of the flux of naturall moisture, but not mortall. Richeomus a Jesuit saith, In statu innocentiae A­dam corpus habebat cor­ruptibile, quantum ad fluxum humidi natura­lis, sed non mortale. If man was created mortall, those threat­nings where by God did denounce death unto him, were unprofitable; for Adam might have answered, I know well enough that I shall die, al­though I neither taste nor touch the tree of knowledge of good & evill. And again; God in the production of every one of his works, kept an ex­act and most beautifull symmetry between the matter and the form, the body and the soul, and such a symmetrie as was most fit and accommo­date to Si komo mortalis creatus fuit, inutiles crant illae minae, quibus 'Deus mortem illi intendebat; poterat nam (que) respondere, &c. In Valedictione ani­mae devotae, Colloq. 32. obtain the end of everie creature, furnishing the matter with qualities and instruments most apt and pliable to serve the vertues and faculties of the form. Therefore the soul of man being immortall, and the faculties and operations proportioned to the essence, the body also then must needs be immortall. Item, In every good marriage two things are observed at least; the qualities of the parties, and their age. Therefore unto the soul, which is free from the tyranny of death, God married the body, which was free also from the grave-clothes and bands of death. Death is the brood of sinne, saith Julianus Pomerius; & Adam was so created, Colloq. 34. that having discharged his duty of obedience, without the intervention of death he should have been followed of Angelicall immortality and blessed eternity. He had im­mortalitie, Etiam ipsam nobis cor­poris mortem, non lege naturae, sed merito in­flictam esse peccati. De Civit. Dei. 13.15. yet changeable; not Angelicall and eternall. As I began with S. Augustine, so with him will I end: It is a constat among Christians holding the Catholick Faith, Ad [...]ujusque creaturae finem consequendum. that even the death of the body hath been inflicted upon us, not by the law of nature, but by the desert of sinne. Peccatum est pater mertis. Otherwhere he saith, Colloq. 35. Sinne is the father of death. Again, Vt perfunctus obedi­entiae munere, sine in­terventu mortis An­gelica eum immortali­tas, & aeteinitas seque­retur beata. If Adam had not sinned, he was not to be stripped [Page 25]of his body, but clothed upon with immortalitie, that mortalitie might be swallowed up of life, that is, that he might passe from a naturall to a spiritual estate, from an earthly to an heavenly, from a mortal to an im­mortall, as I truly interpret his meaning. For he taketh not Mortall for that which must die. And Again, Si non peccâsset Adam non erat expoliandus corpore, sed supervesti­endus immertalitate; ut absorberetur mortale à vita, id est, ab animali ad spirituale transiret, à terreuo ad coeleste, à mortali ad immortale. De peccat. Merit. & Remis. l. 1. cap. 2. It was not to be feared, if A­dam had lived longer, that he should have been troubled with age, or death: For if God was so gracious to the Israëlites, that for fourty yeares their clothes waxed not old upon them, nor their shoes waxed old upon their feet, Deutero. 29.5. what marvell were it, if God granted to obedient Adam, Ibid. cap. 3. that having a naturall and mortall body he should have in it some state and condition, that he might be old without imperfection, and at what time it pleased God, he should come from mortalitie to immortalitie, Vt animale ac mortale habens corpus, haberet in eo quendam statum. without passing through death? Where though S. Augustine seemes to say, Adam had a mortall body, and should have passed from mortalitie; yet he taketh Mortale for all one with Animale, and opposeth it to Spirituale. So that I confesse, Adam in Paradise had not a spirituall body, not such a bodie as he and we shall have after the Resurrection. And thus the body which he had, may be called Animale or Mortale: and yet S. Augustine with us, and we with him, acknow­ledge this truth, that the body of Adam could not have died, if he had not sinned: and in that regard Adams body may be justly termed immortall, not with reference to that heavenly and spirituall bodie which he shall have hereafter; but immortall therefore, because (except for sinne) his body (as it was) was free from death. And the same Augustine hath a whole Chap­ter intituled thus, Sine media morte? Against the doctrines of those that beleeve not, that the first men had been immortall, if they had not sinned.

Among such a troup, may I put in somewhat unthought of by others? Some have said truly, that the divine providence, and preserving power, which extendeth to the least things in our declined estate, as to the lives of birds and beasts and the fall of every hair (God not being Contra eorum dogma­ta, qui primos homines, si non peccâssent, im­mortales futuros fuisse non credunt. De Civit. 13.19. lesse in the least things, then he was in the greatest, and governing all things in number, weight, and measure) would have much more watcht over Adam and his of­spring, continuing perfect. But this is that which I propose, Whether the good Angels did immediatly minister unto A­dam in his integritie, and should have done unto us, to keep mankinde from harm? To which I answer, That since the Pro­phet, Psal. 91.11, describing the blessed estate of the godly, ma­keth this one especiall branch, He shall give his Angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy wayes; and verse 12. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone: I can not but think that the same Angels should have watcht over us, and friendly conversed with us in our innocencie. For God re­duceth Deus non minor est in minimis qu [...]m in maxi­mis. the lowest things to the highest by the middle, working by subordination of causes. Yea, Infima ad suprema per media. grant that this is spoken of the [Page 26]Sonne of God onely, (which by the Evangelists Matt. 4.6. and Luke 4.9. seemeth to be the Devils argute inference) yet it ex­cludes not their watching over us, and their ministerie (if we had not fallen) whose very office and name consist in being mi­nistring Spirits: All being sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation, Heb. 1.14. which out of doubt both Adam and his issue, continuing in perfection, should have been. But leaving these things, Christs answer to Satan proves, that unto whom these words were said, He shall give his Angels charge over thee, &c. unto the same was also said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God, Matt. 4.7. which was not spoken to Christ alone or principally, but in the plurall number to the Israëlites and others succeeding them, as appeareth Deuter. 6.16. Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah. They are deceived, whosoever imagine the ministerie of Angels should not have been any way necessarie, if Adam had not sinned; since Christ (the immaculate Lambe of God, who sinned not, nor could sinne) refused not their ministerie, Matth. 4.11. and com­fort or strength, Luke 22.43; and since one Angel strength­neth himself with an other, Dan. 10.21. and Revel. 12.7; and since they might have ministred more matter of joy unto us, by their most familiar conversation in assumed bodies.

Unto these authorities let me adde two memorable places out of the Apocrypha. The first is, Wisd. 1.13. God made not death. Satan begot it, sinne brought it forth, Adam and Eve nurst it. The other passage is in Wisd. 2.23. God created man [...], to be immortall, & made him an image of his own eternity. On which words Holcot thus, Corporeall creatures have onely a footstep of God: Man is the image of God. Again, Quantum fuit ex parte Dei, creavit ho­minem inex [...]crmina­bile msecundum cor­pus. On Gods part, he created him unperishable according to the body. And there he hath a large dis­course, proving, howsoever Aristotle (Metaph. 8.) defineth Man to be a reasonable creature mortall, that the opposite is true, and he resteth in it. For Aristotle knew not Adams innocencie, but spake of us as we are in the state of sin. Whosoever desireth to read more curiosities strange and learned, concerning the bo­dily immortalitie of Adam, at the Creation, let him read Estius on the second of the Sent. Distinct. 19.

But to confirm the truth delivered in the book of Wisdome, the last and the best kinde of authoritie shall be produced out of the unquestionable Canon: death is stiled our Enemy, 1. Corinth. 15.26. [...], inimicus, as Hierome on the 27. of Esai readeth it: hostis, saith Valla: therefore death is not naturall or kindly to us, but rather a consort, and fellow-souldier of Satan and sinne, who fight against us. But the sharp-pointed places are in Genes. 2.17. In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die; or, dying thou shalt die. Mortalis eris, as Symmachus well translates it; or morti obnoxius, as Augustine well expounds it: and Genes. 3.3 [Page 27] Ye shall not touch it, lest ye die: therefore they should not have died, if they had not touched the forbidden fruit. And so they both were, and ever might have been immortall.

When the woman of Sarepta said to Eliah, 1. Kings 17.18. Art thou come unto me to call my sinne to remembrance, and to slay my sonne? doth she not secretly intimate, that sinne is a murtherer? And if there had been no sinne, there had also been no death, In 2. Sent. dist. 19. quaest. 1. in and by her evident confession that her sinne was the cause of his death. Sco­tus shall determine the point; Punishment can not be without fault: but death is the punishment of sinne; and during the state of innocency there could be no sinne: therefore no death.

I have dwelt the longer on this part, because every reason & authoritie by which I have proved, that Adams bodilie estate in the time of innocency was immortall, affordeth also, by way of preparative, a binding argument, to evince that Adam for sin was appointed to die; which is the first of the two Propositions which I propounded. In which words we intend to handle these things: First, somewhat concerning death; Secondlie, that A­dam was appointed to die for one sinne onely; Thirdly, that it was for Adams own sinne onely, and not for Eves; Fourthly, we will enquire what that sinne was.

O Onely-wise God, who createdst Man in thine own likenes, and mad [...]st him the Image of thine own eternitie: I beseech thee, to re­new in me that decaied Image; make me like unto thee: give me the favour to taste of the Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God, and to drink of the pure River of the Water of Life, clear as Crystall, proceeding out of the Throne of God, and of the LAMBE. Heare me, O blessed SAVIOUR, for thine infinite Merit, and mercies sake. Amen.

CHAP. III.

1. COncerning Death, I mean in this place to touch onely the strange medly that is mixed in it, of

• Sower.
• Sweet.

The sowernes or bitternes of death is dis­cerned, because that manner of secession or de­parture is onely painfull; whereas all other approaches unto glorie, all other stairs, steps, and means, inducing to blessednes, are void of pain.

Let us see it exemplified in Enoch; He walked with God, and was not; for God took him. Genes. 5.24. His manner of not-being, as he was before (whatsoever it were, or howsoever) was never held painfull. Secondly, the chariot of fire, and the horses of fire, which parted Eliah and Elisha both asunder, 2. Kings 2.11, [Page 29]hurt neither of them: Elijah (saith the place) went up by a whirl­winde into heaven; the very form of words implying a willing-easie ascent: nor did the whirlwinde molest him, or pain him, though Ecclesiasticus 48.9. it is said, it was a whirl­winde of fire.

Christs Transfiguration comes next to be considered. It was a true representation of that bodilie glorie, which at the recol­lection & retribution of all Saints, God will adorn and cloth the faithfull withall: Christ shewing them the mark at which they ought to shoot: for we also are to be fashioned or configured to his transfiguration, Philip. 3.21. Qualis futurus est tempore judicandi, talis A­postolis apparuit. As he is to be at the time of jud­ging, such did he appeare to the Apostles, saith Hierom on Matth. 17. And let not man think he lost his old form and face, saith he, or took a body spirituall or aëriall: the splendor of his face was seen, and the whitenes of his vestments described. Non substantia tolli­tur, sed gloria commu­tatur. The substance is not taken away, but the glory is changed. Or that I may utter it in Theophy­lacts words on Mark 9.2. By the transfiguration (so Oecolampa­dius should translate it) understand not the change of character and lineaments, but the character remaining such as it was before, an in­crease was made of unspeakable light. This admirable light not coming from without to him as it did to Moses, but flowing from his divinitie into his humane soul, from it into his body, and from it into his very clothes; will you say his clothes were changed, saith S. Hierom? His raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow: so as no fuller on earth can white them, Mark. 9.3. And his face did shine as the Sunne, Matth. 17.2.

What S. Chrysostom saith of the spirituall bodies of the Saints, I will much more rather say of Christs body transfigu­red (for if starre differeth from starre in glorie, man from man; much more shall Christ shine above all other men, by infinite degrees) They shall shine as the Sunne: not because they shall not ex­ceed the splendor of the sunne, Aquin part. 3. q. 45. art. 2. but because we see nothing more bright then the sunne, he took the comparison thence. And this shining, saith Aquinas, Fuit gloriae claritas es­sentialiter, licèt non secundum modum, cùm suerit per modum tran­seuntis passionis, was essentially a claritie of glory, though not in the man­ner, seeing it was by way of a transient passion, as the aire is inlightned of the sunne: whereas Ad corpus glorifica­tum redundat claritas ab anima, sicut qualitas quaedam permanens. to a glorified body claritie from the soul doth accrue, as some permanent qualitie. Which essentiall claritie Christ had from his nativitie, yea from his first conception; yet by dispensation he ecclipsed it ever, till he had accomplished our redemption, except at this time, when appeared a brightnes of glory, though not a brightnes of a glorious body; not imagi­nary (unlesse you take imaginary as synonymall with representa­tive) but reall, though transitorie.

Can any one think that herein was any pain, or rather not infinite pleasure? The beholders rejoyced: they could not do so at the pain of Christ. If there were any pain or grief, it would rather have been so at the withdrawing of his unusuall clari­tie: [Page 30]which not being likely, the manifestation of this claritie, at this transfiguration, was lesse likely to be painfull.

The fourth and last kinde of degree to happines, is translation; not onely as Enoch was translated, from one life to an other kinde of life, but such a translation as should have been of Adam, if he had not sinned, and shall be of such as shall be alive at Christs coming. Adams translation had been sine media morte. Nor was his slumber painfull, nor solutio continui at the drawing out of his rib, nor the closing of the flesh again: nor is it likely there was in Adams side any scar, the badge of pain and sorrow: much lesse should he have had pain at his translation. Pain is the grand-child of sinne, the daughter of punishment; from both which the estate of innocency was priviledged. Every thing in the Creation was very good, Genes. 1.31: Every tree was plea­sant to the sight, and good for food, Genes. 2.9; and could the tree of life cause pain? By tasting the fruit thereof, Adam and his of­spring had come to an higher and more unchangeable happines. The middesse was then proportionate to the beginning, and to the end. Sorrow was part of the curse: innocency could not feel pain, much lesse shall eternall happines; and should the tree of life have caused pain? Then were there little difference between it, and the tree of knowledge of good and evill. Or what diffe­rence in that point would there be between Adams death, which was painfull, and his translation, if it should have been painfull? As concerning the translation of them that shall be found alive at the last day, I am thus conceited: That there shall be no true, and reall separation of their souls from their bodies; at least, so much as concerneth the righteous: That they shall be changed: That they shall put on immortalitie. If it be delight­full now to our bodies to receive ease, shall it be painfull to be clothed with incorruptibility? It shall be done in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye: 2. Cor. 5.4. Nolumus expoliari, saith the Apostle, shewing the unwillingnes of men to die, sed supervestiri desidera­mus or volumus; for so must the Apostle be interpreted, as ap­peareth vers. 2, We grone earnestly, desiring to be clothed upon. Ter­tullian saith, Qui [...]uon desiderat, ad­huc in carne, superin­duere immortalitatem, & continuare vitam lucrifactam mortis vi­cariâ denuntiatione? De Resur. carnis. Who desireth not, being yet in the flesh, to be clothed upon with immortalitie, and to continue his life gained by a substitu­ted denunciation of death? Can so blessed a change be painfull? or can we naturally desire pain? shall we grone, and grone ear­nestly, that we may have pain? Hierome, in his Epistle to Mine­rius and Alexander, saith thus of the word Rapiemur: Hoc verbo estendi puto subitum ad meliora transcensum, & ideirco raptum se voluisse di­cere, vt velocitas tran­scuntis sensum cogi­tantis excederet. I think that this word sheweth a sudden passage to a better place, and that he said he was caught up, to signifie that his passing was swifter then his thinking; not as if it were painfull to be taken, as I ima­gine. S. Paul speaketh of this translation and change, as a matter worthie of thanks unto God, 1. Corinth. 15.51, &c. Onely death, of all other wayes by which God useth to call mankinde [Page 31]to glorie, death onely is painfull. Psal. 116.3. The sorrows of death compassed me. God loosed the pains of death, Act. 2.24. and Hebr. 2.15. Some through fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage. And indeed this pain of death is part of the curse de­nounced. But of this point, more hereafter. And thus do I make my approach towards it.

2. Aug. De. peccat. Merit. & Remis. 1.16. Augustine saith, When disobedient Adam sinned, then did his body lose the grace of being obedient to his soul. Then arose that be­stiall motion, to be ashamed of by men, which he blusht at in his na­kednes. Then also, by a certain sicknes taken by a sudden and con­tagious corruption, it came to passe that the stabilitie of age being lost, in which they were created, by the changes of ages they made a pro­gresse to death. For though they lived many yeares after, yet they began to die the same day when they received the law of death, by which they were to grow old. For whatsoever by a continuall change and degrees runneth unto an end, not perfecting or consummating, stands not a moment, but decayes without intermission. Thus was fulfilled what God said, Genes. 2.17. In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. So he.

Let me adde my conjecture. First, if God had not called A­dam and Eve so sensibly to an account, yet had they died, by vertue of the former sentence. For the later sentence inflicts not death, which was then entred on them, but labour and pain, In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the dayes of thy life, Genes. 3.17. And though it be said vers. 19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground: for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return: Yet this is but an explication of the former sentence, shewing that the manner of the death shall be by incineration, which was not so exactly speciallized before. Secondly, the same instant that Adam had eaten, I make no doubt but both their eyes were opened and they knew their nakednes, which was the first sensible degree towards death and corruption. For though the Scripture doth not say expressely, Immediately their eyes were opened; yet it im­plieth so much, as may appeare by the implicative particle and, Genes. 3.6, &c. Eve did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat, and the eyes of them both were opened, &c. S. Au­gustine thus, Quomodo corpus no­strum dicit Apostolus mortuum (Rom 8.10.) cùm adhuc de viventi­bus loqueretur, nisi quia jam ipsa conditio moriendi ex peccato pa­rentum haesit in prole? De Gen. ad lit. 6.26. How doth the Apostle say that our body is dead, (Rom. 8.10.) when he speaks of the living; but because the condition of dying, arising from the sinne of the parents, sticks to the posteritie? So we also die, or are dying, the first houre of our being. And again, Corpus mortuum est propter peccatum: Nec ibi ait Mortale, sed Mortuum; quamvis vti (que) & mortale, quia moriturum,—mox vbi praeceptum trans­gressi sunt, ecrum membris, velut aliqua aegritudo lethalis, mors ipsa concepta est. Quid enimaliud, non dicam nati, sed omnino con­cepti, nisi aegritudinem quandam inchoavimus, quâ sumus sine dubis morituri? Ibid. 9 10 The body is dead because of sinne. He saith not there, It is mortall, but, dead; albeit it is truely mortall, because it shall die.—So soon as they transgressed the commandment, death like some deadly disease was conceived in their members. For as soon as we were, I will not say born, but even conceived, what did weels but begin a certain sick­nes, by which we shall undoubtedly die? IN THE MIDST OF [Page 32]LIFE WE ARE IN DEATH, and now non vitam vivimus, sed mortem; which was toucht at before, and must be handled again.

God (who drew light out of darknes, yea all things out of the unformed TOHV-BOHV, and that masse or rude lump out of nothing) is so good a God, and so divine a goodnes, that he would never have suffered sinne in this world, but that he knew how to extract good out of evill, and to turn mans sinne to his benefit. Neither would he have permitted death to enter upon man, but that he knew how to use the sting of death to mans greater happines, and how to bring forth meat out of the eater, and sweetnes out of the strong, Judg. 14.14. As of the vipers flesh is made a preservative against the poison of the viper: so from this bitter cup of death ariseth health, joy, and salvation to mankinde.

Aug. De Civit. Dei. 9.10.Augustine hath a witty collection from Plato and his fol­lower Plotinus: Plato in Timaeo writeth, Hominum animos mortalibus vinculis esse à d [...]is minoribus illiga­tos. that the spirits of men are tied with mortall bands by the lesser gods. So Vives on the place citeth Plato, but Plotinus in lib. de dubijs Animae, as he is also cited by Vives, on that place of Augustine, thus, Jupiter Pater laboran­ta [...] animas mis [...]ratus, earum vincula, quibus laborant, solubilia fabri­ [...]avit. Fa­ther Jupiter, having compassion of the afflicted souls, hath made their bands soluble, wherewith they are wearied. These quotations at large, give light to S. Augustines meaning, which is subobs­cure: for he saith, Plotinus Platenem prae caeteris intellexisse laudatur. Is, cùm de humanis animis ageret, Pater, in [...]uit, misericors mortalia illis vincula saciebat. Plotinus is commended for having understood Plato above the rest. He treating of the souls of men saith, The mer­cifull Father made them mortall bands. Whether the particle Is aimeth at Plato, or Plotinus, appeareth not by Augustine. Bartholomaeus Barth. Sib. Peregrin. Quaest. Decad. 1. c. 2. q. 2. Sibylla appropriateth the word Is to Plato; I rather assigne it to Plotinus, as the good Expositor of Plato: Or it may be that S. Augustine, taking some words from both of them into one sentence, purposely left it doubtfull, unto whom the Is must be referred. Howsoever, his collection (as I said) is ingenious and subtile; Ità hoc ipsum quòd mortales sint homines corpore, ad misericor­diam Dei Patris per­tinere arbitratus est, nè semper hu [...]us vitae miseriâ teneantur. So he thought that this very thing, that men are mortall in body, proceeds from the mercie of our divine Father, lest they should be alwayes held with the miserie of this life. Even as the very miserie of mankind, from which no man is free, could not pertain to the just judgement of the Almigh­tie, if there had been no originall sinne, as Augustine saith other­where. Gods judgement brought miserie and death for sinne: yet in death God remembred mercie, & distilled good out of it, I cannot omit this memorable speech of Gregory Naz. Orat. 2. de Pasch. Nazianzen, Adam was expelled and extruded from this tree of life & from Para­dise at once, by God, for sinne:— And yet even in this case by death he gaineth the cutting off of sinne, lest the evill should be immortall. So was punishment turned into mercy. He is excellently secon­ded by Rupert, Rup. De Trinit. 3.24. &c. How should we turn away with deaf eares the care of the death of the soul, and the generall judgement, if we should [Page 33]never have died, that are so proud to day, & dying to morrow? Well therefore did our Lord God strike Man with the death of the flesh & of the body, lest he should be ignorant of the death of his soul, and sleep securely in his pleasures till the dawning of the last day: that at least Man might be waked, even by the fear of the instantaneall death, and that he might not, like the immortall devil, adde prevarication to pre­varication, but rather flee and avoid the pride & height of sinne by hum­ble repentance. Let me adde, Hence is the patience of the Saints. Here are the crowns of the Martyrs, saith Chrysostome. This death cau­seth many vertues, which had else never been. O munde immunde, si sic me tenes breviter transeundo, quid faceres diu permanendo? O unclean World, saith devout Bernard, if thou holdest me so shortly passing, what shouldest thou do long remaining? If ye desire more proofs, that death was appointed to Adam for sinne, and that he was kept from the tree of life, after he had sinned, lest his miserable life should have been immortall, consult with the authoritie of Ire­naeus, in his third book and 37. chap. of Hilarius, in his com­mentarie on Psal. 69.26: of Hierome, on Esai 65. of Cyrill of Alexandria, about the middle of his third book against Julian; and they shall confirm you in this point, That death is a bitter­sweet, a compound of judgement and mercy, a loathsom pill, and a punishment; yet wrapt up in gold, and working out health and blessings for mankinde. A culpa natae sunt duae filiae, Tristitia, & Mors; quae duaefiliae pessimam matrem de­struunt. From the transgression two daugh­ters are born, Sorrow and Death: which two daughters destroy their very ill mother. Augustine against two Epistles of the Pelagians 4.4. Quamvìs bonis con­feratur per mortem plurimum boni, (unde nonnulli etiam DE BO­NO MORTIS Congruenter disputaverunt) tamen & hinc quae praedicanda est nisi misericordia Dei, quòd in usus bonos con­vertitur poena peccati? Although by death much good be bestowed on good men (where­upon some have fitly discoursed even of the good of death) yet what hence can we commend but Gods mercie, that the punishment of sin is turned to good uses? I will seal up all with the saying of Cicero in the beginning of his third book de Oratore, where he spake wiser then he was aware of, Mihi non à diis im­mortalibus vita erepta, sed mors donata est. Life hath not been taken away from me by the immortall gods, but death hath been given. Death is a be­nefit, though it was appointed unto Adam for sinne, for one sinne onely; which is the next point to be explained.

3. It is true, that the wages due to any one sinne is death; and as true, that we commit many sinnes; which are rightly di­vided into originall and actuall. Actuall sinnes are of a thousand kindes committed by us; yet none of these our sinnes, nor Adams after-sinnes, but his first sinne onely produced death. Likewise, originall sin consisteth of two parts; of Adams transgression, & of our corruption. In Adams transgression were many sinnes in­volved: & our corruption consisteth both in the want of original justice, & in the positive ill-qualitie of our nature. Adams sinne is imputed to us; our corruption, both inherent & imputed. His sin, as a qualitie, concerned himself; as relation, concerned us. As he was an individual man, it touched himself onely; as a cōmon per­son it drop't down upon us. His actuall sin is not propagated; his corrupting of our nature is deriv'd. And this corruption is both [Page 34]a sin and a punishment of sinne. Some late Divines have written, Originall sinne is said to be twofold. 1 Imputed, which was inherently in Adam, and charged upon his posteritie. 2 Inherent, which is natu­rally propagated to us. So, amongst others, Scharpius pag. 463. But they speak improperlie; for originall sinne is but one onely, made up of two parts or branches; indeed, perchance, parts constituent, not ratione onely, but re differentes; yet not so nati­vely to be call'd a double sinne, as one sinne, of two steps, de­grees, sections, composures, parts or branches: for originall sinne is not many, not two, but one onely, viz for which death was inflicted. And this is the point I must now insist upon, and thus I prove it apodictically.

Rom. 5.12. Death entred by sinne; and verse 21, Sinne reigned unto death. Likewise, Rom. 6.23, The wages of sinne is death; and 1. Corint. 15.56, The sting of death is sinne. All in the singular number, evincing it to be one onely sinne. David complaineth Psal. 51.5, I was shapen in iniquitie, and in sinne did my mother con­ceive me. In sinne, not in sinnes; both the Hebrew and the Vulgar Translation have all these places in the singular number. Con­cerning David, it is observable, (lest any one might imagine, that Davids mother was lascivious, and that therefore he com­plained, and so this complaint concerned David himself onely and personally, and not us) that it was no part of Davids intent, to disparage his mother; and Aquinas saith, David was born of a lawfull wedlock: and we are sure by a certaintie of faith, that the law­full use of marriage is no sinne.

To this let me superadde Rom. 5.18. [...], Per unam offensam, as Montanus readeth it, and this exposition is by our last Translation admitted into the margine. But of this point more by and by.

Neither is it onely one, but it is all alike; not more in the evill, not lesse in the good Rom. 3.9, Are we better then the Gentiles? We have proved that Jews and Gentiles are all under sinne, as it is written, There is none righteous, no not one. Vers. 19, All the world is become guilty, or, subject to the judgement of God. Again, vers. 22. There is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glorie of God. And before, he exactly describeth the cor­ruption of every man. Galat. 3.22, The Scripture hath concluded all under sinne. Si parvuli nascuntur, non propriè, sed origi­naliter, peccatores; pro­fectò, eo modo quo sunt peccatores, etiam prae­varicatores legis illius, quae in Paradiso data est, agnoscuntur. Augustine De Civitate Dei 16.27, If infants are born sinners, not properly, but originally; certainly in the same man­ner that they are sinners, they are acknowledged to be also transgres­sours of that law which was given in Paradise. How could one in­fant transgresse the law in Paradise, more then an other? Genes. 17.14, He hath broken my covenant. Which words you are to in­terpret of breaking the covenant in Adam, by originall sinne, aswell as of breaking the covenant of circumcision. Augustine in the place above cited, when he had said Cortum est de fide, legitimum matrimonii usum non esse peccatum Aquin. Cont. Gert. lib. 4. cap. 50. Since it is not the [Page 35]fault of the infant, whose soul God threatned to cut off; neither hath he broken Gods covenant, but his parents, who took no care to circum­cise him (for such a childe discerneth not his right hand from his left, Jonas 4.11, and such little ones have no knowledge between good and evil, Deuter. 1.39.) then he resolveth thus, Cùm haec nulla sit cul­pa parvuli, cu us dixit animam perituram; nec ipse dissipaverat Testa­mentum Dei, sed ma­jores, qui eum circumci­dere non curârunt. Infants, not in regard of their own life, but in respect of the common source of mankinde, have all broken Gods covenant in him in whom they have all sinned. Again, Parvuli, non secun­dum vitae suae proprie­tatem, sed secundum communem generis hu­mani originem, omnes in ill o vno Testamen­tum Dei dissipaverunt, in quo omnes peccave­runt. In Adam he himself hath also sinned with all the rest. My question here is, Did not all children sinne alike in Para­dise? Aquinas answereth, All are born equally sinners, all equally obnoxious to originall sinne; so that in them that die in originall sinne onely, there is no difference in fault or punishment answering unto it. See Estius 2. Sentent. Distinct. 33. Sect. 5. and before him Lum­bard, with his army of Schoolmen.

Three places there are most fully demonstrative, both that it was one offence onely, [...]. and that this offence was of one per­son onely. Rom. 5.15. By the sinne, the single singular sinne, of one (for none of it is in the plurall number) many are dead. Death crept not in by more sinnes, or by more sinners, but for one one­ly offence of one person onely. It is not [...] but [...], per peccatum unius. He might have said as easilie (if he could have said it as truly) by the sinne of two, if by Eves sin properly we had died. This is also excellently second­edin the next verse, Rom. 5.16. And not as it was by ONE that sin­ned, [...] (there is the singularitie of the person) so is the gift: for the judgement was of ONE to condemnation (which you must not interpret of one Adam, or one Person, but of one sinne, if you make the antithesis to have marrow and sinnews; and so the Old Bishops Bible reades it) but the free gift is [...], of many offences unto justification. So to the singularitie of one person, you see annexed the singularitie of one offence. The same truth is confirmed and reiterated, Rom. 5.17, 18, 19: every verse proving it was but one person, and one sinne.

The Fathers joyn issue with us. Chrysostom Homil. on 1. Corinth. 9, Adam by one sinne did draw in death. And again, He by one onely sinne brought so much evil and death. For if Adam had not sinned; as he had not propagated his personall gifts, graces, acquisite vertues, nor experimentall knowledge; so af­ter his first sinne, which is derived to us, his other sinnes were meerly personall, and one onely is become naturall to all of us: all his other sinnes were bound up in the sole reference unto himself, none imputed or derived to his posteritie. And there­fore originall sinne hath no degrees, nec suscipit magìs aut minùs; or hath more branches or parts in any childe of Adam, then in others; but equally and alike extendeth unto all; none free, none more infected then others, as I proved before.

Paulinus calleth it In Adam, cum omni­bus, etiam ipse peccavit. Aquin. 1.2. q. 82. art. 4. The fatherly poison, by which the father [Page 36]having transgressed hath infected his whole kinde. Others stile it The venime of the loyns. Chrysostom, on 1. Corinth. 9. termeth it The radicall sinne. Augustine saith, Virus paternum quo universitatem generis sui pater praevaricatus infecit. Apud August. Epist. 106. There is one sinne in which all have sinned, and therefore all men are said to have sinned in one A­dam, and by one sinne of Adam, because all were that one man. Item, Esse unum peccatum, in quo omnes peccave­runt, & ideò dici omnes homines in uno Adamo, & uno Adae peccato pec­câsse, quia omnes ille unus homo fuerant. De Peccat. Merit. & Re­mis. 1.10. That one sinne which is so great, and was committed in a place and condition of so great happines, that in one man originally, and, that I may say, radically all mankinde should be damned, is not done away but by Christ: And often he beates on this point, that it was one sinne which overthrew us. Illud unum peccatum, quod tam magnum, in loco & habitu [...]antae felicitatis admissum est; ut in uno homine originaliter, atque, ut ità dixerim, radicaliter totum genus hominum damnaretur, non solvi­tur nisi per Christum. Enchirid. cap. 48. One, none but one transgression the Apostle will have to be understood, saith he against Julian. And again, Ʋnum, non nisi unum, delictum intelligi vult Apostolus. Cont. Ju­lian. 1.6. Infants die guiltie onely of originall sinne, men of yeares guiltie of all sins which by a wicked life they have added to that one. Ignatius calleth it The ancient impietie. Irenaeus stileth it The hand-writing written by Adam. All in the singular number pointing at one man onely, and at one sinne onely.

Two points are cleared:

• We are appointed to die for one sinne onely,
• We are appointed to die of one person onely.

It followeth by the native and genuine method; This person was one man; Parvuli moriuntur soli peceato originali ob­nox [...]i; adulti omnibus peccatis quae malè vi­vendo addiderunt ad illud unum. Enchir. cap. 43. This one man was Adam: And so by consequent it was not Eves sinne for which death was appointed to us. And first of the first part.

4. That this person sinning was one man, seemeth evidenced, Rom. 5.16, [...], By one that sinned. It is not said [...]. Ignatius. Epist. ad Trallianos. Yet if that proof reach not home, but may suffer extension, even to Angels or spirits; others shall. 1. Cor. 15.21. Iren. lib. 5. [...]. By man came death, and by man the Re­surrection of the dead. You may as well deny the Resurrection by the Sonne of man, as that sinne or death came not by man. Again, Rom. 5.12. [...], By one man sinne entred into the World, and death by sinne: the word [...] demonstrating the humane nature; and [...] joyned with it, necessarily pointing and signing out the masculine, and not the feminine. Rom. 5.19, [...], By the disobedience of one man; where most evidently, not onely the humane nature is signed, and marked out unto us, but also the masculine sex; the He, and not the She.

Having found that he was a Man, for whose sinne death was appointed, let us now follow the sent, and we shall trace out who he was; which is the main point of inquirie.

Searching the Scriptures, even close to the former place oc­curreth this, 1. Corint. 15.22, As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. He who confesseth the quickning power of the second Adam unto Resurrection, must also confesse the weaknes of the first Adam, and that In him all men die. Indeed it is said, Eccl. 25.24. [...] [Page 37]in the Accusative, Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die. But of Adam the phrase is used in the Geni­tive, Rom. 5, three severall times, Per illam, non in illa morimur. The Divines distinguish them two: We die by her, and in Adam; We also die by the Devill, as he was the tempter of her, as well as by her, she being the tempter of Adam; by them both occa­sionally, by him and onely in him effectually. So for the former part of the words, it is true, Ab Eva initium pec­cati, ab Adamo comple­mentum. Eve began sinne, but Adam made it compleat. She was principium, but principium principiatum: Sa­tan was the principium principians, the mover primo-primus. He was a murderer from the beginning. John 8.44. [...]: not from the first absolute beginning; for then Satan had no being: not from his own beginning; for at his creation he was good, as all things els were: but so soon as ever man was, he resolved to destroy man, and with reference to that inten­tion he was a man-slayer or a murderer of man from the begin­ning of man. From Satan was the beginning of sin, from Eve a se­conding, a middesse, a continuation; you may call it an other be­ginning, secundo-primum. But had not Adam sinned, death had not reigned: for in Adam all die; it was never said of Eve, in Eve we die.

Augustine saith, Aug. De Civit. 12.21. God made some certain creatures solitarias, & quodam modo solivagas, solitarie, and after a sort wandring alone, as eagles, kites, lions, wolves; other creatures gregales, that love to troupe, fly, shoal, and herd together; as pigeons, stares, fishes, deere; and made divers of them, all at once, of severall kindes, and not one­ly two of each kinde, by which the rest should be propagated; but he made the man unum & singulum, one and single, and would not create the woman when he created the man; but made her of man himself, Vt omne ex homine vno diffunderetur genus humanum. that all mankinde should be derived from one man. He annexeth other where, That originall sinne might come from one onely man.

The Apostle saith most divinely, 1. Timoth. 2.14, Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. From whence though the ignorant may think, that Eve was the sinner, and Adam was not; yet they erre, not understanding the Apostle. His main intent is to prove, that a woman ought to be si­lent and subject, and not usurp authoritie over the man, as a talking woman doth; and this he effecteth by two reasons. First, Adam was first formed, then Eve. The reason holds of things of the same species. Otherwise, beasts and birds were created be­fore Adam. Secondly, Adam was not deceived, but Eve: not first deceived, not deceived by a beast, and one of the worst of them, a serpent. Therefore she is unfit to be any longer a teacher. Chrysostom thus, The woman taught once, and marred all; therefore let her teach no longer. Hence it appeareth it was no part of the Apostles meaning, to handle, Whether the sinne of Adam or of Eve caused mankinde to fall (which is our main point) for the transgression here mentioned was not that sinne, that great sin, [Page 38]but [...], diverticulum transiens, a peccadillo, a little sinne, in respect of that great [...] and [...], which ingaged all man­kinde: much lesse did the Apostle intend to excuse Adam from that great presumptuous offence, in which he onely was. That sin of his being called [...], Rom. 5.19: which must needs be a crying sin, and almost infinite; since it is opposed to Christs obe­dience, called there [...]. Adam was not deceived; because no man is properly deceived, but of him who hath an intent to deceive: now the Devil onely had such an intent, and thereupon deceived Eve. Wherefore she complaineth saying, the Serpent be­guiled me, Genes. 3.13, & the Apostle ratifieth it, 2. Corinth. 11.3. The Serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty. And in this manner Eve onely being deceived was in the transgression. For Satan set not upon Adam. Diabolus non est ador­sus eum qui coràm ac­ceperat coelesse manda­tum, sed eam quae à vi­ro didicerat. Ambr. lib. de Paradiso cap. 12. Dolo illo serpentino, &c Aug. De Gen. ad lit. 11.42. The Devil set not upon him that had received in presence the heavenly commandment, but upon her that had learned it of her husband, saith Ambrose; Yea S. Augustine opineth Tu es Diaboli janua, tu es quae eum invasisti quem Diabolus aggredi non valuit. Tert. lib. De Habitu muliebri. That by that serpentine craft, by which the woman was seduced, Adam could not have been seduced. Tertullian speaketh thus to womankinde; Probat quòd Diabolus non poterat seducere A­dam, sed Evam. Hiero. lib. 1. adversus Jovinia­num, circa medium. Thou art the Devils doore, thou art she that hast invaded him whom the Devil could not set upon. If he could not set upon him, much lesse could he have overcom him. Hierom saith, * the Apostle doth prove that the Devil could not seduce Adam, but Eve. But then co­mes Eve in her simplicitie, intending no hurt or deceit to her hus­band, & upon three other grounds specialized Genes. 3.6. First, she saw that the tree was good for food. Secondly, it was pleasant to the eyes. Thirdly, a tree to be desired to make one wise. She (I say) upon these three motives did both eat and give Adam to eat. So Adam was not deceived, either first or immediately, by the Serpent or serpentine deceit, as Eve was: neither doth Adam complain, that the Serpent or Eve beguiled him; but when he derived the fault from himself, the worst that he said of Eve was this, Genes. 3.12, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree. Neither doth the Scripture any where impute a malicious, envious, or guilefull intent to Eve, in drawing Adam into the transgression. Nor doth the Apostle say absolutely, Adam was not in the transgression; but, Adam was not deceiv'd, or brought into the transgression by fraud. For the word [...] signifieth to be deceived by art and craft: so the Devill perswaded Eve, That God of envy unto man forbad him that tree, saith. Aug. De Gen. ad lit. 11.30. Augustine; and perhaps told her it was no sin for her to eat, because she received no immediate commandement; whereas Adam knew it was a sinne, but therefore might think it easilie pardonable, because he had formerly known no experience of Gods severitie, saith the same Aug. De Civit. 14.11. Augustine. And yet for all this Adam might be in a transgression, in the transgression, and the greatest transgression, though not in that transgression of be­ing seduc'd. And for his transgression death is appointed for us. [Page 39] For in Adam all die. Abel was the first who died the bodily death; yet Abel died in Adam: and if for Adams sinne death had not been appointed to him first, Abel had not died yet, since Morte morieris was spoken to Adam alone, before Eve was crea­ted: and it may be it implieth, that upon his sinne all that any way came of him, either by avulsion of some part, as Eve did, or by propagation, should die in him. And so though Eve had eaten, if Adam had not sinned, neither Adam, nor perhaps Eve herself had died. And if Adam had eaten and Eve forborn, yet perhaps Eve should have died: for Eve was in A­dam as well as we, 1. Corinth. 11.8. The man was not of the wo­man, but the woman of the man. And in him was she to stand or fall, live or die, as well as we. In Adam all die, and she among the rest, since she was one, and a part of that all. If my above men­tioned speculations require further proof, consider Rom. 5.14, Death reigned from Adam; where he is expresly mentioned, as being, in my interpretation, the Idea of mankinde, and we being in him tanquam in principio activo. Satan sinned against God in tempting the woman, the woman sinned against God in eating and offering the fruit unto the man. If thou, O A­dam, hadst not consented, neither of these sinnes had hurt thee or mankinde. Adam erat nos omnes. Adam was we all. Give me leave to say so, since S. Augustine saith, Omnes eramus ille u­nus Adam. De pe [...] ­cat. Merit. & Remis. 1.10. We all were that one Adam. Nor did God first challenge Eve, but Adam; nor her so punctually as he did A­dam, Genes. 3.9. And vers. 22, it is not said of Eve, but of A­dam, ironically, Adam is become like one of us: for he was the root of mankinde, Eve was but a branch of Adam before or when she sinned, and no root of mankinde actuall, but potentiall; for she sinned when she was a virgin. Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Triphon thus, Eve being an intemerated virgin, and conceiving by the Serpent, brought forth disobedience, and by consequent, death. Theodoret on those words of the Psalmist, Psal. 51.1. &c. The transgression of the commandment went before Eves conception: for after the transgression, and the divine sentence, and the privation of Paradise Adam knew Eve his wife; and she having conceived brought forth Cain. Had Adam carnally known Eve before he sin­ned, yea after herself sinned, she had conceived, and then the issue had had no originall sin: yea, he is no worse Divine then A­quinas, who holdeth that at this instant if one by miracle were crea­ted an humane creature, body & soul, he should not have originall sin. 1.2. Quaest. 18. Art. 4. Art. sequenti. And if Adam had sinned, & not Eve, we had fallen into originall sin; and if she had eaten, and not he, we had not been stain'd with origi­nall sinne. Scharpius saith, * The cause of originall sinne was Adam, not Eve; and Adams sinne, not Eves, doth passe to the posteritie. Ter­tullian proveth that Eve was neverthelesse a virgin, because being in Paradise she was called a woman. * A woman, saith he, pertains to the sex it self, not to the degree of the sex. One may be [Page 40]call'd a woman, Mulier ad sexum ip­sum, non ad gradum sexûs pertinet. Tertull. lib. De velandis Vir­ginibus. though not a wife; but a non-mulier, a no-wo­man can not either be or be call'd a wife. I adde, she was a wife, & so called, Genes. 2.25: and yet, till after Adam sinned, she was a virgin, espoused, married, yet not known carnally. She was termed Isha, or Issa, Virago, before the fall, Genes. 2.23: because she was taken out of Ish, or Is, out of man. She was also stiled The female, and wife; but she was never called Eve, during her creation and innocency, or in the interim between her fall and Adams. But after Adams sin he first called his wives name Eve, Genes. 3.20, because she was the mother of all living. Not as if any did then live as from her, or were born of her, when Adam so called her; but the great Calculator of natures, the [...], the Onomastick, or exact and true Nomenclator of all things brought before him, thought fit to name her Eve, that is, The mo­ther of all living; not before, but after his fall, because, in my opi­nion, she had not been Mater viventium, if she alone had sinned. Her sinne might have had other punishment, her personall fault had ended in her personall chastisement. Eve was created in Pa­radise; and, for all her sin, we had continued still in Paradise, if A­dam had kept in it: but as Adam was made out of Paradise, so out of it again by his fall he brought both himself & us. S. Am­brose saith, Fuit Adam, & in illo fuimus omnes; periit A­dam, & in eo perierunt omnes. Ambr. in Lu­cam lib. 7. Adam was, & in him we were all; he perished, & in him all perished. Eve was onely a part of Adam, till his fall; he being till then the onely root: after his sinne she is now also Eva, mater viventium, a root; yet radix de radice: we receive our sap, & bring forth fruit through both of them. And for all this, both Scri­pture and Fathers runne with a torrent, ascribing that great sin, which plunged mankinde into destruction, not unto Eve, save onely as the occasioner, but unto Adam, as the immediate cau­ser. And though Eve sinned before Adam, and that in divers re­spects; yet is he chiefly, yea onely faultie, for presenting vs, by his fall, to destruction. Hosea 6.7. They like Adam have trans­gressed the covenant there; or (as the Vulgar hath it, joyning Ibi to the latter clause) Ibi praevaricati sunt in me. Ibi, saith Hierom, that is, in Paradise. And Adam is excellently painted out, Esai 43.27, Thy first father hath sinned. Eve is not mentioned; for her sinne, considered by itself, reached not to them, nor hurt any but herself per se, and us per accidens, as Adam yeelded to her temptation. When God had denounced severall punishments, first to Eve, then to Adam, and proper to each by themselves, he added this to Adam onely, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. For even in him, and by him was Eve to return to dust, and by his offence formally Death cometh on all. And therefore not from Eve, but from Adam doth S. Luke draw our pedegree, Luke. 3.38, Which was the sonne of Adam, which was the sonne of God. And therefore as the Genealogies were ever drawn from the males (perchance to shew that the woman was but [Page 41]accidentall to our first making, and the first sinne reducing all up to the Protoplast Adam, who derived originall sinne both to Eve and all us, though in different manner) so when they had drawn their Genealogies down to Christ, who had no man to be his father, nor had originall sinne, but satisfied for it & all other sinnes, all Genealogies are ceased, yea counted by the Apostle as foolish and vain, Titus 3.9. Against one of these passages if it be objected, that Joab is not termed after his father, but full of­ten, yea alwayes after his mother, The sonne of Zeruiah, for she was the sister of David, 1. Chron. 2.16: I answer, that Zeruiah the mother of the three famous brethren, Joab, Abishai, Asahel was, perhaps, married to some base ignoble groom before Da­vid came to his greatnes: or she herself was an extraordinary Virago, active in State, plotting and furthering the plots of her children, though she crost her brother David; and therefore (as I take it) she is named, not so much in honour as in dislike, These men the sonnes of Zeruiah be too hard for me, 2. Sam. 3.39: Or lastly, the father of Joab had committed such a sinne or sinnes, that the remembrance of him was odious, and might resemble Judas Iscariot, who deserved that in the next generation his name should be blotted out, Psal. 109.13.

When Adam transgressed my statutes, 2. Esdras 7.11, 12. — then were the entrances of this world made narrow, full of sorrow and travel. And in reference, it may be, to Adams especiall sinning both a man-childe was born before a woman-childe, and a man­childe died before a woman-childe, & the males onely were cir­cumcised, and Adam himself died ten yeares before Eve, as Sa­lianus, out of Marianus Scotus, Genebrard, & Fevardentius, col­lecteth; though never a woman els, except Eve, from the creati­on til the Law of Moses is recorded to have outlived their good husbands. As for Er & Onan, they were wicked, & for their sin cut off shortly, Genes. 38.7, &c. Sure I am, he had an especiall manner of transgression, since some are punished who have not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression, Rom. 5.14. O­ther sinnes we sinned, & are like to Adam: but herein we are un­like. His sinne hurt us aswell as himself: our sinnes hurt not him, but ourselves. Bellarmin hath brought unto my hand the thre following authorities: Tertullian, Omnis anima eous (que) in Adam censetur, do­nec in Christo recensea­tur. Tert. lib. De Anima. Every soul is counted in Adam, untill it be reckoned in Christ. Hierom, Vnusquis (que) nostrûm in Paradiso cum Adamo cecidit. Hieron in Mich. 2. Every one of us fell in Para­dise with Adam. Cyprian derives the infants sin from Adam one­ly. For we were in him tanquā in activo principio. In him, to stand or fall. Adam is the figure of him that was to come, Rom. 5.14. Was Eve a type of Christ? was Christ ever resembled or compared or contra-opposed unto Eve? The Apostle, Rom. 5.15, 16, Cypr. lib. 3. Epist. 8. Ad Fidum. sheweth wherein Adam was like and unlike to Chirst (of which hereafter.) And most divinely to our purpose, verse 17, &c. If by one mans offence, death reigned by one, much more the righteous [Page 42]shall reigne by one Iesus Christ. No inkling, no intimation of more sinnes then of one; of more persons first sinning that one sinne, then of one; and that one was not Eve, but Adam: therefore as Christs Merits onely save us, so Adams sinne onely did destroy us. Cherubim faceth Cherubim, Type and Antitype must a­gree. When the Apostle saith of Adam, [...], illius futuri (as the Interlinearie reades it) not [...], but [...]; not quae, but qui, proveth the exclusion of Eve. But of the first man Adam and the last Adam, is a noted sweet resemblance, 1. Corinth. 15.45. Where he holdeth it not enough to say, The first Adam, but lest Eve might seem to be included in the comparison, he addeth, The first man Adam; and so compareth him to Christ. Likewise verse 47, The first man is of the earth earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. Yet was not Christ the second man in number, but in representation of mankinde, being the sub­stance of the first shadow. Adam was the first, the onely one who hurt us; Christ is the second man, the onely one who help­eth us. Yea, I think I may be bold to averre, that Christ would have taken on him the feminine sex, if by Eve we had fallen: but since we fell by man, by man onely; therefore our Redeemer, though he came of a woman, yet was made a man. And Christ having determined to be, not a woman, but a man, I dare fur­ther avouch, if he had been a stone cut out, not Et abscissus est lapis Dontinus, & Salvator, sine manibus; id est, abs­que coitu & humano se­mine, de utero virgina­li. H [...]eron. in Dan. 2.34 Quid est Praecisus de monte, sine manibus? Natus de Gente Judae­orum, sine opere homi­num. Omnes enim qui nascuntur, de opere ma­ritali nascuntur: ille de Virgine natus, sine ma­nibus natus est: per ma­nus enim opus huma­num significatur, quò manus humanae non ac­cesserunt; ubi maritalis amplexus non fuit, foe­tus tamen fuit. Aug. in Psal. 99.5. ipsi, 70 se­cuto, 98, sub finem. a stone cut out with­out hands, Daniel 2.34, without the help of man, as he was: if he had not been conceived by the Holy Ghost; if the Blessed Virgin had not been over-shadowed by the power of God one­ly: if Christ had been begotten by one of the sonnes of Adam, with an ordinarie and naturall generation; even Christ himself had had both originall and actuall sinne, and had died for him­self by and through Adam, and had wanted a Redeemer for himself; much lesse could he be our Redeemer. But Christ was that STONE. This Stone which the builders refused, is become the head-stone of the corner, Psal. 118.22: A tried stone, a precious cor­ner-stone, asure foundation, Esai. 28.26. Let me adde a little: Since Adam was made without the help of man or woman, and Eve came of man without woman: since all the whole world of rationall people proceed from both man and woman; it was con­venient enough, that there should be a miraculous and fourth kinde of generation, different from all the rest; namely, that Christ should come of a woman alone, without the assistance of man, that he might be free from originall sinne, which was first committed by Adam and his masculine brood, and not without his seed and the artifex spiritus in it.

In which regard (without derogation to the thrice-blessed Mother of our Lord, that holy-aeviternally Virgin Mary, now, next to her Sonne, the greatest Saint in heaven, and placed de­servedly above Angels and Archangels, Cherubims and Se­raphims) [Page 43]great Divines do make this difference; She, who was not begotten but by man, was subject to originall sinne; but her sonne, the Sonne of God, was free, even in his humane Nature, from all infection, originall and actuall, because in his framing there was no admisture of virile and masculine cooperation. For the poisoning of our nature arose from Adams sinne, and not from Eves. Moreover, if by miracle God should preserve a man from any touch or tickling smach of lustfull sinne in the act of generation, the fathers personall holines should not dis­charge his childe from originall mire: for the traducted nature is corrupt. Bell. De Amiss. gratiae & Statu peccati. 4.12. Bellarmine goes one step further, thus, If both man and woman, the children of Adam, by Gods singular priviledge were exempted from lust, in the generation of their children; yet should they transmit sinne to their ofspring. For though S. Augustine saith expresly, Non generationem, sed libidinem esse, quae pro­priè peccatum traducit. De peecat. Merit. & Remis. 1.9. that it is not the generation, but the lust, which properly transmits sinne: yet S. Augustine may be interpreted to speak of generations meerly usuall and wholy naturall, not priviledged or extraordinarie. Cursed therefore are the Pelagians, who say, Sinne and death entred by Eve. Sinne personall did, but not originall, nor death. Grosse is the ignorance of the Pelagians, who when the Apostle saith [...], think to delude it with this silly shift, that [...] signifieth either man or wo­man; and say it is not [...], which must needs have been un­derstood of Adam onely. I answer, [...] is fully equi­valent to [...], since [...] is not, and can not be understood of the feminine. Secondly, the Apostle maketh the Antithesis be­tween that [...] and Christ, which can not be between Eve and Christ. Thirdly, a little after the Apostle twice expresseth Adam, but never nameth or meaneth Eve. Lastly, it is said re­markably concerning Abraham, Hebr. 11.12, There sprang even of one, and him as good as dead, many. And more approaching to our purpose, Act. 17.26, God made all mankinde [...], of one bloud, with apparent reference to Adam onely. Therefore as the naturall generation is ascribed to Adam and Abraham onely, though Eve and Sara in their sort concurre to the mate­riall part of the embryon, because the Men do conferre the for­mall: so the degenerating unto vice is justly imputed to Adam onely, though Eve did minister the occasion; because his con­sent and action onely could give form and shape to that pro­digious sinne which overthrew mankinde.

5. From this point more questions may yet arise. First, If Adam & Eve had not sinned, but Cain or some other of their children, whether that sinne had been derived to their posteritie? Aquin. quaest. 5. De Malo art. 4. Aqui­nas is for the affirmative, others for the negative: Because the first man onely represented our whole nature, all other mens sinnes are par­ticular and personall, & can not infect others. Thus farre Scharpius.

I make a second Question. If Adam and Eve had continued [Page 44]in innocencie, and had been confirmed in grace, whether any of their children could have sinned?

Augustine embraceth the affirmative of this Question, say­ing, Aug. De Civit. 14.10. As happie as Adam and Eve were,—so happie had been the whole companie of mankinde, if they, nor no stirp of them committed sinne which should receive damnation. The same De Gen. ad lit. 9.3. elsewhere, The children which should have been begotten of innocent Adam and Eve, Ad eundem perduce­rentur statum, si omnes justè obedienterque vi­xissent. had been led to the same state, if they all had lived justly and obediently. Est. in 2. Sent. dist. 20. paragr. 5. Estius seconds him, alledging these reasons: First, Adam and Eve had not begotten children in better condition then themselves were created of God; therefore they should have begot just children, but not confirmed in justice. Secondly, Angels were not ordained to blessednes, but by the merit of their free-will to good or evill; and we are to think the like of men: Non priùs erantin ter­mino constituendi, quàm viae hujus curri­culum, quod est tempus merendi, peregissent. They were not to be settled in the end, till they had finished the course of this way, which is the time of meriting. Thirdly, Hugo and Lumbard say, God propound­ed to Adam and Eve invisible goods and eternall, to be sought by their merits, and ordained that by merit they might come to reward. Aquinas Aquin. part. 1. quaest. 100. art. [...]. determineth, That children born in the state of innocen­cie, had not been confirmed in justice: yae, Non videtur possibile, quòd pueri in statu in­nocentiae nascerentur in justitia confirmati. it seems not possible, that in the state of innocencie children should be born confirmed in justice. So Aquine, and Gregorie de Valentia on him.

A second way is taken by Abul. in Gen. 3. quaest. 6. & 7. Abulensis, and followed by Cath. in locum. Catharinus, viz. That if Adam had not sinned, his posteritie should have been confirmed in originall justice, but not in gra­tia gratum faciente, in saving grace. Where they do very ill, to set such inward friends so much at odds; for originall justice and gratia gratum faciens differ onely ratione, not re; and none could have one, that had not both, they being in the state of in­nocencie glued inseparably: but they had been born in gratia gratum faciente, saith Aquin. part. 1. quaest. 100. art. 1. ad. 2. Aquine. Therefore do I conclude, both with Aquine against them, that the posteritie of innocent A­dam had been born in gratia gratum faciente; and with them against Aquine, that they had been confirmed in originall justice.

Scotus seeing the inconveniences of Aquin's position, takes a third way, namely, That the posterity of just Adam should have been born both in justice and grace, but not confirmed till they had overcome their first temptation. Before I come to grapple with Scotus, I must first trie my strength against Aqui­nas; from whose position these three consequences do necessa­rily flow, as Est. in 2. Sent. dist. 20. Parag. 5. Estius his great disciple confesseth. First, that some of Adams children might have continued obedient, others might have been disobedient to God. Secondly, That the just children of innocent Adam should have been tempted by Sa­tan, not once onely, but often. Thirdly, That without tempta­tion they might have sinned, by their own will onely. Against [Page 45]the first consequence I thus argue. If some of innocent Adams children had sinned, should they have had any children or none? Not none; for the blessing of Crescite & Multiplicamini reached to all. Should their children then naturally have been good or bad? Not good and innocent; for that is not the issue of actually disobedient offenders. If they had been born wicked, then had their generations so been, and the generations from them to the Worlds end: and millions of souls had perished, which fell not in Adam, but in and by their other parents; which cros­seth the main current of Divinitie. For Adam onely represen­ted all mankinde, and in him onely were we to stand or fall. A­dam in Paradise, even before his sinne, was a Type of Christ, (compare Genes. 2.24. with Ephes. 5.30, &c.) and stood idea­liter for us all. See Rom. 5.12, &c. He was [...]. A­damerat nos omnes, & nos omnes eramus ille unus Adam. By A­quins consequence more first Adams are set up, by which man­kinde might have fallen; and so more second Adams to restore them. But by one man came death, and by the bloud of onely one are we redeemed. Again, if innocent Adams just children, though unconfirm'd, had begot just unconfirmed children, & yet after that generation these unconfirm'd fathers had sinned; what children should they have begot after their sinne? should the same father have brought forth life and death? good children and bad? and seen some of his children happie, and himself and other children miserable? And suppose the mothers had sinned, and not the fathers; should the mothers have been in the stead of the first Adam? should the children have fallen in them, or no? A third absurditie followeth from Aquins position, namely, That the righteous should have begotten not one con­stantly righteous, from the beginning to the Worlds end: but everie one that had sinned, should have begotten sinfull children for ever. And so, for one that had continued righteous and been tranlated, millions might have been sinners, and died. Lastly, no one man had been certain of his salvation any time of his life, though he had lived never so long, and never so justly; which yet, even in statu lapso, hath been granted to some few.

Against the second consequence from Aquins doctrine, viz. That even the just children of innocent Adam should have been tempted by Satan, not once, but often, I oppose these de­mands: How many times are included in the word often? or when should there have been an end of tempting? If at any set time of their life; why at that time, and never before nor after? If they should have been tempted all the dayes of their life, the felicitie of Eden might have been more troubled, and fluid then the waters of it; and I might justly say, O poore Paradise, un­setled integritie, provoked or tempted innocence, tremulous estate; where Satan the stronger had power alwaies to tempt, and malice [Page 46]enough to charge home with cunning, and man the weaker had power alwaies to fall.

The third consequence is somewhat questionable, as infer­ring, that all and every of Mankinde, even without any temp­tation, might have sinned by their own will onely; making the happines of Paradise worse then our present unhappines, where man sinneth not but, being tempted either by Satan, or his own concupiscence, Jam. 1.14. For all the evill thoughts of our will are truly divided into Immissas & ascendentes. injected and ascending; and none of the ascending have been in the will before they were in the understanding, and nothing hath been in the understanding that hath not been in the senses. Besides, death was to be in­flicted, not for the sinne of the will onely, or meerly, but for the eating of the forbidden fruit.

These or the like, or worse inconveniences, perhaps, made Scotus to varie from Aquine, and more probably to defend, That upon triumph over their first temptation, every one of the children of innocent Adam had been confirmed in grace. We may not yeeld this, saith Estius. And it is not true, and there is no reason for it, and it little agreeth with the commination, In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die, Genes. 2.17, saith Gregorie de Valentia. I answer, That the words In the day may prove, that they might not have been tempted the first or second day, or in a short time; but they hinder not, but upon overcoming of their first temptation, they might every day after have been confirmed. Again, the commination was not spoken to Adam, as an individuall person, but to him as the Feoffee of mankinde. If every one should have stood for him­self and his posteritie, what is Adams sinne more to me then Cains, or my last and immediate fathers first actuall sinne, if neither Adam, nor any of his children had sinned before mine own father? But since we did fall, not personally in our selves, not in our immediate parents, not in any but Adam, by the breach of that commination: so on the contrarie, not by any other parents obedience, not by our own obedience, but by the obedience of that one man unto that one commination, we should have stood, yea have been confirmed. Thus have you mine opinion against Scotus, much more against Aquinas: and this is my reason. Naturally, by the blessing of ordinarie gene­ration, every creature was to beget its like according to kinde: the branch was to partake of the vertue and nature of the root; and so, without Adams representing us, he should have begot us in such an estate as he himself was, with a libertie to good and evill, with a power to fall or not fall. But as Gods infinite wisdome chose him out, with expresse or tacit compact, that if he stood, all his posteritie should live in him; and if he sinned, they should all die in him: it seemeth reasonable, that we should [Page 47]have had as much good by him, as we have had harm from him, and he being to have been confirmed in grace, upon the overcoming of the first suggestion, should have begot us his children, not voluble, deambulatory, and pendulous, but like himself confirm'd in grace. For as the Angels were confirm'd in grace, so soon as they had declar'd them-selves to adhere to God; (or els, when were they confirm'd, or are they not confir­med yet? Statim post unum act­um charitate informa­tum Angelus beatus fuit. Aquin. part. 1. quaest. 62. art. 5. Presently after one act informed with charitie the An­gels were blessed, saith Aquine) so should Adam have been confir­med presently, if he had powerfully adhered to God. Yea, I think if he had but at that first suggestion disliked Eves eating, or rather kept her and himself from consenting to the eating, that nor they, nor any of their posterity should ever have eaten of the forbidden fruit. But as it was placed at first in Paradise, to be their Shibboleth of triall, so ever after it should have continued as a Symbol onely of their obedience. Again, by this my opinion, That all Adams issue should have been confirmed in his confirmation, Gods justice is defended from aspersions cast upon it, for damning some little children for the sinne of Adam, which sinne they did neither commit nor could avoid. And the fault of not avoiding it was no way arising from them; because they who can not avoid certain damnation by Adam, might also have received as certain salvation by him, without their own victorie over any temptation; which could not be, unlesse by his confirmed innocency every one of his issue had been confirm'd in grace. Anselmus cometh home to my thoughts, saying thus, Anselm. lib. 1. Cur Deus homo. cap. 18. The first men yeelding to the tempta­tion have subjected all mankinde that was to be born of them, Primi homines suc­cumbentes temptationi, totum genus humanum ex ipsis nasciturum subjecerunt necessitati peccati. Quare si eam temptationem superâs­sents & ipsi statim illi­us victoriae merito fuis­sent in justitia confir­mati, & idem confirma­tae justitiae beneficium ad totam posteritatem transmisissent. to the necessitie of sinne. Therefore if they had overcome that temptation, they had both themselves been presently confirmed in righteousnes by the merit of that victorie, and had also transmitted to the whole posteritie the same benefit of confirmed righteousnes. Estius answe­reth Anselm thus; The way is easier to the necessity of evill, then of good; as to incurable diseases, rather then to a stable health. I reply thus on Estius, That his instances are in decaied nature, which reach not to our point; That the way was equally alike at first to Adam; or rather easier to goodnes, in which he was, then to sin in which he was not: yea, in this our present infeebled estate, one habitually grounded in vertue shall finde the passage over unto sinne more difficult, perplexing, thorny, and laborious, then the continuing in goodnes. Out of Scotus his doctrine let me observe three points. First, he confesseth Omnes nati servâssent justitiam, non quia non servare non potuissent. All their children had kept their righteousnes, not because they could not but keep it. So they could have sinned, but should not, in his opinion. But are not they confirm'd, who though they could sinne, yet should not be suffered to sinne? Secondly, this confirmation in grace, being a supernaturall gift, had not been transfused by Adam, [Page 48]but superadded by God unto every one, as well as the gift of originall justice and grace. I should have asked no more of Sco­tus, if he had said it should have been given to us of God, not for our personall vanquishing the first temptation, but for our obedience in Adam, according to Gods compact with him. Thirdly, confirmation in grace is of two sorts, one fitting to the state of a Comprehensor, or of supreme glorification. This con­firmation at its height and in its excellence, nor Adam him­self, if he had stood, nor his innocent issue should have had, till their terrene bodies had been translated into spirituall. The other confirmation agreeth with a Viator, which is not without a possibilitie of sinne, but having infallible custodie, that he shall not sinne mortally. This (saith Scotus, and the Scholium on him) Adams innocent issue should have had. But could they, being confirm'd, have sinned venially? Let me adde two specu­lations more. First, God could not make a creature in which there should not sometime be a peccabilitie, since that is a pro­pertie onely of the Almightie. If that tying of Gods hand seem harsh to any unconversant in the Schools, I mitigate it thus, by the like instance out of Scal. Exercit. 249. in fine. Scaliger, When unto any thing God by his infinite powerfull perfection doth adde perfection, he must at last surcease from bettering it, and come to a NIL VLTRA: for he can not make ENS ESSENTIA INFINITVM, a thing of infinite es­sence; for he should make another God. Which words you must not un­derstand, as if we stinted Gods Almightie power, but rather thus, That God can alwayes better any thing, even to infinitie; but the crea­ture and thing it self is not susceptible of that infinitie; the imperfecti­on resting not in God, but in the creature. To that effect Scali­ger: and it may be aptly applied to the making of a creature simply impeccable. Secondly, God did make Adam with a full free-will, and a power to sinne or not to sinne. Our will was in his, and, without offence to the Schools, as in him we were in a sort and in one kinde Viatores, before his fall; so if he had stood, wee had been, as he himself should, in a lesser de­gree, Comprehensores. For though Aquine maketh but simply singlie one confirmation in grace, yet Scotus maketh a twofold confirmation: and though Scotus saith, Viator & Comprehensor distinguuntur, sicut esse circa terminum & esse in termino; yet there is a just distinction between Esse in termino completè, & esse in termino incompleté. Christ in some sense may be said to have been both Viator and Comprehensor. If Adam had been confir­med ere he fell, he had been in some degree Comprehensor: so had we; and yet both he and we should have been in some sort Viatores in termino incompleto, as not having obtained life un­changeable, and bodies spirituall, which was to be the com­pleatorie perfection of humane blisse. More arguments might I use, but they may be gathered in the answers unto the objecti­ons before cited.

And first, the great S. Augustine hath many observable pas­sages to this point. First, That onely Adam was made of earth: that this gradation is not required, namely; that he should be first created a childe, then become a youth, then a man, De Genes. ad literam 6.13. And in the Chapter following, Creditur factus Adam virili aetate, sine ullo progr [...]ssu incremento­rum. Adam is thought to have been made in mans age, without any growth or further in­crease. And more resolvedly, De peccatorum Merit. & Remiss. 2.27. Quod pertinet ad cor­poris quantitatem, A­dam non factus est p [...]r­vulus, sed perfectâ mole membrorum. As for the quantitie of body, Adam was not made little, but of a perfect bignesse of members. Secondly, in the last cited place Augustine maketh this Quaere, If Adam and Eve had not sinned, Whether their young children should have been able to go, speak, or the like? And he answereth, Perhaps it was necessaric they should be born little, according to the capacitie of the wombe: but as God made Eve no little woman of a little rib, so the omnipotent Creator might have made their little children newly born, presently to be great: Even many beasts, a while after they are born, runne and follow after their dammes; much more might he have done for men, and given them even present use of their members. Thirdly, though Lombard rather inclineth to them who say, that the new-born children of innocent Adam should have growen by degrees, and not have been presently able to exercise their limmes: though accordingly he inclineth to them, who think that those innocent infants upon their birth should have had little sense or understanding, but by time should acquire proficiencie and perfection; yet I rather imagine, they should presently upon their birth have had perfect use of body and minde, (though I deny not experimentall augmentations) both because there is a nearer resemblance unto Adam, who was so created, and a further distance & dissimilitude from the estate of our corrupt­ed nature, which creepeth sensim, pedetentim, & gradatim, by little and little, and is incompetent to the perfection of inno­cencie. Yea Estius himself fighteth against Lombards discourse, and saith, Innocent Adams children should have had use of rea­son from their very nativitie, and perhaps even in their mothers wombe should have had some small knowledge of God: and confirm­eth his opinion by Augustine De peccat. Merit. & Remiss. lib. 1. Cap. 36. & lib. 2. Cap. 29. and Confess. 1.7. and De Civit. 22.22. Where (saith he) Augustine speaketh not of an habituall knowledge onely, but of the act and use of knowledge. Therefore if Augustine were not to be expounded, as he is by Halensis, of confirmation in obedience upon the first temptation; yet they will get little footing by that learned Fathers authoritie, if they wil weigh one place with an other, which are hereafter to be ci­ted out of him; to which, that I may shortē this point, I refer you.

I come now unto Estius, who had his first reason from A­quine & Scotus. Adam & Eve (say they) had not begotten children in a better condition then themselves were created by God; there­fore [Page 50]they should have begot just children, but not confirmed in grace. First, I answer, that though God made all things very good at the creation, yet he might after (if he would) and may yet (if he will) make things better then they were at the creation. Se­condly, Stapl. De Peccato O­riginali lib. 1. cap. 15. Stapleton quoteth this from Augustine, Primus homo laetio­rem, nos potentiorem gratiam accepimus. The first man did receive a more pleasant grace, we a more powerfull. Nei­ther doth Whitaker dislike this, though he confute much of that Chap. of Stapleton: Now, if we in this forlorn estate have more powerfull grace then Adam, why not in that estate? Thirdly, though the children of innocent Adam might have more grace intensively then he, yet Adam had had more exten­sively: for his righteousnes had benefitted the whole World, theirs had redounded but to their own persons. Fourthly, let us take a more distinct view of their severall gifts. Adam recei­veth originall justice, to stand (if he would) for himself and the whole World: his issue receive by his standing this grace more then he had at first, (though he had it before he begot them) that they cannot fall by themselves as he might. As for this, that their children should not fall, but that all their generation should have been confirmed in grace, it proceedeth not from their immediate parents, but from Adam as the root. Now then, weigh in a balance these two graces together (which the Schoolmen neglected) certainly the grace given unto Adam was (all things considered) more powerfull, more abundant. As if God should give, in present possession, unto one man enough of worldly wealth, to serve sufficiently, yea abundant­ly for himself and his seed for ever, if he would husband it well. Secondly, if after this God should superadde unto his sonne, this gift more then he gave unto the father at first, name­ly, this grace, that he should not have power to diminish this wealth, for so much as concerned his own person; which of these two, the father or the sonne, had the greater gift? I doubt not but Calculator would hold, that the father had. Again, if A­dā had begot children beforeever he had seen the tree of good and evill, as was possible, he had begot children as himself was created, just, but unconfirmed. The conclusion of Aquin part. 1. quaest. 100. art. 2. In corpore articuli. Aquine, or extracted out of Aquine, is unworthie of him, and so are his own words, Parentes quandiu ge­nerâssent, non fuissent confirmati in just it ia: ex hoc enim creatura rationalis in justitia confirmatur, quòd effi­citur beata per apertam Dei visionem. So long as the parents had begotten, they had not been confirmed in justice: for hence is a reasonable creature confirmed in justice, that it is made happy by the open sight of God. I answer, that the beatificall vision is the complement, perfection, and boundarie of all confirmation in justice: but there may be a kinde of confirmation in justice without the beatificall, present, apert vision of God, or such as shall be in the state glorified. For since Aquine there confesseth, That the thrice holy Mother of our Holiest All-holy Saviour might by especiall priviledge gene­rate, and yet enjoy the apert vision of God, I see not why Adam [Page 51]and Eve continuing innocent might not do the like, or beget children confirmed in grace, and yet generate; which he denieth. Because the supposed priviledge of the All-gracious Virgin doth not derogate from the glorie of our most blessed Redeemer, I will not contradict it; though it maketh her more perfect then God made Adam and Eve in their integritie. Lastly, why might not generating parents be confirmed in grace, when in the act there should have been no turpitude, no salacious motion, no lascivious titillation; and those members might have been used without any itch of tick­lish pleasure, as our hands and feet and some other parts are now? Reade S. Augustine De Civit. 14.24. and 26. most fully of these things. Unto Estius his second reason, which is this, Angels were not ordained to blessednes, but by the merit of their free­will; and man was not first to be placed at the goal or end, but in the way: I answer, Every Angel was to stand or fall by his own pro­per actuall free-will. Man was unlike to them therein; Adams actuall consent for us, stood exactly for the actuall consent of each Angel; for no Angel fell in Lucifer, as we did in Adam. But to the second branch of his argument, I confesse with A­quine, Anim a hominis & Angelussimiliter ad bea titudin [...]m ordinantur. The soul of man and an Angel are alike ordained to blessed­nes. The way was necessarie before the goal, the means before the end. But I must adde, Adam was in the way, and we in the way by him and in him! and as he brought us out of the way by his straying by-path, so by his undeviation we had been kept in the way. More might be added, but the Question hath swollen above its banks already. I must be brief, though I be obscure.

What Hugo and Lombard require, was performed by A­dam for us. Though Estius in this point maketh God like an hard task-master, and man a meer journy-man; yet much was given to him who deserved little; even for one onely, and the easiest houres work. So might God have done to us for his pro­mise unto Adams obedience for us. In that estate, perhaps, he needed no merit challenging due reward; as there shall be no new recompense for desert, after we are glorified. But if merit had had place, it might after confirmation in grace have procu­red speedier translation to an unchangeable life; & the acciden­tals of beatitude might have been increased in us, as they shall be in the Angels of light, though long since they were confir­med in grace.

Scotus objecteth, The children of innocent Adam should have been Viatores, in the way to happines; therefore they might have been sinners. I answer, Viator is considered accor­ding to a twofold estate. First, for him that walketh in a slippery and dangerous way, where he may be in or out. Thus was Adam Viator, thus were we Viatores in Adam before his fall, and thus we could have sinned, yea did sinne; which is [Page 52]more then Scotus his argument evinceth. Secondly, Viator is taken according to the estate of him who walketh in a good sure way, where no by-path can be made. Thus we being confir­med should have been Viatores, and yet could not have been sin­ners; and herein we had been like to blessed Angels; yea the same man might have been Viator in one regard, and Compre­hensor in an other respect at the same time. So was Christ, so had Adam and his children been upon confirmation in good­nes; not that they should have had that plenitude of compre­hension which is to be enjoyed after the generall judgement, but such a comprehension which had been agreeable to that present estate, (though susceptible of degrees, and capable of more perfection) where Comprehensor is synonymous with bea­tus onely, but not beatissimus. The same Scotus further reaso­neth thus:

I answer, The confirmation had rather been from Gods gra­cious promise to Adam and his seed, then from any merit pro­perly so called. Secondly, The graces of Christ exhibited in the Sacraments of initiation and corroboration shall draw us up to an infallible confirmation in the estate of glorie; where we shall have more comfort, delight, and good by Christ, then we had harm by Adam, if he had not fallen: of which hereafter.

To some arguments and authorities for my opinion, some an­swers are shaped by the Schoolmen. I will loose the argument from S. Gregorie, because it ingendereth more questions, when this is too copiously handled already.

Anselm speaketh home for me, if ever man spake; Aquinas saith, He did it opining, not affirming: Yet he saw the reason which induced Anselm to that Assertion. Scotus also slub­bereth over the authoritie of Anselm, winking, as it seemeth, when he should have read the direct words. Dion. De Divinis Nominibus cap. 4. Dionysius saith, Bonum est potentius malo: Good hath more power and vertue then evill. But (say I) for the sinne of the first man came a necessitie of sinning upon all his children; Therefore if he had stood, there should have been a necessitie of not sinning. Scotus an­swereth in the first place, as if Dionysius were to be understood of a great Evill, and a little Good, which plainely that Father never meant. Secondly, he jumpeth in sense with Aquine, and both do answer, That we are not so necessitated to sinning, that we can not return to justice, and Adams sinne was not cause of our confir­mation in evill. I reply, we are so necessitated by our nature, that of our selves and from our selves we can not return to justice. We are obstinate and confirmed in evill, in regard of our own [Page 53]disabilities; though not confirmed in evill, nor obstinate, if we consider the powerfull mercy of God. And this is enough to make the argument hold good. There should have been a ne­cessitie of not sinning of our part; otherwise, Evill should have been more powerfull then Good, which is the contradictorie to Dionysius. For we can not but sinne of our selves, and are obsti­nate; though we are not so obstinate as the damned, nor should have been so confirmed by Adam as the glorified shall be.

Unto our argument drawn from the similitude of Angelicall reward, Aquinas answereth, Men and Angels are not alike. I reply, We were both like in some things, and unlike in other: but in this we had been like, That as the Angels were confirmed presently upon their first obedience, so had Adam been confir­med, and we in him. For God loved not Man worse then the Angels; For Christ verily took not on him the nature of Angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham, Heb. 2.16. Scotus yeeldes himself captive to the force of this reason, save onely that he opineth, That every one of Adams children should, as well as Adam, have been confirmed in grace, upon their actuall over­coming of the first temptation suggested unto them; whereas I maintain, That Adams representation of us, and his obedience, should have done us equall good, to our resisting of the first temptation.

More might pertinently be said of this matter: but besides the precedent tediousnesse of it, Ludovicus Vives aurem vellit, endeavouring to restrain such speculations to modest bounds. Thus he saith on Augustine De Civit. 13.1. Of things which might, or might not have happened to man, if Adam had not fallen; Quid factum sit, magno nostro malo, ne­mo ignorat; quid fuisset, nescio an ipsi Adam ostensum fuit; quantò minùs nobis misellis? Nam quid prodest uti conjecturis, in re quae conjecturas omnes su­perat humanas? What fell out, to our great harm, no man is ignorant of: what should have befallen, I know not whether it was revealed to Adam him­self; how much lesse to us poore wretches? For what availeth it to use conjectures, in a thing which is above all humane conjectures? But Vives himself is to blame. First, for his nesciencie, or time­rousnesse; as if Adam knew not, what estate he and his should have had, if he had persevered in innocency. The ignorance of a point so nearely concerning him, had argued imperfection; which the fulnes of knowledge, in which he was created, did clearly dispell. For if God said to the corrupted World, Deut. 30.19. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you Life and Death, could uncorrupt Adam be ignorant of the life that was set before him? Or did Adam un­derstand the miseries and punishments, the orts and effects of Morte Morieris, expressely threatned against him, in a future contingent estate; and could he be ignorant of his present con­dition of blisse, and certain blisse to be increased upon his obe­dience? Did he know the natures of beasts, and other creatures; could he know the strange production of Eve, could he pro­phetically [Page 54]intimate the strict union of Christ with his Church, by his own conjunction with Eve; and was it not shewed unto him, what state he should have had, and we in him? Secondly, though these things be taxed of nicetie, yet the impartiall Reader, overviewing this Book, perhaps will say, It was profi­table and delightfull to problematize even upon this very point. But other matters invite me hence forward to them; and therefore having cleared, That it was the sinne of Adam, of onely Adam, and not of Eve, for which Death was appointed, Let us proceed to examine, Which and what this sinne of Adam was; which is next and necessarily to be handled.

O Most glorious Creator, who did'st make us in the First Adam excellent Creatures, and wouldest have made us better, if he who un­dertook for us, had not brought upon us death and de­struction; Grant, I beseech thee, for thy mercies sake, in the Merit and Mediation of the Second Adam, Je­sus Christ our onely Saviour, That we may recover our lost Image, and be made like unto him here, and reigne in Life with him hereafter.

CHAP. IIII.

1 LOmbard saith, Quibusdam videtur quòd Adam ante lapsum non habuerit virtutem. Lomb. Sent 2. dist. 29. lit. B. Some are of opinion that Adam before the fall had no vertue. He had not ju­stice (say they) because he despised Gods commandement; nor prudence, because he provided not for himself; nor temperance, for his appetite extended to the forbidden fruit; nor fortitude, for he yeelded to suggestion. We answer, saith Lombard, He had not these vertues when he sinned, but before, and in sinning losed them. For Augustine in a certain Homily saith, Adam was made accor­ding to the Image of God, armed with shamefastnesse, composed with temperance, splendent with charitie. Otherwhere he saith, Adam was endued with a spirituall minde. Ambrose saith, Beatissimus erat, & auram carpebat aethere­am. He was most happy, and led an heavenly life; and addeth a good observation, Quando Adam solus erat, non est praevarica­tus. When Adam was alone, he transgressed not. Which may teach us to fear the enticements of companie. This point deserveth not to be so speedily cast off: and therefore attend this further en­largement.

Many, very many precepts were graven in the heart of Adam, and every branch of the naturall Law was there written by the finger of God, at his Creation; nor was he ignorant, what was to be done or omitted in any businesse. Eccl. 17.1. The Lord created man of the earth: and verse 2. he changeth the [Page 56]singular into the plural, He gave them power over the things therein: and verse 3. He endued them with strength by themselves, and made them according to his image: And then followeth an ex­cellent description of their gifts. I conceive, and explain the matter thus: Foure faculties he had, and we have of our souls,

• Two superior.
• Two inferior.

The two superior are understanding and will; The two infe­rior, the part irascible and part concupiscible. First, the object of his understanding was truth, the perfection of it was know­ledge: but now, as we are in the state decaied, this truth is darkned with ignorance, 1 Corinth. 2.14. The naturall man re­ceiveth not, nor can know the things of the Spirit of God. Eph. 4.18. Their understanding is darkned, and their hearts are blinde. Psal. 49.20. Man in honour understandeth not. As Adam was in inno­cencie, he was partaker of the truth. The Apostle, Ephes. 4.23, 24. saith, Be renewed in the spirit of your minde. New we were once in Adam, and in him also we grew old: we are commanded to be renewed as new as once we were; and put on that new man, which was created in righteousnesse and holinesse of truth; therefore the first Adam was created in truth. You have the object, Truth; the perfection was Knowledge, Ecclesiasticus 17.7. God filled them with knowledge and understanding: and this is seconded by the Apostle, Colos. 3.10. The new man is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him. Renovation necessarily im­plieth precedent oldnes; and oldnes, precedent newnes of knowledge in the first Adam. Secondly, the object of mans will, was, and is, Goodnesse; the perfection, Love. In the decayed estate the will is infected with vanitie, Genes. 6.5. Every imagi­nation of the thoughts of his heart was onely evill continually. Ephes. 4.17. We walk in the vanitie of our minde. In the state of integritie it was farre otherwise: Adam was new in his minde, and holy and righteous, as was proved before: in which regard Chrys. Hom. 16. in Gen. Chrysostom saith, Adam was a terrestriall Angel. Bas. Homil. Quòd Deus non sit author malorum. Basil rec­koneth up, as Adams chief good in Paradise, His sitting with God, and conjunction by love. As all things els, so Adams will was good, and tended unto good; there is the object: his love in innocencie was entire, and united to God; there was his perfe­ction. Thirdly, the object of his, and our part concupiscible, is moderate delight: the perfection and felicitie of it, was content­ment. As now, this part is gauled with insatiable itchings, and given over to lasciviousnesse, to work all uncleannesse with greedines, Ephes. 4.19. But at the first Adam was free. Augustine saith, Gratia Dei ibi magna er [...]t, vbi terrenum & animale corpus bes [...]ia­lem libidinem non habe­bat. There the grace of God was great, where an earthy and sensuall body had no beastly lust. The place he was in, was a Paradise of pleasure, a garden of delight; nothing was wanting which might give true content. Fourthly, the object of his and our irascible part may in a sort be called Difficulty, or rather Con­stancy; [Page 57]whose glory of endeavours, end, and felicitie, was Vi­ctorie. This part now is much weakned with infirmitie. In the best of us, the Flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and (alas!) we are often vanquished, as being weak by nature: But Adam was strong, and could have overcome any temptation. Augustine saith, Felices erant primi homines, nullis agita­bantur perturbatio, ibus animorum, nullis corpo­ris laedebantur incom­modis. De Civit. 14.10. Our first parents were happy, being neither shaken with any trouble of minde, nor hurt with any infirmitie of body. Adam non opus habe­bat eo adjutorio quod implorant isti, cùm di­cunt, Video aliam le­gem in membris meis, &c. Lib. De Corrept. & Gratia. Adam had no need of that help which these crave, when they say, I see another law in my members, &c. Yea he is more bold there, saying, Adam in illis bonis, in quibus creatus est Christ morte non [...]guit. Ibid. Adam in those good things wherein he was created, had no need of Christs death. He had, with libertie and will, grace sufficient, whereby he might have triumphed over all difficulties and temptations. Augustine thus, In Paradiso etiamsi omnia non poterat A­dam ante peccatum, quicquid tum non pote­rat non volebat, & ideo poterat omnia quae vo­lebat. De Civit. 14.15. In Paradise before sinne although Adam could not do all things, yet he then would not do whatsoever he could not, and therefore could do all that he would. Adam ha­ving these excellent endowments of nature and grace, had also necessarily certain objects, about which they should be con­versant. These objects were, all the parts, and branches of the Law of nature, whereby he fully knew his dutie. And all and every one of these he did for a while, or at the least not break: and he and his posteritie should, and ought to fulfill, as they were private persons: and for the performance and non-per­formance thereof, both he and we should, and shall answer unto God, at the high Throne and Tribunall of the just and righteous Judge.

2. But there was one precept, and onely one, given to Eve, (perhaps to all Adams posteritie, as private persons: who, if they had eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evill, can not be imagined, that they could have ruinated all mankinde:) but commanded to Adam onely, as the publick person, as the Idea of humane nature, as the stock and root, by whose obedience or disobedience all mankinde was to be hap­pie or unhappie, as the figure of Christ to come. And this sin was not to be a sin of thought onely, as the sin of the Angels, who each of them sinned by his own expressed will; but such a sinne, as might bring a deserved blot, and punishment upon all his posteritie, who were in him: which could not be, unles it had been committed both by his soul and his body, and thereby had power to infect all the parts, and faculties both of souls and bodies. Again, the body of Adam could not sinne without the soul, neither could this be a sinne of the soul alone, without some concurrents of the bodily parts; for then Adams sinning soul should have been damned, and his innocent bodie saved: but it was to be a sinne compounded of inward aversion and outward transgression. So that if Adam had seen Eve eat, and had himself lusted after the fruit, and yet before the orall man­ducation had disliked his liking, had feared the punishment, [Page 58]and not proceeded to eat of it, or touch it, I do not think his po­steritie had been engaged, as they are. Augustine citeth this out of S. Ambrose, and approveth it, Si anima Adami appe­tentiam corporis refra­nâsset in ipso ortu, ex­tincta esset origo peccati. Cont. Julian. Pelag. lib. 2. If Adams soul had bridled the bodily appetite in the very beginning, the originall of sinne had been quenched.

Catharinus thinketh there was an expresse covenant be­tween God and Adam, that Adam and his posteritie should be blessed or cursed, according to the breaking or keeping of that one law. What Catharinus saith is probable, and may be most true, though it be not so written. For first, if the prohibition had concerned Adams person onely, since the precept was gi­ven before Eve was created, Adam onely should have tasted of death, and not Eve. Secondly, questionlesse that law and co­venant included posteritie, as is verified in the event. When Morte Morieris was threatned unto Adam, he was then Rectus in Curia, and stood as a publique person, representing all his branches. If it concerned him, as a private person, he onely should personally have died, and we escaped: but our dying in him evinceth, that he was reputed (if I may so say) a generall, universall feoffee or person, to whose freewill the happie or unhappie future estate of all his descendants was intrusted; con­ditionally, to live for ever, upon the observance of one law; or to die the death, for the breach of it. Life and death was pro­pounded, † Non uni, sed universi­tati. Not to one man, but to all mankinde.

3. And this law is registred, and recorded, Genes. 2.17. Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evill thou shalt not eat; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Which words I verily beleeve that Adam understood (either by his naturall wisedome, which was very great, or by divine conference or revelation, which to him was not unfrequent) to involve his po­steritie as well as himself. For if immediatly upon the creation of woman, Adam could foresee and prophesie, Genes. 2.24. That a man shall leave his Father and Mother, and cleave to his wife; and they two shall be one flesh: and by the same words, per­haps, understand Christ and his Church, and that mysterie ex­plained by S. Paul, Ephes. 5.31, &c. (those being the words of Adam, as † Epiph. Contr a Ptole­maîtas. Epiphanius saith, of Adam speaking unto God, speaking the truth of God; and in this respect (as I conceive) Christ saith, Matth. 19.4, &c. these words are the words of God, of the Creator; as all light is from the Sunne, so all truth from God; as on the contrarie, all lies are from the Devill) I say, if Adam could foresee marriages, generations, cohabitations, mysteries, and future usances; he could not be ignorant, that that law was given him to keep to the blisse of all mankinde, and the contempt thereof would draw on the destruction of his posteritie. And (I think) I shall not erre, if I collect from the correlative correspondencie, which must be between the Type [Page 59]and the Antitype, the shadow and the substance, That the first Adam knew his [...] or disobedience was sufficient to bring destruction on all mankinde, as the second Adam knew that his [...] or obedience, was a sufficient redemption for the sinnes of all the World. Durand foolishly presupposeth, that the will of Adam sinning was ours onely concomitativè & interpre­tativè, because we lost originall justice, when Adam finned, beyond his thoughts or intentions. Stap. De Originali Peccato 1.9. Stapleton saith truly, If Adam intended no such thing with an actuall intention, yet he did it with a virtuall intention. But I rather think, that the word If may be cut off, and we may say, Adam did, as Esau afterward, prefer temporals before spirituals, and as all the sonnes of Adam do at one time or other; for he was not ignorant of the danger, yet embraced it: and he might say within himself, — Video meliora, probóque, Deteriora sequor— Aug. De Gen. ad lit. 11.18. Augustine hath this wittie Quaere, Whether Adam and Eve foreknew their fall? For if he did before hand know that he should sinne, and that God would revenge it, whence could he be happie? and so he was in Paradise, yet not happie. If he did not foreknow his fall; then by this ignorance he was either uncertain of that blessednesse; and how was he then truly blessed? or certain by a false hope, and not by a right knowledge; and then how was he not a fool? I answer, They did not know that they should fall, or sinne; for there was no necessitie laid upon them; and to know the unalterable certaintie of a thing contingent (as their future estate was) is to take away the nature of its contingencie, and to make it unavoidable. But for all this ignorance, they were certain enough of blessednesse, if they would themselves; and their wills and persons were in Paradise blessed, though changeable, though not so wholy blessed as good Angels are, or as the Saints shall be. For if we say, Nothing is blessed but what hath attained absolute certainty, and the height of bles­sednesse; the very blessed Spirits of heaven shall not be said to be blessed, especially if they be compared with God, who onely is blessed. And so Adam and Eve were beati modo quodam in­feriori, non tamen nullo, that I answer in Augustines words. Again, to the former part of this Question I answer, That they knew before hand that they could sinne, and that God would punish them, if they did sinne; and yet for all this, they had the grace given to stand, if they would, and so to avoid both sinne and punishment; and withall they knew that they had that grace. But if before hand they had known, or could have known that they should have sinned, they could not have been happie in Paradise, yet, as they were in Paradise, they were happie, though they knew not that they should fall. For if men on earth may be called Saints, Saints of light, Blessed, (as they are often) and Spirituall, Galat. 6.1, though they were in their [Page 60]bodies to passe through both temptations and tribulations, and can not divers times but fall: much more Adam might be term­ed Blessed in Paradise, who though he saw he might fall, yet he saw also he might have stood; and so rejoyced, saith Augustine himself, for the reward to come, that he endured no tribulation for the present. Lastly, to S. Augustines three-headed Dilemma I answer by distinguishing. There is a threefold ignorance. The first is pravae dispositionis, when one is prepossessed with a false opinion, excluding knowledge: this may be called positive igno­rance, or plain errour. The second is ignorantia privationis, when a man knoweth not what he is bound to know: neither of these can consist with blessednesse, nor was in innocent Adam. But there is a third, viz. ignoratio simplicis nescientiae, when we know not such things as we need not to know. This was in Adam, and is in good Angels: yea Christ himself knew not some things. This ignorance is not sinfull, nor erronious, not making either imaginarily happie, or foolish.

This great law, in Tertullians phrase is stiled Lex primordialis, ge­neralis, & quasi matrix omnium praeceptorum Dei. The Mother­law, breeding all other laws: which had been sufficient for them, if they had kept it, saith he. Aug. De Civit. 14.12 Augustine and Chrys. Homil. 41. in Acta Apost. Chrysostom agree in this, That Adams first sinne onely maketh us culpable. † Chrys. in Ephes. 6. Chryso­stom calleth it [...]. The first sinne. Augustin saith that Prima duntaxat Adae transgressio transit in posteros, quia illo primo peccato universa naturae corrupta est. Cont. Ju­lian. 3.6. Onely the first transgression of Adam is passed upon the poste­ritie, because the whole nature is corrupted by that first sinne. There­fore when a childe is born, he hath originall sinne, and death the wages thereof annexed as due to it; not because he is a crea­ture, not because he is a person, not because he is a person of mankinde or humane nature, not because he descended from his immediate or mediate parents, not because they came from Eve, not onely because he was in the loyns of Adam, of sinning or sinfull Adam; but because he was in Adam when he first sin­ned, and implicitly gave his consent to the committing of that first transgression, and that primarie aversion which hath led us astray ever since.

4. Some have held, that Eve sinned before she talk­ed with the Serpent. So Rup. lib. 3. De Ope­rib. Trinit. in Gen. cap. 5. Rupertus and Ferus in Gen. 3. Ferus. But certainly she sinned before Adam, & being carried headlong with the Bonū apparens, did little imagine to work so much mischief. Had she known that her husbands yeelding should necessarily and infal­libly bring forth death to him and all his posteritie, and after that have offered him the forbidden fruit, she had been full of deceit, and her intentions had been stained with the just asper­sion of seducement. But she might think her sinne was little or none, and perswade herself she should not die, and relate that perswasion to her husband; or think onely of Gods mercy, who had never tasted of his judgements. And, perhaps, he seeing that she had touched the fruit, and was not dead, sunk under [Page 61]her enticements, and did eat. Before I part with this point, two questions more must needs be answered. First, Whe­ther Eve sinned the same sinne with Adam? Secondly, Whe­ther of their sinnes were the greatest? Concerning the first, I answer, In regard that both of them knew, that to eat of the forbidden fruit was unlawfull and displeasing to God, and yet did eat, they sinned the same sinne: but as the commandment was given to Adam before Eves creation, as Adam was the root of mankinde, and as his posterity was to stand or fall in him onely, and not in Eve, so she sinned not the same sinne with Adam. She sinned the same sinne, in respect of the outward eat­ing, not in regard of the inward obligation: She sinned the same sin in se, so much as concerned her own person; she sinned not the same sinne extensivè erga alios. For as her good actions, con­sidered by themselves, should not have been the rule or square according to which our humane natures should have been framed; (but for all her uprightnes, if Adam had sinned we had died) so her sinne or sinnes, setting Adam apart, had not ex­tended to the corruption or destruction of mankinde.

Though in innocencie they did see much, yet they could then see no deformitie: nay, though Eve had sinned, and sinned divers sinnes before Adam sinned any; (for she beleeved the Serpent, distrusted God, fell to unlawfull desires, and did eat) yet they were both blinde: and neither Eve herself did consi­der her own faults, as she should, nor Adam Eves faults; but immediately so soon as Adam had eaten, Genes. 3.7. The eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. For their nakednes came by Adams sinne, and not by Eves; the same sinne of hers and his was not the same: neither Adam, nor we, nor she herself by her sinnes were bare and naked of good­nes, or had lost Bonum naturae, but onely gratiae personalis: but when once he had sinned; he, she, and we were all naked, our natures corrupt and to be ashamed of; and both of them knew it. Their eyes opened themselves; so Tremellius hath it, differ­ing from the Hebrew and the Septuagint. The truth is, she sinned the same sinne twice; for she ate first by herself, and then her eyes were not opened. Neither was she spoiled of originall justice (saith Franciscus Aretinus) as it was gratia gratis data, nor did she feelthe motions of concupiscence, or knew her own nakednes, till Adam had sinned. For if she had been deprived of grace so soon as she sinned, she should have been ashamed of her nakednes; neither durst she to have gone naked to her husband, but for modestie would have sought some covering, or fled into corners. So farre Aretinus, or Cornelius à Lapide who citeth him. But after this her eat­ing and this her sinne, she cometh to her husband, and offereth him some to eat, and eateth with him the second time; and perchance began to eat the second time ere he ate once, and [Page 62]suffered him to see her eat. Sure I am, the Hebrew runneth thus, She did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat: but the 70 say of Eve first, [...]. where they are peremptorie, that Adam and Eve, or rather Eve and Adam are both together. And Vatablus well expoundeth the SECVM, id est, vt unà cum ipsa ederet: and the proof is pertinent enough, though we do not reade with the Septuagint, They did eat, but with the Hebrew, He did eat, namely, with her, or, after he had seen her eat. The summe is, she ate first, she ate again with him, she sinned the same sinne. And further, though she sinned the same sinne the third time, in his eating and by it, aswell as we did, who also were in him ratione principii; yet was it not her sinne, but his sinne that overthrew both him, her, and us: and in this sense we may truly say, she sinned not the same sinne with Adam. So much for the first question. It cometh secondarilie to be enquired, Whether Adams or Eves sinne was the greater.

5. To say that no sinne is greater then other, is one of the grossest errors that have been. Me thinks a Stoick should be ashamed to say, that Nero, Heliogabalus, and the grand Epi­cure sinned not worse, then Cato the Utican, Aristides the Just, or Zeno the Cittien of Cyprus, the great upholder of their own sect: or that unmatchable Titus the Emperour, who la­mented the day in which he did not good to some man, was no better then Timon the Man-hater. No other Philosophers ever joyned hands with them in that folly. Hoc de parilitate pec­catorum soli Sioici ausi sunt disput are; nam sic fecerunt contra emnem sensam generis humani. Aug. Epist. 29. Ad Hieronymum. This of the equalitie of sinnes, the Stoicks onely have dared to dispute; for they did so against all the sense, feeling, and opinion of mankinde, saith S. Au­gustin. Yet Jovinian sided with them; but S. Hierom confuted him, Quam corum vanita­tem, in Joviniano illo, qui in hac sententia Stoicus erat, in au [...]u­pandis autem & defen­sand is voluptatibus Epi­cur [...]us, de Scripturis Sanct [...] diiucidissimè convicisi [...]. Which opinion of theirs in that Jovinian, who in this tenent was a Stoick, but in pursuing and defending pleasures an Epicure, out of the sacred Scriptures thou hast most clearely convinced, as S. Au­gustine in the same place testifieth of S. Hierom, to S. Hierom. The same in effect saith S. Hierom himself of himself, against Jovinian. Nullam inter justum & justum, peccatorem & peccato em esse distanti­am; veterém (que) Zenenis sententiam tam com­muni sensa quàm divi­nâ lectionecontrivim us Hieron. Cont. Jovin. lib. 2. We have crusht both by common sense and by divine Scripture the error of Jovinian, who would prove that there is no dif­ference between just and just, a sinner and a sinner; and also the old opi­nion of Zeno. And indeed, so he did in the same book, both by answering all Jovinians objections, and overlaying him with sound proofs. I omit whatsoever S. Hierom hath laboriously, acutely, and truly collected against the Stoicall equalitie of sinnes, and against Jovinians wilde inferences. Let him that thirsteth, have recourse to the fountain, in the said second book of S. Hierom against Jovinian: Fons vincet sitientem. Yet suffer me to cast my mite into the Treasurie. First, Elencticè, upon the by, then Didacticè, on the main. Concerning the first; unto one of the witlesse positions of Jovinian, viz. Omnia membra aequa­liter diligimus, nec oculum praeponimus di­gite, nec digitum auri­culae. We love equally all [Page 63]our members, neither do we preferre the eye before the finger, nor the singer before the eare; by which he would inferre a parilitie of sinnes, (besides what S. Hierom excellently answereth) I can not chuse but oppose what Moses saith, Deuteron. 32.10. God kept the Israelites as the apple of his eye, it being more guard­ed with the double coverlids of skins and hairs, and more cu­riously then any other outward part: which proverbiall simi­litude, being also taken up both by David, Psal. 17.8. and by the Prophet Zecharie 2.8. significantly intimateth, that one part of the body is more tender to us then any other. Neither needed there such exact retaliation as is required Exod. 21.24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, if all mem­bers were of like worth: for a tooth might have been pluckt out for an eye, and the foot might have stood for the hand. Yea, whatsoever Jovinian opineth, or rather raveth, Dives being in torment had more regard to the cooling of his tongue, Luk. 16.24. then to the tip of his eare. Where sinne is, there is punish­ment also, saith S. Chrysostom; and Dives his tongue spake many proud things, saith he: and Dives was full of loquacitie, as the In­terlineary Glosse observeth even from his very speech to Abraham: and perchance his tongue was most tortured, as ha­ving been most delighted and addulced with his daily delicious fare. If any of Zeno or Jovinian his partisans will not beleeve, that one bodily member is better then an other, I could wish it might be beaten into them, and that they might endure sound raps or blows on their heads, which any other man, yea na­turall fools, by naturall instinct would rather beare off upon the arms, as objecting unto danger the member of lesse worth, to save and defend the part more principall; which hourely ex­perience ratifieth. I passe by all other his objections, because I have stood too long on this, and I come to the main Question, Whether all sinnes are equall. The answer is plainly negative. Reasons are these. First, diversitie of sacrifices prove the ine­qualitie of offences, the greater offence being usually expiated with the most costly sacrifice. The sinne of the Priest was, in the estimate of God, as the sinne of the whole congregation, and the offering of his sinne was a young bullock without blemish, Levit. 4.3. If a Magistrate sinned, he was to offer a kid of the goats, a male without blemish, vers. 23. If an ordinarie man of­fended, a female served the turn, vers. 28. and 32. whether it were of goats or lambes. Where the best, greatest, and costliest of oblations doth not prove, that the estate, or the person of the Priest was better and more noble then the estate or person of the King, or supreme Civill Magistrate, (which the Papists impertinently would prove from thence) but the Priests greater sacrifice evinceth his sinne to be greater, by reason of his greater knowledge. For the Priests lips should keep knowledge, [Page 64]and they should seek the Law at his mouth; for he is the Messenger of the Lord of hosts, Malachi 2.7. A second Reason may be this: Greater punishments, both criminall and capitall, are ordained by the Law, for some people more then for others: But this can not be justly appointed, unlesse there be degrees of sinne: Therefore sinnes are not equall. Concerning the Major, view it evinced in these instances: He that stealeth a man, shall die, Exod. 21.16. If he steal an ox, or a sheep, he shall restore five oxen for anox, and foure sheep for a sheep, Exod. 22.1. He that kills a man unwillingly, shall be protected, Exod. 21.13. if willingly, the very Sanctuarie, at the horns of the Altar, shall not save him; he shall die, vers. 14. The adulterie of common people was punished with common death, Levit. 20.10. But the daughter of any Priest, if she profane her self by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire, Levit. 21.9. that is, she shall be burnt alive. The Minor is proved, because God is just, and rewardeth every man according to his works, Revel. 22.12. Thirdly, the Scripture saith some are more wicked then others, Jerem. 3.11. The back-sliding Israel hath justified her self more then treacherous Judah. Aholibah was more corrupt in her inor­dinate love then Aholah, Ezek. 23.11. And some shal have sorer pu­nishment then others Heb. 10.29. There is a sin remissible, & a sin irremissible, Matth. 12.31. Tyre and Sidon were more inclining to repentance, then Chorazin and Bethsaida, Matth. 11.21. Ac­cordingly, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom, then for them, vers. 24. There are some sinnes of infirmitie, some of pre­sumption, and great transgressions, Psal. 19.13. Reward Babylon even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double, according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled, fill to her double. How much she hath glorified her self, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her, Revel. 18.6, 7. Not, double asmuch as she hath deserved; that were injustice; but, double asmuch as others drink of the wrath of God. The proselyte of the Pharisees is twofold more the childe of hell then themselves, Matth. 23.15. and some shall re­ceive greater damnation, vers. 14. Genes. 4.15. Vengeance shall be taken seven-fold on him who slayeth Cain: Not seven-fold more then such a deed as murder deserveth, but seven-fold more then is taken on some other men; perchance, seven-fold more then was taken on Cain himself. For though it be a greater sinne to kill an innocent, then a bloud-guilty wretch or mur­derer; and more offensive to slay a brother then one of lesse kindred, or acquaintance, (which may seem to be the case be­tween Cain and Abel on the one side, and Cain and his mur­derer on the other side) yet if we consider, that God after an especiall manner forbad any man to kill Cain, that God or­dained life as a punishment to Cain, that to kill Cain had been a courtesie, saith Hierom, that Cain was to live to be a terrifying [Page 65]example to all murderers. Lastly, if we remember, that to de­terre all men from the murder of Cain, God set a notorious mark upon him, such a oneas never any untill this day had the like, by reason of the extraordinarines thereof; whether it were a brand or stamp in his forehead, or that the earth quaked under him wheresoever he went, or a preternaturall and unu­suall shaking of his head, or dreadfull tremors, or convulsions over all his body; of which the particular is as uncertain, as the generall can not be doubted of, namely, that unto his terrors of conscience, and a vagrant unsetled minde, some outward evi­dent mark was annexed, distinguishing him from other men, and in a sort forbidding any to murder him: I say, he that now should have killed Cain, might justly seven-fold deserve Cains punishment, and an other may rightfully incurre punishment seventy times seven-fold, as it is, if not in truth, yet at the least in the swasive of Lamech to his wives, Genes. 4.24. There is a mote, and there is a beam, Matth. 7.3. This beam may be sawed into many boards or rafters; and there is no verture nor vice but hath its latitude and degrees partaking of majus and minus. There are funiculi vanitatis, Esai. 5.18. cords of vanity. There are funes peccatorum, ropes of sinnes, Proverb. 5.22. And there are funes plaustri, as Vatablus rendereth it, according to the Hebrew, cart-ropes or vinculum plaustri, according to the Vulgat, the wain-rope, Esai 5.18. differencing sinnes, and being indebted to divers kindes of punishments. Every sinne causeth a blot on the soul: the greater sinne, the greater blot. A frequent sinner is compared to a spotted leopard, Jerem. 13.23. and some notorious sinners are called spots in the abstract, Jude, vers. 12. More testimonies I could heap, but the point is cleared, and the enquiry, Wheter Adam or Eve sinned most, is yet unanswered.

6. And here both ancient and modern Divines do much varie. Chrys. Hom. 7. ad Pop. Ant. Chrysostom saith expresly, Eve sinned more then Adam: and In Rom. Homil. 25. in Morali. elsewhere to this effect, Eve was more punished then Adam: but the punishment is answerable to the fault. Therefore her sinne was greater. Rupert followeth him, Triplicipoená mulier punitur, quia triplo ma­jus peccatum fuit ejus quàm Adami. Rup. in Gen. lib. 3. cap. 22. The woman is pu­nished by a threefold punishment, because her sinne was three times greater then Adams. Hugo and Lombard, untruly supposing, that Eve onely beleeved the Serpents words promising them to be like unto God, do rather think Eve sinned most. The Shoolmen by troups follow them. Cajetan is dubious: com­menting on Aquinas he would not differ from his Master, the great Summist, but condemneth the woman more then the man; yet expounding the third of Gensis, he brings five rea­sons to excuse Eve more then Adam. S. Aug. is by both sides, sometimes ascribing more fault to the man then to the woman, sometimes to the woman rather then to the man: and De Gen. ad. lit. 11.35. & De Civit. 14 11. twice he seemeth to hold, That they sinned equally. On the other side, [Page 66] Ambr. De Instit. vir­ginis cap. 4. Ambrose saith, Adams sinne was greater. And again, Eva magis mobilitate animi, quàm pravitate peccavit. Comment. in Luc. 4.38. Eve sin­ned more by unstablenes of minde then by perversenes. Isdore saith, Gravius est de indu­stria peccare, quo modo peccavit Adam, quàm ignorantiâ, quo modo peccavit Eva. Isid. De Summo Bono 2.17. It is more hainous to sinne of set purpose, as Adam; then out of igno­rance, as Eve. This point needing to be distinguished upon, Aquine telleth us, The greatnes of a sinne is two wayes considered; either exipsa specie peccati, from the especiall kinde of the sinne, or according to the circumstances of place or person: and he resolveth thus; Quantum adgenus pec­cati, vtrius (que) peccatum aequale dicitur. In regard of the kinde of sinne, the sinne of them both is said to be equall. Pride was in both: but if we look ad speciem super­biae, Eve sinned more, for these three regards; She was more proud then the man: She not onely sinned herself, but made her husband sinne: Thirdly, Adams sinne was lessened by the love he bore unto his wife. Which last reason is grounded on the words of S. Augustine, Adam non carnalicon­cupiscentiâ victus, sed amicabili quâdam com­pulsus benevolentiâ, quâ plerun (que) fit ut of­fendatur Deus, nè of­fendatur amicus, pec­cavit. De Gen. ad lit. 12. ult. Adam sinned not being overcome by carnall concupiscence, but being constrained by some friendly affection; by which it cometh often to passe that God is offended, lest a friend should be offended. Yea the same S. Augustine is cited thus, Postquam mulier se­ducta manducavit, eí (que) dedit ut simul ederent, noluit eam contristari, quam credebat sine suo solatio contabescere, & à se alienatam omnino interire. After the seduced woman had eaten, and had given him that they should eat together, he was loth to grieve her whom he thought ready to pine away without his com­fort, and altogether to die being estranged from him. Lastly, A­quine saith, If we weigh the condition of both persons, the mans sinne was greater, because he was perfecter then the woman. So Aquine 2.2. Quaest. 163. Art. 4.

7. Scotus thus opineth, Because Adam was more circum­spect, more noble, more strong to resist; therefore by accident his sinne was more great: Formaliter tamen, per se merè, & praecisè inse, peccatum Evae fuit gravius. Scotus in 2. Sent. dist. 27. quaest. 2. Yet formally, in it self, and precisely, the sinne of Eve was greater. But the learned Estius, on the same distin­ction, Paragraphe 7, thus, ‘ The greatnes of sinne cometh many wayes; principally from the object and the end, then from the cir­cumstances either of the person or the intent of him, or of the fre­quencie of the act, or the greatnes of harm that cometh by the sinne, or of the ignorance or infirmitie or industrie of the person. If we lay Adams and Eves sinne in the ballance, respecting the object and the end, it weighed alike; both of them beleeved the Serpent, both would be like God, both ate of the fruit forbidden, both excused their faults: but weigh the circumstances (saith he) the mans sinne was simply greater. First, he had more power to resist. Secondly, he dealt with a lesse subtile enemy, a simple wo­man; but she had to do with an evill Angel, of an higher nature then herself. Thirdly, he had the precept from God himself; she but from her husband. Fourthly, he was to be head over his wife, and not she over him; and he was to reduce her into the right way, when she strayed. Fifthly, his excuse cast part of the fault, as it were, upon God himself. Sixthly, indeed he was worse punished, and so saith Augustine truly. Seventhly, the better things are the worst in their corruption: The best wine turnes to the sharpest vineger, the best of government, a Monarchie, proves the worst, if it dege­nerate [Page 67]into a Tyranny. But the man exceeded the woman as well in naturals as in gratuitous.’ So farre in effect Estius.

Bellarmine compareth their acts and per sons together, Bell. De Amis. Gratiae & Statu Peccati 3.9. and concludeth, that both in regard of acts and persons, Eve sinned least, Adam worst. His observations are not onely passable, but commendable, save in two things. First, that he makes the excu­sation of their sinne, to be one act of the seven in Adam and Eves sinne; when as in truth, their excuse was no part or branch of their first sinne, but a distinct and severall sinne by it self. For having ended their first sinne, they were ashamed, and had time to gather figleaves and sew them, and make them­selves aprons, or things to gird about them: after this, they heard God speak, and hid themselves: after this, was their exa­mination de facto, and their confession: after all this, begins Adams excuse, Genes. 3.12. and Eves, vers. 13. The diversitie of these severall actions, and the distance of time interceding, shew it was no part of their first sinne to excuse themselves. An other especiall sinne it was, aggravating the former: and in this sinne Adam sinned worst, as accusing God, indirectly, for gi­ving such an helper to him as had hurt him. Who will see things more at large, let him consult with Estius and Bellarmine, unto whom, for the main, I do subscribe; though I make the last part, and act of Adam and Eves sinne, to be their reall orall manducation. The second scape of Bellarmine is, that whereas in true Divinitie, the fall of mankinde is a consequent of our first parents transgression; Bellarmine makes it one of the seven acts of their sinne, confounding the cause with the effect, and not sufficiently distinguishing the fault from the punishment. May I adde these things: Out of the words of Scotus, I thus argue, Originall justice was given to Adam, as to the worthier, abler, and wiser person; yea, it was so given, that if he lost it, he was to lose it for himself and his whole posteritie. But it was not so given, or infeoffeed to Eve; therefore since he failed, when the trust of the whole World was reposed on him, his sinne must needs be much more hainous then hers. If the first sinning Angel was the greatest delinquent, though none of the other Angels sinned in him, but each of himself, by his own proper will; then Adam certainly sinned worse, who bare our persons, and being the Referre, to whom our blessednesse or cursednesse was intrusted, drew us all into unhappinesse. For the woman was but the incompleat principle of offending, saith Gorran: But by Adams first sinne we lost the good of nature, Bonum naturae, quod erat per originem natu­rae traducendum. Aquin in Rom. 5. Lect. 3. which was to be trans­mitted by the spring of nature, saith Aquine. By Adams other transgressions the good of personall grace was diminished, and might be recovered, but the Naturall good traducible could not be regained by any repentance. The greatnesse of Adams sinne appeared in that he might so easily have kept the precept, [Page 68] Quanta erat iniquitas in peceando, vbi tanta eratnon peceandi facili­tas! Aug. De Civit. 14.15. How great iniquitie was there in sinning, where such facilitie was of not sinning! saith Augustine. Indeed to eat of the apple see­meth a small matter to the carnall eyes of men, but in the least thing to be disobedient is not the least offence; for as to obey is better then sacrifice, so disobedience is as the sinne of witchcraft, and transgression is wickednesse and idolatrie, 1 Sam. 15.22, 23. Naaman, who would have performed a greater matter, should much more willingly have been ruled by the Prophet in a trifle: it was the well-poised argument of his servants, 2. Kings 5.13. and his correspondent obedience was justly rewarded with health. But Adam, besides the smallnes of the matter it self, erred grosly in the manner: for God did not appoint him any hard work, no laborious task to perform. Omission is of an easie and pliable nature: more facile it is for one not to wash a thousand times, then to wash once. Now, the precept unto Adam was inhibitive, meerly of omission, negation, or prete­rition, easier to be kept then broken; and therefore to break it was a sinne of an high hand, a presumptuous sinne, which may be aggravated in him by this circumstance, that he received the restraint from God, which Eve did not. They who think other­wise of Adams sinne, do judge of it as the common people do of the fixed starres, who imagine them to be no greater then a candle. But if you truly take the height and breadth of Adams sinne, it will be found, as the starres in heaven, of greatnes almost incredible; divers of them, in their severall stations, being greater then the whole earth. Perhaps one of the reasons, why the Apostle, Heb. 11. nameth not Adam among the old faithfull Heroes, was this, because he committed a greater sinne then any of them. For his offence hath been the cause of death, of sicknes, of all punishments inflicted on men, in this life or in the life to come. Not Satans temptation, not Eves seduction, but Adams wilfull disobedience cost the bloud of the Sonne of God. And all the despighteous sinnes of mankinde, wherewith the Father blessed for ever, the gracious Redeemer, and the sanctifying Spirit are grieved, and do as it were grone under, and at which the holy Angels are offended, and do in their sort mourn, proceed originally from that sinne of Adam, and but for that had never been. Therefore was his offence greater then Eves. Moreover, God first summoned Adam, though Eve sinned first, and questioned Adam particularly for that sin, and not Eve, Genes. 3.9. and at the censure (perchance with an em­phasis) God said unto Adam (which he did not unto Eve) Gen. 3.17. Thou hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded THEE, saying, THOƲ shalt not eat of it; and denounced more punish­ments against him then against Eve, and worse; and this among the rest, ratifying the former threatning, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return; inflicting death on Adam, on Eve, on us [Page 69]for Adams sinne, and not for Eves. Lastly, the Spirit of God seemeth to derive the fault from Eve unto the Serpent, 2 Cor. 11.3. [...], in astutia sua: [...], not [...], in his craft, and her simplicitie, he deceived her. Now let Scotus lessen Adams offence as much as he can, let him say, Esus ligni vetiti non fuit piccatum, nisi quia prohibitum. The eating of the forbidden tree was no sinne, but because it was for­bidden; and he might well and lawfully have eaten of it, if he had not been forbidden; and he erred not against any naturall law, but a law positive, and in a thing otherwise indifferent. I answer, The same and more excuses are for Eve. Again, in regard of its spreading infection, and the myriads of evils thence ensuing, & the blessed estate of many millions by him betrayed to the lake of fire and brimstone, which never shall be quenched, contrarie to the trust to him concredited, I shall alwayes think Adams sinne the worst of all sinnes that ever any one of mankinde committed, not excepting the sinne of Judas, or the sinne against the Holy Ghost. For these hurt but few; and if they were worse inten­sively, they were not so bad extensively: and therefore I must account it one of Scotus his errours, when he saith, Peccato Adae non de­bebatur maxima poena; imò si ipse damnatus fuisset pro illo peccato, non fuisset itá graviter punitus pro isto peccato, sicut multi alii. The greatest punishment was not due to Adams sinne; yea, if he had been damned himself for that sinne, he had not been so grievously punished for it as many others. The ancient Fathers did not so lightly prize the first sinne of Adam. Augustine saith, Tam leve praeceptum ad observandum, tam breve ad memoriâ reti­nendum, tantò majore injustitiâ violatum est, quantò faciliori possit ob­servantiâ custodiri. De Civit. 14.12. A Precept so light for keeping, so short for remembring, was broken by so much greater in­justice, by how much more easily it might have been kept. And though Scotus holdeth, it did consist in immoderate love and friendship to his wife; yet I say, his uxoriousnesse was but a branch, a piece, a quarter, a rafter of that beam, a part, a member of that body of sinne. Tert. Cont. Mar­cion. lib. 2. Tertull. doubts not to call Adams sinne, Heresie, and Adam, a very rude Heretick. Ambrose on Rom. 5.14. Peccatum Adae non longè est ab idololatria. Adams sinne is not farre from idolatrie. And in his 33. Epistle to his sister Marcellina, he findes infidelitie in Adam, for not beleeving in Gods word. Augustine in his Enchirid. chap. 45. imputes unto him Pride, & Sacriledge; for it was sacri­legious pride, to impropriate & usurp the fruit separated from common use. He was a murderer, destroying himself & all man­kinde: guiltie he was of spirituall fornication committed with the Serpent. He may be further charged for felony, in stealing the fruit which was not his. Rupertus on Genes. 2.39. saith, Ingratitude was his first sinne. He fell by covetousnes, saith Augu­stine; for God could not suffice him; and having much more then he needed, yet he would need more then he had. Any one may blot him with curiositie, for seeking to know what did him hurt. His gluttony was manifest, in loosing the reins to his beastly appetite. His want of naturall affection toward his posteritie by him decaying, is justly blameable. Brentius hath one new­fangle on John 8; That Adams sinne was rebellion or defection, be­cause [Page 68] [...] [Page 69] [...] [Page 70]he would not be subject to Christ. He might rather have ac­cused him for contempt of his Creator, for his folly in ventu­ring the losse of heaven for an apple, for his credulity in belee­ving Satan before God. The Apostle chargeth him with diso­bedience, Rom. 5.19. Bellarmine saith, Actu primus superbiae est, [...]olle subjici imperio & praeceptis alterius, quae proprie dicitur i [...]n­bedientia. Bell. De Amiss. Gratiae 3.4. The first act of pride is to refuse to be subject to the command and precepts of another, which properly is called disobedience: as contrarily, the first of humility is to be subject to another. But Scotus doth better set down the order of the acts of our will: Est in communi du­plex actus voluntatis, VELLE & NOLLE — & omne nolle praesuppo­nit aliquod velle — & nullum nolle est primus actus deordinatus vo­luntatis, quia non posset habere nolle, nist respe­ctu, vel in virtute alicu­jus velle. Scot. i [...] 2. Sent. dist. 6. quaest. 2. There is commonly a double act of the will, LIKING and DISLIKING;— and every disliking pre­supposeth some liking: — and no disliking is the first inordinate act of the will, because it could not have a disliking, but in regard or by vertue of some liking. In this I preferre Scotus before Bellar­mine and Estius, because the first act of pride or disobedience is self-complacencie, from whence issueth the dislike, or nolle of subjection; as in humilitie, the first act is Velle placere alteri, whence ariseth the groundwork of obedience. Secondly, Au­gustine saith, In occulto mali esse coeperunt. Aug. De Ci­vit. 14.13. They began in secret to be evil: the ill will pre­ceded the ill work; self-love was the bait; the Devil could not have caught Adam, Nisi jam illo sibi pla­cere coepisset. unles he had begun alreadie to be self pleased: they were tickled with those words, YE SHALLBE LIKE GODS Gen. 3.5 From whence I marvel Bellarmine observed not, that Velle sibi placere is the first step of pride, and therefore the Nolle subjici is the second act, or act concomitant. Thirdly, Bellarm, ibid. cap. 5. Bellarmine himself interfeering saith, The pride of our parents began not from this act, I VVILL NOT BE UNDER THE POVVER OF GOD, but after the hearing of these words, YE SHALL BE LIKE GODS, they began to consider within themselves, it was a goodly thing not to de­pend of an other; and at the same time they began to be delighted with their own power, and to desire it, and vehemently to please themselves. Here he maketh three or foure acts to beginne together, and maketh some ill act or acts precede this, I will not be under the power of God. Lastly, Bell. De Amiss. Gra­tiae 3.9. Bellarmine hath it thus, Primus actus malus in peccato viri superbia fuit, quâ in sua potiùs essc, quàm in Dei pote­state dilexit. The first ill act in the sinne of the man was pride, by which he loved to be in his own power rather then in Gods. And he citeth Augustine in Enchirid. chap. 45. Therefore the beginning of Adams iniquitie consisted in a VELLE, rather then in a NOLLE. Now, though Scotus his Discourse and Philosophie sideth thus farre with truth, that an evil Nolle necessarily presupposeth an evil Velle, (which is expressely against the opinion of Bellarmine and Estius) yet it crawleth on lamely towards Scot. Dist. 22. Scotus his conclusion, That Adam did first sinne in inordinate love of friendship towards his wife for I will place in Adam another Velle, a former Velle, a malum Velle, and a pejus Velle before his uxoriousnesse. Augustine in his 21 Sermon upon Psal. 118. (which we account the 119 Psal.) saith thus, Quòd homo suu [...] esse voluit, id est inobedi­entiae primum & maxi­mum malum. That man would be his own, that is the first and greatest evil of disobedience. And De Civit. 14.13. & d [...] Gen. ad lit. 8.14. elsewhere he takes pride and diso­bedience [Page 71]for all one. Again, Homo clatus superbiâ, suasioni Serpentis obe­diens praecepta Dei con­tempsit. Ep. st. Ad Oro­sium. Manbeing lift up with pride, obeying the persuasion of the Serpent despised Gods precepts. And, Praecedit in voluntate hominis appetitus qui­dam propriae potestatis, vt fiat inobediens per superbiam. De peccat. Meri [...]. & Rem. 2.19. In the will of man there goes before some desire of his own power, to be made dis­obedient through pride. Eves pride, out of doubt, arose from those words, Genes. 3.5. Your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as Gods. Where the hint was given to the Velle, before the Nolle; and the first motion was to the unlawfull love of himself. Now, what the Serpent said to Eve, questionlesse she related to Adam. And her pride also might first arise from the said foun­tain: and his uxoriousnesse followed thereupon; and the im­moderate love of himself was before the immoderate love unto his wife. I say questionles, because it is both true in it self, and others yeeld unto it, and Aug. De Gen. ad [...]t. 11.34. S. Augustine observeth it, What Adam received from God, he told to Eve; what Eve heard from Satan, she told to Adam. To conclude, De Civit. 14.13. Augustine saith, Adam and Eve were first turned from God to please themselves, and thence and after that to grow cold and dull; that she either beleeved the Serpent, or he preferd his wives will before the will of God. Where he maketh both Adams and Eves sinne to be the same inordinate love to themselves; and this is against Scotus. Prosper in the 358 Sen­tence, picked out of Augustine, saith, concerning Adam, Primum animae ratio­nalis vitium est, volun­tas ea faciendi quae ve­tat summa & intima veritas. The first vice of the reasonable soul is the will of doing those things which the supreme and most intimate truth forbids. Neither hath Scotus his argutation, rather then argumentation, his usuall subtiltie in it. Duplexest Velle: aut est Velle aliquid amore amicitiae, qui est prop­ter se, vel propter ama­tum; velamore commo­di, qui est propter aliud. Primum peccatum Adae non fuit ex immoderato amore sui, sicut fuit primum peccatum An­geli, nec potuit esse; quia Angelus intelligit seprimò, per suam es­sentiam; & homo intel­ligit alia priùs quàm se. There is a twofold will: either that will by which one desires a thing with the love of friendship, which is for himself or for the thing loved; or that will by which one desires a thing with the love of profit, which is for another. The first sinne of Adam was not out of an im­moderate love of himself, as the first sinne of Angels, neither could be; because the Angels know themselves first, by their own essence; but man knowes other things before himself. For did not Adam know himself ere he knew Eve or Angels? or hath it any necessarie consequence, if he knew her first, that therefore he must love her content first, rather then please himself? Yea, if he had a desire to please her, might not this arise out of a desire to please himself? Lastly, did the Angels and Eve sinne out of an immoderate desire of love toward themselves? Then how saith Scotus, that Adams first sinne neither was, nor could be an immoderate and inordinate love of himself? What was in Eve, could and might have been and was in Adam. The discourse of Aquinas in this point seemes more agreeable to Scripture, and Fathers, then that of Scotus. And this it is. That unto one sinne many motions do concurre, amongst which that is to be accounted the first sinne, in which first of all, inordination, de­viation, disorder, or aberration from the Law is found. Now it is apparent, that exorbitancy or deordination is sooner in the inward motion of the soul, then it is in the bodie; and among [Page 72]the interiour motions of the soul, the appetite is first moved toward the end it self, then toward the means leading toward the end: and therefore there was the first sinne of Adam, where was the first desire of an unlawfull and disordered end. The summe is, Man desired an illicit seeming spirituall good; na­mely, to subsist of himself, as God doth. Which first act or mo­tion of pride, or inward disobedience, being all one with the first inclination to break the Law of God and to eat the for­bidden fruit, and being accompanied with that chain of other evill motions & actions before mentioned, was consummated by the outward disobedience in the orall eating the food inhi­bited. And the time was so short between the sinfull motus primo-primus in the soul, and the various continued difformitie of other ebullitions, which were coherent and bound up in that unhappie knot of outward disobedience, that we may safely say, it was one sinne aggregativè; and every particular evill thought, act, or motion, from his fare-well given unto inno­cency, unto his plain down-fall; from the last of his inward obedience, unto his first outward disobedience, compleat and ended, was a parcell or branch of that one great sinne which was against that Law divine, Genes. 2.17. As our Saviour saith, Matth. 5.28. Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adulterie with her already in his heart: So, so soon as ever Adam looked on the apple to lust after it, the first inward motion, tending to this lust of pride or disobedience, was averse from the Law, though the externall trespasse made the sinne to be full, and the breach to be palpable and evident. And as it is but one consummate adulterie, though divers evil thoughts, & multae morosae cogitationes, many wilde motions con­curre unto it: so may Adams sinne be said to be but one, though consisting of divers parts and branches, from the primative spi­rituall inclination of aversion, to the hindmost bodily forma­litie, or cōsummation of his disobedience. Est. Dist. 22 Paragr. 1. Estius hath these ar­guments, to evidence that pride (which is unseparably annexed to disobedience) was the first sinne of man. First, our parents, Adam and Eve, were first tempted with the sinne of pride, by these words, Ye shall be like Gods; therefore by that they fell first. Secondly, the Devil would draw man to perdition, by the same sinne by which he fell: But he fell by pride, 1 Tim. 3.6. Lastly, Christ by humilitie and obedience recovered us; there­fore Adam by pride and disobedience hurt us. And this is Augustines reason, De Civit. 14.13. If any man desire more cu­riosities trenching upon this point, let him consult with Do­ctor Estius, in the place above cited, who hath handled such things apertissimè & satiatissimè, most plainly and fully, as Augu­stine said of Ambrose, against Julian the Pelagian.

And now at length I am come to that second position which [Page 73]I resolved to unfold and handle, in giving answer unto the first Question, How and why death was appointed unto us. The first part of the answer is already handled, (& here I considered ori­ginall sinne principally, as it was acted by Adam) That Adam for sinne was appointed to die. The second now followeth, towit, Adams sinne was propagated to us; and so by just consequent, We shall die for this sinne. And first, concerning the propagation of his sinne, of originall sinne, as it was an emanation from A­dam, and as it lodgeth and abideth in us.

ALmightie, and most Gracious Father, grant unto us, that we which fell by pride, may be hu­militie and obedience be raised up, through Jesus Christ, our onely Advocate and Redeemer. Amen.

CHAP. V.

1 COncerning originall sinne, though it be most true what S. Augustine saith, de Morib. Eccl. 1.22, Nihil est peccato origi­nali ad praedicandum notius, nihil ad intelli­gendum secretius. There is nothing to preach of more known, nothing to understand more hidden then originall sinne. And, Vltra radicem nihil quaerere oportet. De lib. Arbitrio 3.17. We ought to seek nothing beyond the root. Yet let us search, till we finde this root. And since [Page 74]the Apostle hath broken the ground, and opened the way, let us joyfully follow so blessed a guide. S. Paul, Rom. 5.12.—hath a large Tractate of originall sinne, as it is propagated unto us by Adam: and Rom. 6. he speaketh of it, as it is in the Regenerate. The present questioned point hath nothing to do with this latter consideration, and it is pertinently excluded from this discourse. But of originall sinne, as it is conveyed unto us by Adam, divers things must be explained. First, you are to know, that the Schoolmen are blindly led in this point. You may see it at large in Beatissimo Whitak. De Origina­li Peccato lib. 1. cap. [...]. Whitakero, (for even that title is given to him by the learned Albericus Gentilis, in the tenth Chapter of his Disputation on the first Book of the Maccabees.) And certainly, none of late time hath so tripped them up as he hath done, in his canvasse of Stapleton. The errors of singular Schoolmen are various, too many to be here confuted severally; yet not so many as are imagined. Holcot in his Question, Whe­ther every sin be imputable to the will, proveth out of Augustines Book De Haeresibus, Chap. 8. that some Hereticks have denied originall sinne, or that there is any such thing. But he resolveth, That the Church hath determined the opinion to be erroneous. And Augustine, Gregorie, Bede, and all Authentick Doctors have spoken fully and expresly hereof: and I (saith he) presuppose it as one Article of Faith. Then cometh he to the diversitie of opinions, Some, saith he, have held, that originall sinne is not culpa, but poena, or obligatio ad poenam. Anselm and Lombard dislike this, saith he. And indeed Lomb. 2. Sent. dist. 3. lit. E & F. Lombard proveth soundly, both that according to this opinion originall sinne is neither culpa, no, nor poena; and by excellent arguments establisheth, that it is culpa. Some (saith Holcot) who say it is culpa, hold it is nothing els but the actuall sinne of our first parent imputed to us: and this Te­net Anselm disliketh. But Anselms dislike hath not hindered Catharinus and Pighius from embracing that error: Yea Sta­pleton himself acknowledgeth three great errors in this by­path of Pighius. First, That he makes originall sinne no sinne, but an obnoxietie to punishment. Secondly, That children want all sinne, and yet are by him made sinners. Thirdly, That he makes no inherent originall sinne in every one. Whitaker ad­deth a fourth absurdity, That he teacheth children are damned, who yet have no sinne. I return to Holcot, who addeth, Others say, Originall sinne is the pure privation of justice originall, or inju­stice which is nothing in nature, but a pure privation and want of ju­stice, in subjecto apto nato. Yet, saith Holcot, (as I have said other­where) it appeareth not to me, that any such pure privation is either originall or actuall sinne. At last, Holcot professeth to follow Lombard, holding, that originall sinne is an evill habit with which we are born, and which we contract from the beginning of our nativitie. This habit is concupiscence, this concupiscence [Page 75]is a vice, quod parvulum habilem concupiscere facit, adultum verò & concupiscentem reddit; and this he fathereth on Augustine. But this opinion is no better then the rest, if by concupiscence they mean (as they do) onely the sensuality, lust, and brutish appetite of things sensitive. You shall see it further confuted, when I have disclosed the erronious doctrine, which Lombard and his partisans hold, to uphold this, That originall sinne is the vice of concupiscence. Lomb. 2. Sent. dist. 30. lit. N. Lombard maintaineth that every one of our bodies were in Adam: and whereas it was before objected, That all flesh which descended from Adam, could not be at once and together in him, because it is farre greater then the body of Adam, in which there were not so many, as it were, motes of flesh, as men, who have descended from him; Lombard answereth, All flesh was in him materially and causally, though not formally: and all that is in humane bodies naturally, descendeth from Adam, and in it self is increased and multiplied, and this is that which shall arise at the Resurrection: That no outward substance doth passe into that substance: That it is fomented by meats; but no meats are turned into that substance humane, which by propa­gation descended from Adam. For Adam transmitted a little of his substance into the bodies of his children, when he begat them; that is, a little MODICƲM was divided from the masse of his substance, and thereof was the body of his sonne formed, and by multiplication of it self is increased, without the adjection of any outward thing. And of that Modicum being augmented, somewhat is separated, whereby the bodies of posterities are in the like sort still formed. His proofs were easie to be answered: but there is a veru, or an obelisk set on that opinion, in the margin, Magister hîc non approbatur. And more at large, among the errors condemned in England and in Paris (for so go the words of the Preface) not in England and France, not alone in Oxford and Paris, but in both the Universities of Eng­land, and in that of Paris, you shall finde him forsaken in these opinions, pag. 985. Quòd in veritatem hum [...]nae naturae nihil transit extrinsecum. That no externall thing passeth into the truth of humane nature. Quod ab Adam des­cendit, per propagatio­nem auctum & multi­pli [...]atum, resurget in judicio. pag. 985. That which descendeth from Adam, and is in­creased and multiplied by propagation, shall arise in the day of judge­ment. These singular opinions being now rejected and confuted by Estius, Sentent. 2. Distinct. 30. Paragraph. 13. and what­soever Lombard bringeth for himself, answered in his next Paragraph; let us grapple with Holcot, who is a second unto Lombard, and let us prove, That originall sinne is not the concu­piscence of the flesh. See this confuted by Bell. De Amiss. Gratiae 4.12. Bellarmine, by this argument; If LƲST were the cause of originall sinne, he should have the greater sinne, who was conceived in greater LƲST: which is manifestly false, since originall sinne is equall in all men. See other arguments well used to that purpose by Bellarmine in that place; yet is he amisse De Sacramento Bap­tismi 1.9. elsewhere, in the answer unto the tenth argument of the Anabaptists. For, saith he, Originale peccatum non est materia poeniten tiae: nemo enim rectè poe uitentiam agit ejus pec­cati quod ipse non com­misit, & quod in ejus potestate non suit. Ori­ginale autem peccatum non ipsi commisimus, sed trahimus ab Adam per naturalem propaga­tionem: und [...] di [...]itur de insantibus, Rom. 9 11. Originall [Page 76]sinne is no matter of repentance: for a man doth not well repent of that sinne which he hath not committed himself, and which was not in his power. Now we have not our selves committed originall sinne, but we draw it from Adam by naturall propagation: whereupon it is said, Rom. 9.11. of Esau and Jacob, THEY HAD DONE NEITHER GOOD NOR EVIL. First, I answer to the place of Scripture, confessing it is spoken of Esau, wicked Esau, that he had done no evill; and of Jacob, good Jacob, that he had done no good. Again, it is spoken of both of them, before they were born. But secondly, it is spoken of actuall sinnes and actuall goodnes; that neither did Jacob good, actuall good, any good in the wombe, nor Esau any actuall evil. For the bodily organs are not so fitted, that they exercise such actions as produce good or evil. The words do evince so much, [...], practically working no good nor evil. Yet, though God de­pended not upon their works (as the Apostle there argueth) for all that, they might and did commit originall sinne, and in it were conceived: and the promise was made to Rebecca, after she conceived, Genes. 25.23. It being then manifest, that the place of the Apostle affordeth no patrociny to Bellarmine, I say originall sinne is in part the matter of Repentance; otherwise, David in his chiefest penitentiall Psalme, 51.5. would not have charged himself with that sinne, nor needed not so vehemently to call for mercy. Again, we may be said to commit originall sinne, and originall sinne to have been in our power, as we were in Adam, as we would have done the like, and the like against Adam, as Adam did against us, if we had stood in Adams place, as he did stand in our stead. Thirdly, our will was in his will, & what he did we did: Bellarmines Philosophie here swalloweth up his Divinitie. Fourthly, he must not take committere strictly, for a full free deliberate action of commission; nor trahere strictly, for a meer passion: but (as I shall make it appear) there is some little inclination, from the matter to the form, of the body to the soul, as also of the soul to the body; and that the soul is neither as a block or stone on the one side, to receive durt and be integrally passive, nor yet so active as to make the ori­ginall sinne to be actuall. So that it neither properly commit­teth, nor properly contracteth, draweth, or receiveth originall sinne: and yet in a large sense may be said both to commit and to receive. Fifthly, if Bellarmine be punctilious for the terms, himself is faultie: For he saith, Trahimus ab Adam originale peccatum. We do attract originall sinne from Adam. Is there any attraction on our part, if there be no action? Or is action, or attraction without some kinde of commission? Sixthly, hath the whole Church of God prayed for the remis­sion aswell of originall sinne as of actuall, if it be not the matter of repentance? Or needeth not one unbaptized, till he come of age, repent before Baptisme, for his originall sinne? [Page 77]Lastly, why are children baptized, but that originall sinne is matter of repentance?

To set all things better in order, and to cleare all mists, you are to know, that there is wonderfull mistaking, and ambiguitie, whil'st originall sinne is confounded with Adams actuall sinne, and one taken for another, whil'st the cause is undistinguished from the effect, when indeed there is a great traverse between them.

2 Somewhat according to the new Masters of method, the efficient cause of Adams sinne was both outward and inward.

• Outward Remote,
• Outward Propinque.
• Remote Principall, Satan.
• Remote Instrumentall, the Serpent.
• Outward propinque was Eve, the principall.
• Outward propinque was The apple was the instru­mentall cause.

The inward efficient cause was; first, the faculties of the soul, which we may terme the principium activum, and was more re­mote; then the ill use of these faculties, the misimploying of his free-will, which you may stile principium actuale, and was the more propinque cause. But the cause efficient of originall sinne was, outwardly, the actuall sinne of Adam; inwardly, the conjunction of the soul, after the propagation of nature. The matter of Adams sinne, subjectivè, was the whole person and nature of Adam, and his posteritie descending from him per viam seminalem; objectivè, the liking, touching, and eating of the forbidden fruit. The matter of originall sinne, subjectivè, is all of our nature, and every one of mankinde, secundum se totum & totum sui, coming the ordinarie way of generation: in so much, that all and every of the faculties of the soul and bodie, of all and every one of us, is subject to all and every sinne, which hath been, or may ever hereafter be committed: and this cometh onely from this originall sinne, and the inclination wrapped up in it. The matter objectivè, is both carentia justitiae originalis de­bitae inesse, and the vices contrarie unto it, now filling up its room and stead. Formalis ratio of Adams first sinne was aversion from God, the ratio materialis was his conversion to a changeable good, saith Stapl. De Originali Peccato 1.12. Stapleton: both these are knit up in one disobe­dience. And so, the formall cause of Adams sinne was disobe­dience; the formall cause of our originall sinne is the deformitie and corruption of nature, falne and propagated, inclining to sinne so soon as is possible, and (without a divine hand of re­straint) as much as is possible. The end of Adams sinne was in his intention, primarily, To know good and evill; secundarily, to prefer temporals before spirituals; whil'st indeed he esteemed the Bonum apparens before the Bonum verum revera, or reale. In [Page 78]mankinde after him no end can be found of originall sinne, since we contract it when we have nullum verum aspectum, respectum, intuitum, vel-sinem. For Finis & bonum convertuntur. There is no end of evill, per se, sed ex accidenti; and so Gods Glory is the supreme end of all sinne. The effects of Adams actuall sinne were, his Corruptio personae, Reatus, & Poena, as he was consi­dered by himself, till he repented; but as he was the Referree and Representor of mankinde, the effects were, The corruption of our nature, our fault, our guiltines, our punishment, till we be freed. The effects of our originall sinne are, sinnes actuall, with all the penalties or punishments due to them. Moreover, that we may more distinctly enlarge this point, and remove the doubtfulnesse of termes, know, that in a larger sense, the actuall sinne of Adam may in a sort be said to be originall sinne; it may be called Adams originall sinne, as it was first and originally in him. It may be originall sinne both of Adam and all his po­sterity; because our naturall defects, and all manner of sinnes flowed originally from this onely sinne, as from a defiled foun­tain. Yet properly, this sinne was in him actually, in us poten­tially; in him explicitly, in us implicitly; in him personally, in us naturally; in him perse, in us per accidens. And that his first sinne or aversion from God, may both be said to be his originall sinne, and the cause also of our originall sinne; the cause, not physicall or naturall (for he doth not traduce, by the vertue of that sinne, any real thing which is properly sinfull, unto his posterity) but it was and is the morall cause of our originall sinne. As originall sinne is by some described, namely, to be propagated, to be in all alike, and to be in the humane creature at the beginning of his being, or to be an hereditarie transgression: so Adam had not originall sinne, but onely his posterity. As ori­ginall sinne is defined to be That [...] or transgression, that totall aversion of mankinde from God, whereby we incurre death and dam­nation: so was Adams sinne our originall sinne, and he had ori­ginall sinne.

3. Which the fuller to demonstrate, let me insist on this point, namely, That sinne of Adam we sinned this way, as we were in him materialiter, though not formaliter. As the severall members of a mans body united to his soul, make one individuall person: so all the branches of Adams posteritie, with himself, make one humane nature, and are as it were but one by participation of the species. Fuerunt omnes in A­dam quando peccavit; fuerunt quidem in illo, sed nondum nati erant ipsi. All were in Adam when he sinned: they were indeed in him, but they were not yet born themselves, saith Augustine, De Civit. 13.14. and more punctually in the same Chapter, Nondum erat nobis singillatim creata & distributa forma, in qua singuli viveremus, sed jam natura erat no­bis seminalis, ex qua propagaremur. The form in which every one of us should live, was not yet created and di­stributed to us; but the seminall nature was alreadie, of which we were to be propagated. Anselm saith, Infans qui damnatur pro peccato originali, non damnatur pro pecca­to Adam, sed pro suo: nam si ipse non haberet suum peccatum, non damnaretur. A [...]sel. De Partu Virginis. cap. 26. The infant that is damned for originall sinne, is not damned for the sinne of Adam, but for his [Page 79]own: for if he himself had not his own sinne, he should not be damned. And therefore Augustine, Retractat. 1.13. Originale peccatum in parvulis, cùm adbuc non utantur libero arbi­trio voluntatis, non ab­surdè vocatur volunta­rium. Originall sinne in in­fants, though they have not yet the use of freewill, is not absurdly called voluntary. And Confess. 1.7. Imbecillitas membro­rum infantilium inno­cens est, non animus in­fantium. The weaknes of infantine members, not the soul of infants is innocent. Lastly, De Peccat. Me­ritis & Remiss. 3.8. as he calleth originall sinne oftentimes Alienum peccatum, to shew it began not in us alone, but was de­livered to us, came from without: so in the same place he ter­meth it Peccatum proprium, our selves sinning in and with Adam, and having corruption in us by him. It can not sink into my head, that God would have imputed unto us Adams fault, by his absolute irrespective decretory will of good pleasure: but that he whose foresight reacheth to things that are not, yea to things that shall never be, much more to things certainly future (of which in another place) did foreknow and preconsider, that every one of mankinde, if they had been in Adams state and place, would have done as Adam did. Therefore, let us not accuse God, or lay the fault onely on Adam; our selves would have done so. For, as one said concerning the thief on the Crosse, confessing Christ when Christ was on the Crosse nai­led, naked, pained, reviled, scorned, dying, and forsaken of his own Disciples, Profectò ego non sic fecissem, I should not have made so glorious a confession as the penitent thief did at that time: So, on the contrary, I say, and am fully perswaded, I should have done as Adam did. Let God be just, and all men faulty; for it would have been the fault of all men. Yea, I must go one step further, and without boldnes justifiably say, by verdict of Scripture, it was the fault of all men; all men did sinne that sinne in Adam. It is not said Propter hominem, but, Per hominem Mors, 1 Cor. 15.21. and Rom. 5.12. [...]: In quo, in whom all sinned. Of the first man, Adam, are all these words [By man, and in whom] to be understood: and by him, and in him all died and sinned, saith the Apostle; and sinned that sinne by which death came into the world. Though the father of the faithfull payed tithes of all unto Melchisedec, before Leviwas born, and Abraham alone personally discharged that duty; yet for all this, the Apostle saith, Hebr. 7.9. Levi also who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham; for he was yet in the loyns of his father: So on the contrary, though Adam, the universall father of man­kinde, did actuate that great offence long before we were crea­ted; yet we also concurred in our kinde, and were partakers in that iniquity. For he stood Idealiter for us, and we were in him; our will in his, our good and hurt in his: and so farre as he re­ceived a law for us, so farre as he represented us; so farre when he sinned did we sinne in him, with him, and by him. And if the worthy S. Augustine may say, as is before cited, De Peccat. Merit. & Remiss. 1.10. Omnes eramus ille unus Adam; I hope I may as well say, Adam ille erat [Page 80]nos omnes. I am sure, Prosper in his Sentences pickt out of Au­gustine saith, that Primus homo Adam sic o [...]im defunctus est, ut tamen post illum secun­du, homo sit Chrisius, cum tot hominum mii­lia inter illum & hunc orta sint: & id [...]ò mani­festum est pertinere ad illum, omnem qui ex il­la successione propagatus nascitur; sicut ad istum pertinet omnit qui gra­tiae largitate in illo re­nascitur: unde fit, vt totum genus kumannm quodam modo sint ho­mines duo, PRIMUS & SE [...]VNDUS. Prosp. Sent. 299. The first man Adam so died in time past, that yet after him Christ is the second man, although so many thousands of men be born between that and this: and therefore it is evident, that every one who is born propagated from that succession belongs to that former, as whosoever is born again by the liberalitie of grace pertains to this latter: whence it comes to passe that all mankinde, in some sort, consist in two men, THE FIRST and THE SECOND. Yea, the whole world, except Christ onely, as men, are the first Adam; and the first Adam, as he beleeved in Christ to come, is not now the first, but a branch of the second Adam. What Christ did for us, we are said to do; what Adam did misdo, as he represented us, we may justly be said to misdo with him, Genes. 4.10. The voice of thy brothers bloud crieth unto me: Sanguinum; yea, Seminum, saith the Chaldee Paraphrase, and the Rabbins; whom, howsoever the Jesuit Cornelius à La­pide faulteth, yet I will commend for their witty invention, That God seemed, as it were, to heare the cries of all those many little ones, which ever might have descended from Abel; and them Cain killed, and their bloud he shed even ere they were, and their bloud cried in Abels. So we consented with Adam, and in him all sinned, saith our Apostle: [...], our latest Translation hath it For that all have sinned, The Bishops Bible in as much as we have all sinned: So Erasmus, and some others; yet our latest Transla­tion alloweth a place in the margin for in whom: it is rendred by the Vulgat, In quo. [...] is not here taken for a Preposition, of whose various constructions see the Grammarians; none of which constructions afford so full and punctuall a sense to this place, as if we render the words [...], in whom: [...] being a Preposition by it self, and [...] being the Dative of the subjunctive relative article [...]. The Genevian readeth it in whom, and inter­prets the words in whom to be in Adam: and so indeed it may be read and must be meant; for though the Preposition [...] be otherwise rendred and used, yet divers times it is confounded with [...], and necessarily is so to be understood. View in one Chapter two places, Hebr. 9.10. [...], Solum­modo in cibis & potibus, Which stood onely in meats and drinks, as our very late Translatours have it. And vers. 17. [...], Testamentum enim in mortuis ratum est: so word for word is it construed. So Demosthenes hath it, [...], In his acquiescere. Basil in his Epistle to Nazianzen, [...], In hac solitudine. So we usually say [...], In nobis, and the like. This reading being established, let us search the mea­ning of these words In whom or in which, and to what they are referred. There are but foure things, to which these words can possibly have relation. First, unto the word [...]; and then the sense is, By one man sinne entred into the world, in which world all [Page 81]have sinned. This exposition is very absurd. For first, it is no­thing to the intent of the Apostle, who proveth that we fell in Adam, and are raised by Christ: but how conduceth this unto that sense? Secondly, the senselesnesse of the words is most ri­diculous, being thus read, As by one man sinne entred into the world, and death by sinne, and so death passed upon all men, in which world all have sinned. The Spirit of wisedome would not speak so, nor the God of order so disjointedly. The second exposi­tion is as unlikely, and that readeth it, In which death all have sinned: but as In peccato moriuntur homines, non in morte peccant. Aug. Cont. duas Epist. Pelag. 4.4. S. Augustine saith, Men die in sinne, not sinne in death. The phrase is improper: yet grant that some sinne in death, yet it is most untrue That in death all sinne. The third word to which In whom, or which may be referred, is Sinne: In which sinne all have sinned; and thus Aug. De Peccat. Merit. & Remis. 1.10. Augustine did inter­pret it once. And if it were so to be read, it is all one in effect, to say, In Adam all sinned, and, In which sinne (of Adam) all sinned. But Vide Aug. Cont. 2. Epist. Felag. 4.4. Augustine afterward more accuratly examining the place, rejecteth that exposition, and confirmeth another by the authority of S. Hilarie. And indeed Grammaticall con­struction overthroweth the sense: for [...] is the feminine gender, to which the words [...] can have no good reference. Therefore the last exposition is best, which renders it In quo, In which (Adam) all have sinned. So it is expounded by Hilarie, Augustine, and Ambrose; by Origen, Chrysostom, Theophy­lact, Oecumenius, and generally both by the Greek and Latine Fathers; and the Apostle strongly argueth for this sense, verse 19. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners. In him we sinned. And whoso shall throughly weigh both the precedent and subsequent dependances, must needs acknowledge that the words In whom, or In which do point at Adam onely; in whom, as in a masse, we were contained, and in him sinned. Photius thus, In hoc ipsi Adam com­morimur, quòd ipsicom­peccavimus: ille initi­um dedit peccato,— nos adjutores illi fui­mus. In this we our selves die with Adam, that our selves have sinned with him: he gave the beginning to sinne, — we have been helpers to him. And, Neither by the Devill, who sinned before the woman; nor by the woman, who sinned before her husband; but by Adam, from whom all mortality draweth its beginning, did sinne truly enter into the world, and death by sinne. So farre Origen. Au­gustine likewise, In Adamo omnes pec­caverunt, quando omnes ille unus homo fue­runt. Aug. De Baptis­mo parvulorum 1.10 In Adam all have sinned, when all were that one man. So punctually speaketh he. For we were in Adam radi­cally, seminally, representatively. Adam was our head; he did lead the whole body into evill: he was our parent; all the issue of him were disinherited by him. Augustine thus, Peccavimus omnes in Adamo voluntariè; non voluntate nostrâ pro­pri [...], sed voluntate illi­us cum quo & in quo eramus unus homo, at (que) vna omnium voluntas. Aug. Epist. 23. Ad Bo­nifacium. We have all sinned in Adam willingly; not by our own will, but by his will with whom and in whom we were one man, and one will of all. As the King represents the Kingdome, and the chief Magistrate the Citie, and the Master of the house the houshold; so did Adam represent us; and in him, and with him we sinned.

4. I can not part with this second point, till I answer the objection, Whether Christ were in Adam. The doubt will be cleared by these two Positions. First, Christ may be said to be in Adam some kinde of way. Therefore the Evangelist derives Christs Genealogie from him, and he is said to be The Sonne of Adam, Luke 3.38. And if he be called The Sonne of David, as often he is, Matth. 21.9. Mark 10.47. Rom. 1.3, He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh: if he took on him the seed of Abraham, as he did, Hebr. 2.16, and is flesh of our flesh and bone of our bones, and we of his, Ephes. 5.30, it must needs be confessed, He was in Adam. Paracelsus talketh of Non-Adami, such as descended not from Adams loyns: these, if such, are monsters in nature, and as great a monster in Divinitie is it, to say, that Christ was no way in Adam. I will enlarge this by a distinction. Christ was not in Adam, no, nor we neither, so, that our substances, or any part thereof, were really or materially in him. Yet, both Christ and we were in him. First, because me­diatly we were born of him, and because he was the efficient cause of generation; not the immediate, propinque, and proxi­mous cause thereof, which necessarily communicateth some matter to that which is begotten: but he was the remote, me­diate, yea the furthest, and most distant efficient naturall cause of all; from which it is not necessary that its matter reach to the hindermost effects. Secondly, be cause if he had not begotten children, neither Christ in his humane nature, nor we now long after him, had ever been born. Thirdly, Christ took flesh of the thrice-blessed Virgin Mary; and she was in Adam, (as all others are, except Christ) she was begotten by the concur­rence and cooperation both of man and woman: and so, inas­much as his holy Mother was in Adam, Christ in a sort may be said to be in Adam. Christus fuit de genere Adae. Hol [...]t. De Im­putabintate peccati. Christ was of Adams kindred, saith Holcot.

The second Position is this, Christ was not in Adam every man­ner of way, as we were. For we differed in this peculiar sort and manner, because we were in Adam secundum seminalem ratio­nem, quâ, per communionem vtrius (que) sexûs, fit generatio. For A­dam could beget no childe without a femal sex; which was one main reason of Eves creation: neither did ever daughter of Eve conceive without a different sex (except onely that stu­pendious miracle of our Saviours Incarnation) And after this manner Christ was not in Adam. He had true flesh from Adam; but it was onely the listenes or similitude of sinfull flesh that he had, Rom. 8.3. All other flesh, except his, is the flesh of sinne. Had he come from Adam every way exactly as wee do, he had had not onely true flesh, as he had, but true sinne also: but be­cause he had not Patrem naturalem, as Scotus phraseth it; there­fore, neither did he sinne in Adam, nor was in Adam as we were.

Lombard Lomb. lib. 3. dist. 3. enquireth, Why Levi was tithed in Abraham, and not Christ, when each of them was in the loyns of Abraham, in regard of the matter. He answereth, Leviticus ordo qui in Abraham secundum ra­tionem seminalem erat, ex eo per concupiscen­tiam caruis descendi [...]: Sed Christ us non de­scendit secundum l [...]gem communem, aut car [...]is libidinem. The Leviticall order which was in Abraham according to the seed; descends from him by the concu­piscence of the flesh: But Christ came not according to the common law or lust of the flesh. And he resolveth thus, When Levi and Christ according to the flesh were in the loyns of Abraham, when he was tithed, therefore was Levi tithed, and not Christ, because Christ was not in the loyns of Abraham, after some manner or other that Levi was. Moreover, how could Christ be tithed to Christ? how could the same, in the same regard, both pay and take? Melchisedec was a figure of Christ, and tithes by an everlasting law were due to the priesthood of Melchisedec; as is unanswe­rably proved by my reverend friend (now a blessed Saint, Do­ctor Sclater) against all sacrilegious Church-robbers. There­fore Christ was not to be tithed in Abraham, though Levi was. Yea, if Aaron, or Melchisedec himself had lived till Christ had come in the flesh, and lived with him; perhaps they would have resigned up, as it were, their Office, and no more have taken tithes; or continuing in Office Sacerdotall under him, they would have taken tithes in his name, and for him. Aquine out of Augustine thus, Quomodocun (que) Chri­stus fuit in Adam & Abraham & in aliis Patribus, alii homines etiam ibi fuerunt. A­quin. part. 3. quaest. 31. art. 6. ex Aug. De Gen. ad lit. 10.19. After what manner soever Christ was in Adam and Abraham and in other Fathers, other men were there also, but not contrariwise. And Aquine himself setteth his conclusion, When the body of Christ windeth up to the Fathers, and so to Adam, mediante Matris suae corpore, Christ was not in them, secundum ali­quid signatum & determinatum, sed secundum originem. Which, I imagine, he establisheth against such as (Lombard saith) did hold, That from Adam descended, by way of generation, some such part or parcell as of it Christ was made. Against which Aquine argueth thus, (whether modestly enough and truly, let others judge) The matter of Christs body was not the flesh and bone, or any other actuall part of the Ever-blessed Virgin, but onely her bloud, which was potentiâ caro. Corpus Christi non se­minaliter conceptum est, sed ex castissimis & purissimis sanguinibus. Aquinas ex Damas­ceno. But what she received from her parents was actually part of her, but not part of Christs body. Nor was Christs bo­dy in Adam and the other Fathers, secundum aliquid signatum, so that any part of Adams body, or of the other Fathers, could determinatly be pointed out, and be said to be the very exact individuall matter out of which Christs body was framed: but Christ was in Adam secundum originem, as others were. Whil'st Christ was in the wombe of the most happy Virgin Mary, even many moneths before her delivery she was called, Luke 1.43, [...], The mother of my Lord: which words, in part, Elisabeth took from Davids speculation, Psal. 110.1. The Lord said unto my Lord. Never woman was truly called or to be called a Mother, before she were delivered, except onely the Al-gra­cious Virgin Mary; who could not possibly suffer abortion, nor [Page 84]lose that Blessed Fruit of her wombe, by the sinne of man, or the punishment of mankinde for sinne: which was conceived in her, without the help of man or sinne, and was even then Lord of all things.

5 Another point followeth, towit, We sinned that sinne in Adam, not by imitation onely. For Adam sinned, and in a sort imi­tated Eve, who sinned first, and ate of the forbidden fruit be­fore him: yet it is not said, That in Eve Adam died, or many died in Eve, or Adam sinned through Eve. So likewise the Devill offended before Adam was, and Adams sinne did nearly in many particulars resemble the Devils: yet Adam died not by the sin of the Devil, though after a fashion he did imitate it. But it is said, Rom. 5.15, Through the offence of Adam many be dead: and thereabouts, In Adam all die. Therefore this sinne of ours must needs be more then by imitation. And this is S. Augu­stines argument against Pelagius, If it had been by imitation onely, Apostolus peccati prin­cipium non fecisset A­damum, sed Diabolum. The Apostle had not made Adam the beginning of sinne, but the De­vill. Against Julian, 6.10. he useth this other argument in effect, Who almost (yea, who at all?) thinketh of Adam, when he sinneth? whereas the imitator propoundeth himself a pattern to follow and imi­tate. Or what is Adams eating of an apple like unto witchery, blasphe­my, murder, lying, or the like? and how there have been, yea are yet, many millions in the world who never heard of Adam, much lesse of his sinne? and did they intend to imitate, or did they imitate him? Thirdly, De Peccat. Merit. & Remiss. 1.9. Augustine thus argueth, As the second Adam (besides this, that we are to follow him, and imitate him) giveth hidden grace unto the faithfull: so (contrarily) we are faulty, and die not by the imitation onely of the first Adam, but by the secret blot and spot by which he hath infected us. Fourthly, he thus disputeth in his 89 Epistle to Hierome, The Apostle saith, Rom. 5.16, The fault is of ONE offence to condemnation: but he must have said, It had been of MANY offences, and not of ONE, if all are condemned for their actuall & personall imitation of Adam, since the offences of many men must needs be more then the ONE offence spoken of by the Apostle. Lastly, let me reason thus; Rom. 5.14, Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression. But death was the wages of sinne. There­fore some died who did not resemble Adam in finning. And there is a sinne not like to his; for Adams sinne was actuall, most voluntary, and personall. Children in sinning of originall sinne do not imitate Adam: for their sinne was onely implicit, in and with him; and they have not that absolute freedome of will that he had; and their sinne is rather naturall then personall. Yet, children die for sinne, and for such a sinne as is not after the similitude of Adams transgression; and so originall sinne cleaveth unto us, not by imitation onely. Aug. De Peccat. Merit. & Remiss. 1.15. Augustine thus, If imitation onely make sinners by Adam, onely imitation should make us just by [Page 85]Christ; and then, not Adam and Christ, but Adam and Abel should be compared. For Adam was the first wicked man, and just Abel, Hebr. 11.4. the first just man: But these things are not thus. There­fore we sinned not onely by imitation of Adam.

6 I come to a new point, namely, to prove, That this sinne of Adam is not ours by imputation onely; as if Adam alone had offend­ed, and we were wholly cleare from that great sinne. Indeed Adams actuall first sinne, or his other sinnes after his repen­tance, as they were personall and private, are not imputed to us. For he was to answer for himself as well as we are. If we repent, what doth our repentance help him? If he had not changed his minde, and turned to God, himself alone should have been condemned, as himself alone was saved by his own repentance. That Adam was by divine wisdome brought out of his fall, is said, Wisd. 10.1. Veniae redditus est. He hath been restored to pardon, saith S. August. And in the Tribe of Judah there is to this day a den, or hole called Spelunca Adam, The Cave of Adam, & in it a rock, in which are two stony beds of Adam & Eves: and here they mourned (as is delivered by Tradition, saith Adrichomius) an hundred yeares for the murdered Abel. (why not rather for their own sinnes, say I?) This place is not farre from either Ager Damascenus, where they say Adam was made of that Red earth, which is mire tra­ctabilis, saith Adrichomius; or from that place which to this day is shewen, and recorded to be the plat of ground which drank up Abels bloud, when Cain slew him. And though I deny not but they might mourn for the death of Abel, yet they were more bound to mourn for that sinne of theirs, which brought death both upon Abel, and themselves, and all their po­sterity.

That Adam was a Type of Christ is expressed, Rom. 5.15. and unfolded in many excellent particulars by Sal. Ad annum 930 [...] Salianus. That the more eminent Types of Christ should be saved, is evinced, because of their resemblance, and conformitie, unto the Anti­type: nor can it be proved, that ever any of his figures were con­demned. For the shadow must follow the substance, and Christ that Proto-type being not onely saved, but called Jesus, be­cause he shall save his people from their sinnes, Matth. 1.21. They are his people especially who in principal things resem­bled him: and wherein can they better resemble him, then in being blessed and saved as he was? But I return to Adam. Con­cerning Adam, Augustine saith thus, De illo quidem pri­mo homine, patre ge­neris humani, quòd eum ibidem solverit, Eccle­sia ferè tota conseutit. Aug. Epist. 99. Ad Euodium. As for that first man, the father of mankinde, almost the whole Church agreeth, that (Christ being in hell) he there delivered him. Concerning his body, that it arose, if other Saints of the Old Testament arose, and that it was besprinkled with the bloud of Christ dying, shall be shewed hereafter. And if God had such care of Adams body, or part of it, he shall be impudently unreasonable that shall say [Page 86]his soul is not in blessednesse. Now, as his personall repen­tance saved himself onely, and not one of his ofspring; so, if he had died unrepentant, his sinne or sinnes, as they were personall, should not have prejudiced one of his posterities sal­vation.

Bellarmine Bell. De Amiss. Gra­tiae 3.12. saith, It was one of Tatianus his errours, That our first parents were damned. Indeed Irenaeus 1.30. ascribes this opinion to Saturninus and Marcion, and chap. 31. to Tatianus the first founder of it. Tertullian in his book De Haeresib. towards the end, taxeth Tatian for the same opinion, and confuteth him thus, Quasi non, si rami sal­vi fiunt, & radix salva sit. As if the branches being saved, the root also should not be saved. But in his book De praescript. advers. Haereticos (as it is cited by Bellarmine) there is no mention of Tatian, in Rhe­nanus his Edition. Augustine saith of the Tatians and Encrati­tes, Quòd contradicunt primorum hominum saluti. Aug. De Haere­sib. cap. 25. That they gainsay the salvation of the first men. Where Bellar­mine used another Edition then Erasmus his, or was mistaken in the collation. He who will see more into this point, let him consult with Bellarmine, in the place above cited, and Salianus ad Annum Mundi 930. where he justly taxeth Rupert, for saying in this third book on Genes. chap. 31. Salvationem Adami & à multit liberè nega­ri, & ànullo satìs fir­miter defendi. That the salvation of Adam is freely denied by many, and by none strongly enough defended. And he bringeth many authorities and proofs to the contrary. From Irenaeus he bids them blush, for saying Adam was not saved: and more vehemently, That, by saying so, they make them­selves Hereticks, and Apostates from the truth, and Advocates for the Serpent and Death. God cursed not Adam and Eve, but the earth and the Serpent. Yea, before God pronounced any pu­nishment against Eve or Adam, even in the midst of his cursing of the Serpent, with the same breath he both menaced Satan, and comforted Adam and Eve with the gracious promise of the Messiah, Genes. 3.15. Now, there was never any, unto whom God vouchsafed a speciall promise of Christ, but they were saved. Indeed the Apostle reckoneth not Adam among the faithfull ones, Hebr. 11. but one reason of this omission is, be­cause he entreateth of such faithfull ones onely as were much persecuted; which Adam was not, so farre as is recorded. If it be further objected, That God is called THE GOD OF ABRA­HAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB, Exod. 3.6. Matth. 22.32. and is no where called THE GOD OF ADAM, let it be answered, That Adam is called THE SONNE OF GOD, Luke 3.38. And I think he is too severe a judge, who saith a sonne of God is damned. The Targum or Chaldee Paraphrase (set forth by Rivius) on the Canticles chap. 1. vers. 1. saith, Et veuit dies Sabbati, & protexit eum, & aper­uit os suum, & dixit Psalmum Cantici diei Sabbati. That the first song that ever was made, was indited by Adam, in the time when his sinne was for­given him. Damianus à Goes, De Moribus Aethiopum, makes this the belief of Zagazabo and the Ethiopians, for whom he ne­gotiated, That Christs soul descended into Hell for Adams soul, [Page 87]pag. 93. and that Adam was redeemed by Christ from Hell, pag. 55.

How glorious was it for Christ, to save his first sheep? and how would the Devil glorie, if it were otherwise? Adams fig­leaves may be thought to be sharp, afflictive, and penitentiall. Epiphanius, Haeres. 46. calleth Adam Holy, and saith, We beleeve he is among those Fathers, whom Christ reckoneth alive, not dead: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Irenaeus saith, Adam humbly bare the punishment laid upon him. Can humility be damned? then may pride be saved. Josephus 1.2. recordeth, That Adam foretold the universall destruction of the World; one by the floud, the other by fire. And can the first of Mankinde, the first King, Priest, and Prophet of the World be condemned? Others probably conjecture, that before his death he called the chief of his children, grand-children, and their descendants, and gave them holy and ghostly counsel, as Abraham did, Genes. 18.19. and Jacob, Genes. 49.1, &c. and Moses, Deuteron. 31.1, &c. Sa­lianus fits him a particular speech at his death, and a witty Epi­taph. Feuardentius, on Irenaeus, thus relateth, Nicodemus Christs Disciple, in the History ascribed to him OF THE PASSION AND RESVRRECTION OF THE LORD, reporteth, That our Lord Jesus Christ, when he descended into Hell in his soul, spake thus to Adam, and held his hand, PEACE BE VNTO THEE, VVITH ALL THY SONNES, MY IVST ONES. But Adam falling on his knees (such spirituall knees as before his spirituall hand, which Christ held, while both their bodies were in the grave) weeping-ripe, thus prayed with a loud voice, Exaltabo te, Domine, quoniam suscepisti me, nec delectâsti inimicos meos super me: Domine Deus, clamavi ad te, & sanâsti me; eduxisti ab inferis animam meam, salvâstime à descenden­tibus in lacum. I will magnifie thee, Lord, because thou hast received me, and hast not made glad mine enemies over me: Lord God, I have cried unto thee, and thou hast healed me; Thou hast brought up my soul from Hell, thou hast saved me from those that go down to the pit. Thus Salianus in his Scholia ad Annum 930. A­nother ancient Apocryphal book affirmeth, that Adam repen­ted. Didacus Vega, in his second Sermon on the fifth peniten­tiall Psalme, pag. 443. thus, Leonardus de Ʋtino, in his Book De Legibus, Sermon de Poenitentia, saith, That Adam repented not of his sinne, but remained obstinate till the death of Abel: but when he saw him lye dead at his feet, wallowed in his bloud, and yet pale; and as in a glasse saw the deformity of death, he began to repent. Strabo saith, He was so sorrowfull, that he vowed chastity for ever, and would have performed it, if an Angel had not injoyned him the contrary. And from the authority of Josephus he saith, Adam was so sorry for Abel, that he wept an whole hundred yeares. But I beleeve, saith Vega, He rather wept for the cause, which was sinne, then for the very death of Abel. Ludovicus Vertomannus, in his sixth Book, fourth Chapter, of his journey to India, hath recorded, that a Mahumetan Merchant told him, that at the top of an high mountain in the Iland of Zaylon, subject to the King of Nar­singa, there is a den, in which Adam after his fall lived and [Page 88]continued very penitently. And though their tradition rests on an idle conjecture, because there is yet seen the print of the steps of his feet, almost two spannes long, (for how should they know they were his feet, rather then some giants?) and because, how Adam should come to this Iland, and why, cannot be shewed; yet, so farre as is probable, we will joyn issue with their beleef, to wit, That he was penitent, and so saved. Thus much be spoken concerning the salvation of Adams soul.

Concerning Adams actuall sinne, though I said truly before, That, as it was private and personall, it was not imputed to us; yet (I must needs say) as it was ideall and representative, it was and is imputed to us. He who denieth this, let him also deny, that Christs active and passive Merits are imputed to us. Nei­ther can the Divine providence be taxed with rigour, much lesse with injustice, for imputing Adams sinne unto us. For first, he imputeth not our own actuall and personall iniquities, but for­giveth us both this sinne of Adam and all manner of our own sinnes. Secondly, he imputeth Christs Merits unto us, as if we our selves had done them. For as by one offence of one, judgement came upon all to condemnation: even so by the righteousnesse of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life, Rom. 5.18. We are then not so accursed by the imputation of the first Adams transgression, as we are blessed by the imputation of the second Adams holines. Yet is this sinne originall not absolute­ly and simply imputed unto us, if we take imputation for laying to our charge the sinne of another, without any refe­rence to any offence of our own: but it is imputed to us, as being both his sinne and ours; though we concurred in our kinde, and he in his; he by an explicit act of his will, we by an implicit of ours. In vertue of the masters will, the servant wil­leth, yea performeth many things. He saith to one servant, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to a third, Do this, and he doth it, Matth. 8.9. In all transactions and negotia­tions, the wifes will is included in her husbands. The father selleth away lands of inheritance for ever from the sonne: and though the children be unborn, the childrens will was in the fathers, and bindeth them that yet are not. But of this, much more hereafter. So are we by Adam sold under sinne, Rom. 7.14. Which hath reference to the originall sinne of Adam, saith Augustine in his Retract. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners, Rom. 5.19. Not as Bath-sheba said, 1 Kings 1.21. We shall be counted offenders: [...], say the Septuagint; Ero ego, & filius meus, saith the Hebrew; that is, in others estimate: but [...], Constituti sunt, Were made; which is more then onely esteemed sinners, more then this, That Adams sinne was imputed to us, as excluding our own unrighteousnesse. For this originall sinne is not meerly extraneall, [...], but a sinne [Page 89]that dwelleth in me, saith the Apostle, Rom. 7.20. and peccatum circumstans, Hebr. 12.1. which doth so easily beset us; called also there a weight, as depressing us. That I may avoyd amphibo­logie, and open the point plain, conceive me thus; as original sinne is taken actively, for that sinne of Adam, to which our will involvedly concurred, and which caused sinne in us, it is called Originale peccatum originans: and again, as it is taken passively, for corruption traduced unto us, it is called Originale peccatum originatum; and both these wayes sinne may be said to be impu­ted to us, though somewhat differently. The former more pro­perly is said to be imputed, the latter more properly is said to be propagated; yet both what Adam did, bearing our persons: what we did in his loyns, by a kinde of implicit blinde obedient disobedience; and what he propagated to mankinde, is all but onely one original sinne, partly imputed, partly inherent.

O Judge most righteous, ô Father most mercifull, grant, I beseech thee, that all of us who have been made Sinners by the Disobedience of one, may likewise be made Righteous, and Sanctified, and Justified, and presented blamelesse before thee by the Obedience of one; of one, thy onely Sonne, in whom thou art well pleased, our onely sweet Lord and Savi­our Jesus Christ. Amen.

CHAP. VI.

1 AT length we are come to shew, that original sinne is traduced and propagated unto mankinde; and this is evident. For since Adams aversion re­mained, and was rooted in the nature of him as an habit, and since we have our nature from him, as he had it, not before he sinned, but after sinne, this aversion is left in nature. And this nature is conveyed unto us by gene­ration; conveyed (I say) as corrupt, not as sinfull: and so cor­rupt as flesh and bloud can be, before a reasonable soul be united to it. So that we being in Adam, secundum causam seminalem, & propagandi virtutem, our first father transmitted after his fall some corruption unto all his children. And this corruption was mingled with the whole nature of his posterity; neither could a man single out any part of any one, in which there was not some deal of that primitive corruption. And Adams offpring ever since hath made such a transmission as they received. As if one do throughly mingle a little leaven with a whole unleavened [Page 91]lump; not onely that masse may be said to be perfectly leave­ned, but whatsoever is afterward incorporated into that masse. Such a leaven of corruption was mingled by Adam, and spread or dispersed unto and by his posteritie: or as a needle toucht by a loadstone, imparteth its received vertue to other needles de­pending on it. From the will of every one of us, actuall sinne is derived to all the other parts and faculties both of our bodies and souls: so from the will of the first parents by generation is original sinne conveyed to all mankinde. Or rather thus, in Aquinas his words. Actus peccati exerci­tus per manum vel pe­dem non habet rationem culpae ex voluntate ma­nûs vel pedis, sed ex vo­luntate tetius hominis. Aquin. in Rom. 5. Lect. 3. The act of sinne exercised by the hand or foot, is not made sinne by the will of the hand or foot, but by the will of the whole man. From which, as from a certain head or fountain, the motion of sinne is derived to every member: so from the will of Adam, who was the fountain of humane nature, the whole aber­ration of nature is found culpable in us. And the means he thus there describeth. Though the soul be not in the seed, yet in it is a dispositive vertue apt to receive the soul; which when it is infused, is conformed to it so farre as it is capable, because Quicquid recipitur est in recipiente per modum recipientis. every thing received is in the receiver according to his capacitie.

I need not doubt to say, That the corruption which the fleshly part draweth from our first parent, before the soul be united, is not sinne, but a punishment of sinne, a debilitie of nature, an ef­fect of sinne. For if the Embryo should die, or suffer abortion before the infusion and unition of the reasonable soul, (as such a time there is, & such a thing may be) it must appeare in judge­ment, and, without extraordinarie mercy, be damned, if there were sinne in it: but that a lump of flesh, which onely lived the life of a plant, at the utmost the life of a brute creature (for in­deed some abortions, seeming livelesse lumps, being pricked have contracted themselves, and shewed they had sense) which never had reasonable soul or spirit, or life of man, (for those three severall lives are not onely virtually, but really di­stinguished) I say, that such a rude masse of flesh should be lya­ble to account, and capable of eternall either joy or pain, is strange Divinitie; which yet followeth necessarily, if sinne be in the seed, or unformed Embryo. But you may ask, When sinne beginneth? I answer, So soon as the soul is united, Subest rationale pec­cati susceptibile. There is a reasonable subject susceptible of sinne; and then sinne entreth. Original sinne is in the reasonable soul as in the proper subject, and is there formally: the fleshly seed is the instrumentall means of traduction, both of humane nature and originall sinne. Originall sinne (in a large sense) may be said to be in the flesh, and fleshly seed virtually, as in the cause instrumental, and to be in it originally, causally, materially; and in such sort to be sooner in the body then in the soul, by the order of generation and time: but exactly, and in most proper terms, sinne is sooner in the soul by the order of nature; and hath its first residence in [Page 92]the substance of the soul, then in the faculties of it, and last of all in the body.

2 In Bishop Bilsons Survey, pag. 173. this Position following is produced, and maintained against him by his opposers, Pol­lution, that is sinne and reall iniquity, is not in our flesh without the soul. The Bishop answereth very copiously, The soul cometh not to the body presently with the conception. Mothers and Midwives do certainly distinguish the time of quickning from the time of con­ceiving; neither doth the childe quicken presently upon conception. That the body is not straightway framed upon the conception, many thousand scapes in all females, and namely women do prove. Physi­cians and Philosophers interpose many moneths between the conce­ption and the perfection of the body. Job saith, we were first as milk, then condensed as cruds, after clothed with skinne and flesh, lastly compacted with bones and sinews, before we received life and soul from God, Job 10.10.— The New Testament noteth three degrees in fra­ming our bodies, Seed, bloud, flesh. Upon the premisses he thus argueth. If nothing can be defiled with sinne (as by your doctrine you resolve) except it have a reasonable soul; of necessitie we either had reasonable souls at the instant of our conception, which is a most famous falshood, repugnant to all learning, experience, and to the words of Job; or els we were not conceived in sinne, which is a flat he­resie, dissenting from the plain words of the Sacred Scriptures, and from the Christian Faith.

So farre Bishop Bilson. If company may excuse his opinion, I adde these. First, Mollerus accordeth with him, ‘that [...] is to be referred to the time of conception, so soon as ever it was conceived in the wombe; and [...] to the time that the Foetus lieth hid, & is carried in the wombe; signifying the seed was impure, the conception was not without the flames of concupiscence, and all the masse of bloud that nou­risheth the Embryo, was defiled with vices in the wombe: and lastly, the masse of the Embryo, when in the first ardor of conception it first began to be warmed by the wombe, was contaminated with sinne.’ Enough of Mollerus. Kemnitius in his Examen de Peccato Originali, pag. 167. thus, Cùm mossa Embryonis, in primo ardore concep­tionis, primùm incipe­ret uteri calore foveri, jam erat peccato conta­minata; quae contami­natio, juxta Davidis confessionem, habebat veram rationem pecca­ti, cùm nondum for­mata essent vel mentis, vel voluntatis, vel cor­dis organa. When the masse of the Embryo, in the first ardor of conception, began to be warmed and cherished by the heat of the wombe, it was already defiled with sinne; which defilement, according to Davids confession, was truly a sinne, when the instruments of the minde, or of the will, or of the heart were not yet framed. Luther, on the words In iniquitatibus con­ceptus sum, thus, Non loquitur David de ullis operibus, sed simpliciter de materia & ipso esse; & dicit, Se­men humanum, id est, massa ex qua conceptus sum tota est vitio & peccato corrupta. Mate­ria ipsa vitiata est: lu­tum illud ex quo vas­culum bee fingi coepit, damnabile est: foetus in utero, antequam nasci­mur & homines esse in­cipimus, peccatum est. David speaks not of any works, but simply of the matter and being; and he saith, The humane seed of which I have been conceived, is all corrupted with vice and sinne. The matter it self is infected: that clay of which this little vessel hath begun to be fashioned, is damnable: the fruit in the wombe, before we be born and beginne to be men, is sinne. Hierom, in his Commentary on the [Page 93]words, Concipitur & nascitur in originali peccato quod ex Adam trahit [...]r. Whatsoever is drawn and derived from Adam, is concei­ved and born in originall sinne. Cajetan thus, Hic est textus unde tr [...]kitur originale pec­catum, quo scilicet ex commixtione maris & foeminae conceptus dici­tur in originali peccato. This is the Text from which originall sinne is deduced, wherein every one is said to be conceived in originall sinne by the conjunction of male and female.

All this shall not make me beleeve, that there is sinne and real iniquity without a reasonable soul. Illyricus is justly deser­ted, for saying, The very substance of the soul is sinfull. And these deserve as few followers, who say, That the substantiall, bodily, soul-wanting masse is sinfull. And I professe in this latter to take part with others rather, then with the otherwise most Reverend and learned Bishop. For Culpa non potest esse in re irrationali. There can be no sinne in a thing rea­sonles. Unto Bishop Bilson I thus answer, That all his premisses are true, that I subscribe to his opinion, in the first member of his disjunction. The second part of it I do wholy deny; nor do I fear his aspersion of heresie. To the place of the Psalmograph, I answer with reverence by distinguishing. First, that the words sinne and iniquitie are taken rather for inclinations to sinne, then for sinne properly so called: thus we were conceived in sinne, that is, so soon as ever we were conceived, we had a propension and aptitude to sinne, such and as much as the flesh was then ca­pable of. Augustine thus, Etiam jumenta, quam­vissunt rationisexpertia tamen plerum (que) dicimus debere vapulare cùm peccant. Aug. De Adul­termis Conjugiis lib 1. circa medium. Albeit cattell be void of reason, yet even of them we say oft, that they ought to be beaten when they sinne. But let us leave the vulgar forms of speech. The said Father an­nexeth, Propriè peccare, non est nisi ejus qui utitur rational is voluntatis ar­bitrio. Holcot, De Im­putabilitate Peccati, mendosè legit argu­mento. To sinne, properly is but of him that useth the pleasure and liking of a reasonable will. Secondly, If you will needs take sinne according to its true definition, then I distinguish of concep­tion; which is used either strictly and properly, or at large and extensively. The first way is followed by Naturalists, Ana­tomists, Physicians, and Philosophers; the second way by Di­vines. The first way, they make conception to be an action of the wombe: for when the wombe hath begun its work with at­traction,

(Nam sitiens haurit Venerem, interiús (que) recondit) and continued it, both by permixtion thereof and immuring retention; in the fourth and last place it ends the operation by the suscitation of the inclosed sperms, which is properly called Vide Laurentii Histor. Anatomicam lib. 8. quaest. 12. pag. 619. conception. The spiritus artifex, and the foetus onely formeth, nourisheth, and increaseth what is done afterwards: the wombe onely contai­neth, and therefore conserveth, because the place is the con­servation of the thing placed in it. To say, that we did sinne properly, when our mother thus conceived us, is to say we sinned before we had life: and we may aswell be said to sinne while we were in our fathers seed, (before their conjunction and commixture with our mothers, which is not an houre be­fore conception) and so in their bloud before seed, and in their meat ere it was bloud. Thus, I dare say, the Spirit of God ne­ver meant that we were conceived in sinne, and the traducted [Page 94]matter is not properly full of sinne, or sinneth at all. But take we conception largely, and as Divines do use the word, (for the preparatorie formation, or a degree of it, is a kinde of concep­tion; as the exact formation unto the full grown measure, a little before the nativitie, may be called the completorie con­ception) we may be said to be conceived in sinne; conception being taken for the time of our perfecter formation, extendible almost to our nativitie. In iniquitatibus conceptus sum, saith Lyra, Quia homo descendens ab Adam per carnalem generationem, in unione animae ad corpus contra­bit peccatum originale, quod est ad actualia pec­cata inclinativum. Because man descending from Adam by carnall generation, in the union of the soul with the body contracts original sinne, which inclineth to actuall sinnes. Tremellius hath it, In iniquitate for­matus sum, & in peccato fovit me mater mea: and expounds it in this manner, Iniquitat is & peccati reus sum; in utero for­matus & fotus; haecenim non ad formam concep­tûi, formationis, & fo [...]ûs, s [...]dad foetûs con­stitutionem pertinent. I am guiltie of iniquitie and sinne, being framed and warmed in the wombe; for these pertain not to the form of the conception, shaping, and warming, but to the constitution of the fruit. Vatablus rendreth it, In iniquitate genitus sum—, and inter­prets it, Fictus sum, formatus sum, natus sum. I have been fashioned, framed, born. Concepit me, id est, peperit. Conceived me, that is, brought forth, saith Emanuel Sà, out of Hierome, though I finde it not so in Hierom on the place. S. Augustine following the Septuagint, with Theodoret and others, for the reading In iniquitatibus conceptus sum, hath these passages, Ipsum vinculum mor­tis cum ipsa iniquitate concretum est: nemo nascitur nisi trahens poe­nam, trabens meritum poenae. The very band of death is grown together with sinne it self: None is born without drawing punishment, without drawing the merit of punishment: and he doth in a sort parallel this place with an other place of the Prophet (and it is in Job, I ghesse, who may well be stiled a Prophet) Nemo mundus in conspectu tuo, nec infans, cujus est unius diei vita-super terram, Job 15.14. Our English late Translatours vary thus, I was shapen in iniquitie, and in sinne did my mother con­ceive or warm me, as it is in the margin: which shaping and war­ming is also after the union of the reasonable soul to the body. Not one of all these doth take conception strictly and physi­cally, but largely, and significantly enough both to the Scrip­ture and to our purpose. Stapleton thus, Anima, non caro, st subj [...]ctum virtutum & vitiorum. Stapl. De Orig. Pecc. to 1.4. The soul, not the flesh, is the subject of vertues and vices. Augustine, Semen vitiat, mest, non vitium. Aug. Hy­pognost 2. initio. The seed is infected, not infection. Godfridus Abbas Vindocinensis, Non ex carnis corrup­tione animae mors pra­cessit; nec Diabolus pri­ùs carnem no [...]ram in­fecit quàm animam. Godfridus Abbas Vind. Epist. 39. The death of the soul went not before from the corruption of the flesh; neither doth the Devil infect the flesh before he defile the soul. Augustine, Non caro corruptibilis animam peccatricem, sed anima peccatrix fa­cit esse carnem corrupti­bilem. De Civit 14.3. circa medium. The cor­ruptible flesh doth not make the soul sinfull, but the sinful soul makes the flesh to be corruptible. Thus it was in Adam, is in us: our flesh is not properly sinfull or defiled before the soul inhabit it. Reason also is of our side: for if so soon as there is conception in the wombe, there is true sinne, how many thousand concep­tions miscarry, and never come to perfect formation? as in the Mola, where the forming of the parts being begun can not be perfected, but (the weak workman being drowned in abundance of bloud) in stead of a living creature is ingendred an ill-shaped, hard, and idle lump of flesh, oppressing the wombe with its [Page 95]ponderousnes, (saith Fernel. De Hominis Procreatione 7.8. one) as the stomach is loaded with indi­gestible meats. Is there sin in this conception? sin before life? sin when there is no motion? (as there is none in the lumpish Mola) sin in a Moon-calf? But put we the case in a perfect conception, which without mischance may come to formation & birth, and casually suffereth abortion before the soul be united; yet it can never be proved, that it sinned In & At the conception.

The arguments that trendle that way are these, The very seed, of which we were begotten and conceived, was an unclean thing (saith Bishop Bilson) as Job calleth it, saying, Who can make a clean thing of an unclean? Job 14.4. It is also corruptible, that is, (saith he) full of corruption, as Peter nameth it, when he saith, Born again, not of corruptible seed, 1 Peter 1.23. of which we were born of our pa­rents. Thirdly, The Apostle calleth our flesh, The flesh of sinne, Rom. 8.3. If by these places he takes uncleannesse, corruption, and sinne, improperly, for such ill dispositions as seed, bloud, and livelesse flesh is capable of, the Question is ended: I confesse all. But he understandeth uncleannesse, corruption, and sinne, properly. The title of his pages 174. and 175. is this, Mans flesh is defiled in conception, before the soul is created and infused. And in the body of his Discourse he enlargeth it: as in his Con­clusion to the Reader, at the end of his Sermons, pag. 252. he first propoundeth it, and citeth Ambrose to assist him, saying, Priùs incipit inhomine macula quàm vita. Amnr. Apolog. David cap. 11. Pollution sooner beginneth in man then life. Now the soul is the life of the body; then if pollution cleave to the flesh. before life come, and consequently before the soul come, whencesoever it cometh, it is evi­dent that Adams flesh defileth, and so condemneth us. So farre he. None of these proofs reach home to cleare this, That sinne, true sinne, proper sinne, originall sinne or actuall is in the seed, or bloud, or flesh, before the reasonable soul be united. Neither did that learned Bishop consider, that it can not be called our originall uncleannesse, pollution, or sinne, till we have originem, that is, till our soul hath its first being in the body. He erreth to say, Pollution cleaveth to the flesh before life cometh: and more er­reth, saying, Adams flesh defileth and condemneth us, if he make the flesh subject to condemnation, before its life and union of the soul. For then many thousand abortions should be damned, which never had rationall soul annexed to them. As for Am­brose, Whitak. De Origin. Peccato 1.4. Whitaker thus citeth him from the same Book and Chapter, Antequam nafcimur, maculamur contagio; antequam usuram lu­cis, originis ipsiut accipi­mus injuriam. Before we be born, we are stained with contagion; before we enjoy the light, we receive the injurie of our verie beginning. Am­brose saith not, We have sinne ere we have life, but, We are con­ceived in iniquity: which is true, and confest, if we take concep­tion largely: so Ambrose taketh macula, for such inclination to evill as is in the seed potentially maculative.

Concerning the place of Job: First, Job saith not, The seed is unclean, but, Quis dabit mundum ex immundo? Which may have [Page 96]reference to the person, or the nature of the unclean father. Secondly, it may be a parallell with that of Job 25.4. How can he be clean, that is born of awoman? yea the starres are not pure in his sight, vers. 5. Lastly, things may be said to be unclean, that have no sinne. Ask the unclean beasts, and they will justifie it; and the trees will send forth this truth as leaves. Levit. 19.23, 24. The fruit of the trees planted shall be as uncircumcised (or unclean) unto you three yeares, it shall not be eaten of: but in the fourth yeare it shall be holy, to praise the Lord withall: yet was not the fruit sinfull it self, but quoadusum.

The place of S. Peter is answered by the same Apostle, 1 Pet. 1.18. Silver and gold are things corruptible: yet these creatures, as creatures, are good in themselves; & though they are causes of most sinnes, yet have no sinne: & many other corruptible things, as heaven & earth, are void of all sinne. As concerning the place of the Apostle S. Paul, I answer, it is apparent he speaketh of flesh, after the soul is united; which is nothing to our Question, and therefore a most impertinent proof of the Bishop. Lastly, the Reverend Bishop bringeth this objection against himself, How could David say he was conceived in sinne, when at the con­ception he had neither soul nor body? His main answer is; With God nothing is more frequent, then to call those things that are not, as though they were, Rom. 4.17. and speaketh in Scriptures of things to come, as if they were past or present. David and Job call that seed which was prepared to be the matter of their bodies, by the names of themselves, because it could not be altered what God had appointed. But the void conceptions of women which miscarry before the body be framed, never had either life or soul, and so neither name nor kinde, but perish as other superfluous burdens and repletions of the body. So he. I reply, (that I may not question the worthy Bishop about the meaning of that place, Rom. 4.17.) He hath made a great stirre to little purpose, since he maketh many conceptions void of finne or punishment, like superfluous burdens and repletions of the body, which none ever said to have sinned. Secondly, which is the better answer to the place of the Psalmist, to say, as the Bishop doth, Conceptions which come to nothing are not sin­full, but such as may have souls are sinfull before they have souls, (whereby he splitteth himself on this rock, That a perfect con­ception susceptible of a soul, and aborsed casually before the unition with the soul, is sinfull and liable to account.) or to answer with me, That sinne and iniquity in the place of the Psalmist is taken for the aptitude to sinne, which is in the matter; or els, conception is taken in its latitude, for our time in the mothers wombe; and so true original sinne not to be in the body without a soul. Aquine saith, Quum sola creatura rationalis sit susceptiva culpae, ante infusionem animae rationalis proles concepta non est peccato obnoxia. Aquin. part. 3. Quaest. 27. art. 2. in corp. art. Sith none but the reasonable creature is susceptible of fault, the childe conceived is not subject to sinne before the infusion of a rea­sonable soul. Whitaker saith well, Carnem nihil concu­piscere sine anima, nec doctus, nec doctus dubi­tat, ut loquar cum Au­gustino. Quid enim caro i [...]animis a trunco dif­fert? Whitak. De Ori­gin. Peccato 3.1. That the flesh covets nothing [Page 97]without the soul, neither the learned nor the unlearned doubts, that I may speak with Augustine. For what doth the inanimate flesh differ from a stock? And I hope the Bishop will not say, A block or a stock hath sinne. Moreover, after thousands of sinnes committed in the body, and by and with the body, yet the body separated from the soul hath no sinne, is not sinfull, much lesse is sinne: and shall the seed in the wombe be called sinfull or sinne, as Kemni­tius or Luther calleth it, before it is warmed with life or enli­vened with a soul? Lastly, in our very Creed conception is used with libertie and freedome, and not narrowly imprisoned: Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary. Where conception includeth in itself formation of the bodily parts, and unition of the soul: So Eve conceived, and bare Cain, Genes. 4.1. and Cain his wife conceived, and bare Chanoch, vers. 17. Again, Genes. 16.11. the Angel saith to Hagar, Concepisti & paries filium: Thou art with childe, saith our late Translation, and shalt bear a sonne. And usually in the Scriptures there are onely made two degrees of mans nativitie. First, conception, wrap­ping within its verge generation, with all degrees of formation, nutrition and augmentation. Secondly, birth or bringing forth. Whereupon they often runne in couplets together, Concepit & Peperit; where conception is extended unto our nativitie. Let this suffice against Bishop Bilson and his partisans, Mollerus and others, That conception is taken by Divines, in a full unre­strained sense.

3. Let us now with Physicians say somewhat of conception, as it is taken natively, physically, properly, and formally. Though I never met with any who doth exactly set down the beginning, progresse, and end of conception, with its infallible bounds and limits of time, and wholy agrees with his fellows; yet out of their manifold diversitie I have gathered enough to justifie, that conception is within a very short time of coition, when it is impossible there should be sinne properly, unles the seed in the bodies of mankinde be sinfull, or the soul be tra­ducted by the seed; which Bishop Bilson justly explodeth. That which we call conception, Physicians call [...]. which descendeth from [...]. which reception is in a short time: then followeth permistion, whereupon Non minùs vivit semen, quàm quadam pars cor­poris materni; namque per cotylas (quae sunt acce­ptabula) corpor [...] materni strictè sic inseritur, vt ar­boris trunco ramus, qui virescii adhuc, & vita tenetur. The seed li­veth no lesse then a part of the mothers body: for by vessels (which are receptacles) it is as straitly ingrafted into the body of the mother, as a science into the stock of a tree, which doth still flourish and is full of life. And Hippocrates calleth it [...]. for upon commi­stion is life: and this some do call a conception. Galen seems to make conception, one and the same with comprehension and retention. If so it be, since retention is immediately upon commistion, (if not before, or at it) conception cannot be long deferred. Lastly, if conception be a distinct action from the re­ceiving [Page 98]attraction, and from the permistion of the attracted, and from the retention of the mingled or permixed: if conception be Vnificatio foecundi seminis ad formandum foetum. the vivification of the fruitfull seed to the shaping of the fruit, and be the fourth severall action of the wombe, as Laurent. Histor. A­natom. 8.4. Lauren­tius hath it: I say, grant all this; yet, since the distance of time between these actions is very short, conception must needs be shortly post coitum perfectum. Some say, within seven houres; I say, almost presently: but let him that doubteth have recourse to Physicians, and to the excellent description of conception made by the learned Fernel. De Hominis Procreatione 7.8. Fernelius. For I will passe from this point; wherein you see, how great a difference there is between conception, as God in Holy Writ speaketh of it, with Divines accordingly using the word; and as man describeth it natu­rally: and I now come to speak of abortives.

4 Job maketh two kindes of abortives; which the Latines also do curiously discern and distinguish by the severall words Aborsus and Abortus: (the lofty and learned Bolducus is my Au­thor) the former is more secret and kept close, the latter ex­posed more to sight and knowledge: and if being ripe for birth, it die before, is called Exterricinius by Festus. The former is livelesse & formlesse; the latter living, and formed before abor­tion: the former aborsed within 40 dayes upon conception; the latter, after distinguishable organization. The aborsive had no images kept in remembrance of them, (saith Lorinus on Ecclesiastes 6.3. as Bolducus on Job 3.16. citeth him) the abortive had: the aborsive had no graves properly so called; but the abortive had. The former indeed were allowed a buriall place, though not pro­perly a grave. Fulgentius, De Prisco Sermone, saith, The An­cients did call the places of infants buriall, SUGGRUNDARIA. They could not call them Busta, because they had not bones which might be burnt; nor could they be named Tumuli, be­cause they were so small, that the place did not tumescere. There­fore the Vulgat did not so aptly read it, Job 10.19. Translatus ad tumulum: it had been more properly, ad suggrundarium. Our English late Translation hath it, To the grave. And though the word and noun Keber, there used, cometh of the verb Kabar, which signifieth sepelire, (some comparing it to its transposit and anagram Rakab, which signifieth to rot, or putrifie) and full often denoteth the sepulchres and graves in the Holy Writ: yet, perhaps, it would better have sorted to the ancient custome of interring untimely births, if they had read it, I should have been carried from the wombe to my burying place, and omitted the grave, as being the receptacle of greater bodies. Job wisheth he had been like the first of these, Job 10.18. and saith of it, I should have been as though I had not been, vers. 19. Semblably, Job 3.16. As an untimely birth I had not been; and in reference to the speedy, and secret removing it from out of sight, Job there [Page 99]calleth it an hidden untimely birth. To the second sort Job wisheth he had been like, Job 3.11. Why died I not from the wombe? (as our late Translatours have it, agreeable to the He­brew, word for word) but the sense is hit by the Septuagint, [...], and the Vulgat, In utero. To which second sort also the Preacher pointeth, Ecclesiastes 6.3. saying thus, If a man beget an hundred children, and live many yeares, — and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no buriall, I say; an untimely birth is better then he. If any one wonder, why Job desired to be like each of the untimely births, and why Solomon should pre­ferre an abortive before an unburied churl: when David curseth his enemies with this curse of God, Psal. 58.8. Let them be like the untimely birth of a woman, that may not see the sun: (which in­deed is an heavy imprecation, as may appeare by the rest of the curse unfolded in these similitudes, Break out the great teeth of the young lions, ô Lord, vers. 6. and vers. 7. Let them melt away as waters, which runne continually: when he bendeth his bow, to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces; and vers. 8. As a snail which melteth, let every one of them passe away) you are to know, that Job did it [...], saith Tremellius; and the Preacher, ex ra­tione carnis, saith the same; that is, (as I interpret him) out of car­nall reasoning: he might rather have said, ratione carnis, because the flesh of the abortive was buried, and the churls carcase un­buried. Nor let any man thwart me, by saying, that in the Se­ptuagint is no such matter; but the words are, [...] and the Vulgat accordeth, Supercecidit ignis, and the whole troups both of Greek and Latine Fathers so read it, and so expound it: I answer ingenuously, that (ascribing so much as I do to the Septuagint and Vulgat) I wondred, how there should be so great difference from the uncorrupt originall. The Vulgat (thought I) trusted to the 70. and the 70. to some Hebrew Copy varying from others more perfect. The 70 rendred, Gen. 4.8. not according to the Hebrew (which is certainly defective, saith Vatablus, and somewhat is to be understood; for indeed there is an extraordinary pause) but according to the Samaritan Pen­tateuch, Cain said unto his brother, Let us go into the field, as M ^r. Selden evinceth by the authority of Hierom and Cyrill of old, and by a Samaritan Copy, now in the hands of Bishop Usher: which the Hierusalem Targum amplifieth, relating, That Cain told Abel there was no future world, nor reward for goodnesse, nor punishment for sinne: all which Abel contradicted; and thereupon Cain slew him: So might the 70. or the Vulgat, or both, translate the passage of the Psalmist, not accordant to those Copies which are now in price, but answerable to some other Hebrew one. At length I rested assured, that the Copies which they used, differed onely in one letter, and in the points. For instead of [...] with five points (as it is most commonly read) and [Page 98] [...] [Page 99] [...] [Page 100] with six points, saith Kimchi, (which signifieth abortivus, and is in the Psalmist) their Copies had it [...], which signifieth ce­cidit, there being the same Radicals, and no letter changed. Secondly, for [...], mulieris, which is in David, they read [...], which signifieth fire: the omission onely of one letter [...], hath caused abortivus mulieris to be translated cecidit ignis. For as for the variety of punctations, that is of small moment, by reason of their often interchangings and easie mistakings; and points were not used in the dayes of the Septuagint, (as some say) scarce when the Vulgat first was, (as others say) not from the beginning (say I) if the names of the points and accents be Syriacall. Drusius in his Henoch, chap. 1. saith, Hieronymus ante Masoritarum tempora, à quibus apices habemus (ut communis opinio est) qui nunc in vsu, vixit. Mercer in the great Dictionary of Pagnine, on the word [...] relates, that when the Chaldee trans­lates, Deuter. 26.5. Laban Syrus quaerebat perdere patrem meum, and when the Vulgat rendred it, Syrus persequebatur patrem meum (whereas indeed it ought to be read, as it is in our last Translation, A Syrian ready to perish was my father) non est du­bium (saith he) quin sine punctis, quibus tunc carebant Biblia, lege­rint in Pihel, non in Kal. Yea, Sine dubio novas literas habemus; if we may beleeve Bellarmine, De Verbo Dei, 1.1.

And indeed, the three fundamenta laid by Balthasar Bam­bach, That the points were coëtaneall to the Hebrew letters, are founded on the sands. First, saith he, Sine vocalibus consonan­tes proferri non possunt, & omnis lingua, quae illis destituta est, manca, imperfecta, & mutila efficitur. What of all this? how followeth this, Because the consonants cannot be pronounced with­out vowells; therefore the vowells were underwritten? Let him know, the Hebrew Tongue was most perfect, when it was least written, and till Moses his time there were not so much as consonants written; (howsoever they fable of a pillar written upon long before) for God invented the letters first, when he made his Two Tables, and writ the Law in them. See this proved by our learned Whitaker, saying, Deus ipse scribendi ex­emplum, modúm (que) ost endit, quando Legem suis digitis conscriptam Mosi tradidit. Sic Chrysost. & Theophy­lact. in 1 Matth. & Pa­pistae in confess. Petro­coviensi, cap. 15, & Screckins Jesuita, Thes. 13, De Verbo Dei; Whitak. De Script. Controvers. 1. quaest. cap 2. God himself hath shewed an example and manner of writing, when he delivered to Moses the Law written with his own fingers. So Chrysostom and Theophylact write on the first of Matthew, and the Papists in their Confession, &c. But though Eusebius, Praeparat. Evangel. lib. 18. saith, Moses first taught the use of letters to the Jews, yet Saint Augustine, De Civitate 15.23, saith, Enoch wrote Nonuulla divina. some divine things; since Saint Jude testifieth so much. But that ever honoured Father considered not, that Jude said onely Enoch prophesied, which he might do by saying onely, and not writing; as Adam, Genes. 2.24. yea God himself pro­phesied of Christ in Paradise, Genes. 3.15, which Moses first wrote (for ought that we know:) and S. Judes words are, [Page 101] Enoch prophesied, saying; in which writing is rather excluded then included. Drusius in his Enoch cap. 27, saith, There was a book called LIBER BELLORUM DOMINI, out of which Moses bring­eth a testimony. Cornelius à Lapide saith, It was written before the Pentateuch. Aben Ezra saith, The book was in the dayes of Abra­ham. In the book of Job, who lived before Moses, is mention of writing, and of books, as of things common, and of graving in stone with a pen of iron. Cusanus prinketh higher: in his Com­pend, chap. 3. pag. 241. he saith, Our first parents had the art of writing; since by it man hath many helps; for things past and absent are by it made present. By the same reason he may say, Adam knew the art of Printing, of Brachygraphy, of Characters. Let us passe­by the unauthorized vast fancy of Cusanus, and answer the ob­jection drawn from Jobs book: which if it were written by his three friends, or their Scribes, at their dictate, as saith Bolducus the Carthusian (since they could make Job no better satisfa­ction then to historifie his innocency, and their own petu­lancy) or if by Elihu the Buzite (as is very probable: for he was young when they were old, Job 32.6. and might well live till after the writing of the Pentateuch, and publishing of books) or by Job himself, for Job himself might have conferred in Midian with Moses, saith Bolducus; who also died but thirteen yeares before Moses died, saith that Carthusian: yea Job lived after Moses, if he lived 248 yeares (as the Septuagint and Olympio­dorus do account.) And certainly, after all Jobs misery, he li­ved in prosperity 20 yeares longer then the whole yeares of Moses (compare Job 42.16. with Deuter. 33.7.) and so Job might know the writing of the Law in Tables of stone, and the other Sacred Writings of Moses; perhaps also books of other men, to which he alluded; and yet there was no writing be­fore the Law. Concerning the book, Numb. 21.14. suppose the word runne in the present tense, Dicitur, It is said in the book of the Warres of the Lord; yet it is expounded by the Chaldee as of a thing past, What God did in the Red Sea, and in the brooks of Arnon; which latter clause necessarily implyeth, that the book was written after the Law; for The battle of Arnon was the four­tieth yeare after their Exodus, saith a Jew, by Vatablus his com­mendation, very eminent. Or say it be read (as Robert Stephen, in his Annotations on the Pentateuch, gathered from the Kings Professours at Paris, hath it) Sicut fecitin Mari Rubro, sic faciet in torrentibus Arnon, which sense Cornelius à Lapide embraceth; yet those words evince, that the book was written since their going out of Egypt, which was but fourty dayes before the giving of the Law, saith Helvicus. But indeed, first, the word Sepher doth not alwayes signifie a book, but sometimes a Narrative of things past; whereupon Tremellius readeth it, Idcirco dici solet, IN RECENSIONE BELLORUM JEHOVAE: And so others have [Page 102]held, saith Vatablus; plainly denying, that there was ever any such especiall book of warres. Others read it in the future, It shall be read; and thereupon some of the Jews think it is the Book of Judges, which handleth the Warre with Amalek; or another book which recounted the miracles of God in the Red Sea, and by the river Arnon: which book, perhaps, is now pe­rished, as divers others of the holy Scriptures; and amongst them, a book made by Samuel, 1 Samuel 10.25. Which I wondred that neither Drusius, nor any who handled the con­troversies, whom I could yet meet with, ever observed before me. And indeed Jeamar is the future tense, It shall be said, or, it shall be written. So Vatablus, the Interlineary, Eugubinus, and the Genevians. So the words are rather propheticall then histo­ricall: and so no particular book of the warres of the Lord was written before the two Tables. Lastly, that I may leave no ob­jection unanswered, adde this to the answer of S. Augustine, That Christ, speaking of a prophesie in Paradise concerning himself, doth not say, It was written before Moses, but, It is written by Moses of me, John 5.46. Moreover, if we can read the Hebrew now without vowels, much easier and better could they whose daily speech it was. The necessity of pronouncing the consonāts by the vowels, evinceth not the writing of consonāts; the neces­sity of writing the Hebrew tongue by consonants evinceth not the necessity of writingvowels: they may be of a later invention.

Secondly, saith he, Quum duae linguae Syriaca & Arabica, quae ab Hebraea ortae sunt, vocales habeant, ut ex libris manuscriptis & impressis apparet; Ma­trem uempe Hebraeam, illis carere verisimile non est. Seeing that the two tongues, the Syriack and the Arabick, which came from the Hebrew, have vowels, as it ap­peares out of manuscripts and printed books, it is not likely that the Mother-tongue, to wit the Hebrew, wants them. I answer it fol­loweth not, Because the Syriack & Arabick have now points; there­fore they had ever so when they were written: and if they had ever points, it is likely they invented them, and added them to their consonants, the rather because the Hebrew wanted them.

Thirdly, Quâ Linguâ Deus Sacra sua oracula pro­mulgavit, banc certam minimé (que) ambiguant esse necessariò statuen­dum est. We must needs hold that tongue to be certain, and no way ambiguous or doubtfull, in which God hath published his sacred Oracles. I answer, Then God should have writ in any other language: for the Hebrew, of all other is most dubious and ambiguous. And whereas he addeth, That the Hebrew without vowels hath no certain signification, but from the antecedent and consequent; and admitteth three, foure, or five significations, accor­ding to the diversity of vowels: I answer, the antecedents and consequents are guides sufficient, and God did it purposely to exercise our wits, and to make us know, that though in things necessary to salvation the Scripture is easy, yet in some mat­ters there are depths not to be sounded; in others, The lips of the Priest should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth, Malach. 2.7. which the unlearned scorn now adayes to do; though there be much ambiguitie: but how bold-daring, [Page 103]self-willed would they be, if there were no difficulties?

I return from the words to the matter, and say, That as the strong births of the wombe are a blessing of God, whether in women, or in beasts, Deuter. 30.9. So an abortion is a curse, and abortives (I mean that had life and reasonable souls) by the ordinary rules of Genes. 17.14. when Circumcision was in force; and of John 3.3. whilest Baptisme is in force, is a fearfull estate. Howsoever God may dispense with his own Law, and shew mercy extraordinarily; yet David, when he wished his enemies to be like abortives, wished them no good, but evill: yea, if he did not curse them, but foretold what they should be like; and that they were not the words of impreca­tion, but prediction; yet he did not fore-divine, or fore-pro­phesie any good estate to them, whom he likeneth to abortives. Let this suffice concerning abortives, incapable of sinne or pu­nishment; and abortives, whose estate of soul is dangerous, being measured by the rules of precepts. Which I say against Ana­baptists, and the contemners or causelesse delayers of that gra­cious Sacrament.

5 It is now supposed, and shall (if it please God) hereafter be demonstrated, That humane souls are not traducted, nor cau­sally brought out of the flesh: yet are they occasionally, (that I may touch at the manner) God having resolved and decreed, after generation and fit organization of the Embryo, to create and infuse a reasonable soul: which soul, because it is united to a masse corrupted, in such a manner as a spiritlesse masse may be corrupted, or rather to a masse inclining or inducing to cor­ruption, in the very unition it contracteth originall sinne. Hugo Eterianus thus descanteth on this point, Cum anima languore afficitur, non volun­tate, non necessitate, sed solâ societate peroelli­tur: si voluntate cor­rumperetur anima; non originale, sed actuale peccatum censeretur: si necessitate c [...]deret, von ultrà esset imputandum illud vitium, Hugo Eter. de Animarum regressu ab Inferis cap. 4. When the soul lan­guisheth, it is neither cast down by the will, nor by necessity, but onely by fellowship, if the soul were corrupted by the will, it should not be counted originall sinne, but actuall: if it should fall by necessitie, that vice were no further to be imputed. Concerning the latter part, I answer, if in his necessity he imply coaction, he saith true: other­wise, by this concurrence of our condescending will in Adam, or by our own implicit will, we may draw on us a necessitie of after-sinning, which most justly may be imputed to us, and we may tie our selves with our own bonds. To the former part this may give satisfaction, That against the will of the soul, the soul it self can not be corrupted: for then the will should be forced, and so no will at all, but Noluntas, and not Voluntas. It is not necessary, saith Bellarmine, that our soul must needs come from Adam, because we draw sinne from him: if but one part come from him it is enough. For a fa­ther doth not per se produce originall sinne in the childe, but per accidens; namely, as by the act of generation it co­meth to passe, that his sonne is a member of mankinde, which [Page 104]was overtaken in Adams corruption, and that the propen­sion unto evill of the earthly part traducted, meeting with a soul not much resisting, causeth this originall sinne to result thencefrom, and death by this original sinne. So that no soon­er is the soul united to its body, and the matter glewed to the form, but the infant deserveth to be, and is the childe of death, by reason of the primigeneall corruption. If you enquire after what manner the body worketh the soul unto this evill; we may truly say, Corpus non agit in ani­mam actione physicâ & immediatâ. The body worketh not upon the soul by a naturall and immediate action. You heard what Hugo Eterianus said, It is stricken or cast down onely by fellowship. He enlargeth him­self in the same Chapter, thus, Vitium & languor & corruptio ante animae conjunctionem in carne persistunt, ex qua tabe a­nima maculatur; sicut si testa odore malo imbuta sit, quemcun (que) liquorem susceperit, suâ corrupti­one inficit. Imperfection, languishing, and corruption abide in the flesh before the souls conjuncti­on; from which disease the soul is infected: as if a vessel be tainted with an ill odour, it infects therewith whatsoever li­quour it receiveth. Gerson thus, Anima ex conjunctione ad corpus contrabit illud vitium; sicut quandoquis cadit in lutum, foedatur & maculatur. Gers. in Compend Theolog. The soul by the conjunction with the body contracteth that infection; as when one falleth into the mire, he is besmeared and stained. Felisius thus, Pomum mundum in manu immunda positum foedatur. Vinum bonum tran [...]fusum in vas aceto­sum, suum naturalem perdendo saporem cen­trabit alienum: sic ani­ma, quando incipit esse in carne unita, suum na­turalem amittit vigo­rem. A clean apple put in an unclean hand is soiled. Good wine poured into a fustie vessel con­tracts a strange taste, and loses its own naturall: so the soul loses its naturall vigour, when it is united in the flesh. Another thus, Anima cum labente simul labitur, & frustra nititur dum inni­titur. To the same effect another saith thus, As the purest rain-water falling on dust, is turned with the dust into a lump of mire: so at the coadunation of the soul unto the earthly part, both spirit and flesh are plunged in the durt of corruption. Augustine against Julian the Pelagian, 4.15. preferreth the very Heathen before Julian; for he held, That nothing was conveyed unto us from Adam; and they held, Nos oh antiqua scelera suscepta in vita supe­riore, poenarum luenda­rum causâ esse natos. That we were born to be punished for old crimes committed in a former life. And, saith Augustine, it is true which Aristotle relateth, That we are punished like to those who fell among the Hetrurian robbers, Quorum corpora viva cum mortuis, adversa adversis accommodata, quàm optissimè colliga­bantur & necabantur. Whose living bodies being cou­pled face to face with dead mens carcases, were so killed. Of the He­trurian Tyrant Mezentius Virgil, Aeneid. 8. recordeth the like;

But I return from this Digression. The Heathen say (as S. Au­gustine relateth) Nostros animos cum corporibus copulatos, ut vivos cum mortuis esse conjunctos. That our souls united to our bodies are like the living coupled with the dead. They saw somewhat, saith he, and commendeth their wisedome in discerning the miseries of mankinde to be for somewhat before committed, & in acknow­ledging the power and justice of God; though without divine revelation they could not know, that it was Adams offence which brought such a wrack both on our souls and on our bodies.

What hath been hitherto related, seemeth too much to en­cline to the naturall, physicall, immediate working of the soul upon the body. Others are as faultie, who say, The soul receiveth no annoyance from the body, but by way of IMPEDITION onely, where the spirituall faculties are hindered, and the Musick spilt, by reason of the untuneablenes of the organes. But they wil not seem to heare, That a spirituall substance can receive infection from a nature corporeall. Both opinions may rest contented in the middesse or mean, That as the body cannot go beyond the sphere of its activitie, and work properly and physically upon the soul: so by the interposition, as it were, of a middle nature, the body not onely hindereth the faculties of the soul from working, but sometimes worketh upon the soul. Thus the naturall, vitall, and animall spirits do binde and unite the soul to the body, that neither part can part from other, though it would. Thus bodily objects work on the minde, but it is by the mediation of the outward and inward senses. Shall corporeall, outward, and re­mote objects, by degrees, draw the soul into sinne, even in our perfect age, when our naturall reason is most vigorous; and may not the corrupted seed, having as great a propension to evill as Naphtha to take fire, at the conjunction infect the soul with a participation of uncleannes, though the operation be not physicall, or immediate? By Adams soul sinning was Adams flesh infected; may not our soul be infected as well by our flesh? A spirituall substance can produce a bodily effect. Boëtius saith excellently, Forms materiall came from forms im­materiall: Our will was moved by our intellect, our appetite by our will, and a bodily change conformable to our appetite. And may not a bodily species work by the same degrees, backward, on the soul it self? The reason is alike in the contrarietie. Doth the corpo­reall fire of Hell torment and affect the incorporeall spirits of evill Angels, and shall it of wicked men, (as most certainly it doth and must; which shall be proved, God willing, other­where) and may not the matter make some impression on the form, the body upon the soul, when there is such a sympathie in nature betwixt them? If the soul do no way suffer from the body, how doth it follow the temperature of the body? How doth madnes, foolishnes, anger, and love, with other affections, work upon the minde? Yea, how cometh it to passe, that not onely strength and nimblenes of body, but even goodnes of wit is propagated, (if nature be strong) and children resemble their fathers both in manners and understanding? The flesh it self without the soul, if it be beaten, hurt, or cut, is no way sensible. Reunite the separated soul to the wronged body, the soul feeleth, and is much affected: nor is the grief in the incision onely, but in the soul. Yea, in apoplexies and deep sleeps, cast upon men by stupefactive ingredients and compounded by art, [Page 106]while the soul is in the body, wounds have been given unto the earthy part, and it never felt them: when those fits are vanished, the soul feels the pain of the discontinuity, and division of the flesh, as well as the body. Doctor Praelect. 51. De Libris Apocryphis. Rainolds thus, God by nature hath ordered, that the soul naturally united to the body, Compatiatur corpori, & afflicto corpore vexetur, & recreato exhilaretur, & corpere occiso condo­lescat; ut quodam me­do ratione corpor is pati­atur. Should suffer with the body, and be grieved the body being afflicted, and rejoice it being refreshed, and be sorrowfull the body being killed; so that some way it suffers by reason of the body. Permit me but the use of his modification, some way, and I dare say, The body drawes the soul its way, some way to sinne. Aquinas on Rom. 5. Lect. 3. It should not seem, that sinne which is an accident of the soul, can be produced by the originall of the flesh: It is answered (saith he) with reason. Though the soul be not in the seed, yet there is in the seed a vertue disposing the body to receive the soul, which soul being poured or infused into the body, is after a sort conformable to the body, because every thing received is in the receiver according to the capacitie of the receiver. To him let me adde, If a new created soul should be put into a body not descending from Adam, it should not have originall sinne; but meeting with a body disposed to cor­ruption, after its kinde it yeeldeth, and contracteth originall sinne.

6. Yea, but the act of Adams sinne passed quickly away, and the guiltines was forgiven; how could it infect us? I answer, Persona primùm infe­cit naturam, pòst na­tura infecit personam. The person did first infect the nature, afterwards the nature did infect the person. The speedy gliding act poisoned our nature; and we have not uncorrupted Adams nature, or any part of it; but his corrupt nature propagated corrupteth our persons. The forgivenes of that his guilt and sinne joyned with subse­quent holines of life, is no priviledge of innocency to his poste­rity; who were not made of his perfect, but vitiated nature. Accordingly since that time, they who are cleansed with the laver of regeneration, sealed with the spirit, justifyed by faith, presented blamelesse to God by Christ, precious in the eyes of the Lord, just among men, elect, and pure; even such do be­get children over whom this gangren of corruption creepeth, and the babes are infected with originall sinne. If it be obje­cted, If the root be holy, so are the branches, Rom. 11.16. there­fore holy mens children are better in their generation, then wicked mens children: I answer, the fallacie is in the word Holy, which in the place to the Romanes signifieth not inward holines in the sight of God, but outward holines, whereby they might be distinguished from other prophane people. Thus the wicked Jews were as holy as the righteous Abra­ham, even the traytour Judas himself. If any further insist and alledge, The children of a beleever are holy, 1. Cor. 7.14. It is also truly further answered, That the same word Holy is ho­monymous; not being all one with justified, regenerate, exempt [Page 107]or free from sinne: but they are said to be holy, in regard of the communion with the Church, for that covenant sake, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. So Holines signifieth a rela­tion, not a qualitie, saith Sanctitas significat relationem, non qua­litatem. Scharp. Curs. Theol. pag. 461. Scharpius. Augustine thus, Sicut gignatur ex olea­sir [...] semine oleaster, & ex oleae semine non nisi olea­ster, cùminter oleast. um & oleam plurimum di­stat. Aug. De Nuptiis & Concupijcentia 1.19. & 2.34. As a wilde olive-tree is brought forth out of the seed of a wilde olive-tree, and out of the seed of an olive-tree nothing but a wilde olive-tree, although there be a great difference between a wilde olive-tree and an olive­tree. The seed both of the wilde-olive, and also of the garden, true, good olive-tree bringeth forth a wilde-olive: so a sinner is begotten of the flesh of a sinner, and also of the flesh of a righ­teous man, though there is a great difference between a sinner and a just person. Hast thou ground fallowed, manured, fit to be sowen? hast thou seed of the best, picked, winnowed, or tried? is it clear from tares, chasse, or dust? though thou hast thy desire for a seasonable time of sowing, though the heavens drop fatnes, and the earth conspireth with them to yeeld thee a plentifull and good crop; yet shall thy corn arise, grow up, and be reaped with weeds, at least with husk, chasse, and dust: so doth a just man beget an unjust, Christianus non Christianum, A Christian an Vnchristian; the circumcised Hebrews beget children uncircumcised: for the generation is naturall, and not spirituall. Wicked Ahaz begat good Hezekiah, wicked Ammon good Josiah; good, not by generation, but regeneration. Those wicked Fathers had no more priviledge then just Lot, who begat wicked daughters; or David, who had Absalom; or Abraham, who had Ismael; or Isaac, who had Esau; or Noah, who had Ham; or, to winde it up to the highest, Adam, whose first-begotten was the accursed Cain. A whole family may be bound to some speciall service, for some disloyalty they have shewed to their King. If the King be so gracious as to make proclamation, That whosoever in a battell fighteth valiantly shall be himself freed from such servitude and bounden service; shall his children expect to be freed likewise? Personall acce­ptance is no necessary signe of generall successive manumission. We betrayed God for a little pleasure. Those that fight a good fight under Christ, are freed: yet do the children of the just grone under that yoke, out of which their fathers by speciall grace have plucked their necks. Yea, but he sinneth not that is begotten; for neither body is framed, nor soul united: he sinneth not that begetteth, for the bed is undefiled; and in matrimony the act of generation lawfull, yea commanded, yea meritorious, say some of the School: He sinneth not also that createth the soul. By what crany, crank, or chink shall originall sinne creep in? It was the objection of Julian the Pelagian, saith Augustine: who answereth, Quid quaeris latentem rimam, cùm habeas aper­tissimam januam? Nam secundum Apostolum, Per unum hominem pec­catum intravit. Aug. De Nuptiis & Concupisc. 2.28. Why do you seek a secret chink, sith you have an open doore? for according to the Apostle, By one man sinne entred. And the manner how the soul is made sinfull, is described at large [Page 108]before, to wit, That by the union it is infected, and so soon as it is infused it tasteth of corruption. But this seems strange, if not impossible, That the soul, so soon as it is tied to the body, should be caught like a bird with a lime-bush, and bound up in corruption as in a bundle. Let him that objecteth, remember the Angels, higher of nature then men: Created they were in the truth, but they did not abide in the truth, John 8.44. God found no stedfastnes in the Angels, Job 4.18. Did not Satan fall like lightning from heaven? or rather according to the Greek, Satan fell from heaven like lightning, Luke 10.18. and lightning is gone, ere we can say, it is come. The Angels kept not their first estate, but left their own habitations, Jude, vers. 6. Do not some of the School say, They fell the second instant of their creation? and Aquine and his fellows maintain, it was Statim post primum in­stans. presently after the first instant? So that what Seneca said of the burning of Lyons, Diutiùs illam tibi pe­riisse, quàm periit, narro. Sen. Epist. 91. I am longer in telling thee that it perished, then it was in perishing, we may well apply to the evil Angels not standing, or be­ginning to fall. And (alas!) what a short time was there be­tween Adams perfection, and imperfection? how suddenly did he conceive, and bring forth corruption? So quickly doth the soul of a young childe sink under corruption, though it be not speedily discerned. The seed of a stote, fox, or serpent, hath dangerous and desperate inclinations in it, though they break not forth long after. For as in the dark night you can not diffe­rence, distinguish, or know the blindnes of a blinde mans eye, from the eye of him who is not blinde; but when the light co­meth, it is easily discerned: so in infants originall sinne appea­reth not, but in processe of time it groweth manifest. Humours putrifying and putrified are long in the body, ere they come to their height, and shew themselves outwardly: so is sinne in the soul of every childe; it lurketh in our nature, which was derived unto us from our Fore-fathers. Yet let me not be mistaken, as if I held, that we are answerable for the sinnes of our Fore­fathers, or that Adams future sinnes, after his first sinne and fall, were propagated, or the iniquities of any other our immediat, mediat, or remote progenitours shall lie heavy on us. For man begetteth man like to himself, as he is Species hominis, not as he is Individuum: and Accidents belonging to the individuall per­son of the Father passe not over to the childe, but those things that pertain to the specificall nature. Therefore what belong­eth to man, as he is Individuum, he doth not propagate. As for example, A Musician begetteth not a Musician, but a man; an Astrologer an earthly, a wiseman a fool, a Divine a carnall, a holy man an unclean person. Should we propagate as we are Individua, we should also convey, and communicate to our po­steritie our knowledge, our arts, our sciences, and our Fathers holy inclinations, and mortified dispositions. For good is more [Page 109]diffusive and spreading of it self, then evil can be; and God ex­tendeth Mercy further then he doth his Justice, Exod. 20.6. Which vertuous good since we do not derive unto our poste­ritie, neither do we or shall we partake of our predecessours sinnes, or of any one sinne, except of the onely first sinne of our first predecessour.

7. There was not given either to Adam, or to the sonnes of Adam, any one precept which belonged to all mankinde: I mean such a precept by the breach of which we might have fallen in their fall, or in Adams fall, without our own actuall consent, save onely one, of which I spake so much before; nei­ther do the acts of any fathers necessarily binde all his descen­dents. Jonadab the sonne of Rechab commanded his children, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sonnes for ever: neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any, Jerem. 35.6, 7. They are commended because they performed the commandment of their father, vers. 16. and are blessed for obeying and keeping all his precepts, vers. 18. but therefore (in my opinion) more commended and more blessed, because the performance was more of voluntary devotion, then of binding necessitie, or a meer imperious charge: for his precepts could not lay so great a tie upon all his descendents: but certainly the obedience was of free condescent, not coa­ctive command; unlesse we say, by immediate divine revelation he was commanded to put that yoke upon his posteritie for ever.

It is a true maxime in School-divinitie, Purè personalia non propagantur. Meerly personals are not transmitted. Of this sort is holinesse and sinne; and therefore not tranducted unto others. After Zacharie was dumbe, Luk. 1.24. he begat John Baptist, a crier, the voice of one crying, Mark 1.3. And John 9.20. the blinde man had parents which could see. Halting Jacob, Genes. 32.32. begat the lion Judah: the lusty-lovely Jonathan, the lame Mephibosheth. But there are others which may be called mixt-personals, and these are often­times hereditarily derived. Thus through the noisome quali­tie of the seed, one leper begetteth an other; and a father sub­ject to the stone or gout, transmitteth those diseases full often to his children: and it hath been the wish of some Physicians, and (if I be not much mistaken) I have read it as the practise of some countries or commonwealths, that they that are natural­ly subject to contagious diseases, or evils hereditary, as Apo­plexies, Epilepsies, Consumptions, or the like, are forbidden to sow their seed in wholsome ground; yea, are forbidden marri­age, to avoid future danger. But these diseases reach not to infect the soul with sinne. Aquinas on Rom. 5. Lect. 3. goeth one step further: The sonnes are like the fathers, even in the de­fects of the soul; Angry and mad men are begotten of angry and [Page 110]mad men. Yet in the end he closeth thus, It is manifest, that though the first sinne of the first Adam be traducted to posterity by the originall; yet Adams other sinnes, or the sinnes of other men are not derived to their children: because by the onely first sinne subla­tum est bonum naturae, that naturall good was taken away, which should have been traducted per originem naturae, by the originall of nature. By other sinnes the good of personall grace is withdrawn, which passeth not over to posteritie. Hence it is, that though Adams sinne was blotted out by his repentance, yet his repentance could not wipe out the sinne of his posteritie: because his repentance was by an act personall, which could not extend it self beyond his person. So farre Aquinas. But let discourse give way to Scripture. Jer. 31.29, 30. They shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sowre grape, and the childrens teeth are set on edge: but every one shall die for his own iniquitie; every man that eateth the sowre grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. They had occasion to use this proverb, in reference to Adam who ate one sowre grape, in whom we sin­ned and are punished. But as I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel, Ezek. 18.3. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the sonne is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die, vers. 4. And when God said, Exod. 20.5. I visit the sinnes of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: I answer, First, the place speaketh not of the sinnes of children, (for the fathers personall iniquitie maketh not the sonne inique or wicked) it is onely spoken of punishments. Secondly, even punishment eternall doth not reach from the father to the sonne, unlesse the sonne communicate with the sinne of the father: for if a wicked father beget a sonne that seeth all his fathers sinnes, which he hath done, and considereth, and doth not such like, he shall not die for the iniquitie of his father, he shall surely live, Ezek. 18.14, 17. In this sort you may object, A man shall not be punished at all for the sinnes of his forefathers, but for his own sinnes onely. I answer, He may be punished temporally, but not eternally: for in temporall chastisements, as there be many causes producing one effect, so many sinnes, even of diverse men, may be corrected by one punishment; and the father is often more grievously punished in his sonne, then in himself.

Now having spoken what I thought convenient, concerning the propagation of originall corruption unto all the posteritie of Adam, I am in the last place to shew the just consequent; That as he did die for that his sinne, so we his offspring for ha­ving that sinne should die; and in regard of this sinne, It is ap­pointed for men to die, and to undergo that punishment. For ori­ginal sinne is in one regard a fault of transgression, and the same originall sinne, in a different respect is also a punishment. Aug. de baptismo parvulorum. As [Page 111]every man was in Adam, and his corrupted nature was propagated to us, it is a sinne: as originall sinne is considerable in every man, without reflecting on the common nature, it is a punishment. It is so a sinne, or such a sinne, that it is also a punishment: and we have spoken of it as a sinne, let us now descend to handle it as it is a punishment.

MOst Prepotent, Eternall, and onely Wise God, I a poore dejected sinner, with an humble and contrite soul, devoutly beg pardon at thy Mer­cie-seat, confessing from the bottome of my heart, my manifold, personall, and actuall sinnes, from all which if thy Grace had prevented me, yet my offence in Adam and with him had justly condemned me: But I meekly beseech thy Divine Majestie, that I may be one of those many, to whom the bloud of thy deare Sonne shall do more good, then the fault of Adam did hurt. Grant this, I beseech Thee, for the Al-sufficient merit of thy onely Sonne, our onely deare and gracious redeemer, Jesus Christ. Amen.

CHAP. VII.

1. HAving thus farre proceeded, and (as I thought) without the contradiction of any, I found by the discourse of a loving learned friend, that diverse late Writers were otherwise minded in the point last handled in the former chapter; whereup­on I betook my self to review it. Zan­chius in locis commun. Theolog. upon the second chapter of the Ephes. loc. prim. toward the end, bringeth this objection against one part of his definition of originall sinne: Some say, that if therefore Adams sinne was transferred to posteritie, because we were [Page 113]in his loyns; by the same reason, the other sinnes of Adam and our other parents should be likewise traducted: which is absurd, and co­meth not alwayes to passe; since of evil parents oftentimes the best children are born. He answereth, first, The reason is not alike: for the first sinne was not so proper and personall to Adam, as common to humane nature: his other sinnes, and others after him are truely per­sonall. Which answer is excellent, and he confirmeth it at large. Then cometh he to a second answer, which is not his own, but onely barely related, without his approving or open disproving of it. Deinde, negant multi viri docti absurdum esse, si dicatur, peccata proni­morum parentum commu­nicari liberis; ità ut similes parentibus nascantur filii, vitiosi vitiosis. Besides, many learned men denie, that it is ab­surd to say, that the sinnes of the next parents are communicated to the children; so that sonnes are born like their parents, vicious and perverse sonnes of vicious and perverse parents; which they con­firm by experience, by examples of Scripture, by Exod. 20.5. And Augustine truely in Enchirid. cap. 46. saith it is probable for that place of Exodus. For, saith he, if the sonne shall not beare the iniqui­tie of the father, but the soul that sinneth shall die, and yet God visit the sinnes of the fathers upon the children; it seemeth to follow, that the sinnes of the parents passe over to the sonnes, and the sonnes fol­low the sinnes of the parents, that those sinnes may be justly punished in them, which are not so proper to the parents, as common both to parents and children. And for this opinion he citeth Bucer and Martyr. All this cloud (for it is but a cloud, and an empty one also) will quickly be dispersed. First, in the generall replicati­on observe, that Zanchius himself never specializeth this, as his own judgement. Secondly, note how cautelously Bucer and Martyr carry it on the negative; Many learned men denie that it is absurd to say, &c. Themselves see no convincing demon­stration, but are content if their opinion be not absurd. Errours there are that are absurd; if this be not absurd, all is well. Thirdly, of those many are but two named by him, Bucer and Martyr: learned men indeed, yet not more learned then many that herein differed from them. Fourthly, many words are homonymous, and they themselves slide back from them, by varying the state of the question, as will appeare by and by. Lastly, let the grounds by me set down in the last chapter be well weighed, and the truth will appeare on my side.

2. Now let me descend to the matter of their objections. Peccata proximorum parentum communicantur liberis. The sinnes of the next parents are communicated to the children, say they. Here they should have been punctuall, and I desire to be satisfied what they mean; Whether the sinnes of the father and mother be transfused into all the sonnes and daughters? and into all of them alike, or not alike? And if the father be vertuous, and the mother wicked; or contrariwise, the mother vertuous and the father wicked, what is communicated to the childe? Secondly, what sinnes be communicated? all, or some? Whether Atheisme and profanenesse of thoughts, or [Page 114]onely such sinnes as the bodie is much imployed in perform­ance of? Thirdly, whether the sinnes of grand-fathers and grand-mothers be derived? and if so, whether if there be a good grand-father and a good grand-mother and a good fa­ther, the children shall inherit no goodnesse, but the sinne of their wicked mother onely? Or if two of them be good, and two bad; the males good, and the females bad; or contrariwise; what sinne shall be communicated to their children? Fourth­ly, whether the sinnes of the great-grand-father, and of his pa­rents, our more remote progenitours, be derived? and where beginneth the derivation of these sinnes? and why from such determinate persons and generations, rather then from others? Or whether they must reach up from all the descendants of Adam, to his actuall and personall sinnes? Fifthly, whether such actuall and personall sinnes as are repented of by our pa­rents and all our forefathers, be derived unto us? or onely such as they were not repentant of? or both sorts of them? Sixthly, let noveltie know, Peccata proximorum communicantur liberis, in stead of Propagantur ad liberos, is an unknown phrase to antiquitie: and it is better to speak plainly according to the dayes of the Fathers, then in terms covert and dubious; and then in defence of such riddles, to say no more then the old Tenet, In universalibus latet dolus. Deceit lieth hidden in universals.

The second branch of pendulous new-fanglednesse is this: Peccata proximorum parentum communicantur liberis; ità ut similes pa­rentibus nascantur liberi, vitiosi vitiosis. The sinnes of the next parents are communicated to the children; so that children are born like unto their parents, vicious of vicious. First, it is petitio principii, that the vicious childe being like to his vicious father, proceedeth from the fathers multiplied trans­gressions: for if he be like to his father in sinne, he is also, in that regard, as like and more like to many other actuall sinners, from whom there could proceed no generative communication of iniquitie. Secondly, what is naturall, is ordinary, is oftenest, is alwayes so, without some notable hinderance: but the chil­drens being like the parents are not thus; therefore the com­munication is not naturall. Thirdly, suppose a wicked sonne curseth his father, or wisheth him dead, or mocks at him; he also begetteth a sonne, which sonne doth the like to him, as he did to his father: shall we say (if the generation had descend­ed, after many, from Cham, who laught or mockt at his fa­ther, Gen. 9.22.) that this sinne of Cham was traduced, deri­ved, or did passe over to this last mocker? or shall we say it was derived unto him from the personall sinne of his immediate last father? No; we must rather say, it was derived unto him from his last parents, in and by that originall sinne onely, which was traduced. That this may the better be manifested, consider these points. First, that Adams first sinne, though it were one onely, yet more sinnes were involved in it. Augustine [Page 115]saith, In illo uno peccato, quod per unum hominem intravit in mu [...]dum, & in omnes homines per­trans [...]it, —possunt intel­ligi plurapeccata, si unum ipsum in sua quasi mem­bra dividatur singula. Aug. Enchir. cap. 43. In that one sinne, which by one man entred into the world, and passed over to all men, more sinnes may be understood, if that one sinne be divided into all its parts or members. And he found there many branches of Adams sinne, and denieth not but more may be found in ho [...] uno admisso, in that one committed. Secondly, he maketh that one to be transfused unto all mankinde. Thirdly, none in the world were ever more eager then some of these lat­ter times, to aggravate the greatnesse of original sinne. Illyri­cus is almost frantick on the point. Zanchius and others are truely peremptory, that all faculties of body and soul are in­fected. Let me adde, There never was sinne, nor can be, but the seed of it was couched in the sinne originall. So that every man hath just cause to blesse God, for withholding him from every sinne, great or small; since every man hath a naturall in­clination to every sinne, even unto that sinne which (by Gods grace) he most detesteth. Therefore if wicked children be like their parents, it proceedeth not from their parents per­sonall transgressions, but from that one infectious root of the first sinne of Adam, strengthened by connivence, ill breeding, or custome, or ill company. Fourthly, an holy man and woman who never mocked their parents, have a sonne who mocks at them; shall his mocking proceed from his parents, or his pa­rents parents, who never personally did the like? or shall Chams sinne be communicated to him? Then, why do they instance in this sinne of the next parents? If they mean, it is communicated in originall sinne, they mean what I say, and contrary to their own words. Lastly, sinne originall is alike in all and every one, and alike remitted in Baptisme of infants; yea, though the parents should be infidels, and send their childe for fashion-sake, or by way of jesting to be baptized: if the Church know not so much, and if the childe be offered unto God by the wel-meaning devotion and faith of Priest and people present, and be baptized with true matter and form, it receiveth spirituall regeneration, as I read long since, if my me­mory fail me not, in S. Augustine. The personall offences or holinesse of parents are not communicated to their children. Again, they object, that they confirm this by experience. These are words of winde, and nothing else. That wicked ones beget often children like to them, who denieth? That their chil­dren have their fathers personall sinnes transmitted, is the beg­ging of the question. Yea, but they prove it by examples of Scripture. How? or where? By the place, Exod. 20.5. I visit the sinnes of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. I answer, He doth not say, I transmit, or communicate sinnes, which is our onely que­stion. Even Illyricus himself among all his expositions of vi­sitare, hath none for communicare, propagure, transfundere, trans­ferre: [Page 116]and particularly of this place of Exodus, he saith, Visitans iniquitatem patrum, id est, puniens posteros ob majorum suo­rum enormia delicta. Visit­ing the iniquitie of the fathers, that is, punishing the posteritie for the enormious sinnes of their ancestours. Yet if to visit had been to propagate actuall sinnes, it had been his best proof, That the sub­stance of the soul is corrupt by originall sinne, and hath in it the image of Satan. They alledge S. August. who saith it is probable by that place of Exodus. The words of S. August. are these in the place by them cited, Parentum quoq, pec­catis parvulos obugari, non solùm primorum ho­minum, sedetiam suorum de quibus ipsi nati sunt, non improbabiliter dici­tur. It is not improbably said, that children are liable to the sinnes of their parents, not onely of their first parents, but also those of whom they are immediately born. And at the end of that chapter, In illo uno, quod in omnes homines pertran­siit, at (que) tam magnum est, ut in [...]o mutaretur & converteretur in necessita­tem mortis humana natu­ra, reperiuntur plura pec­cata; & alia parentum, quae etsi non possunt muta­re naturam, reatu tamen obligant filios. In that one sinne, which passed over to all men, and is so great, that in it humane nature was changed and turned to a necessitie of death, more sinnes are found; and other of parents, which albeit they change not our nature, yet by their guilt they binde children: where he makes an apparent distinction, between that one sinne which changed our nature and was pro­pagated unto us, and those other personall sinnes of our fa­thers, which change not our nature, but binde us over unto punishment: for that is his meaning of reatu obligant. He doth no where say, such sinnes are communicated unto us, or that they binde us with the guilt of offence; but he is to be under­stood of the guilt of punishment. And so Bellarmine ex­pounds him, De amission. grat. & statu peccati 4.18. Indeed he doth it somewhat timerously towards the beginning of the chapter with a Fortasse, non de conta­gione culpae, sed de com­municatione poenae locuti sunt Augustinus — perchance. But he is more positive and fully assertive at the latter end of the same chapter, that Augu­stine and the Fathers spake onely of the communication of pu­nishment, which Bellarmine proveth, because they instance in Exod. 20.5. which hath apparent reference to punishment: and indeed so the word visit is most-wise used in Scripture, viz. for to punish: and sometimes in love, mercy, grace, and good­nesse, to visit: but never is used for the communicating, or propagating, trajecting, or transmitting of sinnes. Nay, Greg. Mor. 15.22. Gre­gorie goeth further, as he is cited by Bellarmine, teaching that the place of Exodus is to be understood of those children, who imitate the sinnes of their parents; and so the Chaldee Para­phrase hath it, saith Vatablus. Lastly, to cleare this truth, that Augustine in that place meant onely the binding over unto pu­nishment, see his own words, Chap. 47. (which I marvel that Bellarmine passeth over) Sed de peccatis aliorum parentum, quibus ab ipso Adam us (que) ad patrem su­um progeneratoribus suis quisque succedit, non im­meritò disceptari potest, utrùm [...]mnium malis acti­bus & multiplicatis deli­ctis originalibus, qui ua­scitur implìcetur; ut tantò pejùs, quantò posteriùs quisque nascatur: A [...] propterea Deus in terti­am & quartam gene­rationem de peccatis c [...]rum posteris commin [...] ­ [...]ur, quia iram suam, quan­tum ad progenitorum suo­rum culpas, non extendit ulteriùs, moderatione mi­serationis suae; nè illi qui­bus regenerationis gratia non confertur, nimiâ sar­cinâ in ipsa sua aeterna damnatione premerentur, si cogerentur ab initio ge­neris humeni omniū prae­cedentium parentum suo­rum originaliter peccata contrabere, & poenas pro iis debitas pendere. An aliud aliquid, de re tanta, in Scripturis san [...]is di­ligentiùs perscrutatis & tractatis, vakat vel non valeat reperiri, temerè non audeo affirmare. But touching the sinnes of other parents, by which every one from Adam himself to his own father succeeds his ancestours, it may well be disputed, Whether he that is born be in­volved in the evil acts and multiplied original sinnes of all; so that how much the later any man is born, so much the worse: Or whether God doth therefore threaten the posterity unto the third and fourth generation for their parents sinnes, because, through his mercifull mo­deration, he extends his wrath no further for the faults of progeni­tours; [Page 117]lest they to whom the grace of regeneration is not given, should be pressed with too great a burden in their eternall damnation, if they were forced to contract the original sinnes of all their forefathers from the beginning of mankinde, and to undergo the punishments due to them. Or whether some thing else concerning so weighty a mat­ter may be found in the holy Scriptures diligently searched and peru­sed, I dare not rashly affirm. You have the whole chapter word for word out of S. Augustine. In which observe, First, the ad­versative particle Sed, distinguishing the question from the other: which also Erasmus in the margin hath thus diversified, comprising the meaning of the 46 chapter in these words, Pecc [...]is parentum obligari filios. That the children are bound by the sinnes of their parents: and of the 47 chapter, Quousque majorum peccata prorogcutur, non temerè desiniendum. We ought not rashly to determine how farre the sinnes of ancestours be extended. Secondly, in the former chapter he said exactly, Non improbabiliter dicitur, parentum pecca­tis parvulos obligari. It is not improbably said, that infants are bound by the sinnes of their parents. He changeth the phrase in the lat­ter, Non immeritò di­sceptari potest; &, Non audeo temerè affirmare. It may well be disputed; and, I dare not rashly affirm. Third­ly, his phrases in the former chapter are not so distinct, as in the latter, where he mentioneth both the contracting of sinnes, and undergoing punishment for them. Fourthly, weigh this strong inconvenience which he toucheth at, That the latter born in time, is still the worse in nature, worse then any that went be­fore; as followeth necessarily, if the sinnes of our forefathers are communicated to us. Fifthly, he seemeth to conclude the unreasonablenesse, That they who were never regenerated, should be overburdened with eternall damnation, if they should be compelled from the beginning of mankinde to con­tract the sinnes of all their progenitours, and be punished for them. And therefore he questioneth, Whether it reacheth onely to the third and fourth generation. I would also questi­on, Whether (if the threat reach onely to the third and fourth generation) upon supposall, that from Adam all the predeces­sours of a man were wicked till the fourth generation, that man shall have none of those sinnes imputed to him, before his pro­genitours in a fourth ascent. Or if an others progenitours were all good from Adam till the foure last generations, and from it all and every of his parents, in a lineall descent, were stark­naught, till we come to himself, who is good, Whether he shall have communicated to him the sinnes of these foure last progenitours, and no goodnesse for a thousand generations of holy and repentant forefathers (himself also being a holy man) since God sheweth mercy unto thousands that love him, that is, more mercy to more good men, then severitie, which ex­tendeth, even towards his haters, but to the third and fourth generation; which number is short of thousands.

The last objection from the place of Exodus, is this; Consequi videtur, Deum permittere ut p [...]c­cata parentum in filios transeant. It seems to follow, that God doth permit that the sinnes of parents passe unto [Page 118]their children, and the sonnes imitate the sinnes of their fathers, that God may justly punish sinnes, which are not so proper to the parent, as to the parent and childe. I answer, He doth well to mince it with It seems to follow. But, Quaedam videntur, & non sunt; Some things seem to be, and are not. Bucer and Mar­tyr do float too much in generalities; they neither mention what sinnes, all, or some; neither what parents, good, bad, or all; nor what they mean by passing, when they say, Peccata parentum in filios transeunt. The sinnes of parents passe unto the children. There are also nets and ginns in these their words, Peccatorum labes & cou contegium redundat in patris corpus, & per ejus sanguinem & semen in filios. The spot and, as it were, contagion of sinne over­spreadeth the fathers body, and by his bloud and seed redoundeth upon the children. Before they said sinnes, now the spot of sinnes, though there be a great difference between them two: for the sinne is past before the spot cometh, and the latter is the effect of the former. Again, because it is easie to prove, that Macula patris non redundat in filios. the stain of the father redoundeth not on the children; it is added, Labes & ceu conta­gium. the spot and, as it were, contagion. Moreover, how unaptly do they bring the place of Exodus, to prove the sinnes of the next parents to be commu­nicated (if by them they understand onely the immediate father and mother) when in that place there is expresse mention of the third and fourth generation? If they stretch the words [of the next parents] to the third and fourth generation onely, why not to the fifth, sixth, and so upward? Sixteen generations since Christs time, are the next parents, if you compare them to the thirty nine generations, which in the law of Nature and of Moses preceded Christ. Lastly, note their wilde inference, God permits the fathers sinne to passe unto the childe, and the childe to imitate the father that he may punish: as if God could not justly punish the sinnes of the fathers in the children, un­lesse they be like them in personall transgressions: as if the com­munication of original sinne onely, were not cause enough to punish children for the sinnes of their parents: as if the evil of sinne were ordained to justifie the evil of punishment. Away then with this fishing in troubled waters, this delighting in am­phibolous terms. Which censure that I may the rather justifie, I will endeavour to explain all things necessary to the know­ledge of this point, to salve all doubts, to unfold all intricacies in these seven propositions.

4. God justly may, and doth punish with any temporall pu­nishment, any children like or unlike to their parents, for their fathers personall sinnes.

And

For the children are a part of the fathers, and in the childes pu­nishment the father himself is punished. For as a sonne recei­veth [Page 119](under God) life and the things of this life, by the fa­ther: so it is no injustice, if he lose the same for him. The wi­dow of Zarephath her sonne, was (in her apprehension) dead for her sinne, 1. King. 17.18. So, 2. Sam. 12.15. God stroke the childe that Uriahs wife bare to David, and it was sick and di­ed. Both father and childe endured a punishment of seven dayes: the father in sorrow fasting a fast, lying on the earth, in a holy sordiditie weeping and praying: the childe by sicknesse tormenting him to death. Ahabs children were punished for his offence, 1. King. 21.21. and among the rest Jehoram his sonne: who although he wrought evil in the sight of the Lord, yet was not so bad as his father or mother, 2. Kings 3.2. The passage is very observable, Jer. 16.3, 4. For thus saith the Lord concerning the sonnes and daughters that are born in this place, and concerning their mothers and fathers, They shall die of grievous deaths: Both the great and small shall die, vers. 6. The punish­ment of Gehazi his posterity is more exemplarie: for though they sinned not, nor could sinne the sinne of Gehazi; yet the leprosie of Naaman did cleave unto him, for that his personall simonie, and unto his seed for ever, 2. Kings 5.27. The case of Jobs children surpasseth this: for they were not stricken with death for their own sinnes, or the sinnes of their father Job, so much as for the triall of his patience, and for the experimentall confutation of Satan; yet was it not unjust that they should lose their lives for their fathers good, which they had by him; since he also suffered in their sufferings, and might easily see Gods especiall hand against himself: For the greatest winde in the world naturally cannot smite the foure corners of an house; and if it should, yet one corner would uphold the other: but this whirlwinde did so, and the house fell, Job 1.19. 1. Sam. 15.6. the Kenites are spared, because they shewed kindenesse to the children of Israel when they came out of Egypt: but because Amalek had fought with Israel, Exod. 17.8. though they were presently pu­nished, by being vanquished in battell; yet God said, vers. 14. Write this for a memoriall in a book, — I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek under heaven. — And the Lord did swear he would have warre with Amalek from generation to generation, Exod. 7.16. And above foure generations after, about 400 yeares, Saul destroyed them. A Quaere indeed may be made, Whether God can justly punish the fathers for the childrens actuall delinquencies. And this resolution is easie, That he may do it, if the father hath doted on the children, & not duely cor­rected them: (for so did God to 1. Sam. 2.29. Eli) or if wicked children do tenderly love their parents (which though it be not usuall, yet it hath been so;) and in this case the punishment of the fa­ther is indeed a punishment also of the childe. But if an holy father do his duty, and hate his sonnes courses, and thereupon [Page 120]the childe loveth not his father; if God can punish the father with temporall punishments for the notorious faults of his sonne, yet he will not punish him eternally. Nay, I will go yet further, and truely avouch, that the sinnes of predecessours which are not of consanguinitie with us, but are fathers onely by our imitation, fully may be punished on their children. First, the word father is taken two wayes in Scripture: for ei­ther there are fathers by imitation, or fathers by nature, from whose loyns we lineally descend. The Jews, though they came not of Cain (whose posterity ended at the floud) yet may be said to be his sonnes by imitation: yea they are called the sonnes of Satan, Joh. 8.44. because they followed his steps, and did the work of their father, vers. 41. which is one degree more remote. Those, who thus take a pattern for themselves out of example of wicked ancestours, God justly punisheth. Satan having been a murderer from the beginning, John 8.44. Cain be­ing (as it were) the head of murderers among men, and the Jews treading in their steps to an inch, they may justly be cast into the same fire prepared for the devil and his angels, Matth. 25.41. And the Apostle S. Jude justly pronounceth, vers. 11. Wo to them that have gone in the way of Cain. Yea, our blessed Saviour himself foretelleth the Jews, that for their bloudy proceedings, Ʋpon them shall come all the righteous bloud shed up­on the earth, from the bloud of the righteous Abel, unto the bloud of Zacharias, whom they slew, &c. Mat. 23.35. Where, first, the di­stinct deaths of severall martyrs or just ones (as the Syriack hath it) is called [...], one just bloud: secondly, they are said to slay Zacharias, whom others slew: thirdly, the bloud is not said in the preterperfect tense, to have been shed; but in the present tense, [...], which is shed, or is now a shedding. as Jerusalem is called, vers. 37. [...], quae occidisti, occîdis, occisura es, as Erasmus well expounds it. All these circumstan­ces concurre, to make (as it were) one continued act of mur­der, from the beginning of the world till the destruction of Jerusalem, repayed with one and the same punishment upon the father and all the sonnes of imitation. Now as the pu­nishment of the fathers by imitation may in an extended sense be communicated to posterity: so their sinnes cannot be said to be communicated. For how can the sinne of Cain be commu­nicated unto him, who last of all killed his brother? and unto the Jews, who descended not from him, but from the younger brother? Or can we think that God will inflict damnation up­on men for others personall transgressions? Temporall chastise­ments he may justly inflict for the ungracious perpetrations of parents. Non est tibi, Israel, ultio, in qua non sit un­cia de iniquitate vituli. There is no vengeance taken on thee, Israel, wherein there is not an ounce of the iniquitie of the calf, saith Rabbi Moses Ben Nachman, whom they call Ramban, or Gerundensis. See an [Page 121]excellent place for both points together, Jerem. 32.18, 19. And eternall torment can he rightly adjudge the soules and bodies of men unto for original sinne: which is our second proposition.

5. God may, and justly doth punish some children eternal­ly, and all temporally for originall sinne, whether they be like their parents in actuall aversion and back-sliding, yea or no. For the most righteous sonnes of Adam endure pain, labour, sicknesse, death, which are the orts and effects of the primo­geneall offence: and the death both of soul and body was in­flicted in Morte moriemini: and this shall hereafter be fully proved.

6. God justly inflicteth eternall punishment on wicked chil­dren, if they resemble their wicked parents. Malorum imitatio facit, ut non solùm sua, sed eti­am eorum quos imitati sunt, merita sortiantur. August. in priori Enar­rat. Psal. 108. The imitating of wicked men, makes a man to be punished not onely for his own sinnes, but for theirs also whom he imitates. This is a truth so appa­rent, that it needeth no further proof.

7. God oftentimes punisheth one sinne with an other. And in my opinion, this manner of punishing, if it continue all a mans life, is worse then the torment of hell-fire, which were better to be speedily undergone, then to be deferred with the in­crease of sinne. Psal. 69.27. Adde punishment of iniquitie, or Adde iniquitie unto their iniquitie. Thus God gave the Gentiles over to a reprobate minde, Rom. 1.28. and then such offenders do but treasure up wrath against the day of wrath, Rom. 2.5. But this happeneth not for the foregoing offences of our progenitours, but for our own transgressions.

8. The personall holinesse of the parent never conveied grace or salvation to the sonne. Abraham the father of the faith­full prayed for his sonne, Gen. 17.18. Oh that Ishmael might live in thy sight! yet was he a cast-away. Temporall blessings in­deed he had for Abrahams sake, vers. 20. Isaac had an Esau, David an Absalom, and often the like.

9. God never punished eternally the reall iniquities of fa­thers upon their children, if the children were holy. Let an in­stance be given to the contrarie. Indeed it is said, Psal. 109.14. Let the iniquitie of his fathers be remembred with the Lord, and let not the sinne of his mother be done away. But he speaketh, first, of a very wicked man, equalling (if not exceeding) his parents in sinne. And the New Testament applieth it to Judas, Act. 1.20. to Judas, the monster of men. Secondly, the remembrance mentioned, hath reference rather to penalties consequent, then onely to sinnes precedent; Memoratur quantum ad poenam, quoniam pun­cti sunt filii pro iniquita­te patrum, qui occiderunt Christum. It is remembred in regard of the punish­ment, because the children were pricked for the iniquitie of their fathers who slew Christ, saith Cajetan on the place. And this is not our question. Thirdly, why may there not be a change of number, as Vatablus stileth it? And though the [Page 122]Interlinearie bible readeth it patrum eorum, and Vatablus so expounds it, but reads it patrum ejus: why may it not be ex­pounded patris ejus? being accordant to that following, pecca­tum matris ejus? and whether it be patrum eorum, or patrum ejus, or patris ejus, I see not but originall sinne may be meant in both places, as being expressed onely in the singular, rather then the many actuall transgressions: especially, since our singular ori­ginall sinne came to him by many fathers: and it was not the intent of Gods Spirit in this Psalme, to extenuate the sinnes of the wicked one's forefathers, and to plaister this over with the title of one single iniquitie. Indeed Theodoret on the place saith thus, Paterna virtus saepe si­liis peccantibus prosuit, ut fides Abrahae Judaeis, & Davidis pietas Solomoni. The fathers vertue hath often profited the trans­gressing children; as Abrahams faith did the Jews, and Davids pietie Solomon. So Cesar at his pardoning of those in Mar­seil, and in Athens, who took part with Pompey in the civill warres, said, They were excused for their ancestours sake: as con­trarily, Pravitas pattum filiis similibus poenam adauget. The wickednesse of parents increaseth the punishment of like children, saith Theodoret. I answer, That all this speaketh of temporal chastisements, none of eternall horrour, infligible upon good children for the sinnes of their parents. When God saith, I will visit the sinnes of the parents; if it implyed the visiting them with like sinnes, as it doth not; yet it is of them that hated him also, and by their personall hating him deserved to have one sinne punished with an other: for the hatred of the sonnes is meant, as annexed to the sinnes of the fathers. This any one may see that will read Ezekiel 18.14. Lo, if a wicked man beget a sonne that doth not like his father: he shall not die for the iniquitie of his father; he shall surely live, vers. 17. God hath no pleasure that the wicked should die, vers. 23. And hath he delight that the righ­teous shall perish eternally for his wicked ancestours? The drift of the whole chapter is against it, and proveth his wayes to be equall: because a wicked man repenting shall not die for his own transgressions, vers. 25. &c. And shall a righteous man die, or be condemned (for he meaneth the death of the soul) for the offences of others? Who ever perished being innocent? Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquitie, and sow wickednesse, reap the same, Job 4.7, 8. and God rewardeth every man accor­ding, not to the works of his forefathers, but according to his own works, Rom. 2.6. Mat. 16.27. which seemeth to be taken from the Psalmograph, who ascribeth to the Lord, not inju­stice, not severitie, but grace and mercie in his judicature; Ʋnto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou rewardest every man accor­ding to his work, Psal. 62.12. And Every one shall give account of himself, Rom. 14.12. Every one shall receive the things done in his bodie, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or evil, 2. Cor. 5.10. If this be not enough, more may be added with an easie hand, to the strengthening of this sixth Proposition, [Page 123]now chiefly questioned, God never damned a good childe for the fathers personall wickednesse. I now come to the seventh Pro­position.

10. No personall sinnes can be communicated. Indeed, they who maintain the traduction of souls may, if that be granted, better defend the propagation of actuall iniquities. But that opinion being false, ridiculous, exploded, and hereticall, (of which otherwhere in this Tractate) the superstructive is found­ed on slippery ice: and these terms, To propagate, communicate, derive, transmit, and transfuse sinnes personall, are meerly amphi­bologicall and dubious phrases. If they mean as the words do signifie, let them say, that the matter of sinne actuall is trans­fused, or the form, or both. The matter is the action, the form is the obliquitie thereof: both these do vanish. Doth the guilt of punishment passe over? Reatus est vinculum in­ter poenam & peccatum, quasi medium interje­ctum. Guilt is a band joyning punishment & sin as a thing coming between them: And this band is rather in God, then in man, to tie or untie at his pleasure. Actus qui jam transiit, dicitur manere quoad re­atum; non quia rectus sit aliquid, sed quia à ta­li actu denominatur quis reus. Reatus peccati non est aliqua res, cùm non sit substantia vel accidens, sed solùm maneat in oc­cultis legibus Dei & men­tibus Angelorum. An act that is past al­ready, is said to remain in regard of the guilt; not that the guilt is any thing, but because a man is denominated guiltie from such an act. The guilt of sinne is not any thing, since it is neither a substance nor an accident, but onely remains in the secret laws of God and mindes of Angels, as Holcot, De Imputab. pec. truely gathereth from S. Au­gustine. The guilt is not the personall sinne it self, but the ef­fect thereof; and our question is not now of the descent of pu­nishments. Doth the guilt of sinne take hold of the childe? they cannot say so, unlesse here also they confound the effect with the cause: and this is but Petitio principii in other terms. Again, how heterodoxall is it, to say, A man begetteth a sonne guiltie of all his actuall iniquities? For then, though the father may be sa­ved by his after-repentance, yet the sonne who knoweth not perchance, nor ever heard inckling of his fathers horrid and secret sinnes, (according to their position) may be damned for them. Do they mean, the stain and spot is communicated? I answer, The stain and spot is not the actuall sinne, but the fruit of it inherent in the soul of the offender, and not transmissible by the bodie, and is onely metaphorically termed the stain, ha­ving no positive realitie transmissible. Zanchius himself relates their opinion thus, Peccatorum, quae aliquis parens committit, labem, & ceu contagium justo Dei judicio redundare in ejus corpus & sangui­nem, & per ejus porrò sanguinem & semen in filios, quos ex illo semine it à vitiosè affecto gignit, transfundi. That the spot and, as it were, contagion of the sinnes which any parent committeth, doth redound, by Gods just judge­ment, upon his bodie and bloud, and is further transfused by his bloud and seed into the sonnes whom he begets of that seed thus viciously affected. I answer, That [justo Dei judicio] is brought in tanquam Deus aliquis è machina, to make things vast & improbable seem likely & passable: but the vain impertinencie of these words is easily observable by any, who knoweth that no manner of Gods judgements are any way unjust. Secondly, are not sinnes of omission personall sinnes? and are they communicated to [Page 124]the bodie? Thirdly, what say you to pride of heart, and secret Atheisme? Is the proud mans, and Atheists bodie and bloud infected with these prodigies? Again, If such people be whol­ly forgiven, and their sinnes by repentance blotted out; are they now in their bodie, seed, and bloud, which are wiped out of their soul? and suppose he beget a sonne between the A­theisme and repentance; shall his childe be damned, while the repentant Atheist is saved? should not he rather communicate his later repentance, then his former Atheisme?

But let us weigh the words a little nearer, Peccatorum, quae ali­quis parens committit, labes, & ceu contagium, redundat in ejus corpus & sanguinem, & per ejus sanguinem & semen in filios. The blot and, as it were, contagion of sinnes which the father commits, redounds upon his bodie and bloud, and by his bloud and seed to the sonnes. What bloud is corrupted? all, or onely that which was made seed? and of seed, what seed? all seed, or onely that which is fruitfull? Suppose a father begets a sonne with the seed which was in his bodie yer his sinne was committed; how doth his sinne viciate his bloud, or his bloud the preformed seed? If seed and bloud be properly vicious; then any ejaculation of seed, or letting of bloud, should emptie people of their sinnes or stains in them inherent; and sinne should no longer be a privation, but a posi­tive thing. Moreover, when they say, That by the fathers bloud and seed, the blot and, as it were, contagion is transfused into the sonnes, they speak without reason or sense. For the blot and, as it were, contagion are transfused (if transfused at all) into the wombe of their mother, which hath a preexistence; and not into the children themselves, who have no preexistence. The vessell is before any thing can be poured into it; how then can sinne be yoted by the fathers bloud & seed into the childe that had no being? The last passage is this, The childrens bodies are first infected by these stains or actuall sinnes, & their souls after defiled by their bodies. If by the word infected they mean, really, truly, properly, and actually infected, I remit them to the place where I have proved, that the Embryo without a reasonable soul is not, cannot be sinfull: If they would be expounded of a pronitude to evil, or inclinations tending that way, when the soul is united; they have made much ado about nothing: a meer logomachy, retaining the old sense, and using noveltie of terms. Again, if I should yeeld, That the seed of one man is proner to one vice then an other, according to the vivid strength and able disposition of the parents, as (they say) ba­stards are more healthie, and more salacious then other people, as retaining part of that spiritfull vigour in which they were be­gotten; yet is originall sinne the same in every one, alike in all parts and every way; and the likenesse to the parents in wicked­nes is most remotely ascribed to the seed, but properly to ori­ginall sinne, as to the inward cause; and to the parents ill breed­ing them, or to bad companie, or custome, or to the remem­brance [Page 125]of their parents sinne (which is a powerfull president in corrupt nature) as to the outward cause. For a wicked childe is as like a thousand other wicked men, if not more like in be­haviour then to his father; yet this proceedeth not from their seed, but from originall sinne. But to the more distinct hand­ling of this point (this seventh and last Proposition) First, I will prove, That the personall sinnes of all our forefathers, are not derived to us. Secondly, That not the sinnes from the third and fourth generation are propagated. Thirdly, That the per­sonall sinnes of our immediate parents are not transfused; And so it will arise of it self, that no personall sinnes are communicated. In the second place I shall bring to light the authorities on our side. But before I begin either, let me briefly remove an ob­jection. Bucer and Martyr teach (saith Zanchius) that by this doctrine the transfusion of originall sinne is more confirmed. I answer, That Gods truth hath no need of mans lie to uphold it. Cicero said well, Perspicuitas argumen­tatione elevatur. Perspicuitie is lessened by argumentation: For what is more beleeved, more known to Christians, then that originall sinne is traduced? Weak arguments do often pre­judice a good cause; and while Bucer and Martyr would seem to confirm that truth, which neither Jew, Turk, nor Christian doubt of, let them take heed, lest when they say actuall sinnes are traduced, they give occasion to the world to think, that hu­mane souls are not created, but traducted; & so by consequent, bring in the mortalitie of the soul. For it hath been confidently averred by learned men, That if the souls be traducted, they are mortall. But of this hereafter.

Concerning the first branch, these arguments confirm it. If the actuall sinnes of all our forefathers be communicated to their posteritie; then they that are the more ancient are still the better; and the last people of this world shall absolutely, by nature, be worst. But it is not so: for Pagans and Infidels now should be many thousand times worse then the first infidels: which is not so, as is seen by experience. Secondly, then we might truely say, O happy Cain! happier by nature then Abel the righteous: (since Adam and Eve did manifoldly sinne be­tween Cains and Abels generations) yea, happier then Abra­ham, and the Patriarchs, just Job, and the Prophets, the Apo­stles, and Evangelists: since thou hast fewer sinnes to answer for then any in the world. Happier is all the drowned world in this regard, then the dayes since Christ. But to say so, is new Divinity. Therefore all sinnes of actually transgressing parents are not communicated. Secondly, God dealeth not so rigour­ously with mankinde, as he did with the devils: Verily he took not on him the nature of Angels, but took on him the seed of Abra­ham, Heb. 2.16. whereby he magnifieth Gods mercy to man, above that to the rebellious spirits: but he should or did deal [Page 126]worse with mankinde, at least with the damned, then with them, if all the personall sinnes of our progenitours be com­municated to all us. For each of them bare onely but their own sinnes, and none did beare one anothers sinne further then they actually partaked with it. And this can not be otherwise: for both their sinne was pride, and their nature uncapable of propagation, or communication of sinne, unlesse it be by reall and present consenting or partaking. Lastly, They all fell toge­ther the second or third instant of their creation, saith the School. Suddenly the devil of Lucifer became Coluber; of Oriens, Occi­dens; of Hesperus, Vesper. He abode not in the truth, Joh. 8.44. Satan fell from heaven like lightning: where lightning is not said to fall from heaven; but he saw [...]. not [...], Luk. 10.18. Satan falling as suddenly from heaven, as lightning doth from the clouds on us; which is gone ere we can say it is come. Yea, not Satan alone, but the rest of the Angels kept not their first estate, Jude vers. 6. which Job thus varieth, God found no stedfastnesse in his Angels, Job 4.18. Seneca might well say of materials, Nulla res magna non aliquod habuit ruinae suae spa [...]ium. Epist. 91. No great thing but had some space of time in its ruine and destruction; yet in spirituals he was blinde or mistaken. For there was no succession of times in the sinnes of any sinning Angels: but as at once they were punish­ed, and their place found no more in heaven; so at once almost they sinned: nor did succeeding Angels beare their predeces­sours sinnes or punishments: Therefore mankinde shall not do so neither.

Thirdly, S. Augustine in his Enchiridion, chap. 47. touch­eth at this argument as unreasonable, if they who have not the grace of regeneration, should contract the sinnes and beare the punishment of all their progenitours, from the beginning of the world; saying, Premerentur nimiâ sar­cinâ in aeterna sua da­mnatione. They should be overburdened in their eternall damnation. But God punisheth rather citra, then ultra condi­gnum; rather lesse, then more then we deserve; and his mercie is above all his works. And as his wrath is to three or foure de­scents, so his mercie extendeth unto more, unto thousands; but his mercie is not shewed unto more, if all our forefathers sinnes lie upon us, unlesse we can finde that there is somewhat more then all. Therefore mankinde contracteth not the sinnes, nor suffereth the eternall punishments due to the sinnes of all our parents.

Fourthly, The justice of God will not permit the same sinne a million of times among many millions of persons to be pu­nished: but thus it must be, if Seth answer for Adam and Eves actuall sinnes, and all Seths posteritie to this day for every one of their predecessours sinnes. Therefore all sinnes of progenitours are not communicated.

This first branch receiveth strength and confirmation from [Page 127]the second, which is this, Personall sinnes of our progenitours are not derived or communicated unto us from the third or fourth genera­tion, much lesse do they reach up to our first parents. Indeed the great S. Augustine in his Ench. chap. 47. makes this Quaere, Whether God threaten posteritie with the sinnes of their fathers, from the third and fourth generation; or threaten the fathers with punish­ing their posteritie, because his wrath extendeth no further, lest po­steritie should be overburdened: Or whether some other thing concern­ing this businesse, may, or may not be found by diligent search of Scriptures, I dare not rashly affirm. But I hope, without rashnesse, I may be bold to affirm, that God threatneth not to punish sinne with sinne in that place, but with other punishment. Se­condly, nor menaceth eternall punishments for the onely sinnes of parents preceding: but onely the commination is of tempo­rall punishments, if they be unlike their wicked parents; & eter­nall, if they be like in sinne unto them. This being the appa­rent meaning of the place, and the word visito being ever taken to be synonymous with punio, or castigo, whensoever it is con­traopposed to facere misericordiam (as here it is) whereupon Gods judgement is called the visitation of souls, Wisd. 3.13. Psal. 89.32. I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquitie with stripes, or scourges. Let me in the third place af­firm, That though God punish posteritie temporally, for the onely sinnes of parents; and eternally, if wicked children resemble their parents; yet it followeth not, that sinnes are communicated to the third and fourth generation. For the tem­porall punishment may be justly inflicted on good children of wicked parents: and eternall is as justly inflicted on the evil of­spring of an evil man; yet, rather as himself is evil, then as his parents were evil. Again, both the threat and the mercie are onely conditionall. Lastly, if God should stint the punishment alwayes at the end of the third or fourth generation, which he needeth not, and doth not; yet it followeth not that sinnes are stinted at the third or fourth generation, or that, that is the prefixed period of time, to which the communication of sinnes may be extended. But as in the words [unto thousands] there is the uncertain for the certain, the indefinite for the de­finite, (for it is not expressed how many thousands, either of men, or yeares, or generations) so in the words [the third and fourth generation] there is the certain for the uncertain, the de­finite for the indefinite. And as God doth not tie himself to shew mercie unto the exact numbers of hundreds & thousands, so is he not restrained from punishing beyond foure generati­ons. But therefore the third and fourth generation is named, rather then any other, because many a man now liveth to see his third or fourth generation flourish or decay: And therefore in our Liturgie, in the solemnization of marriage, the Priest [Page 128]prayeth that the couple united may see their childrens children unto the third and fourth generations. And indeed, Job lived, after his great afflictions, to see his sonnes, and his sonnes sonnes, even foure generations, Job 42.16. Again, Gregor. Moral. 15.22. interprets this of originall sinne: and not onely the Vulgat, but the Hebrew hath it iniquitatem patrum, in the singular; and the third and fourth generation, (if so understood) hath reference to the ages of the world, saith Aug. Cont. Adaman­tum cap. 7. Augustine: from whom Procopius Gazeus little differeth upon the second commandment, thus; Our Saviour said somewhere, This generation shall not passe, till all these things be fulfilled, (the place is Mat. 24.34. accordingly Mat. 23.36. All these things shall come upon this generation) and truely he spake of the end. So he makes the fourth generation from Christs time to the end of the World; the third from the Law to Christ; the second from Abraham to the Law (he should have said from the Floud to Abraham; for was not Noah and all his, till Abraham, part of humane generations?) the first from Adam to the Floud. And the opposite member, [shew­ing mercie unto thousands] may be understood of millions of actuall offences forgiven. So much by the way for that ex­position.

I return to the second branch, Sinnes are not communicated to the third and fourth generation. For why not aswell to the fifth and sixth generations, and so downwards to the worlds end? Let some reason be shewed, why the force of communication of sinnes should rest there. The place of Exodus intimateth not the communication of sinnes, but the punishments; and the punishments so farre, because many live so farre, and few far­ther: and the exemplarie sinnes of fathers may be seen and remembred and followed by their fourth generation, and not further: and fathers dote not so much on their children, as grand-fathers and great-grand-fathers, nor cocker them up so much in evil. It is a senselesse consequence, That man com­municateth sinnes actuall, to the third and fourth generation, because God punisheth the sinnes of the fathers upon the chil­dren to the third and fourth generation, unlesse they can prove, Whatsoever God punisheth, man doth communicate unto man: which is impossible; for God sometimes punisheth such sinnes of the childe as the father never had, and of such a childe as never had childe after, to whom he might communicate them.

The third and last branch of the seventh and last Proposition is this, That the immediate parents personall transgressions are not communicated to us. They may by way of punishment, by way of offence or sinne they cannot. No one sinne actuall is tradu­cted, propagated, transfused, communicated. If any one actu­all sinne be derived, why not more? why not all, and every one?

Why should the communication of sinnes rest in the father and mother, ascendendo, when many children are liker their grand-fathers both in shape and feature, and in minde, and in vices, then to their father and mother, who were void of such personall transgressions?

Thirdly, it is a true and old distinction, That original sinne viciateth our whole nature, and actuall sinnes infect the person. But this distinction is taken away and removed, if actuall sinnes do viciate our nature, and are propagated by the seed, which is pro­per to sinne-originall. It is not called originall sinne, for being the root of all sinne, (for Satan sinned first) but as it is in our nature originally. In this point Whitaker agreeth with Staple­ton, De originali peccato, 1.4. And there Stapleton worthily observes, that Originale peccatum differentiam specificam notat, quae opponitur personali; designans cau­sam peccati naturam esse, non personam. Original sinne noteth a specificall difference, which is opposed to personal; intimating that the cause of sinne is the na­ture, not the person. As when we mention actuall sinnes, we make an opposition to sinnes habituall, or to sinnes of omission, or to sinne original. If personall sinnes do passe over unto the chil­dren, then Adams sinne did so to his children. But not so. For it is but one single singular sinne which we sinned in Adam.

If Adams personall vices were propagated to Cain; were all, or part propagated? if part, what were those? and why those above others? if all, what did Adam traduce to Abel, Seth? &c. Did he propagate onely those sinnes, which were committed between the generation of one and the other? And what sinnes did Seth propagate to his posteritie? Are perso­nall sinnes propagated alike to all the children? How is it that of one mans children, I have known one naturally exceeding angry, an other naturally stupid? Again, if a naturall fool beget­teth one wise, what sinnes doth he communicate? or on the contrary, a Machiavel begetteth a naturall fool; shall the fool be damned for his politick fathers malengin?

If actuall sinne be traduced; then, is it in the seed ere the soul come? in the seed in the fathers bodie? in the seed at the emis­sion, at the reception, and retention? Then millions of seeds spent in lawfull matrimonie, when women do not conceive; or what they have conceived, yet having no soul, shall have sinne actuall: and if they have sinne, they must come to ac­count. But such fruitlesse disburdenings do not appeare in judgement. Again, if personall sinnes be propagated, are they remitted in Baptisme, or not? if remitted, how are they so like their parents afterwards? How can the seed, which is not so much as an humane body actually, but onely potentially, be actually sinfull? If personall sinne be communicated from the next parents, how is it that experience teacheth us, that very godly mens children are given to such enormities, as their pa­rents in their youth, middle-age, and old age have detested? [Page 130]It cannot come by communication of actuall sinnes. You will say, it doth arise from sinne original. So we say, and so do all sinnes whatsoever arise from that corrupted fountain, that ever-bubbling wel-spring of evil, and not from a phantasticall communication of actuall transgressions. If a meer Pagan and heathen, an idolatrous worshipper of devils, beget two twinnes; shall they be alike wicked? We have heard and known the contrary. Gods discriminating saving grace doth not difference them, as you may say it doth in Christians. Lot committed actuall sinne, and knew it not; was that sinne propagated to his sonnes? That actuall sinne should be in the seed, which is but a superfluity of nature, is very strange. If Job had presently, after that God had commended him to Satan, saying, There is none like him in the earth, a perfect and upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil, Job 1.8. betook himself to the act of generation: or David at those times, when he was a man according to Gods own heart: what personall iniquities had they propagated? Isa. 56.5. un­to holy eunuchs God will give a place better, and name better then of sonnes and daughters: yet, by this opinion, they of all other are most miserable; for they receive all the actu­all sinnes of their fathers, and cannot waft-over either them or their own sinnes into their children by their feed, (for they have none) but all must rest in their souls, in their bo­dies, in their bloud, and upon themselves onely.

If God should miraculously create a man and woman, not of the seed of Adam, and they blaspheme God, and beget children; shall they transfuse actuall sinne, which have not original sinne? or shall their children blaspheme naturally? Or, if they be innocent themselves from that great offence, shall they be damned for their parents blasphemy?

If personall sinne be propagated, then the habits or acts. But neither. Not acts; for they are transient, and glide away. Not habits; for then, first, why should not habits of know­ledge, or goodnesse, or the like be transfused, as well as of evil? especially the habits of knowledge of evil? Secondly, then a childe is not onely originally sinfull, by froward in­clinations; but habitually, by multiplied actions. Thirdly, habits belong to the person individuall, not to him as he is a species of mankinde: but propagation is according to the kinde or species, not according to the individuals.

If ye object, Ezek. 16.3. God chargeth them of Jerusalem thus, Thy father was an Amorite, thy mother an Hittite; where­by he upbraideth them with their fathers sinnes: I answer, These words are not spoken of naturall descent, but of pa­rents and children by imitation. For the Amorites and Hit­tites were idolaters; and the Israelites who succeeded them [Page 131]in their inheritance, as children do fathers, inherited also their sinnes, as appeareth in the whole chapter, especially vers. 44. Behold, every one that useth proverbs, shall use this pro­verb against thee, saying, As is the mother, so is her daughter. Thou art thy mothers daughter, that loatheth her husband and her children; and thou art the sister of thy sisters, which loathed their husbands and their children: your mother was an Hittite, and your father an Amorite. And thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand: and thy young­er sister that dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daugh­ters. The whole kindred is by imitation, not by nature. But our question is of true consanguinitie, and reall generation. Further, if the immediate parents of those of Jerusalem were idolaters, like to Amorites and Hittites; yet their sinnes are related, as arguments the rather to deterre their children from the like, and to keep them from the temporall pu­nishments, which might justly be inflicted on them: but no way do the words intimate, that they should be damned for their predecessours offences, unlesse they continued in the same.

A second objection may be this: Gen. 9.22, 25. Cham the father of Canaan saw the nakednesse of Noah, and Noah cursed his grand-childe Canaan. I answer, That Cham or Ham had divers other children, to wit, Cush, Mizraim, and Phut, Gen. 10.6. and Noah cursed none of Chams children save Ca­naan onely. Upon which I conclude one of these two things; either that the curse extended onely to things of this life; or that Canaan was partaker of his fathers sinne. For other­wise, the rest of Canaans brethren must have been equally involved both in his guilt and in his punishment. Concern­ing the first, the words are Gen. 9.25. Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. The other two might perchance, at distinct times, rule the one over the other; but Canaan shall be a servant, both to Shem, v. 26. and to Japheth, v. 27. To be a servant of servants, indeed was the curse of Canaan; and it was really accomplished, when the Canaanites were made tributary and overcome, and the Gibeonites (a part of them) were made vassals to the meanest Israelites, which were the ofspring of Shem. Witty Epigrams and Pasquils have been made both against the citie of Rome and its Popes.

Which name of Rome, if it had been first given, when not onely the Apostle S. Paul taxed them, Rom. 1.26. &c. but even their fellow-heathen Petronius Arbiter, in Satyr. might have had some colour for that denomination: But since it [Page 132]was called Rome, when the sinnes of that kinde were not hatcht or heard of; I say the inverted and averted name was rather witty and posthumous, then sound. Likewise they have this crochet against the Papal title of Servus Servorum,

And Calvin derideth that Gregorian title. But the Abbot Rupertus well doth difference, that the Pope is not called absolutely Servus servorum, The servant of servants; but Ser­vus servorum Dei, The servant of the servants of God: to which I adde, that he is not said to be Servus servorum fratribus suis, A servant of servants unto his brethren, which was the exact curse of Canaan; but that he makes himself to be called Servus servorum filiis suis in Christo, A servant of servants un­to his sonnes in Christ; from whom he imagined he took his name of Pater and Papa. The second branch of my answer is, that Canaan was partaker of his fathers sinne. That it might be so, is demonstrable. For though Canaan was not born while Noah was in the ark, wherein few, that is eight souls, were saved by water, 1. Pet. 3.20. And those eight souls were Noah and his wife, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their three wives, Genes. 7.13. yet Canaan was born unto Ham not long after the floud, Genes. 10.1, and 6, verses. The Rabbins say, Canaan was ten yeares of age, and first saw his grand­fathers nakednesse, and in derision shewed it to his father; whereupon the father was cursed in that sonne more then others. But that the innocent sonne should be cursed eter­nally for the fathers offence, was never intended.

A third objection may be this: Joh. 9.2. the Disciples asked Christ, Who did sinne, this blinde man, or his parents, that he was born blinde? From whence is inferred, that the Apostles beleeved, that the sinne of parents is prejudiciall to the childe. I answer, The Apostles interrogation was grounded on knowledge, yet perhaps mixt with some igno­rance. They truely did know, both that bodily punishments are sent of God upon men for their offences, and that a childe might justly be punished corporally for the parents iniquitie. But their ignorance is seen in this, that they thought no punishment was inflicted, but for some singular singled noted offence. But for whose offence, or what of­fence, there is the doubt which Christ thus untieth, Nei­ther this man sinned, nor his parents; (where he meaneth not that they had no particular sinne, but not such sinne or sinnes as for which this man was made blinde) but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. Secondly, this instance is so farre from proving the sinnes of the fathers to be derived to their sonnes, that it excuseth both parents and [Page 133]children from such and such sinnes. Thirdly, it hath appa­rent reference to corporall punishments, which neither the Apostles nor I do deny, but they may justly be inflicted on the bodies or goods of children for their parents transgressions.

11. It followeth in my method, that I shew the authorities on our side. Bellarmine, De Amissione Grat. & Statu peccati 4.18. proveth at large, Non transire ad po steros per generationem omnia peccata parentum sed primum tantùm pri­mi hominis lapsum. That all the sinnes of parents do not passe unto their posteritie by generation, but onely the first sinne of the first man. Trelcatius and Willet crosse him not in this point. Schar­pius pag. 487. in Cursu Theologico upon that point of Bellar­mine maketh this Quaere; An peccata proxi­morum parentum origi­naliter in posteros tran­secunt? Whether the sinnes of the next parents originally passe unto their posteritie? and he answereth, That Augu­stine moved the matter, yet determined it not: but we (saith he) agree with Aquinas, that it is impossible so to be. And he alledgeth divers sound reasons for that purpose. Augustine himself indeed somewhere is somewhat doubtfull: and though he saith against Julian 6.3. That Fundanus a Rhetorician of Carthage, Cùm accidenti vitio luscus esset, luscum fili­um procreavit. being by an accidentall hurt blinde of one eye, begat a sonne likewise blinde of one eye: (where he seemeth to patronize the transfusion of personalls) yet the case is above ordinarie, as experience sheweth; and much may be ascribed to the imagination of the mother, rather then to the imperfect generation of the father. Though Augustine also in Enchirid. be somewhat cautelous and timerous; yet otherwhere (as I have proved before) he is confident, that we shall stand forth to judgement for one onely sinne of Adam, our originall sinne: which truth he confirmeth in one particular, thus, against Julian the Pelagian 6.12. Propter hoc itaque, id est, qu [...]niam peccavit A­dam, nec ipse Cain pec­casse dicendus est, qui eundem patrem suum noverat. There­fore neither can Cain himself, though he knew his father Adam, be said to have sinned because his father sinned. And more fully, De peccat. Meritis & Remiss. 1.13. Ab Adam, in quo omnes peccavimus, non omnia nostra peccata, sed tautùm originale tra­duximus. We have not derived from Adam (in whom we all sinned) all our sinnes, but onely originall. Thus much be said to prove the divine S. Augustine to be of our side.

Onely Vorstius, of all the canvasers of Bellarmine that I have met with, differeth from him and us, and maketh a double pro­pagation, Generall, and Speciall: and saith, If Bellarmines drift be against the generall propagation, it is false; because nature teach­eth, and experience witnesseth, Corruptiores ex cor­ruptioribus ordinariè ge­nerari. that ordinarily worse children are be­gotten of worse men. If he speak of the speciall traduction, our men ea­sily assent unto him, saith Vorstius. I reply on Vorstius. First, who ever before him talked of a double propagation? Not Scri­ptures, nor Fathers, nor Councels. Secondly, is this generall propagation done at the same time that the speciall is accom­plished? Is this general propagation better or worse then origi­nall sinne? Is this generall propagation, of all sinnes, and of all parents up to Adam, and of sinnes repented of, and of sinnes of omission, and of transient sinnes; or of such as Atheisme in the [Page 134]soul, which hath small, or no participation with the bodie? Let him define or describe this trimtram of generall propaga­tion contra-opposed to the propagation of sinne originall. But, saith he, Nature and experience say, Worse children are begot­ten of worse men. I answer, I never knew any worse, then some children of some good men. Secondly, he puts non causam pro causa, ascribing the wickednesse of children to the propagation of actuall sinne of their immediate parents, when he may bet­ter impute it to their hearing or beholding of their parents wickednesse, or to ill breeding and ill custome. Thirdly, the vices of the immediate parents, and of the remoter, yea of the remotest, even from Adam, yea all the sinnes that ever were committed, yea which yet never were committed, but shall be or may be hereafter, differing either in kinde or number from all sinnes precedent, all have been, are, shall be (in regard of the beginning, root, and fountain) in originall sinne. Fourthly, none ever that handled this controversie (as Augustine, or the School) did ever take actuall sinnes for inclinations to sinnes. Fifthly, in Vorstius his distinction there is a fallacie, viz. Peti­tio principii, while he, without good proof, taketh that for granted which is the onely thing denied, namely, That there is an other propagation, besides the propagation of sinne originall. Sixthly, how inconsequentiall is this? Wicked men have ordi­narily wicked children; Therefore personall sinnes are propagated. But indeed we denie the antecedent, and say, The sonnes of the wicked are as righteous, by naturall generation, as the sonnes of the righteous. If Vorstius reply, that every age groweth worse and worse, and

And again,

The answer is expedite, These are but poeticall fictions, ficti­ons of those who knew no propagation of originall sinne, and ascribed this growing worse and worse to the depravation of manners then present in use, and to evil customes, rather then to the propagation of personall iniquities: ‘Laudamus veteres, sed nostris utimur annis.’ Much there is to the like purpose in heathen authours. Lastly, Vorstius himself, after his seeking to finde a knot in a bulrush, after his needlesse opposition in this point, concludeth thus, Hoc transeat, quia parvi momenti est; Let this passe, because it is of small moment. So that, even in his judgement, this con­troversie [Page 135]is small, and indeed I think it not worth the name of a controversie.

When I had come thus farre, labouring to prove that no actu­all or personall sinnes are propagated, I casually again conferred with that learned loving friend of mine, who formerly brought to my hand the opinions of the new Writers; and upon some discourse, he setled on this exposition, which otherwise he gave over as indefensible, That they do mean by actuall sinnes, that inclinations unto sinnes are communicated. I answered, That I used to gather mens meanings by their words, and that nei­ther their words, nor the words of Zanchius the relatour, do incline to these inclinations. Again, never did any authour of any time before expound personalia, and actualia peccata (for of these must the question be necessarily understood) by the inclinations unto sinne. Moreover, if by peccata they did mean the pronenesse unto sinne; to avoid doubtfulnesse, they should, and as readily and easily they could (if they would) have written peccatorum inclinationes, as peccata in generall; or might have signified in some other words, and in some other passages, that they had meant so. This I know, They talk of peccata, peccata proximorum parentum, of labes peccatorum, & ceu con­tagium; they have words enow, doubtfull and obscure enough, which I dare say themselves understood not when they writ, viz. peccatorum labes, & ceu contagium: yet make they no mention of inclinations. But I would further know, whe­ther their inclinations are derived unto their children, and punished in them; which rest onely as inclinations, and ne­ver come into act: Or such inclinations as begin to come in­to act, but are resisted and overcome by Gods grace: Or onely such inclinations as breed actuall and personall iniquitie. If thus, then the inclinations are not punished, but the actuall aversions. Or, are no inclinations derived from grand-fa­ther, &c? I, but since originall sinne is alike in all, and some are more like to parents; whence doth this likenesse to them proceed more then to others? I answer, A drunkards childe is as like in that sinne to all other drunkards, as to his father.

But why hath a drunken father more commonly a drunken sonne, then a sober man? First, that is not yet proved. Object. Se­condly, parents sinnes seen or heard of, easily invite the chil­dren to do the same. Thirdly, too many parents bring up their children to do as themselves do. Fourthly, if a most drunken sonne hath most sober parents, then it comes from sinne originall: Why not so also from drunken parents? If incli­nation of drunkennesse be more in the seed of drunken men then of sober, then the children of drunkards should naturally be more drunk and deeper drunk, then any other drunkards whose parents were temperate. But that is not so, at least not [Page 136]so naturally, because not alwayes, no, nor perchance com­monly. Let me once more repeat, That all possible inclinati­ons unto sinne are inveloped and involved in originall sinne, which they either knew not, or considered not. Lastly, when I had taken these pains to frame this chapter in defence of a point, which I never held to be questioned, it grieved me to heare my ingenious friend so much to defend the new Writers, and to dance after the new pipe. Candid and fa­vourable expositions I shall love while I live, and both use towards others, and desire to be used towards me; but vio­lent, forced, farre-fetched interpretations (as this hath been) I can no way allow. For since reformation hath been so sharp­sighted, as to finde fault in all things, to esteem the School­men as dunses, (though they are thought dunses that so cen­sure them) to account the Fathers as silly old men, or as children, (though they are but babes that admire them not) to disregard Provinciall Councels, yea Generall Councels, as the acts of weak and sinfull men (though they are the chiefest, the highest earthly-living-breathing Judges of Scri­ptures controversed;) which cavils against former times I have heard belched forth by the brain-sick zealous ignorants of our times: since we have hissed out the Papists, and think they speak against their own consciences, when they maintain the infallibilitie and inerrabilitie of the Pope: May not Bucer and Martyr erre? Must all new opinions needs be true, and defended with might and main, with wrested part-taking, over-charitable defenses, rather then a small errour shall be acknowledged? If such milde dealing had been used against times precedent, we could not have found (as some now have done) about two thousand errours of the Papists. But thus much (if not too much) shall suf­fice concerning these men and this matter, with this cloze, That Zanchius himself, in the place above cited, saith thus against that new-fangled opinion, Neque enim aliud pec­catum in posteros transfu­sum est, quàm quod ipsius quoque fuit Adami: fuit enim inobedientia cum privatione justitiae origi­nalis, & totius naturae corruptione. Deinde eti­am, non propter aliud peccatum nos sumus ad­judicati morti, quàm pro­pter illud propter quod & Adamus: Ejusdem enim peccati stipendium fuit mors. Illi autem fuit di­ctum, Morte Morieris, propter inobedientiam, &c. For no other sinne was trans­fused to posteritie, then that which also was Adams: for it was disobedience with a privation of originall justice and corruption of the whole nature. Besides, we are sentenced to death for no other sinne then for that for which Adam also was: for death was the wages of the same sinne. Now it was said to him, THOU SHALT DIE THE DEATH, for disobedience, &c.

Now let them say, (if they can) that Adam was sentenced to death for any sinne of predecessour or successour, or any other sinne of himself, but one onely. I have maintained and do resolve, Death was inflicted for his first sinne onely. There­fore by Zanchius his true Divinitie, against Bucer and Mar­tyr, and their peremptorie defenders, Not all, not many sinnes, of all, of many, of any, of our predecessours; but the first [Page 137]sinne onely of Adam is transfused to posteritie: nor are they guiltie or condemnable, for any other preceding actuall sinne or sinnes of others whosoever.

O Father of consolation, O God of mercies, who knowest that every one of us have sinnes perso­nall more then enow to condemne us; lay not, I beseech thee, the sinnes of our fathers, or fore-fathers, or our own (if it be thy holy will) to our charge, to punish us in this life present; or our originall sinne, in, and by Adam, or our own actuall misdeeds, to trouble our consciences by despair, or to damne us in the world to come: but have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, according to thy great mercy in Christ Jesus, our alone Lord and Saviour. Amen.

CHAP. VIII.

IT hath been plentifully evidenced, that death entred into the world by sinne; and that both Adam and we were sentenced to die for one sinne, the first sinne onely of Adam onely; and not for any other sinne or sinnes of him, or any other our remote, propinque, or immediate parents; [Page 139]and that death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression, Rom. 5.14. I adde, Death shall live, fight, and prevail, (though not reigne) from Moses unto the end of the world. For when this mortall shall have put on immortality, then (then, and not till then) shall be brought to passe the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory, 1. Cor. 15.54. and the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death, 1. Cor. 15.26. Aquine on Roman. 5. lect. 4. thus, Because corporall death reigned from Adam, by whom originall sinne: came into the world, unto Moses, under whom the Law was given, and death is the effect of sinne, especially originall sinne; it appeareth, there was originall sinne in the world before the Law: and lest we might say, they died for actuall sinnes, the Apostle saith, Death reigned even over those who sinned not proprio actu, as chil­dren. So he.

2. The things themselves then being unquestionable, and before elucidated to the full, That death is inflicted for ori­ginall sinne, and that we all and every of us (except Christ) have contracted originall sinne; it followeth justly, by the judgement of God, that death is appointed unto us for this sinne. Tertullian lib. 1. contra Marcion. Homo damnatur in mortem, ob unius arbu­sculi delibationem: —& pereunt jam omnes quì nullum Paradisi cespitem nôrunt. Man is condemned to death for tasting of a small tree: — and now they all perish that never were acquainted with Paradise: and let me adde, They are most justly punished. Neither let man cavill, or cast asper­sion of unrighteousnes upon God. For though men be but of yesterday (yea though the childe be born but this minute) yet by reason of their originall sinne in Adam, and with him, they were justly sentenced in Adam unto death almost six thousand yeares ago. For though God needeth no defence from the actions and behaviour of men; yet from their usan­ces and customes generally received, from their right and equitie daily practised, let us ascend to behold the blamelesse course in the like of the Almightie. Do we finde a young snake, viper, or other venemous or hurtfull beasts, birds, or the egges of a cocatrice; we destroy them, not for the harm which they have done, but for the kinde sake, and for the spoil which they may do. Do not prodigall great heirs waste and scatter abroad estates ensured to posteritie? Do they not cut off intailes, annihilate and void perpetuities, draw inheritances drie in smoke, and consume them wholly on gut or groin, to the everlasting prejudice of their issues? Did not the disobedience of Queen Vashti unto her hus­band do a wrong, not to the King Ahasuerus onely, but to all the princes, and all the people, Esther 1.16. and, as being exemplarie, was punished accordingly? If the whordome of the High-priests daughter be a profanation of her father, [Page 140]Levit. 21.9. and therefore she was to be burnt alive, though other whores were put to milder deaths: if an evil done to a brother striketh up to the abuse of the father, as it doth; (for God rendered the wickednesse of Abimelech which he did unto his father, in flaying his seventie brethren, Judges 9.56.) then why might not the wickednesse of a father descend in some sort upon the children, in a storm of wrath and pu­nishment?

3. The husband representeth the wife: what bargain he maketh, she maketh: they are one flesh. The great com­mandment, to keep the sabbath, was given to sonne and daughter, to servants and to strangers, but not to the wife. She was forbidden in her husband, which the rest were not, but dividedly: so was Eve forbid in Adam, not inhi­bited her self, but in him who represented her. The men of Israel represented the women, and the women had good by the actions or passions of the men. The females were redeemed in the males, every male gave a ransome for his soul unto the Lord; all and every one, rich and poore alike, even half a shekel; and they gave this offering unto the Lord, to make an atonement for their souls, Exod. 30.15. Women were partakers of this benefit, and in the mens atonement was the womans comprized. Neither were the females pre­sented to the Lord, but the males, the males onely: and the women in them, and by them, but not in their own persons. In Gods due claim to the beasts, these three conditions were to be observed: First, that the beasts should be clean; and so not swine, not horses, camels, dromedaries, elephants, or the like; but onely these three kindes, sheep, ruther-beasts, and goats, were the Lords (unlesse you will make up the number, foure, with an asse; which was to be redeemed with a lambe, or his neck to be broken, Exod. 13.13.) For though it be said Exod. 13.2. Sanctifie unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the wombe among the children of Israel, both of man and beast: it is mine: Yet you must not extend the words to dogs, or cats, or things unclean, but onely to such clean beasts as God hath appointed for sacrifices. Yea, though it be said, Numb. 18.15. The firstling of unclean beasts thou shalt redeem: You must know, there is a double unclean­nesse. First, that which is unclean throughout all its species; as swine, and horses, and the like: Secondly, that which is unclean by accident, and is contra-opposed to perfect and unblemished, Levit. 22.22, 23. as blinde, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvie, or scabbed, — or which hath any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts: such beasts, even of clean beasts, as sheep, goats, &c. the Lord counted unclean, and claimed them not. Those that were thus unclean by accident, [Page 141]were to be redeemed: and so that place of Numb. is to be understood, and not to be wire-drawn, as if God did claim the unclean beasts to be his. The second condition, That those clean beasts should be first-born: Thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast, Exod. 13.12. Thirdly, these clean first-born or sirstlings must not be the females, though they first open the matrix, but the males; [...], as the Se­ptuagints have it, Exod. 13.12. The males shall be the Lords. Semblably in the case of mankinde, women were not the Lords claim, but the men onely, and the women included in the men. For though it be said in generall terms, Exod. 13.13. All the first-born among thy children thou shalt redeem; yet the women were not redeemed but in the men, and the men onely were offered. Luke 2.23. Every male that openeth the wombe shall be holy: Openeth the wombe by extramission and ejection, not by intromission and injection, as the Hebrew phrase importeth: the Greek is thus, [...], Omnis masculus primogenitus, as Beza reads it; Omne masculi­num, as the Vulgat hath it; according to that, Exod. 22.29. The first-born of thy sonnes thou shalt give unto me. From whence let me inferre this conclusion, That the first-born had his denomination from the mothers first birth or parturition, as well as from the fathers first generation. Exod. 11.5. From the first-born of Pharaoh, to the first-born of the maid-servant that is behinde the mill. The Septuagints stile the first-born, not [...], with reference to the fathers act, but [...], from the mother; and Christ is not called [...], from a carnall father (for he had none) or [...], but [...], John 1.18. and [...], Luke 2.7. her first-born sonne. Which [...] is ill interpreted by the old Bishops bibles, Mat. 1.25. first-begotten; and by the Genevean translation as ill rendered, Luke 2.7. forsaking their good rendering of it, Mat. 1.25. But our late translation, in both places aptly hath it the first-born, and not first-begotten. Though Jacob saith, Genes. 49.3. Reu­ben, thou art my first-born: yet Leah might have said the same words as well; for he was the first-born of both: Yea, I dare say, if a man had more wives at once, as Jacob had; or suc­cessively, as many others; the first male childe of each of these women by the same man may justly be called his first-born; and every one of these first-born children, if they had lived under the Leviticall law, had been consecrated to God. And therefore Reuben having lost his birth-right, the double portion which had been due to him, (and was due to the first-born under the law, Deut. 21.17. and was part of those Jura primo-geniturae, and one of the [...] mentioned by the Apostle, Heb. 12.16.) was by Gods appointment, and Jacobs [Page 142]just allotment bequeathed to Joseph, Genes. 48.5. And of him were two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh: whereas no other of the children of Israel had more then one tribe. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ru­ler; but the birth-right was Josephs, 1. Chron. 5.2. and not Ju­dahs. For Joseph was the first-born of Rachel, the first-love of Jacob, the first wife in the light, in right, and in intention: And so her eldest sonne Joseph was in right to be the first-born of Jacob: and her self is prefer'd in place, not onely by Jacobs affection, but long after, by the Spirit of God, Ruth 4.11. The Lord make the woman like Rachel and Leah. Shall I step one step further? I may say, That if the willing and witting act of Jacob, preferring Ephraim, the younger sonne of Joseph, before his first-born Manasseh, did onely signi­fie, that Gods blessing went not alwaies hand in hand by the prioritie of birth, and that God makes birth-rights according to his pleasure, and not according to mans reckoning: Yet three other passages reach more home, to prove, That Joseph was the first-born. First, because Jacob blessed Jo­seph two severall times, Genes. 48.16. and 49.22. which he did unto none of his other children besides; and withall, he gave him one portion above his brethren, which he took out of the hand of the Amorite with his sword and with his bow, vers. 22. besides the parcell of ground in Shechem, where Joseph was buried; And it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph, Josh. 24.32. which was also a prerogative above his other brethren. Secondly, because Jacob blessed Josephs children before he blessed his own children, Genes. 48.16, &c. Third­ly, because Jacob blessed both Joseph in his children, and his children in his blessing; and blessed none of his childrens children, by name, separately, and particularly, but Josephs children onely (though divers of them had little ones be­fore Jacob went into Egypt, Genes. 46.5.) and Joseph him­self Jacob blessed with the blessings of the breasts, and of the wombe, Genes. 49.25. Which words, as they do promise a kinde of fruitfulnesse; (which was taken from Ephraim, by barrennesse, when it was said, Hosea 9.14. Give them a mis­carrying wombe and drie breasts) so I remember not, that ever the posteritie of Joseph had extraordinarie number of issue above other tribes, answerable to Jacobs extraordinarie bles­sing; but Judah, and his ofspring onely, had more men of warre, from twentie yeares old and upward, then both the tribes of Ephraim and Manassch, Num. 1.26, 33, 35. and therefore, in all likelihood, had more children from twentie yeares downward. Which words, I say, viz. The blessings of the breasts, and of the wombe, as they may in a second sense imply a nu­merous ofspring; so in the first sense, I conjecture, they point­ed [Page 143]at the primo-geniture of Joseph and his children. Sure I am, the birth-right was given to the sonnes of Joseph, 1. Chron. 5.1. and the birth-right was Josephs, vers. 2. and perhaps, even in this point, Jacobs blessings prevailed above the blessings of his progenitours, Genes. 49.26. For Abraham prayed once that his first-born sonne, by his concubine, might be blessed: O that Ishmael might live before thee! saith he to God, Gen. 17.18. and Isaac would have blessed his first-born Esau: Make me savourie meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may blesse thee before I die, saith Isaac to Esau, Genes. 27.4. though before-hand Esau had sold his birth-right unto Jacob, Genes. 25.33. Neither Abraham, nor Isaac prevailed in their wishes: but Jacobs blessings prevailed above the blessings of his progenitours, because, whom he desired to blesse, God blessed; and he gave, by Gods al­lowance, the primo-geniture to Joseph whom he loved, and to whom, in some regard, it was due before Reuben.

I return to the old matter, and opine, That when a batcheler marrieth with a widow, which had had a sonne by her former husband, her first man-childe by the second husband was not a first-born, nor so accounted in the law. And if after a wo­man had had seven husbands, and daughters onely by each of these, she had been married also unto the eighth husband, and should have a sonne by him, though he had had divers sonnes before by other women; yet this his sonne by this woman is, in the eye of the law, a right first-born childe, and sacred to the Lord; and to be redeemed, not with the generall redem­ption of every male, half a shekel, of which I spake before, but with the particular redemptions of the first-born. Redempti­ons were of two sorts: the first is expressed Numb. 3.45. where the Levites are taken in stead of all the first-born, and the cattell of the Levites in stead of their cattell. And because there were two hundred and seventy more of the first-born sonnes of the Israelites, then all the male Levites came unto, every one of those odde 270 paid five shekels to the Lord for their redem­ption: which summe of five shekels was ever after, during the Law, the price of the redemption of the first-born sonne, Numbers 18.16; which was the second kinde of redem­ption.

I cannot omit to shew the means which God used, to prevent the cosenage about things consecrated. They were to do no work with the first-born bullock, nor to shear their first-born sheep, Deuter. 15.19.

It is also remarkable, first, that Pharaoh commanded the midwives of the Hebrews, Exod. 1.16. If it be a sonne, ye shall kill him: and gave in charge after to all the Egyptians, his sub­jects, Every sonne that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every [Page 144]daughter ye shall save alive, vers. 22. Secondly, that Moses was the sonne of a Levite, exposed to the danger of the water; and therefore called Moses, because he was drawn forth, Exod. 2. and after called by God, to revenge this wrong and others upon Pharaoh. Among which plagues, this was a great one, to slay their first-born: and as the just retaliation used by God in other things, yea in this, was, not to destroy their daughters, but their sonnes; so in his mercy he would not destroy all their males, but the first-born onely; which you must not understand of their daughters, though they were first-born, but onely of their males. For when it is said, Psal. 78.51. He smote all the first-born in Egypt, the chief of their strength; you cannot imagine that women were the chief of their strength, but the men onely. And God taught the people to say, Exod. 13.15. The Lord slew all the first-born, &c. therefore I sacrifice unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix, being males. And as the first-born males onely were sacrificed, so onely were the first-born males re­deemed. And accordingly all the male Levites were taken for the male first-born of Israel: and at the most righteous massacre of the first-born males of Egypt, the Israelites escaped by the bloud of a lambe without blemish, a male of the first yeare, or a sonne of the first yeare, Exod. 12.5. From whence you may see the grosse errour of Cornel. Cornelii à Lapide, who think­eth, That if a woman had had a daughter first, and sonnes after, her first sonne had not been her first-born, but her daughter; be­cause she opened the matrix first: when it is evident, that if a woman had had many daughters before one sonne, yet her first sonne was her first-born in the Law. And God saith, Exod. 12.24, Ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee, and to thy sonnes for ever: viz. the ordinance of keeping the Passeover. I recollect, & apply these things thus, The men of Israel repre­sented the women; The first-born sonne, and not the daughter, was the Lords due; The male Levites were in stead of the first-born sonnes; All first-born males were redeemed; Women re­ceived good by the mens circumcision, and by mens redempti­on, which was in one kinde or other, whether they were first-born or not first-born. And though the devilish superstition of the Turks now circumcise women (as Joannes Leo report­eth) yet by Gods appointment women were neither to be circumcised, nor redeemed, but as they were in men, and as men represented them.

4. Let me come yet nearer to the main purpose. The Apostle saith, 1. Corinth. 12.26. Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoyce with it. From whence I thus argue; As at the committing or deed-doing in murder, the murderers hand may be said to will the murder; not because there is any [Page 145]will, strictly taken, belonging to the hand; or because there is sinne properly in the right hand, which doth but its duty in obeying the souls domineering disposition, or dominium de­spoticum: but because the hand is part of that man, in whose soul the will was that commanded the murder; and because the soul is principium totius individui, the fountain from which all members take life, and use motion, and by the soul the motion was derived to all the other parts of the body. So were we, and every one of man-kinde, willing to commit the sinne with Adam; not as if we had been there actually to agree or disagree, but as we were parts of him who was the fountain of humane nature, which conveyed corruption unto all mankinde. Semblably in the punishment: though the right hand onely give the blow, and actuate the murder, yet upon the delinquents apprehension both hands are pineoned, both feet fettered, the neck is haltered, and the whole body rueth it; yea, soul and all, without repentance. So, though Adam onely sinned that first great sinne, yet because he did it representing us, Adam alone is not punished for it: but we that are bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, all that are members of the first Adam are guilty of the fault, and condignely are punished, if we be un­repentant. For as the divers members of a body, are part of the person of one man: so all and every man is, as it were, a part and member of humane nature. And thus by the participation of the species, more men are one; and one, more: we, Adam; and Adam was we. But let us go out of man himself, and look to other fashions of the world, in matters politicall. Do not the severall men in a Township or Corporation make one body thereof, and the whole Corporation is, as it were, but one man? and what a few do, is it not the act of all? of which he complained, who said, That M ^r. Maior, for his own particular, was an honest man, and so were all the brethren, who promised him fairely; but (because, contrary to their promise, they pinched upon him) the Corporation was a knave. Doth not the House of the Commons represent the Body of the Realm, in the Parliament time, though the thousand part of the subjects be not present? and what they enact, the absent enact; what they deny, the absent deny: and what immunities and priviledges they obtain, for succession as well as for themselves they ob­tain them: and what services, tributes, subsidies, or taxes they yeeld unto, all the rest of the Realm must yeeld unto, and pay: yea, by the trust reposed in them, they binde or loose the whole Kingdome, sometimes in such things as others would never have consented unto, and yet must undergo, and see performed. In the fifth book of the Historie of Portugal, the Universitie and Divines of Alcala, among other things, truely decreed, and religiously guided Philip the [Page 146]second towards the attaining of the crown of Portugal, in these words, saying, that, When as Common-wealths do choose their first King, upon condition to obey him and his suc­cessours, they remain subject to him to whom they have transferred their authority; no jurisdiction remaining in them either to judge the realm, or the true successour, seeing in the first election all true successours were chosen.

Every man is considered doubly. First, as a singular person: so onely his own proper actions belong to him. Secondly, as a member of a society: so what the Prince, or the whole citie, or the greater part do, doth concern him: For so saith the Philosopher, saith Scharpius the Divine. Much more did Adam represent our persons, when, what he willed and performed, we willed and performed; we be­ing in him, as many waters in a fountain; all to be corrupted, if he were corrupted; all to be pure, if he continued pure; all to live by his righteousnes, all to die by his iniquity.

Furthermore, in the famous battell between the three Horatii and the three Curiatii, did not they represent both the armies and both the people? the Horatii, of the Ro­manes? the Curiatii, of the Latines? Did not their wills, their strength, their fortune depend on the wills, strength, and fortune of those combatants? did not the Latines fall into subjection by the death of the Curiatii? and did not the Romanes thrive and prosper by the valour of their super­viving Horatius? Yea in the Scripture, long before this battell, there went out a champion out of the camp of the Phili­stines, Goliath of Gath, 1. Sam. 17.4. with a proud challenge, and bold defiance; Am not I a Philistine, and you servants of Saul? Then he articleth, Choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me. If he be able to fight with me, and to kill me; then we will be your servants: but if I prevail, and kill him; then you shall be our servants, and serve us. It should seem, the Philistines referred themselves to his successe; for when David had undertaken the duel, and when the Phili­stines saw their champion dead, (they fought not a stroke) they fled. And the men of Israel and of Judah pursued, wounded, and killed them, vers. 51, 52.

Yea, in our own countrey, if upon imposed crimes by an appellant, the defendant shall yeeld, or be overcome in bat­tell, Ʋ [...]imo supplicio puni­etur, cum poena gravi vel graviori, secundum crimi­nis qualitatem, cum ex­haeredatione haeredum su­orum, & omnium bono­rum amissione. He shall be put to death with a grievous or more grie­vous pain, according to the qualitie of the crime, with the dis­inheriting of his heirs, and losse of all his goods. Furthermore, though he were slain, yet the formality of the Common-law proceeding, adjudgeth him to capitall punishment, that thereby his posterity may suffer the grievous concomitancy of his deserved in­famy, saith that most learned M. Selden, my most courte­ous [Page 147]and loving friend, in his Duello, or Single Combat, pag. 30.

5. But let us come from the sword, where things are cut out with more rigour, if not crucltie, unto matters Ecclesi­asticall, and so more civil and peaceable. Did not S. Peter stand in stead of all the Apostles, when Christ said to him, Joh. 21.15, 16. Feed my lambes, —Feed my sheep. And again, Feed my sheep, vers. 17. Likewise when Christ said to him, Matth. 16.19. I will give unto thee the keyes of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth, shall be bound in heaven: whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. And when this pro­mise to Peter was promised to the rest of the Apostles also, Matth. 18.18. and when both these promises were fulfilled and accomplished, as they were after Christs resurrection (and not before) and authoritie given, and by a solemne ceremony exhibited by Christ, not onely to S. Peter, but to all and eve­ry of the Apostles, saying, Joh. 20.21, &c. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sinnes ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose so­ever sinnes ye retain, they are retained. Did not the Apostles represent the whole body of the Ministery? unlesse you will fable, that in the Apostles dayes they had more need of re­mission of sinnes, then we have now; or that Christ loveth not his Church now, nor affordeth the like means of par­don and reconciliation, as he did in those times. But by the same deceitfulnesse of cavillation, you may say as well, that when Christ brake bread, and gave it to his Disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body: and gave the cup to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; none but they might eat, or drink the Supper of the Lord. But it is undeniable, that when Christ said to his twelve Apostles, Luk. 22.19. This is my body which is given for you: Do this in remembrance of me; he spake it to them as repre­sentours of the whole Priesthood onely: who onely have pow­er to consecrate the body and bloud of our Lord. Indeed Hie­rome saith, Quid facit Episco­pus, exceptâ Ordinatione, quod Presbyter non facit [...] Epist. 85. ad Euag. What doth a Bishop, except Ordination, which a Priest doth not? as if the Apostles represented the Bishops in that point onley: and the Centuriatours acknowledge, that the first Bishops, after the Apostles, were made Bishops by the Apostles: and they say no more then is confirmed, 1. Timo­thy 5.22. and Titus 1.5. Act. 20.28. But other Fathers extend the comparison between the Apostles and Bishops to other matters; appropriating to the Bishops, above the Presbyters, the power of Confirmation, and divers other things. All which though we grant, yet no man will deny but for preaching, baptizing, and especially for consecrating of the Eucharist, and Sacerdotall Absolution, or Ministeriall Remission of sinnes, the Apostles represented not the people [Page 148]in any wise, nor the Bishops onely; but the universall body of Christs Ministers.

And do not, among us, the Right Reverend Arch-bishops, and Bishops, and the Clergy, assembled in the Convocation, represent the whole Church of England? are not they our Nationall Councel? do not their Articles of Religion binde in conscience all and every one of the Church of England, as much, if not more then Civill laws? Nor is there the like hu­mane authority on earth, for the setling of our consciences in matters of Scripture, or Scriptures controverted, or to be con­troverted, as the externall publick breathing voice of a true Oecumenical Councel of the Patriarchs, Bishops, and choice Divines of the Christian world. The essentiall, universall Church of Christ is (and we must beleeve it is) the house of God, the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth, 1. Tim. 3.15. It never erred, it cannot erre, its iudgement is infallible. The Spirit leadeth this Church into all truth, Joh. 16.13. Of the Church of God, consisting of the faithfull in any one age or time, I dare say, it never did erre damnably, or persisted in smaller errours obstinately; but alwayes some truly maintained things necessary to salvation: and unto this fluctuant militant part of the Church, Christ hath promised to be with it to the end of the world, Matt. 28.20. The whole visible Church at no time can fall into heresie; but some seek after the truth, and em­brace it, and professe it. Subject it is to nesciency of some things, and perhaps to some kinde of ignorance; but it cannot erre in things necessary, nor in lesse matters, schismatically, with obdu­rate pertinacy.

Of the representative Church of Christ in Councels, this may be said truly and safely: viz.

Of the first six Generall Oecumenicall Councels, not one, de facto, erred in any definition of matters of faith. Of other lawfull general Councels, that may hereafter be called, though I will not deny but they may possibly be deceived, as they are men, and therefore are not free from errability: (but if such Councels may erre, or pronounce amisse, cannot coblers?) yet there is least likelihood of their erring. Such Oecumenical Councels have the supremest, publick, externall, definitive judgement in matters of Religion; if any oppose them, they may not onely silence them, but censure them with great cen­sures, and reduce them into order. Private spirits must sit down and rest in their determinations, else do the Councels lose operam & oleum. What S. Ambrose, Epist. 32. said of one gene­ral Councell, Sequor tractatum Niceni Concilii, à quo me [...] mors, nec gladius [...] separare. I follow the decision of the Nicene Councel, from which neither death nor sword shall be able to separate me: I say of all true and generall Councels, and of the major part of them, who binde the rest: without which issue, the gathering of Councels, [Page 149]yea and of Parliaments also, would be ridiculous. For though it were a true and just complaint of Andreas Duditius; Quinquecclesiensis Episcopus, That in the Conventicle of Trent, the voices were rather numbred then well weighed: yet he doth not, he cannot finde fault with that course, in a just and lawfull Generall Councel: but directeth his complaint against the tyrannicall power of the Pope, who made unlearned men Bishops, as many as served his turn; and more would have made, if more need had been: Bishops Pompaticos & o­stensionales. pompaticall, and onely for shew (as Lampridius said of Perseus his souldiers;) namely, titular Bishops, void of learning, void of Churches, void of good consciences, and mercenary parasites.

Concerning our Nationall Church, till a lawfull General Councel may be celebrated, both Pastours and people of Eng­land are to obey her Decrees, Injunctions, Articles, Homilies, and our approved, last, best Translation; above Coverdales, Tindals, or any private ones. Therefore, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, Heb. 13.17. And you are to follow their faith, ver. 7.

6. The Devil brought not a more dangerous Paradox into the Church of God this thousand yeares, then this, That every one, illiterate man or woman, at their pleasure may judge of Scripture, and interpret Scripture, and beleeve their own fancies of the Scripture, which they call the evidence of the Spirit: and the contradicting them, (though with truth) they esteem as the not convincing, nor clearing of their con­science. So that Nationall Councels are of no esteem, Generall Councels not of much: the sheep will not heare the Pastours voice; but to their pleasure censure them: for, All may erre. The Spirit from heaven (as they suppose) doth as well dictate the sense to them, as it did sometimes the words to the holy Pen-men thereof. Let such seduced ones know, They have the cart without the horses and horsemen: whereas the Prophet Eliah was called (and other Church-governours may be called) the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof, 2. Kings 2.12. They have the words with the Eunuch; but want both Philip to be their guide, and the humblenes of the Eunuch, who was willing to be instructed, Act. 8.30. Though they have the letter, yet they may misse the true literall sense; which is not in divers places to be measured by the propriety of the words onely, or principally; as in proverbiall, parabolicall, and mysterious sentences. The literal sense is the hardest to finde. Simplicem sequentes literam occidunt Filium Dei, qui totus sentitur in Spiritu. They that follow the bare letter, do kill the Sonne of God, who is wholly perceived in the Spirit, saith Hierome of some men, on Matt. 26.21. Presumptuous and illiterate Expositours are like the Carriers or Posts, hasting between Princes; having letters of [Page 150]truth in their packets, but sealed up, so that they cannot see nor know them; while their mouthes are full of leasings, false rumours, and lies. They have the spirit of self-conceit and pride. These men little think, that they who wrested some hard places in S. Paul, as they did also the other Scriptures, wrested them to their own destruction, 2. Pet. 3.16. What shall be­come of those, who wrest easie places? These dream not, that Ejusdem penè aute­ritatis est interpretari, cujus condere. it belongs almost to the same authority, to interpret, and to make: That they are to rest on the Generall Commission given to the Priest, Teach all nations: (therefore others must learn:) That the Priests lips must preserve knowledge, and the people must fetch the Law from their mouth: That an implicite be­lief in depths beyond their capacity, is better then adventurous daring to take from the holy word of God that divine sense which it hath, and to fasten their own false sense upon it. Ter­tullian saith, Tantum veritati ob­strepit adulter sensus, quantum corruptor sty­lus. De Praescript. ad­vers. hętet. cap. 17. & 38. The truth of the Scripture may be depraved as well by a false glosse, as by corrupting the text. Hierome thus, Non est in verbis E­vangelium, sed in sensu; non in superficie, sed in medulla; non in sermo­num foliis, sed in radice rationis. Comment. in Galat. 1. The Gospel is not in the words, but in the sense; not in the out­side, but in the marrow; not in the leaves of speeches, but in the root of reason. Irenaeus 2.25. Melius est, nihil om­nino scientem perseverare in dilectione Dei, quae hominem vivificat, nec aliud inquirere ad scien­tiam, nisi Jesum Christum Filium Dei, pro nobis crucifixum, quàm per quaestionum subtilitates, & multiloquium, in im­pietates cadere. It is better for the ignorant to continue in the love of God, which quickneth a man, and to seek no other knowledge but Jesus Christ the Sonne of God crucified for us, then by subtilties of questions and much talking to fall into impieties. And Augustine, Serm. 20. de verbis Apost. Melior est fidelis igno­rantia, quàm temeraria scientia. A faithfull igno­rance is better then a rash knowledge. Again, S. Hierome ad Demetriadem, speaketh of unlearned men, Quum loqui nesci­unt, tacere non possunt, docént (que) Scripturas quas non intelligunt; priùs im­peritorum magistri, quàm doctorum discipuli. Bo­num est obedire majori­bus, parere praesectis. & post regulas Scriptura­rum vitae suae tramitem ab aliis discere, nec prae­ceptore uti pessimo, scilicet praesumptione suâ. Knowing not how to speak, they cannot hold their peace, but will needs teach the Scriptures which they understand not, and be masters of the igno­rant, before they be disciples of the learned. It is good to obey our elders, to submit to those that are set over us, and next to the rules of the Scriptures, to learn of others how to live, and not to be led by our own presumption, the worst guide of all others. Excellent is the counsel of Gregory Nazianzen to these fanaticall giddy­brain'd private spirits, Ye sheep, presume not to lead your Pastours, &c. If a Jew, a Turk, a Devil convince thy conscience, thou must follow it: shall the governour of thy soul have no other power over thee, then Jew, Turk, or Devil? Or was the Mi­nistery ordained in vain? In vain indeed it was ordained, if every one be his own judge, or a peremptory judge of his guide. If great learned men may be deceived; may not the ignorant man much more? I dare truely avouch, that the unlearned, single-languaged-interpreting-lay-man, hath all the faults whatsoever learned men have, and some other; especi­ally such as are the offsprings of ignorance. That wise Histo­rian Philip de Commines, in his 3. book 4. chap. reckoneth it as an unseemly thing to reason of Divinity before a Doctour. The world is turned topsi-turvey: the great and most learned [Page 151]Archbishop of Canterbury was confronted by a cobler; yea confounded, if we will beleeve that monster of men, that incar­nate devill, Martin Marre-Prelate, who thus sung of his Idol,

I warrant you, the spirit, the private spirit, by which the fool presumed that he was guided. Sleidan, Comment. 22. fol. 266. saith it was one of Charles the fifth his Edicts, Nè quis de Sacra Scriptura, maximè de re­bus dubiis & difficilibus, privatim aut publicè di­sputet, aut ejus interpreta­tionem sibi sumat, nisi sit Theologus, qui probatae alicujus Academiae te­stimonium habeat. Let no man take upon him to dispute publickly or privately of the sacred Scri­pture, especially of doubtfull and hard points; or to interpret it; ex­cept he be a Divine that hath the testimonie of some approved Ʋniversitie. It was an holy Edict, breeding reverence to the sacred word of God, and I could wish it were in practise with us; though I must needs confesse, the breach of the edict was too severely punished: for the men were to be beheaded, and the women to be buried alive, though they desisted from their errour; but if they were obstinate, they were to be burn­ed, and their goods confiscated. Yet the rebellions of the Anabaptists in Germanie may be some cloke for that cruell sentence; which rebellions also (forsooth) were moved by the Spirit of God; if, for example sake, you wil give credit to Thom. Muncer his oration unto the armed rebellious clowns: Constat nobis, auspi­catum esse me hanc acti­onem, non meâ quadam autoritate privatâ, sed jussu divino. We are sure (saith he) that I began not this action by any private autho­ritie of mine, but by a divine injunction, &c. And again, Videbitis ipsi mani­festum Dei auxilium. Ye your selves shall see the manifest help of God. And he had Scri­pture to confirm it; Scripture in word, not in sense; Scripture misapplied, things falling out contrary to his propheticall Spirit: for they were overcome, and he beheaded. Likewise Sleiden, Comment. 30. fol. 28. saith of the Anabaptists, Cum Deo colloquium sibi esse, & mandatum se habere aiebant, ut impiis omnibus interfectis, no­vum constituerent mun­dum, in quo pii solùm & innocentes viverent. They said they had conference with God, and a mandate from him, to kill all the wicked, and then to frame a new world, wherein none but the godly and innocent should live. This I will say of mine own knowledge, that when that man of happy memory, the late right Reverend, now most blessed Saint, Arthur Lake, Lord Bi­shop of Bath and Wells, appointed Doctour Sclater (now al­so a Saint of heaven, then my most learned loving friend, and sometime fellow-Collegian in the two royall Colledges at Eaton and Cambridge) with my self, to conferre with an Ana­baptisticall woman; we heard her determine great depths of Divinitie as confidently as ever S. Paul did, though he was taught by Christ himself; and as nimbly as ever an ape crackt nuts: yet so ignorantly, and with such non-sense, that we both wondred at her incredible boldnesse. The Revelation she had at her fingers ends: she thought that she understood it bet­ter then S. John himself; and defined in a few houres confe­rence more depths of Divinitie, then six Generall Councels would in a long time. Mysteries were no mysteries to her: [Page 152]if an Angel of earth, or one from heaven instruct her con­trary to her frantick prepossest imagination, she would con­clude, Because the Spirit bloweth where it listeth, that the Spirit instructed her in the right way. A fit consequence for such a pseudo-prophetissa.

7. But what do I speak of her self-conceit, when of late an other of her sex hath printed a book of her phantasticall crudities, and by English anagrams expoundeth Scripture? A new kinde of interpretation never thought of, fit for a wo­man to be the inventour of. She teacheth Daniel to reveal himself after a new fashion: and such things, which, were he alive and racked, he must say he never thought of. She thinks she untieth knots, and gives light to prophesies; but indeed misapplieth things past, and perhaps future contingents, to pre­sent times: and while she gathereth many excellent strains of words and sentences out of the divine Writ, in coupling them together she maketh such a roaring hotch-potch, as if she had vowed to write full-mouthed non-sense in loftie terms; others not knowing, nor perhaps herself, what she aimeth at. Take a taste of her anagrams.

Yet did not he end all prophesies, nor all things.

What would she do with them? It was feared that they would have come too soon for her and others too.

Like you this? you shall have more as bad, as void of wit.

If Friers should come, and prevail, they would teach her to be more humble.

Awake dreamer: no sense is in thy dreams, much lesse reli­gion. Was ever Scripture made such a nose of wax? did ever any religious heart think, such could be the meaning of those words? Let me but touch at her obscene exposition of the end of Christs Circumcision, pag. 5; and consider her fanaticall imagination, that the Spirit of God by Michael understood King James, pag. 50: And the warre in heaven with Michael and his Angels, against the Dragon and his Angels, is thus expounded by her, pag. 55. The fray is fought by seconds: by Michael is meant King James; the Dragon is the Pope, whom Michael overcame by the bloud of the Lambe, and by the testimonie of so many Bishops, and other faithfull, crowned with the glory of [Page 153]Martyrdome: whereas King James had never a Bishop so crown­ed, and never a Bishop was so crowned since he was born. Holy, peaceable, and harmlesse King James, who would scarce hurt a worm, is now interpreted to be the greatest fighter among the celestiall host.

I could wish she would repent for her blasphemy, pag. 70, where she writeth, That the person of the sonne of God (not made) was turned into a lump of clay: and for her pointing out the day of judgement. For though she confesseth, pag. 90, Of the day & houre no man knoweth, no not the Angels that are in hea­ven, nor the Sonne, but the Father; yet she addeth, The account of this book of note is by centuries of yeares. Suppose it were so, (as it is not) could not Christ and his Angels know the day by the computation of centuries, as well as she? but she, by a new account, hath found out (as she imagineth) what Christ and the good Angels were ignorant of, namely, the exact day of doom. For thus she determineth, pag. 100, There is nineteen yeares and a half to the day of judgement, July the twenty eighth one thousand six hundred twenty five. Had not this woman been better never to have seen Scripture, then thus to profane it, and take Gods word in vain? You think you have the Spirit of God, as you write in the last page: but I am sure, if you repent not betimes, for your wire-drawing of Gods word, and intruding into hidden and unsearchable depths of Divinitie; you are in a desperate case, and all the Separatists and Enthu­siasts of the Nether-lands, where they say your book was printed, cannot defend you. Let the women rather go to their needle, and their spindle. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection, 1. Tim. 2.11. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, (as she doth, if she turn expositrix) but to be in silence, saith S. Paul.

Cornelius Cornelii à Lapide deserveth the severest censure of the Inquisition, for expounding the word of God by an He­brew anagram, on Exod. 25.18; though he cite a piece of Scri­pture for a parallell. Indeed S. Hierome on those words, She­shach shall drink after them, Jeremie 25.26, interprets it to be Babel: because, if you mingle in the Hebrew Alphabet the first letter with the last, the second with the last save one, and so forth, till you come to the middle, and invert the order of reading, which we do for the memory of children: as for example [...]; when you are come to the middest [...] and [...] do meet: then that which in the ordinary and forward reading is Babel, in the inverted reading is Sheshach. I appre­hend him thus: write in one line the Hebrew Alphabet, be­ginning with [...], and ending with [...]; in another line begin with [Page 154] [...], and end with [...]: what in the right way is Babel, in the fro­ward way is Sheshach. For [...] the second letter being doubled, and [...] the twelfth letter in their proper places and rank, make with their vowels, Babel; and [...] the second letter being also doubled with [...] the twelfth letter in the alphabet, in the preposterous po­sture of them, with the same vowels, do make Sheshach; & there­fore Babel is called Sheshach. Magno conatu, meras nugas: Great ado about meer trifles. Indeed the Rabbines have many mutuall op­positions of letters in the inverted alphabet, and none so ancient as this, as Bertram in his Comparatio Grammaticae Hebraicae & Aramicae truly observeth; and of the Cabalisticall interchange­ing of letters, he preferreth this Athbasch above all: yet is it more nice and curious, then sound or religious; neither can S. Hieroms authority give authority or allowance to this mingle­mangle-kinde of interpretation: his authority in this point being weakened by his slender conjecture. I think (saith he) that the Prophet Jeremy did prudently conceal the name of Babel, lest the besiegers of Jerusalem should be enraged against him: but (say I) otherwhere he nameth Babel, as Jeremy 50.18. and layeth a burden upon the kingdome and citie of Babylon, upon her Princes and her wise men, both in the 50 and 51 chapters. Yea in the same 25 chapter, ver. 12, Jeremy saith from God, I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation. Which inconvenience Lyra foreseeing, therefore, perhaps, the rather thinketh, that Sheshach is the name of the Egyptian King, and that Pharaoh was the common name; as afterward Cesar was the common name of the Emperours, and Julius a proper name. This is evident, there was a Sheshach, king of Egypt in the dayes of Solomon, 1. King. 11.40. and there might also be a second Sheshach after. But Lyra himself on Jer. 51.41. saith, that Sheshach in that place is used for Babel; and I am forced to say, that no part of the 51 chap. toucheth on the woes of Egypt, but purposely is bent against Babylon; and it is not likely that the same Prophet would call two distinct kings, or two distinct kingdomes by the same word Sheshach. Therefore Lyra is out of tune in this strain. But why then is Sheshach put for Babel? If no reason could be assigned, yet the word of God is not so to be dandled withall, or rather to be tortured, as to draw expositions out of anagrams; and therefore the Jesuit was justly blameable, to make this place a pattern of his anagrammatisticall interpretation. M ^r. Selden de DIs Syris, Syntagm. 2. Cap. 12. saith, Sheshach may seem to be an idol of the Babylonians, a she-idol, or perhaps (as it is in his Addenda) a masculine Deity: but he leaveth all to conjecture; wherein though he hath done excellently, yet I rather follow in this point Tremellius, who on Jeremy 25.26. observeth, that She­shach in the Babylonish tongue doth signifie Diem festum cele­brans, [Page 155]and so may signifie, either the King, or the City, keeping a festivall day: Which was never without feasting. Now that both the feast was kept, and the festivall day designed to the worship of their idols, may be judged by the event, Daniel 5.4. where they praised the gods; and for so doing was Belshaz­zar reprehended, vers. 23. Tremellius addeth, that Jeremy by this one word did demonstrate with his finger the very day of the King of Babel, and Babylons fall; as if he had said, At a feast he shall be slain, or, In her feasting the city shall be destroyed. For as the Lord prophesied by Isaiah, Prepare the table, watch in the watch-tower, eat, drink, Isa. 21.5. where both the feast, and the fall of the King of Babel, and of the city also is divinely foretold: so God gave a second warning, Jeremy 51.39. In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoyce, & sleep a perpetuall sleep. Where Babylons feasting-destruction is named; then followeth, I will bring them down like lambes to the slaughter, ver. 40. whereupon he crieth out in the 41. ver. How is Sheshach taken? that is, Diem festum celebrans, either the feasting Belshazzar, or, the feasting city overthrown? Concerning the King, the Scripture saith, Daniel 5.1. He made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine; and whiles he tasted the wine, he commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels of the temple of Jerusalem; and in the same houre the fingers of a mans hand wrote his destruction; and that night was he (the wine-bibbing Sheshach) slain. Concern­ing the city, I proved before out of Jeremy, that her de­struction was to wait upon her intemperance; and so, Quomodo capta est Sheshach, id est, Civitas diem festum celebrans? And in­deed I rather incline to this latter exposition, in this place, because also of the words immediately following, How is the praise of the whole earth surprised? (but neither Belshazzar, nor Sheshach, if it were an idol, were the praise of the whole earth) How is Babylon become an astonishment among the nations? If you judge it to be a she-idol, because it is said, Quo­modo capta est Sheshach? I first answer, that at that feast service was done to many idols of gold and silver, brasse and iron, wood and stone, Daniel 5.23. but that Sheshach was the chief among them, or that any one idol of them was so named, is yet to be proved. Therefore the other answer may stand good, that there is no necessitie of making the word Sheshach to be the proper name of King, City, or Idol: it may rather be an appellative. For Jeremy 25.26. Rex Sheshach bibet post eos: which (as I said) you may interpret, Rex diem festum celebrans bibet post eos, The King celebrating a festivall day, shall drink af­ter them; though Tremell. hath it thus, Rex Babyloniae festa haben­tis bibet, &c. I cannot deny, but if there were such an idol among them as was termed Sheshach, (which is our main [Page 156]enquiry, yet unproved) it might, as well as Bel, Merodach, and Melcom, signifie the people which worshipped it. Till that point be evidenced, I will say with Tremellius, that the for­bearing to name the King, or veiling the name of the city, and describing him or it by what was prophesied they should be doing or acting, (as indeed it fell out) is to be referred ad De qua Hermog. Tom. 4. de inven­tione. [...] orationis, to the gravitie and weight of the speech: where­in the Scripture keepeth its majestie; and neither with bitter invective, nor harsh exprobration, but with composed gravitie, and eloquent solemnitie designeth the King or Babylon out, not expressely, by his or her name; but by their actions: as Na­bals name was applied by his own wife, to signifie his chur­lish nature, 1. Sam. 25.25. Nabal is his name, and folly is with him: and Jerusalem is called the holy city, for the holy things there done, there contained. I conclude thus, If anagrammes from the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriack, or Greek, languages in which the words of holy Scripture were writ, may not be ad­mitted (as indeed they may not;) much lesse may we expound the sacred Originall by English anagrammes, the flashes and fire-works of luxuriant brains.

Hearty reverence, and a kinde of ceremonious civill adora­tion beseemeth the word of God. It is not much prating, or pridy-self-love, that makes the good expositour. The silence of swannes is not overcome by the noise of swallows; but when the swallows are grown hoarse, the swannes shall sing, saith Nazianzen. The application is easy. Josephus, in his second book against Apion, saith of the Jewish high priest, He shall judge of doubt­full matters, and punish those that are convinced by the law. Whoso­ever obeyeth not him, shall undergo punishment, as he that behaves himself impiously against God. The great, dubious, perplexed scruples & difficulties were not left to the judicature of private fancies. Artificum est judicare de arte, It belongs to artificers to judge of the art, is a maxime of infallible truth. Hierome upon these words, Eccles. 3.7. A time to keep silence, and a time to speak, thus; Omnes artes abs (que) de­ctore non discimus; solae haec tam vilis & facilis est, ut non indigeat praece­ptore. We learn no art without a teacher; onely this is so mean and so easie, that it needeth no teacher: and he speaketh by Ironie of those who are rath-ripe in religion. Aristotle Ethic. 1. Every one judgeth aright of those things which he knows; and this is a good judge. And this is called by Ockam our countryman, Judicium certae & veridicae cognitionis. the judgement of certain and veridicall knowledge. Luther divinely, Non licet Angelis, ne­dum hominibus, verba Dei pro arbitrio interpre­tari. It is not lawfull for Angels, much lesse for men, to interpret Gods words as they list: much lesse for women, say I. Tertullian in his time styled them here­ticall women, that dared to teach, and contend in argument: and nothing truer then this, that Imperitia considenti­am, eruditio timorem cre­at. Ignorance breeds confidence, lear­ning fear and distrust. Who is more bold then blinde bayard? To the word of God we must adde nothing contrarie or forein, saith Aquin. No prophesie of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, [Page 157]2. Pet. 1.20. Know this first, saith the Apostle there. Or is Daniel no Prophet, and his writing not propheticall? If the wit of men, or Angels from heaven, should make a law, a written law, by which people should be ruled or judged, (as for ex­ample, concerning theevery) and appoint no living judge to de­termine who offend against the law, and who are punishable or not punishable; but leave every one to judge himself by this written law, and every one to interpret the law to his pleasure: were it not a foolish law, a mock-law, and indeed a no-law? And shall God give us a law concerning our souls, and per­mit the interpretation of it to every one? The living judge, in matters of Faith and Religion, in every Kingdome of Christian government, is the Nationall Councel thereof, till there be found that panchrestum medicamentum, that medicine good for all diseases, for the Universall Church of Christ, a true and free generall Councel; from which is no appeal, it being the supre­mest externall judge on earth.

Yea, but the Bereans received the word with all readines of minde, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so, Acts 17.11. Shall they examine the very Apostles doctrine, and not we the doctrine of our Pastours? I answer, first, These Bereans were learned and eminent men. But every unlearned skullion now, that hath skill onely in the English originall, will contest with the profoundest Clerks. Secondly, these Bereans were un­beleevers before the examination of those things: for immedi­ately it followeth, Therefore many of them beleeved, and many honourable Greek women and men. Art thou an unbeleever? Do thou then as those unbeleevers did. If thou beleevest, shew me one passage of Scripture, where ever the unlearned people did call the doctrine of their learned Pastours into triall.

I confesse, that the judgement of the Scripture and Creed is onely authentick, and perfectly decisive. And if we could exactly hit on the true meaning, all differences were quickly at an end. Nor do I monopolize learning to the Clergy, when I confine and restrain the judgement of learning to the learned. Many there are among the people, who in all literature, hu­mane and divine, exceed many Priests: and I wish they were more in number, and that way more abundantly qualified. With the Churchmen it would be better, since Scientia neminem habet inimicum, praeter ignorantem. Learning hath no enemy but the ignorant. There are sonnes of wisdome, and sonnes of knowledge. As Wisdome is justified of her children, Matth. 11.19. so learning is not to be judged by the unlearn­ed, but by her children.

I acknowledge, that all and every one of the people are to answer for their thoughts, words, and deeds; and that God hath given them a judgement of discretion in things which they know: but in matters above their knowledge, [Page 158]and transcending their capacitie, they have neither judgement to discern, nor discretion to judge. Nè sutor ultra crepidam. Shall blinde men judge of colours? Sus Minervam? Phormio Hannibalem? Asinus ad lyram? [...]. He that learns must beleeve, saith Aristotle.

I abhorre that monstrous opinion of Tolet and others in the Papacy, That it is meritorious in simple men to be misled by their Pastours. And yet all truth is not at all times to be published to all alike. Christ forbad the Apostles to reveal the truth to the Gentiles and Samaritanes, (who were then in an indisposition to beleeve) Matth. 10.5. Give not [...], that which is holy unto dogs, and cast not [...], your pearls be­fore swine, Matth. 7.6. By which [...] and [...], he mean­eth the Gospel, saith S. Augustine, De adulterinis conjugiis 1.27. Again, Matth. 16.20, our Saviour charged his Disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ: (namely for some time) which yet himself published, as he saw occasion, John 5.18. and 10.30. and 18.37. and died for the publishing of it, sealing the truth with his bloud, Mark 14.62. 1. Tim. 6.13. Yea, Christ himself concealed divers things from his own Apostles, and from some Apostles more then from others. Peter, James, and John did see more then the rest of the Apostles, and were commanded to conceal the Transfiguration, even from the rest of the Apostles. Tell the vision to no man, untill the Sonne of man be risen again from the dead, saith Christ to them, Matth. 17.9. and yet the knowledge of the Transfigu­ration was none of the necessary points to salvation. Christ at first taught obscurely as it were by shadows and resemblances: both his death by the amphibolous words, Destroy this Temple, Joh. 2.19. and his resurrection and ascension, by instancing in the type of the brasen serpent lifted up, Joh. 3.14. For Christ was lifted up or exalted; both by men ( [...], When you have lift up the Sonne of man, Joh. 8.28.) and by the right hand of God, [...], Acts 2.33. Yea, God [...], superexaltavit eum, highly exalted him, Philip. 2.9. After, he spake more plainly, and he began to teach his Apostles of his sufferings and resurrection, Mark 8.31. and that openly, ver. 32. which is confirmed by specializing of the time, Matth. 16.21. [...], From that time forth be­gan Jesus [...], to demonstrate: insomuch that his Disciples said unto him, Lo, now thou speakest plainly, and speakest no proverb, or parable, Joh. 16.29. And the Apostle, 1. Cor. 3.1, 2. acknowledg­eth, that he fed them with milk, because they were not able to bear strong meat: insomuch that he could not speak unto them as unto spi­rituall, but as unto carnall, as unto babes in Christ. Could not, that is, could not conveniently, could not to their good or edification. A young man is not a fit hearer of morall Philosophie, saith Aristotle.

Briefly thus, All religions under heaven, the true and the false­ly called religion, have had their arcana, their secrets and my­steries, the patefaction whereof was not promiscuously imparted to every one of the vulgar or illiterate sort: who sometimes hir upon a good belief, and by it may rapere coelum, take heaven by force (in the phrase and sentence of S. Augustine) whiles learned men may be thrust to hell; but indeed know little with the per­fection of knowledge. It must be confessed, that it was the ac­cursed policie of our adversaries, to nuzle up the people in igno­rance: but Buy the Bible, saith S. Chrysostom; Search the Scri­ptures, saith Christ, John 5.39. Let all the people daily reade or heare them, meditate on them, and labour to follow them: let them who have any learning interpret them according to the competency of their gifts, and in their own families instruct the more unlearned. What said King Henry the eighth, Decemb. 24. in the 37 yeare of his reigne? (as it is in Stows Chronicle, en­larged by Howes, pag. 590) and to whom said he it? Be not judges your selves of your own phantasticall opinions, and vain exposi­tions: For in such high causes you may lightly erre. And though you be permitted to reade holy Scriptures, and to have the word of God in your mother-tongue; you must understand, it is licensed you so to do, onely to inform your consciences, and to instruct your children and fa­milies; and not to dispute, and make Scripture a railing and a taunting stock against Priests and Preachers, as many light people do.

Queen Elisabeth also shewed her dislike in Parliament, March 29. in the 27 yeare of her reigne (in Stows Chronicle, pag. 702) saying, I see many overbold with God Almighty; making too many subtile scannings of his blessed will; as Lawyers do with hu­mane testaments. The presumption is so great, that I may not suffer it, —nor tolerate new-fanglednesse. So she. Humilitie, and sub­jection of spirit ought to be in every Prophet to the Prophets: and shall the unlearned take up presumption as a buckler? and arm himself with obstinate singularity, (which is a branch of pride) as with a sword? As I would not have the people, with the Papists, as it were, to hoodwink and cover their eyes, that they may be led by others; and glory in blinde obedience, which little differeth from wilfull, and stupid ignorance; but advise them to unmuffle their heads, and open their own eyes, and judge of things which they do or can know, & are skilfull to judge: (but Ignorantia in Jadice aequiparatur dolo. Ignorance in a Judge is as bad as injustice, and a simple unlearned Judge is a mischief, as intolerable, as unheard of) so do I wish the people, to avoid the other extream of Separatists; who thinking they know all things, though they have no hea­venly inspiration, will seem wiser then their teachers; and taking up opinions for truth, and malepert obstinacy for humble con­stancy, disrepute their Pastours, disregard all authority, and ascribe nothing to that sovereigne generall commission, He who [Page 160]heareth you, heareth me: which is enough to seal up their mouthes and captive their thoughts unto their learned Pastours, in things which themselves cannot apprehend, and their Pastours can well judge of.

Oh but men are men; and as men, may erre. I hope, the un­learned people are not Angels, nor more free from errour then the learned. Yet we must be led by our consciences. True; and your consciences even therefore ought the rather to be well grounded, and founded; not upon the slippery sand of self-con­ceit, but on knowledge, as on a sure and safe rock. And in whom should knowledge reside, if not in your Pastours?

But in Queen Maries daies should a man have been led by his Pastours, when themselves were at ods, and the greatest part awry? Or how should a true Protestant, and now a subject of Spain, in Spain behave himself? How much is left to his power of discretion, when the whole Estate, both Ecclesiastick and Civil, runneth with a torrent the contrary way? If he be led by his conscience, and oppose them; there followeth (with the hideous, secret, most feared, and affrighting torments of the In­quisition) confiscation of goods, and sometimes shamefull, commonly a painfull and violent death. If he rely on the advice of the Pastours, he sinneth against his own conscience, and against truth. Who can, or will direct this wavering Chri­stian, in such uncertainty of wayes, that he step not aside, nor be out of the right path?

O gracious God, send out thy light and thy truth; let them lead me, Psal. 43.3. Let them direct my discourse, and illuminate it; that it may be to the anxious and scrupulous conscience as a guide, to direct the way; and as a lanthorn, to give it light in the way.

S. Hierome and Ockam, and Doctour Field, (of the Church 4.13.) three most eminent in three ages (a Father, a Schoolman, and a pillar of our Church) do counsel good men, in such a case, to silence and mourning in secret, as the Prophet Jeremy did: Men (saith he) have nothing left unto them, but with sorrowfull hearts to referre all unto God. I should rather, under correction, say, That a Christian thus perplexed is to take these courses, which those Divines, perhaps, did presuppose as neces­sary preparatives, but did not expresse.

First, I advise that man, whose conscience runneth a singular way, to wash his heart from wickednesse, Jerem. 4.14. to lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty: which is pointed at, as a means whereby men may come to the knowledge of the truth, 1. Tim. 2.2. &c. For unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my cove­nant in thy mouth? Psal. 50.16. Ezek. 20.3. Yes, but thou art confident that thou thy self art a guide of the blinde, a light of them [Page 161]which are in darknesse, an instructer of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law, Rom. 2.10. I answer, Thou must also take the qualifications and necessary appendants to a reformer, following in that place immediately: Thou therefore that teachest an other, teachest thou not thy self? &c. Thy self must not be ignorant, thy self must not steal, not commit adultery, not commit sacriledge, not break the Law, not disho­nour God. For, as it is Wisd. 1.5, 6. The holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding, and will not abide where unrighteousnesse cometh in. For wisdome is a loving spirit. Never were the uncharitable, ignorant, or sinne­full men, fit undertakers to contradict established doctrines, di­sciplines, or commonwealths. But, Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye, Matth. 7.5. Reasons more then ordi­nary will be expected by God and good men from him who leapeth out of the Church in which he was born and bred, kicking at the breasts of his mother, running with the bit in his teeth his own wayes. I conclude this first point thus; He who will needs runne such singular courses, had need be a man of rare sanctity, and of singular good endowments of knowledge.

Secondly, I would have him earnestly to pray for humility, and to practise it. By pride Satan cast himself out of heaven; Adam him and his out of Paradise. David said, Psal. 131.1. Lord, my heart is not haughty,—neither do I exercise my self in great matters, or in things too high for me. And vers. 2. Surely I have quieted my soul as a childe that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned childe. On which words, suffer me to make a little excursion, by way of explanation.

Concerning the first passage: If David had appealed to men, some scruple might have remained: but saying to God the searcher of hearts and reins, Lord, my heart is not haughty; he ma­keth his humility unquestionable.

In the second passage, observe, that though he was a King and a Prophet; yet some things were too high for him, by his own confession. Nazianzen [...] pag. 153. Him I count humble, not that speaks humbly and modestly of himself, or that speaks courteously and humbly to his inferiour, but that speaks modestly concerning God, and knows what to speak and what to conceal, and in some things can confesse his ignorance, and yeeld to them to whom the office of teaching is committed. On the contrary, Objectum superbi est ipsemet, c [...]lsior quàm e [...] convenit. The object of a proud man is himself, and he is higher in his own conceit then is fit, saith Cajetan. Pride exalteth a man, hu­militie casts him down: and as all pride shall be at the last thrown down; so all true humilitie shall be exalted. I would not go to heaven by pride: no man ever went to hell by humilitie.

In the third passage, this is the sense: May my hopes, or God [Page 160] [...] [Page 161] [...] [Page 162]himself fail me, may evil betide me, (for this, or some such like imprecation antecedent is to be understood) si non posui & silere feci animam meam, as it runneth in the Hebrew. The oath it self, or imprecation is not expressed, that people may learn to be abstemious in swearing. In which regard also it is said, Ecclus 23.10. [...], Jurans & nominans; He that sweareth and nameth God: Where the Vulgat and Septuagint omit the name of God; though it be necessarily understood, and is ex­pressed in our best translation.

In the last passage, remember that we ought all, in this point of humilitie, to be as little children, if we will enter into the kingdome of heaven, Matth. 18.3. David addeth, My soul is as a weaned childe: not in this respect, that newly weaned children are commonly more froward: (similitudes hold not in every particular) but as the mother applieth mustard, wormwood, and other bitter things, to her breasts, that she may keep her childe from the milk which he desireth; though she know it inconvenient, or hurtfull for him: so God did wean David, by the bitter remembrances of death, fear of Gods judgement, and the pains of hell; and by crosses also of this life, sicknesse, banishment, envy in court, insurrection of his own sonnes, and the like, from those pleasurable things which David affected, but God knew to be naught for him. There was never any arch­heretick, or grand impostour, but made private ends his cyno­sure, self-conceit and self-love his card and compasse.

Even after God had wondrously appeared unto Moses, and gave him his mission, Moses replied, Exod. 3.11. Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh? &c. and Exod. 4.1, 2. his backward­nesse further appeareth: yea, after, though God by his two miracles confirmed the calling, yet twice more did he de­clare, that he was afraid to begin so great an alteration, Exod. 4.10. and especially at the 13. vers. insomuch that the Lord was angry. Humblenesse, which is alwayes accompanied with mo­desty, bashfulnesse, measuring ones own strength, and subjection of spirit, is to be prayed for, and practised by any scrupulous Christian, before he make himself a formall partie of opposi­tion or contradiction.

The third requisite followeth; That this holy and humbled man conferre with more learned men, and specially with his Pastour. If his Pastour give him not sufficient satisfaction, let him conferre with other Divines. Yea, if he be a Pastour him­self, yet let him take heed of singularitie, the daughter of pride: and let him not lightly or sleightly esteem of their judgements, who more abound in knowledge, or to whom a direction of souls is by God himself more especially committed; who are, in matters above his capacitie, his proper judges; and he is in such things, to subject himself unto them. I doubt not, but, [Page 163]if his superiours should mislead him in things surmounting his knowledge and capacitie, his humble, conformable obedience, and desires are better accepted of God, then another man, who without knowledge or any true ground stumbleth on a truth, grows talkative and presumptuous, though he be ready to die for that truth. Above all things, let him not apply him­self to such men alone, as he knoweth to be addicted to his own way; nor come with prejudice to heare the contrary part: but since he will not rest in other mens determinations, he, who will be an upright judge, ought indifferently to heare both causes pleaded; and, after all good and necessary proce­dure unto true judicature, to judge with right judgement. This is a rock, upon which many split themselves; who pretend to seek out the truth, but go onely to such as they know before­hand do run with a byas to their humour, and will animate them in their singularitie: and thereby, in stead of instruction, are flattered in their folly, and soothed in their erroneous conceits. Qui statuit aliquid parte inauditâ alterâ; Aequum licèt statuerit, haud aequus fuit. He that determineth any thing before he hath heard both parties; though he give just judgement, he is not a just judge. And again I say, Ignorantia in Judice aequipatatur dolo. Ignorance in a judge is as bad as injustice.

When this godly man is humbled, when this humble man hath conferred with his own Pastour, and other learned men and Ministers, and impartially heard both sides; and still rests unsatisfied from others, and his conscience still settled, that he hath the truth; I wish him, not blindely to give over himself to others; but, keeping the staffe of direction, and the exercise of his judgement of discretion, (for things within his verge, or reach) and following the wayes of his own conscience, in the fourth place, I would counsel him to remove into other parts. So Elijah fled from Jezebel; yet poured out his complaints to God, 1. King. 19.3, 10, 14. So our Saviour, when the Jews would have stoned him, hid himself, John 8.59. And he direct­ed his Apostles to flee from one citie to another, Matth. 10.23. S. Paul through a window was let down in a basket by a wall, and escaped, 2. Cor. 11.33. and God himself hid Baruch and Jeremy, Jer. 36.26. Thus many, both learned and unlearned, did in Queen Maries dayes; and God hath given a great blessing oft­times to this course. So S. Cyprian fled at the first; and then, during his voluntarie exile, wrote diverse excelelnt matters, and yet afterwards died a glorious Martyr.

In the fifth place, if the good Christian will not, or cannot flee, I would now commend unto him silence and mourning, as the Prophet Jeremy did; which S. Hierom, Ockam, and Do­ctour Field prescribe as the onely means. Let him worship God in private, as Daniel did three times a day, and prayed, Daniel 6.10. for God will regard the prayer of the destitute, &c. This shall be written for the generation to come, as it is Psal. 102 17, 18. which [Page 164]Psalme is a prayer for the afflicted when he is overwhelmed, and pou­reth out his complaint before the Lord: for this is the very super­scription of that Psalme. The Prophets dayes consumed like smoke, and his bones burnt as an hearth, vers. 3. His heart was smitten and withered, vers. 4. and by reason of the voice of his groaning, his bones did cleave to his skin, vers. 5. He was a pelican of the wilder­nesse, and like an owl of the desert, vers. 6. like a sparrow alone upon the house top, vers. 7. whiles his enemies reproached him, and were mad against him, and sworn against him, he ate ashes like bread, and mingled his drink with weeping, ver. 8, 9. The Lamentations of Je­remy would fit his mouth, and the dolefull complaints in di­vers Psalmes would well accord with them. But above all, he should call to minde, That there was no sorrow like Christs sorrow: That he alone trod out the wine-presse of Gods wrath: That he was reviled, spit upon, buffetted, whipped, crucified; & that despiteous piercing rent his very dead body. Let him solace his soul with spirituall comforts, and make melody to God in his heart; losing himself in speculation of Christs infinite merit, and applying to his own soul all heavenly joy. Let him with­draw himself from being seen in publick: let him embrace pri­vacy and retirednesse; living (if it were possble) under Jonas his gourd, or in vaults, whose darknesse and blacknesse he ex­pelleth by internall illumination, and spirituall irradiation. The Baptist; and our blessed Saviour himself, betook themselves to deserts and mountains for their solitary devotions, when errour and unrighteousnesse sat in the chair of Moses. Thus the perse­cuted holy ones of the Primitive Church served God, at the buriall of their dead, by nightly songs, saith Orat. 2. in Julian. Nazianzen; residing sometimes in cryptis, in caves and grots under ground, in dens, among the rocks. But suppose he be drawn forth, and cannot lie hid; suppose the Magistrate summon him to his tribunall, and examine him very strictly: how then ought this man to behave himself? First, I would have him to abhorre all mentall reservati­ons. If he use ambiguity of word, phrase, or sentence, (which was the guise of the mysterious, enigmaticall oracles) if by an Aposiopesis, Irony, or any Rhetoricall figure allowed in art, pra­ctised among men, and conceiveable by an intelligent auditour, he excuse, qualifie, and keep secret his own actions or other mens counsels; I will not wholly blame him: Nemo tenetur prod [...] ­re seipsum: quis (que) tene­tur defendere seipsum. No man is bound to bewray himself: every one is tied to defend himself. A traitour may without sinne plead, Not guilty; that is, not proved guilty at your barre; where Ʋausquis (que) praesuppo­nitur esse bonus, donec probetur essè malus. Every one is presupposed to be good, till he is proved to be bad. I am not guilty, so farre, as I am bound to accuse my self. And this is the allowed generall acceptation of that usance. Within the veil of ambiguous words there lieth a secret, second, ho­mogeneall good sense; perhaps hid from some simple ones, yet discernable by quick, piercing, and deep apprehensions; a [Page 165]sense cousin-germane in the second degree to the words; a sense involved, implicit, having traces and footsteps of reason; hard, yet investigable. Fuga in persecutione is allowed; this sub­terfugium verborum is but a branch of it. I will not condemn David for acting the part of a frantick man, to escape: He changed his behaviour before them, and feigned himself mad in their hands, and scrabled on the doores of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard, 1. Sam. 21.13. Neither will I wholly dislike a verball equivocation; while the sense is transparent to the wise or learned, though veiled to the ignorant. Philip Cominaeus, 4.11. reporteth, that when the Constable of France, Earl of S. Paul, had played fouly and falsly on all sides; King Lewis the eleventh said thus unto Rapine, a trustie servant of the Constable, I am busied with divers affairs of great importance, and had need of such an head as thy masters is. The servant inter­preted all comfortably, to the better sense; but the King said softly to the English men and the Lord of Contay, I mean not, that we should have the bodie, but the head without the bodie. This manner of amphibolous speech our Saviour used, when he said, Destroy this temple; which they understood of the temple build­ed with stones: but he spake of the temple of his bodie, John 2.19, 20, 21. And in the eighth of John, Christ more then once made use of that homonymous verball equivocation.

But let him flee, as from a serpent, so from the delusions of the serpent; who of late hath taught his locusts to make an answer consisting, part in words expressed and intelligible, part of thoughts reserved and unintelligible: the speakers minde feigning, framing, and new-coyning a wilde sense, which had no correspondence with the words at all. So that, for example, if the Devil should ask of a Jesuite, Wilt thou give me thy soul? the Jesuite may (by their doctrine) safely and soundly answer him, I will give thee my soul: provided alwayes, that he keep in the hollow of his heart this mentall reservation, If thou be God Almighty. Thus the Jesuite thinks, that he can cozen the Devil himself, because indeed he is not able to finde out that unex­pressed thought of the Jesuites heart. Yet the Angel of dark­nesse perhaps laugheth, perhaps wondereth to see himself out­gone in his own wilinesse and depths, by his own children; though time will declare the truth, that by such subtilties they undermine, and blow up, as with gun-powder, their own, and their adherents salvations.

I conclude the point: I will not condemn the man, who handsomely and artfully, without lying or mentall reservation unconceiveable, can shift off danger and trouble from himself or his friends; but he condemneth himself, who useth such dou­ble dissimulation, such leger du coeur: who plougheth with an ox and an asse; making up a mixt, linsy-woolsy proposition, of [Page 166]words sensible and thoughts heterogeneall and incomprehensi­ble: incomprehensible (I say) by any power or powers created; since the thoughts strangely vary from the words, lurking in the vaults of the heart, and can not be fished or hooked out from antecedents, or consequents, or any other circum­stances.

But, if he be put to his oath, what shall he do? If the mat­ter concern not his life, let him answer exactly. Bishop An­drews seems to dislike, That a man should be sworn against his own life; because the Prophet, by Gods direction, made that par­ticular exception, Jeremy 38.15. and for other reasons by that most Reverend Prelat mentioned, pag. 95. in his Opuscula. Yet my opinion is, If the life of Kings or Princes, or if the welfare of the Commonwealth be in danger, or any extraordinary mischief be like to ensue, (which was not the case of Jeremy; a Prophet, no traitour; an holy man, no plotter, contriver, or partaker with wicked ones) a man may lawfully, by the Magistrate, be put to his oath, though it cost him his life; or to the rack and torture. Un­usuall harms must have unusuall remedies. The particular na­ture will destroy it self, to uphold the universall. Rather then there shall be a vacuum, fire will descend. Ʋbi scelera per ab­ruptum eunt, (per prae­rupia, in the African phrase of Tertullian) iniquum est justitiam ad gradus teneri. Where sinnes runne headlong, it is not fit that justice should be tied to go by degrees, saith Seneca. If the matter concern his life, he may be silent, he may appeal: It is 2.2. quaest. 63. art. 1. in corpore ar­tic. Aquins judgement on a case not much unlike; If a Judge ask any thing beyond what he ought in law; the accused is not bound to answer: he may appeal, or otherwise avoid it lawfully; but he may not lie. And again, Art. 2. in corpore. It is one thing to con­ceal a truth, another thing to propound a falshood. It is lawfull to conceal a truth in some cases (as when a man is not bound to an­swer, and when he is not bound to confesse it) Per aliquos conveni­entes modes. by any convenient means: Yet a man may not either say an untruth, or conceal a truth which he is bound to confesse: Neque etiam licet aliquam fraudem vel do­lum adhibere, quia fraus & dolus vim mendacii habent. Neither is it lawfull to use any fraud or deceit; because fraud and deceit are equivalent to a lie. But may not one equivocate when he is put unto his oath? I an­swer, That not so much as verball equivocation, much lesse that lately invented and cursed Chimaera of mentall reservation, is to be allowed. Fraus non dissolvit, sed distringit perjurium. Deceit doth not excuse, but aggravate perjurie, said Cicero long since. De summo Bono 2.13. Isidore thus, With what art of words soever a man swears; yet God, the Judge of conscience, so esteemeth it, as he to whom the oath is made doth understand it. S. Hierome on Ezekiel 17.19. thus, Sententia secularis est, —Dolus, an virtus, quis in hoste requirat? It is an opinion of the world, that it mat­ters not, whether a man overcome his enemie by guile or by valour. But this himself resolveth; Quamdiu non jures, & pactum non ineas sub nomine Domini, pruden­tiae est & fortitudinis vel decipere vel superare ad­versarium utcun (que) potu­eris: cùm autem te con­strinxeris juramento; ne­quaequam adversarius, sed amicus est, qui tibi credi­dit, & sub occasione juris­jurandi Dei nuncupatio­ne deceptus est. As long as thou dost not swear, and enter into a covenant, using Gods name; it is wisdome and valour ei­ther to deceive or overcome thy adversarie any way thou canst: but when thou hast bound thy self with an oath, then he is no longer thine adversarie, but thy friend, who hath trusted thee, and is deceived [Page 167]through thy oath, and using of Gods name. A little before, on vers. 15. Qui dissolvit pactum, numquid essugiet? He that breaketh his covenant, shall he escape unpu­nished? S. Hierome truely thus concludeth, Etiam inter hostes servanda fides est. Even among enemies faith is to be kept: adding a divine caution, which compriseth our cause: Non considerandum cui, sed per quem jurave­ris. Multò enim fidelior est ille, qui propter nomen Dei tibi credidit & de­ceptus est, te, qui per oc­casionem divinae Maje­statis hosts tuo, imò jam amico, es molitus insidi­as. It is not to be considered to whom, but by whom thou hast sworn. For he is much more faithfull, who for the name of God beleeved thee and was deceived, then thou who didst circumvent thine enemie (yea now thy friend) by abusing Gods sacred Majestie. I acknowledge, that S. Hierome speaketh of oaths between Kings, or such as have been enemies: but the reasons reach and extend themselves even to the causes of private men. Lying, fraud, or any collusion by mentall reservation, or ver­ball equivocation, is wholly to be secluded and abhorred, when an oath is taken: prudent silence, in diverse cases, is admitted. Yea, but if an examinate be adjured, shall he then be silent? still silent? I answer, I would have him imitate our blessed Saviour, who saying nothing at divers times, insomuch that the governour marvelled greatly, Matth. 27.14. yet when the high priest said, Matth. 26.63. I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, whe­ther thou be the Christ the sonne of God; though he knew it would cost him his life, he concealed not the truth. And in such an adjuration upon Religion the examinate is bound to give an ac­count of his faith, and to witnesse a good confession, though to the expense of his bloud.

Contra Marcio­nem lib. 4. pag. 286. Tertullian seems to be more scrupulous in lesser matters, saying, Justa & digna prae­scriptio est, in omni quae­stione, ad propositum in­terrogationis pertinere debere sensum responsio­nis. Aliud consulenti aliud respondere, demen­tis est. It is a just and worthy rule, that in every question the an­swer should be applied to the same sense & purpose to which the inter­rogation is made. To answer of one thing when he is asked of another, is the part of a mad man. Again, Sensus responsionis non est ad aliud dirigen­dus quàm ad propositum interrogationis: quò ma­gìs absit à Christo, quod nè homini quidem con­venit. The sense of the answer is not to be directed to any other thing then that which was propounded in the interrogation. So farre is that from Christ, which beseems not a meer man. So he. I answer, first, Tertullian speaketh of questions in Divinitie, to instruct the soul: and there it were sinne to de­lude the simple questionist. Secondly, he speaketh of questi­ons extra jactum teli, cùm aries murum non percusserit; of questi­ons not concerning great danger, life, or limme: which doth somewhat vary the case. Thirdly, an homonymous answer of verball equivocation, doth both correspond to the sense of the question, (which is all that Tertullian requireth) and im­plieth also a second sense, which may be understood by an intel­ligent hearer; which in a mentall reservation is impossible to be unlocked, opened, and cleared, except by an hand divine. Fourthly, Tertullian cannot be thought to condemn verball equivocation; the daintie use whereof makes almost as great a difference between a wise man and an idiot, as between an idi­ot and a beast; and none but wise men can use it with comfort and delight. And the wiser men be, as their hearts, by divers [Page 168]thoughts, are deeper then the fools; so their words are more ab­struse, bivious, multivious. What writings under heaven, of finite men, have or can have such multiplicity of meanings, as are in Scripture comprised under the words dictated by an in­finite Spirit? whose whole, intire, exact depths, the meer crea­ture never knew fully and perfectly. If I might have my desire, quoth S. Augustine, I had rather speak in words, whose divers senses might give content to divers people of different apprehensions, then in words that can have one sense onely.

The second thing I would commend unto this examinate, is, to give faire language to his Judges. Let him not be bold and malapert, nor use clamorous opposition. Let not the ignorant Syllogize in Barbara, Darii, Ferio; or marre his cause by ill handling: yet if he be unmoveably constant, let him say, I can­not dispute, but I can die: let him not provoke the Judge by words or actions ill advised. Eulalia, being a girle about 12 yeares old, did spit in the face of the Judge, that he might the rather condemn her. The answer of Hannah, 1. Samuel 1.15, &c. when she was in bitternesse of soul, to the misjudge­ing and uncharitably zealous Priest Eli, was as a sweet incense in the nostrils of God; and is a good lesson for all to take out, when they are called before the Magistrates, though hard mea­sure were offered. How long wilt thou be drunken, quoth he? put away thy wine from thee. And she answered, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowfull spirit; I have drunk neither wine, nor strong drink, &c. Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial. The manner of answering may be sinfull, though the matter be good: froward behaviour never benefitteth a cause, but a gentle answer pacifieth wrath, Proverbs 15.1. Taunting recrimination argueth a distempered spirit in the gall of bitternesse. How humbly did our blessed Saviour behave himself under the hands of unjust Judges? How constantly, zealously, and boldly (because they were inspired immediately from God) did the Apostles, Act. 4. plead for themselves, yet without malapertnesse, or irreve­rence. S. Paul his speech to the high priest exacteth a larger discourse. Acts. 23.5, Paul said, I knew not, brethren, that he was the high priest. Some think, that S. Paul knew Ananias to be high priest, when he called him painted wall. I answer, (if so it were) this is no fit example for sawcinesse to be used, in our times, towards Magistrates. For, first, if S. Paul did know him, he might speak, though not as a Prophet, yet illuminated and inspired from God: which now is not in use. Secondly, he might speak as a Prophet, foredivining an evil end to Ananias, as indeed it came to passe, saith Homil. 6. de Lau­dibus Pauli. Chrysostom. If any one of them who now revile Magistracy, have the spirit prophetical, de­nouncing contingent future things, which yet end in accomplish­ment; I will not call him a sawcy presumptuous fellow. Thirdly [Page 169]though divers learned men think the contrary; and that he spake by an Irony, when he said, I knew not: yet I perswade my self, that S. Paul, in truth, knew not (when he spake) Ana­nias to be the high priest, for these reasons:

First, because he seemeth to put on the spirit of mildnesse towards them that stood by him, who were also the same [...], standers by, who had smit and buffetted him: and calling them by the charitable term of brethren, whom it had been fitter to reprove; it argueth his plain sincerity, speaking of his supe­riour.

Secondly, if S. Paul had spoken by way of jest, irrision, or Irony, when he said, I knew not, brethren, that he was the high priest; he might well have ceased there. But since he bringeth in the sacred Text, seriously, truly, and sadly, to confirm his nesciency; and that there is no mocking with the divine veritie; with me it shall passe currant, that he spake from the bottome of his heart, when he said, he knew him not to be the high priest. The Spirit never taught any inspired to apply Scripture contrary to their knowledge, nor to cite the sacred Text of truth to prove an untruth.

Thirdly, consider the Antithests and opposition between the words. In the fifth verse he said simply, and directly, [...], I knew not: where his ignorance is the more seriously professed by the opposition in the sixth verse, [...], But Paul knowing that the one part were Sadduces, and the other Pharisees: as if the Spirit had said, Paul indeed was ignorant who was the high priest; but he knew they were divided into factions: the word But running with a singular emphasis to this point.

Fourthly, by this exposition we shall cut off that objection, which Julian the Apostata used against S. Paul; as if, by this double dealing, he were a very time-server in his words; we maintaining all to be done in solemn gravity, and reality of truth.

Fifthly, if S. Paul had spoken Ironically, that he had not known the high priest, when they knew one an other; how easily could the high priest have confuted and confounded him, and laid lying and imposture to his charge? But this he did not do: therefore, in likelihood, S. Paul knew him not.

Lastly, the objections for the former opinion are easily an­swered. How could he be ignorant, who was the high priest; when he was bred up in their law, and well acquainted and familiarly in their Synedrion, and had been there, when S. Stephen was condemned, and when he got letters from the high priest, a little before his conversion? especially, since he ap­pealeth to the high priest, as to his witnesse, Acts 22.5?

To the first point; I confesse, he was bred up in their law, and could not then in likelihood be ignorant who was the high [Page 170]priest, or what was his name: yet now he might be ignorant; for S. Paul had been away from Jerusalem a good while, avoiding the storm of persecution; and high priests died as other men: and at that time there were two high priests, which was not of old: and with one of them he might not be acquainted.

Oh, but he frequented the Synedrion. I confesse, that not onely the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young mans feet, whose name was Saul, Acts 7.58. but that Saul consented to the death of S. Stephen, Acts 8.1. and as certain that he (as a princi­pall agent) received letters from the high priest, and all the estate of the elders, to search out the Christians, and to bring them to be punished, Acts 22.5. and so he must needs know the high priest and the elders, and they him: and therefore, in likeli­hood, he was conversant sometimes in their Synedrion. But I say as before, this might not be that high priest, who sat to con­demn S. Stephen, or to whom S. Paul appealed as witnesse: but the other high priest might sit at this time, and on this day; since now and then one sat, now and then an other, and some­times both of them. And thus S. Paul might be ignorant, who was his Judge.

Oh, but he well knew the high priest by his place and by his clothes. I answer; The Jews were not now sitting in their Councel-house, but where the chief Captain commanded them to appeare, Acts 22.30. himself sitting as the Moderatour in his own tribunall; which he was not wont to do in their Synedrion: neither might the high priest take the proper vest­ments in such a place, by which he might be known from others.

To close up all; If nothing said before do satisfie thee, but thou art confident, that S. Paul did know the high priest; (though thou wert better to adhere to the words) yet have I found out an other way for the opening of this point, which hath perplexed many learned men. Observe therefore, I pray thee, these things:

First, that not onely the high priest, but all their Councel were summoned to appeare, Acts 22.30. and of the Councel each man had liberty to speak at his pleasure: and at such pub­lick trialls there is a great dinne, murmures, and mutterings; so that the speaker is not alwaies discernable, whiles many may speak at once, and some louder then others.

Secondly, while S. Paul earnestly beheld, not the high priest onely, but the Councel, Acts 23.1. (casting his eyes from one to another) the high priest commanded him to be smitten on the mouth. These words S. Paul might heare: and yet not know, in such a confused noise, which of those his many Judges spake them: and in likelihood thought, that such an unjust sentence could not proceed out of the high priests mouth: but to the authour [Page 171]of those words, whosoever he was, to that unjust Judge S. Paul sharply and punctually replied, God will judge thee, thou painted wall. But when S. Paul was informed, that they were the words of the high priest himself; he was sory for his quick speech, and said, I knew not, brethren, that he was the high priest. So that, if S. Paul had known the high priest, and the high priest him; if they had been well acquainted the one with the other, at this time of S. Pauls triall (which will never be sufficiently pro­ved;) yet here is now a new way, as probable as any, to excuse the Apostle from dissimulation, and from using the Scripture as a cloke to it; viz. Though S. Paul knew the man to be the high priest; yet he knew not at first that it was the high priest, who pronounced so unjust and furious a sentence: but divers of the seventy two Judges might be speaking one to another; and S. Paul might be mistaken, at first, in the speaker: As if he had said, I knew not, brethren, it was the high priest that spake these words concerning me.

And thus, I hope, this difficultie is cleared. I will onely adde this, That divers ancient Fathers from S. Pauls example, in this place, prove his modesty, moderation, and undisturbed passi­ons, by his sudden, wise, setled answers: And, That I hold this paraphrase probable, as if S. Paul had said, If I had wist, that it was the high priest who used those words; though I would not have forborn others, yet I would have forborn him; since God had said, THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK EVIL OF THE RULER OF THY PEOPLE.

But yet this man that is sought out, and drawn into judge­ment, and answereth (as he ought to do) truly, without men­tall reservation, modestly, and as befitteth him to answer un­to his superiours: if he receive no satisfaction in his conscience, and his Judges doom him worthy to die; what shall he now do? Shall he be over-ruled by his superiours, both spirituall and temporall, doing as they do, and thinking as they think? shall he go against the dictates of his own conscience? or shall he ad­venture his bloud and life?

What my self would do, by Gods grace, I will prescribe un­to another. First, before I would sacrifice my life, I would once more recollect my former thoughts for humblenesse; and diligently consider, whether the matters for which I am to suf­fer death, be abstruse depths, beyond my reach or capacity. If they be very intricate, I have cause to think, that I am an un­fit man to judge of things which I know not, and cannot compre­hend, 2. Cor. 10 13, &c. Secondly, I would in this case, before expense of bloud, bring my intentions to the touchstone; call to minde, that good intentions alone cannot excuse me before God, but good intentions well grounded and regulated. S. Paul with good intentions persecuted the Church, and was [Page 172]injurious: but he did it ignorantly, in unbelief, 1. Tim. 1.13. where an ill belief, though meaning well, is counted unbelief. In a good intention S. Peter would have disswaded our Savi­our from death, but he was called Satan for it, Matth. 16.23. though Christ had blessed him before, and promised him ex­cellent gifts, vers. 17, &c. I cannot think, but they who offer­ed their children unto Moloch, did think they served God rightly, though indeed they served the Devil: yet God saith, Levit. 20.3. I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people. The priests of Baal, who cut themselves after their manner with knives, and lancers, till the bloud gushed out upon them, 1. King. 18.28. did they not follow the ill guide of a misled conscience? did they not think they were in the right? do not millions of Turks, Jews, and of Pagans go to the Devil, though they perswade themselves they be in the onely true way? do not many think that to be constancie, which in truth is obstinacie? and that to be knowledge, which is ignorant self-love? There is great resemblance, and manifold likely hood between some truth and some errour, and the mistake is easie; and there is a great difference between opinion and sound belief. Thirdly, I would endeavour to think humbly of my self, and, as the Apostle adviseth, to preferre others before me. I would ruminate on that which the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 13.3. Though I give my bodie to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me no­thing. And, shewing what he meaneth by charity, addeth, Cha­rity suffereth long, and is kinde: charity envieth not: charity is not rash, or, vaunteth not it self: is not puffed up, doth not behave it self unseemly. So that he who behaveth himself unseemly, who is puffed up, who vaunteth himself, or is rash, who envieth, and is unkinde, and hasty, hath not charity: And, though he give his bodie to be burned, his death profiteth him nothing, saith the Apostle. Examine therefore, and again I say, examine thine own heart: if thou finde any one of these sinnes beforenamed reigning in thee, then know there is a spot in the sacrifice. And till that be washed away, rased out, or reformed; thou must suspect thy self, and mayest well be dubious. Self-con­ceit is a branch of pride: pride never agreed with charity: and no death profiteth a man any thing, who hath not cha­rity.

Oh, but this enfeebleth the resolution of confessours, and stoopeth down the constancy of martyrs to pendulousnesse: it maketh them draw their hands back from the plough, and to look backward to Sodom, with lots wife. No no, my discourse intends onely to dull the edge of singularity, to stop the mouths of pridie undertakers, and ignorant praters, to put a bridle into the teeth of such as revile Magistracie, to reduce people to hum­blenesse, and such thoughts as these, If many may be deceived; [Page 173]how much easier may I? If the more learned be awrie; how shall I be sure I am right? They have souls to answer, as well as I: and charity bids me think, they would not damn their own souls by damning mine: have I alone a sound rectified conscience? Self-deniall is a better schoolmaster to true knowledge, then presum­ption. An acceptable martyr is a reasonable sacrifice, and an acceptable sacrifice is a reasonable martyr. A conscience not founded on good causes, not strengthened with under­standing, is like a fair house built on the sands, a very apple of Sodom, a painted sepulchre, which appeares beautifull outward, but is within full of dead mens bones, and of all uncleannesse, Matth. 23.27. My cautions are not remoraes, of staying or withdraw­ing any man, so farre as his knowledge can or doth aspire unto; (for so farre I allow them a judgement of discretion) but ne­cessary preparatives to the true, perfect, and glorious martyr­dome. He shall be no martyr in my estimate, who without great motives runneth to death, and posteth rashly to destru­ction. But when pride with all her children, singularity, self-love, vaunting, rashnesse, unseemly behaviour, is cast out of the soul; and the contrary graces, the children of charitie, possesse it: then, if thy conscience can no way be convicted; if thou knowest thy cause to be good, and the contrary to be apparently amisse; follow not the multitude, conform not thy self to the world, keep thy conscience untainted, poure out thy bloud unto death, offer thy life and body as a reasonable sacrifice; die, and be a martyr; be a martyr, and be crowned; crowned, I say, not onely with glory and immortality, but with those gifts and aureolae, which are prepared above others for true mar­tyrs. In this sort, Whosoever shall confesse Christ before men, him will Christ confesse also before his Father which is in heaven; Matth. 10.32.

The judgement of jurisdiction, which is in superiours ha­ving authoritie; and the judgement of direction, which is in Pastours by way of eminency, forbid not in this case the judge­ment of discretion, which is and ought to be in every private man, so farre as he hath discretion and knowledge or immediate inspirations: of all which I would not have a man too presum­ptuous.

That which our Divines do term the judgement of discretion, is, in the words of Contra Marcionem 4. post medium pag. 269. Tertullian, Clavis Agnitionis: He must ne­ver contrary this; for this must he die. What he knoweth, let him, as a good witnesse, seal with his bloud, if need be. But in things beyond a simple mans capacitie, I will say once more, with Serm. 20. de ver­bis Apostoli. Augustine, Melior est fidelis ignorantia quàm teme­raria scientia. A faithfull ignorance is better then a rash knowledge. In such things is he to be guided by his Pastours. The easie things any man may judge of: in the more abstruse, the voice of the Pastours is to be followed. Quam clavem habe­bant Legis Dectores, ni­si interpretationem le­gis? What key had the [Page 174]Doctours of the law, (saith Tertullian in the same place) but the interpretation of the law? So the key of interpretation rests in the ministery, for things which need interpretation, as hard places do; though the key of agnition, in things unto which their know­ledge can aspire, is permitted, yea, commended unto all men: and they who withhold this key of knowledge from the people, are accursed by Christ, Luke 11.52.

To the further explaining of my opinion, let us consider, in a Church corrupted, these two sorts of people. First, the Magi­strates, either Civil or Ecclesiasticall: And we will subdivide them into the Wilfully blinde, and the Purblinde.

Of the first were some Bishops, and Nobles, and Gentry in Queen Maries dayes; who hunted after bloud, even the bloud of innocents; and strained their authority to the highest. Such is now the Inquisition, falsly called the holy house, with all the chief officers thereof: such in the dayes of Christ, were divers Scribes, Pharisees, Sadduces, and some Rulers of the people; who know­ing the truth to be on Christs side, by his doing such miracles as no man ever did before, did choke and strangle their belief, made shipwrack of their consciences, resisted the holy Spirit; who would neither go into the kingdome of heaven, nor suffer others that were entering, to go in: against whom Christ pronounced wo upon wo, Matth. 23.13. &c. For they took away the key of knowledge, Luke 11.52. and purposely kept the people igno­rant and blinde. According to their demerits, there are reser­ved for them intima inferni, the depths of hell, blacknesse of darknesse, and the greatest torments thereof, without repen­tance.

The next tribe, or sort, are the purblinde Magistracy, either Secular, or Clergy. Such were divers in the dayes of Queen Ma­ry; who had learning enough, to know that all went not right; yet did not vehemently oppose the truth, but did swimme with the stream, & made the time their stern; the whole Church turn­ing and returning three or foure times in one age. These were seduced, as well as seducers. Such also at this day are divers in the Papacy; more moderate, lesse rigid and rigorous, concealing some truths they know, because they have given up their hearts and beliefs to trust in their Church, for such things as they do not know; though they have means to learn, and capacitie to understand, if they would; and therefore are faulty. Such also were divers in the Jewish Church and State. Ye killed the Prince of life, saith S. Peter to the people, Acts 3.15. And now brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. Such were those Pharisees, Matth. 15.12. who were offended with Christ; of whom Christ saith, vers. 14. They be blinde leaders of the blinde. And if the blinde lead the blinde, both shall fall into the ditch: In foveam peecati & inferni. Into the ditch of sinne and hell, saith Hugo Cardinalis, on [Page 175]the place. Cùm pastor per ab­rupta graditur, necesse est ut grex in praecipiti­um ducatur. When the shepherd goes by craggie clifts, the flock must needs fall headlong and break their necks, saith Gregory. Duces, praeceptores; fovea, infernus. The guides are the teachers, and the ditch is hell, saith Faber Stapulen­sis, on the place. So much of the purblinde Magistracy, Cleri­call or Laicall, in a corrupted Church.

From the Magistrates in the first place, we descend to the people in the second place, whom we also divide into their se­verall ranks and files.

In the generall, they are either learned or unlearned. The learned are first such, as go against their conscience, and practise contrary to their knowledge and belief, sailing with winde and tide: and because they will be found fault withall by the fewest, they will do as the most do. Timorous hypocrites they are; fearing persecution, losse of goods, liberty, and life, more then they fear God, who is able to destroy both body and soul: for whom is kept the allotment of hypocrites; brimstone and fire, storm and tempest, ignis & vermis: this shall be their portion to drink, without repentance.

An other sort of learned men professing truth, there are in a corrupted Church; and each of them (forsooth) will be a re­former of the publick: these despise government, are presumptuous, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities, 2. Pet. 2.10. speaking evil of the things that they understand not, vers. 12. (as out of question they understand not all things, which in their carping humour they censure:) people-pleasers, ambitious of esteem, full of words, running as much after their own will as after their consciences, hearty enough to draw on danger, obstinate enough to provoke death. Of these men, though they die for some truths; yet because they have a mixture of many errours in their intellect, perversenesse in their will, and ill grounded, ill bounded affections, wanting those godly en­dowments of charity before spoken of; we may pronounce, as the Apostle did, They shall utterly perish in their own corruption, 2. Pet. 2.12. Such a fellow was he, and his like, of whom Anno 1543. M ^r. Fox reporteth, that when Christ said, This is my body, interpret­ed the words to this effect, The word of God is to be broken, distri­buted, and eaten. So when Christ said, This is my bloud: the blessed words are missensed; as if Christ had then said, The Scripture must be given to the people, and received by them. By which forced exposition, the seal of our redemption is troden under foot, the thrice-blessed sacrament of the bodie and bloud of our Lord is utterly annihilated; whereas indeed, in the words of consecration, there are included verba concionatoria & prae­dicanda, words predicatorie and serving for doctrine. I will not esteem him as an holy perfect martyr, who dieth with such crotchets in his brain, such pride in his heart. Such an one was Ravaillac, who for conscience sake (forsooth) stabbed the An­ointed [Page 176]of the Lord, the Heros of our time, his naturall Sove­raigne, Henry the fourth of France. He followed his conscience; but his conscience had ill guides. When he had outfaced tor­tures, and death it self (though he thought that he died a mar­tyr) if he died unrepentant, the powers of hell gat hold upon him.

Such manner of people were those Jews, who in most de­sperate fashion said, His bloud be on us, and on our children, Matt. 27.25. Do you think they all were wholly ignorant? do you think, they all swerved against their consciences? or rather, medled they not in things above their callings? were they not too presumptuous? Thus, though they had the knowledge of some truths, and perhaps would have died for them; yet their zeal wanted more and better knowledge, to have recti­fied their consciences: and they should have called to minde the miracles of Christ, and born witnesse to his innocency, rather then to set themselves forward in things beyond their reach and knowledge.

Philip de Lib. 8. cap. 19. Commines telleth of two Franciscans, who offer­ed themselves to the fire, to prove Savanorola to be an here­tick, and not to have had revelations divine: and an other Frier, a Jacobin, presented himself also to the fire, to uphold Savano­rola, though Savanorola did not then expose himself to that purgation by fire. Which intendments of theirs seem rather to be the fruits of evil then of Christian fortitude. For, Mater martyri est fides Catholica, in qua illustres Athletae san­guine suo subscripse­runt. The mother of martyrdome is the Catholick faith, to which those famous champions have subscribed with their bloud, saith Aquin, out of Maximus. But those bravadoes of the Friers savoured of the transalpine and cisalpine factions: some inclining to the French king, with his adherents, the other to the Pope and Venetians, and their partakers.

Some drew death upon them, when they needed not, in the Primitive Church; and the holy Fathers, and Councels, have disliked them for it. The Elibertine Councel, chap. 60. Si quis idola fregerit, & ibidem fuerit occisus; quia in Evangelio non est scriptum, neque in­venitur ab Apostolis un­quam factum, placuit in uumerum eum non re­cipi martyrum. If any one break idols, and be killed in the act, we think it not fit that he be received into the number of martyrs, because for his so doing he had neither warrant of Scripture, nor example of the Apostles. The Ci­cumcellions thrust themselves into the mouth of dangers: ambi­tious of martyrdome to that height of infatuation, that if no body would kill them, they would murder and massacre them­selves.

There were also certain women, who to keep their chastity hastened their own deaths. Sophconia killed her self, lest the Em­perour Maximinus should abuse her, saith Eusebius. Pelagia flung her self headlong into a river, lest a souldier should violate her. Such things ought not to be done, and are sinfull, and unlaw­full to be done. And yet because the Church hath accounted [Page 177]them martyrs, we must conclude that the Church did think, they had divine inspirations directly animating them to that course, as Samson had in the Old Testament. Cùm Deus jubet, sé (que) jubere siue ullis ambagi­bus intimat; quis obedi­entiam in erimen vo­cet? When God commands, and plainly intimates that it is his command; who can blame him that obeyeth? saith De Civit. 1.26. S. Augustine.

Aquinas 2.2. Quaest. 124. Artic. 1. in the third objection, hath these words, Non est laudabile quòd aliquis martyrio se ingerat, sed magìs vide­tur esse praesumptuosum & periculosum. It is not commendable for a man to offer him­self to martyrdome, but seems rather to be presumptuous and dange­rous. And in the answer he intimateth, That a man ought not to seek death; and saith expresly, Non debet homo oc­casionem dare alteri in­justè agendi: sed si alius injustè egerit, ipse mo­deratè tolerare debet. A man ought not to give occa­sion of doing unjustly: but if another do unjustly, he ought to endure it patiently.

The third and last sort of learned men, in a Church and State full of errours, are thus qualified;

They are pious towards God, charitable towards men, zea­lous, according to their knowledge, knowing so much as they can well learn, mourners for sick and dead in Sion, signing their cheeks with teares for the backsliding of the people, having cornea genua, knees hardned like horn by their frequent bendings at prayers, that God would shew mercy to the misguided; sing­ing to God in their hearts when danger stoppeth their mouths; not petulant, or immodest against the Magistrates; no prompt, proterve undertakers; no railers, censurers, or rash damners of others; no factionists, or disturbers of Commonweals; avoid­ing the storms of persecution, so farre as conveniently and con­scionably they may; keeping the unity of truth, as much as is pos­sible, in the bond of peace; thus farre flexible and pliable, that they would willingly exchange any old errour (if such be setled in them) for apparent truth; thus farre constant and irremoveable, that they preferre the naked truth above their lives, and can in all humblenesse and patience write the confession of their faith with their own bloud. Such a life may I live, such a death may I die: greater glory then such shall have, I desire not. This is the true character of a martyr, so perfect as usually flesh and bloud affords.

The last point concerneth unlearned men, who live in a de­filed Church. Shall these be ruled by their Pastours, leaving the dictates of their own consciences, unpractised, unbeleeved? I answer, There is not the simplest of the people, to whom I will denie a judgement of discretion: which he is bound to follow, even unto death, according to his conscience. And among the unlearned, there are some of excellent wits, quick capacities, and some endowments, both of nature and grace, surpassing divers learned men. Yet let every one of these take this advice from me; let them learn to be Christi-formes, confor­mable to Christ, (which is a point that the godly and learned Cardinall Cusanus often and excellently inculcateth) and let [Page 178]them labour to be every way equall to that famous martyr▪ whom immediatly before I characterized and described. By how much the lesse they have of knowledge, let them have the more of humilitie and conformablenesse. Lastly, let them ponder, how mercifull the Lord is to such as sinne of ignorance: and on the contrarie, that not onely divers of the unlearned, but such as have had a fair competency of knowledge, have been transported with self-love; and treading out paths of singu­larity, have runne headlong into damnation. Witnesse divers Arians, burnt in the dayes of Queen Elisabeth: witnesse Hacket, seduced by the Devil under a shew of long, extemporary prayers, and extraordinary holinesse; till at the end he grew blasphemous, and in the heat of it died. Let him think of Sir John Oldcastle; who intimated, not onely a possibility, but a likelihood of his rising again the third day after his hanging and burning, if Stows chronicles had sufficient ground to write to that effect. If I should repeat the like monsters in other Churches and Commonwealths, I might much more enlarge this discourse, which is too long already. I conclude: The sim­ple unlearned good man, who is bound up in invincible igno­rance, and is misled by his Pastours, to whose guidance he hath subjected his conscience, is lesse sinfull, by many degrees, then he who casteth himself violently, singularly, and proudly, into the same errours, or as bad. And if it be dangerous to take from the people their discerning power, in any cause, as some imagine; let them ponder, whether it be not more dangerous, to let every one of them to runne loose, like the unbridled Circumcellions, to choose their own wayes, (which is the guise of Separatists) and to be their own judges, and judges of whatsoever their Pastours preach, (which is the practice of ill taught zelots in our Church) and by necessary consequence, judges of things of Faith, of Controversies, and of Scripture it self: And so the supreamest Tribunall, for interpretation of matters religious, to be the conscience of an unlearned brain. But thou, O Man of God, flee these extreams; and, O blessed God and man, O Saviour of mankinde, Jesu Christ, keep us in the mean, and bring us by holinesse to the truth, and by thy truth unto thy glory. So be it, Lord Jesu, so be it.

The word of God is a sea, saith Epist. 44. ad Con­stan [...]num. S. Ambrose, having in it deep senses, and height of propheticall riddles. But in these dayes of Libertinisme the simplest presume, they can sound these deeps, and finde out the riddle, though they plow not with Samsons heifer. Hence are these innumerable springs of errours, which Luther, even in his own time, seeing to overflow Germany, in his first book against Zwinglius and Oecolampadius, saith, If the world continue, it will be again necessary, by reason of the divers in­terpretations of Scripture that now are, if we will keep the unity of the [Page 179]faith, that we receive the decrees of Councels, and flee to them. The place of Augustine is common, and in every mans mouth, Ego Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ec­clesiae Catholicae autho­ritas commoveret. I would not beleeve the Gospel, unlesse the authority of the Catholick Church moved [...]e. How should we know, that such and such things are S [...]ure, and not such or such, but by the Church, as by the f [...] [...]roductary means? or why should not the unlearned people as well trust their Pastours for the exposition of Scripture, as they have done, and do, and must do for the tran­slation? For be ye not deceived, O over-inspired brethren; neither Moses, nor the Prophets, nor Christ, nor the Evangelists or Apostles ever wrote or penned your English Scripture. They wrote in Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriack, and Greek: but they were your Pastours, who translated the word of God into our mo­ther tongue; and some translations are more imperfect then other, and no one absolutely perfect. And will you, silly igna­roes, who cannot know whether the words be true or false, well or ill translated, be every one of you your judges of the meaning thereof, (which in deep points is harder then transla­ting) and usurp the power of interpretation? I may take up the complaint of Michael Piccart, in his epigram before Balthasar Bambach his tractates,

But I am loath to adde, as he doth,

Yea, I have an intent to have a bout with the learned Dani­el Heinsius, for maintaining in the preface to his Aristarchus Sacer upon Nonnus, That no man can rightly interpret the Scri­ptures, but he that is skilled in Eastern languages; Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriack, and Greek both sacred and profane, Hellenistical and the pure, which is all one in effect with the Jewish-Greek, and the Hea­then-Greek. Some of his words, pag. 53. are these, Multum resert sci­re, Hebraea Hellenistes Graecè expresserit, an Syra: Hebraeum item textum, an interpreta­tiones respiciat Graeco­rum. Quae nisi omnia distinguat, operam neces­se est interpres ludat. Nos autem, ut exiguae scientiae, it à nullius, ut loquuntur vulgò, consci­entiae existimamus, qui transferre Sacra audet, nec de istis cogitavit. It is very materiall to know, whether it be Hebrew or Syriack which the Helle­nist expresseth in Greek: also, whether he hath respect to the Hebrew Text, or to the Greek translations of it. All which unlesse the expo­sitour distinctly considereth, he must needs lose his labour. And we think him to be a man as of little skill, so of no conscience, that dares translate the Scriptures without any consideration of these things.

Both these were eminent professours, and men singular among thousands; the first in High-Germany, the other in the Nether­lands; from whence some of them brag, and some of us rejoyce that we have received the reformation of religion. I will one­ly humbly propound to your religious considerations these things:

First, that the difficulties of the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Aramean languages in the Old Testament, and of the Greek [Page 180]in the New, especially where it reflecteth up to the Syriack, are above common capacities, even of the learned. I might adde, that words of divers other languages are part of the sacred Text. The Egyptian Abrech, Genes. 41.43. the Arabick Lehhem, Job 6.7. and Totaphoth, Exod. 13.16. a compound of Egyptian and African languages, and the like. Yea one verse, and one one­ly was written by Jeremy in the Chaldee language, viz. Jeremy 10.11. which every captive Jew was commanded to cast in the teeth of the Babylonians. Moreover Daniel 5.25. Mene Mene, Tekel Ʋpharsin, was written in the Chaldee, with the Samari­tan letters: so that the Chaldeans themselves could not reade their own language. I would tell you of [...] finall being placed in the middle of a word of the Text, and of divers other diffi­culties, which in part I passe over, and in part thus contract, in the observations following.

Secondly, that Hebrew words without points may have foure or five significations, according to the diversity of vowels affix­ed to them; and have no certain meaning, but as it is guided by antecedents and consequents. And yet you shall have an igno­rant mechanick, or talkative woman, as confident of the Gene­vean Translation and notes, as if God himself did speak or write the same words, as he did once the law on Horeb.

Thirdly, that in the Hebrew many words are written with fewer letters, then they are pronounced.

Fourthly, that many are written with more letters, then they are pronounced.

Fifthly, that divers words are written in the sacred Text, which are not pronounced at all, but others are read in their stead. Sunt octo voces quae s [...]riptae sunt in Textu, sed non leguntur, quas adducit Masora, Ruth 3.12. There are eight words written in the Text, but not read, which the Masora alledgeth, Ruth 3.12.

Sixthly, that the Jews have most severely and strictly for­bidden, that any Rabbin should teach Christians the true sense of the Talmuds; which (as they boast) no labour and endeavour can attain unto without such a guide. Elias Levita in Mas [...]oreth-Hammassoreth, complaineth, that the Jews were wonderfully of­fended with him, because he instructed Christians in the He­brew. And though some tax him for singing placentia, to sooth & flatter his patron Aegidius; and call him a turn-coat, because he came forth of the Jewish synagogue to pray with us in our temples: yet that odious name ought to have been spared, un­lesse he kept still a Jewish heart within him; which certainly he did, if Balthasar Bambach saith truly of him, Praecipua mysteria reticuit, & nibil arcani revelavit. He concealed the chief mysteries, and revealed nothing of their secrets.

Seventhly, that many Hebrew Radixes do signifie not onely things wonderfully disparat, and incompatible the one with the other (as Sheol signifieth the grave in some places, and hell in other places: which caused some to deny Christs descent in his [Page 181]humane soul into hell) but even things clean contrary. This instance (as the former) shall be in a word generally known. Job 2.9. his wife saith unto him, [...], Curse God; others render it, Blesse God. None hitherto hath infallibly expounded it. Yet my Laick can swallow camels, & strain at gnats, that is, buildeth upon the Translation made by the Ministers, though the ground hath been slippery and full of ice; but will (forsooth) be judge of the meaning, when he understandeth not the words: as if one unskilfull in the Dutch language should say, when he heard a German speak, I know his meaning by his gaping, or by the sound of his words, or by the gargarism of his throat-speech.

Though the Apostle saith, 1. Thessal. 5.21. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good; yet he speaketh of the spirits of pri­vate men, or misperswasions of the false Apostles; who presu­med very much, and knew very little. These are to be tried. But concerning the decrees of the Church, the same Apostle doth not say, Prove them, examine them, trie them, judge them: but Acts 16.4, Paul and other Ministers, as they went through the ci­ties, delivered them the decrees for to keep, (or observe) that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem. And so (or by this means of keeping, or observation) were the Churches established in the faith, &c. verse 5. But (saith the fran­tick Libertine) I am a man spirituall: But he that is spirituall judg­eth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man, 1. Corinth. 2.15. I answer, S. Paul speaketh of the Apostles, who had the Spirit of God, vers. 12. and spake in words which the holy Ghost taught, vers. 13. and who might well neglect the judgement of men, 1. Corinth. 3.3. Prove thou thy Apostleship by such undeniable miracles and testimonies, as they did; and thou shalt judge, and not be judged. But that every idiot should claim the privi­ledge of an Apostle, is lewd divinity, or rather insufferable pride. The Angel in the Church of Thyatira is censured, Revel. 2.20. because he suffered that woman Jezebel, which called her self a Pro­phetesse, to teach and seduce Gods servants. If the profoundest Di­vines on earth, unexperienced in worldly courses, should teach the skilfullest tradesmen their trades, or manufactures, and med­dle in their crafts (as they call them;) would they not expose themselves to laughter and mocking? is not the proverb of the world too true, The greatest Clerks are not the wisest men, if you take them from their books? Are there more depths in trades, then in the Word of God? Or shall tradesmen, and women judge of the depths of Divinity; and the learned Divines in their own profession be not beleeved, but laught at, controlled, and cen­sured by the private spirit of unlearned people? Are not the spi­rits of the Prophets subject to the Prophets? Very learned men scarce trust to themselves. A Physician that is very sick, seeks counsel of an other who is whole, and dares not trust his own [Page 182]judgement: and shall a soul sick of sinne, sick of errour, sick of scruples, be its own helper? shall it understand without a guide? be cleansed of its leprosie without a Priest? Hierome in his Pre­face to the Cōmentary upon the epistle to the Eph. thus, From my youth I never ceased to reade, or to ask of learned men what I knew not. I never was mine own Master, or taught my self: and of late I journeyed purposely to Alexandria, unto Didymus, that he might satisfie me in all the doubts which I had found in the Scripture. Now adayes many a one is wiser then his Teachers; not by supernall illumination, but by infernall presumption. And if they have gotten by rote the letter of Scripture, and can readily cite tmemata & tmema­tia, the chapter and the verse, (though they have little more judgement then Cardinall Ascanius his parret, which would prate the Creed all over) they vilifie the opinions of the most learned, and their private spirit of seduction will beare them out. Lib. 11. cap. 9. Ruffinus saith thus of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, They were both noblemen, both students at Athens, both colleagues for thirteen yeares together; all profane learning removed, studied on the holy Scri­ptures, & followed the sense, not taken from their own presumption, but from the writings and authority of the ancients; which ancients, it ap­peared, took the rule of right understanding the Scripture, from Aposto­lick succession. S. Basil himself saith of himself and others, in his Epistle to the Church of Antioch, As for us, we do not take our faith upon trust from other later men, [...]. nor dare we deliver to others the con­ceits of our own brains, lest mens devices should be thought to be ar­ticles of Religion: but what we have been taught of the holy Fathers, that we declare to those that ask of us. How often doth the divine S. Augustine confirm his interpretations by the authority of Cy­prian, Ambrose, and other preceding Fathers? How often doth he confesse his own ignorance, though he was the most accōpli­shed that ever writ since the dayes of the Apostles? It was a wise observation of Scaliger, That some words and passages in Plato Plus sapiunt authore. are wiser then their authour: and many excellent conceits are collected from Homer and Aristotle, which they never dreamed of. But in the Word of God it is contrary. The Spirit was, and is infinite that did dictate it: the finite capacity of man cannot comprehend it: whatsoever good interpretation we finde, may well be thought to be the meaning of the Spirit: and yet the Spirit may, and doth mean many things, which the wit of any man could never dis­close. And the true literal sense is the hardest to finde.

I confesse I have dwelt too long on this point; but it is to vindicate the authority of our Church from the singular fancies of private unskilfull, unlearned, and censorious men and women, and to shew the madnes of those base people-pleasers or publico­lae, who make, or esteem tradesmen, and youth, and ill-nurtu­red, unlettered idiots (yea though their places be eminent) the competent judges of controversies; whilest they flee from the [Page 183]chairs of the Universities, and from the representative Church of our kingdome, viz. the most learned Bishops, and Convocati­on-house; unto whom they ought to have recourse, and in whose judgement they are, by way of obedience, without op­position to set up their rest. For as for private immediately di­vine, and infallible revelation, there is none at all; or, if any be, it is in some of those learned ones, who are lawfully called to be the members of our Church representative. And if any defects be in learned men, there are more in unlearned. But of this point otherwhere.

8 Another observation there is, That kings and supream Offi­cers do represent the people committed to their charge. And here I will tell you, in honour of the Royall Majesty, what Lib. 2. contra Ap­pionem. Flavius Jose phus saith, We offer daily sacrifices for the Emperours, and that not onely on ordinary dayes of the common cost of all the Jews, but also when we offer no other sacrifices of the common charge, no not for our children. We give this high honour to the Emperours onely, which we do not give to any other man. This he saith they practised in the behalf of heathen Emperours, different from them in Religion: how much more ought we, by all lawfull means, exceed them in the honouring of our Kings?

Espencaeus calleth a Prince columbam Dei, Gods dove: Saul is termed the beauty of Israel, 2. Sam. 1.19. David is styled the light, candle, or lamp of Israel, 2. Sam. 21.17. Josiah was the breath of our nostrils, saith Jeremy, Lament. 4.20. Are not these two latter phrases ideall? are their persons, themselves onely? Again, is not Saul called the head of the Tribes of Israel? 1. Sam. 15.17. and David the head over Nations? 2. Sam. 22.44. Hom. 2. ad popul. Antioch. Chrysostom in­tituled Theodosius, The head and supream over all men on earth. And therefore, as the people reap benefits extraordinary by their Kings; (for Saul clothed you in scarlet, with other delights; he put on ornaments of gold upon your apparell, saith David, 2. Sam. 1.24.) so for their Kings offences they justly may be punished, 2. Sam. 24.17. Lo, I have sinned (saith David;) but these sheep, what have they done? Yet the pestilence, worse then the bane or rot, fell upon those sheep.

that is, Apollo being incensed against the King Agamemnon, sent an evil disease upon his army; and the people perished. The story is memo­rable, of Saul, 1. Sam. 14.24, &c. He took a foolish and rash oath, hurtfull to his own souldiers, profitable for the enemy. Neither Jonathan, nor the Captains, nor the people did swear with him, but in him, and by him, and through his oath: yet it bound both the people and himself; yea tied aswell Jonathan, [Page 184]who heard it not, and knew it not, as those who were present, and heard it: for the lot from God drew Jonathan out, as faulty, and punishable for his fathers adjuration; who sware expresly, by name, the death of Jonathan (if he were faulty) vers. 39. yet the love of the people delivered him; and (as I think) the father did not much care to break his oath. In this fact Sauls person re­presented the whole army; and the people, for their own parti­cular, held themselves wrapped up to obedience in his oath.

But what do I instance in slighter matters, when a proof is pre­gnant, That the chief governours oaths binde the whole nation & their posterity for evermore, while their Polity lasted? Joshua unadvisedly, without counselling with God, made peace and league with the Gibeonites, (the descendants of Canaan, that servant of servants) to let them live in the lowest rank of slaves: and the Princes of the congregation sware unto them, Josh. 9.15. And though all the con­gregation murmured against the Princes, vers. 18. (from whence I conclude, that the people consented not to the treaty, much lesse were sworn to it) yet the Princes resolved justly and conscionably, We have sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel: now therefore we may not touch them, vers. 19. And vers. 20. thus, We will even let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath which we sware unto them. And accordingly Joshua freed them from the intended slaughter of the angry Israelites, vers. 26. That this oath concerned not the people then living onely, but reached also unto posterity, is apparent, 2. Sam. 21.1, &c. When for the breach of this oath, committed about foure hundred yeares after, the Lord himself taxeth Saul and his bloudy house, be­cause he slew the Gibeonites; and therefore sent purposely a trien­niall famine upon the land; and Gods wrath was not satisfied, till the Gibeonites were appeased by the death of Sauls posterity. And these 5 things are yet observable. First, Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites, in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah, v. 2. Secondly, God commanded Moses to destroy all the inhabitants of the land, whereof the Gibeonites were part, as they themselves confessed, Josh. 9.24. Thirdly, what was the oath of the Princes onely, is said to be the oath of the children of Israel, (as it is, 2. Sam. 21.2.) because it concerned them for ever. Fourthly, after the punishment, for this cause inflicted, God was intreated for the land. Fifthly, it was about foure hundred yeares after the oath of Joshua and the Princes, when God thus severely vindicated the breach thereof by Saul, upon Sauls posterity.

9 Lastly, let us diligently consider how much Christ Jesus our blessed Saviour hath done for us, representing, as it were, our persons; and what we perform and shall obtain in him, and by him.

Isa 53.4. Surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows: which is applied to him, Matth. 8.19. The force of which [Page 185]words is expressed by the Apostle, 1 Peter 2.24. Christ his own felf bare our sinnes in his own body on the tree, (or, to the tree, [...]) and by his stripes ye were healed. S. Paul saith, Christ died for our sinnes, 1. Corinth. 15.3. Christ tasted death for every man, Heb. 2.9. Christ died for us, Rom. 5.8. And in the next verse, We be justified by his bloud, and, We shall be saved from wrath by him. He hath blotted out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary unto us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his crosse, Coloss. 2.14. And, By him God hath made peace, through the bloud of his crosse, and reconciled all things unto himself by Christ, Coloss. 1. vers. 20. He hath reconciled you in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable, and unreprovea­ble in his sight, vers. 22. He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4.25. Ye are buried with him in baptisme, wherein also ye are risen with him: and you being dead he hath quickned with him, as it is most divinely expressed, Coloss. 2.12.13. In Christ we are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit, Ephes. 2.22. Our life is hid with Christ in God, Coloss. 3.3. And in the verse following, Christ is our life. Ye be risen with Christ, Coloss. 3.1. God hath quickned us together with Christ, and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, Ephes. 2.5, 6. Our conversation is in heaven, Philip. 3.20. From which positive proofs, and do­ctrine, that Christ stood in our stead, and that almost all (if not all) his actions and passions, as he was the Mediatour between God and man, were representative of us, let us descend to the comparative, and shew, that Christ hath done, and will do more good unto us, then Adam hath done harm. Which point I have more enlarged in my Sermon (at the re-admitting into our Church, of a penitent Christian from Turcisme) being one of the two, intituled, A return from Argier: where these five reasons are enlarged. First, that Adam conveyed to us onely one sinne: but Christ giveth diversities of grace, and many vertues, which Adam and his posterity should never have had; as patience, virginity, repentance, compassion, fraternall correction, mar­tyrdom. Secondly, Adams sinne was the sinne of a meer man onely: but the Sonne of God merited for us. Thirdly, by A­dams offence we are likened to beasts; by the grace of Christ our nature is exalted above all Angels. Fourthly, Adams dis­obedience could not infect Christ: Christs merit cleansed Adam, saving his soul and body. Fifthly, as by the first Adam goodnes was destroyed; so by the second Adam greater goodnes is re­stored, and all punishments, yea all our own sinnes turned to our further good.

To which I will annex these things following. By Adams sinne we were easily separated from God: Satan, the woman, and an apple were the onely means: But I am perswaded, (saith [Page 186]the Apostle, Rom. 8.38.) that neither death, nor life, nor Angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God. Again, Rom. 5.13, &c. the Apostle seem­eth to divide the whole of time in this world, into three parts, under three laws; the law of Nature▪ of Moses, of Christ. In the first section of time, sinne was in the world:— Neverthelesse, death reigned from Adam to Moses, saith the Apostle. In the law of Moses, though death was in the world, yet sinne chiefly reigned, and the rather for the law: ‘Nitimur in vetitum semper, cupimúsque negatum:’ This the Apostle confirmeth often, especially Rom. 7.8. Sinne taking occasion, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. The third part of times division is in the dayes of grace, under Christ: and now, not so much death, not so much sinne, as righteousnes and life do reigne, or rather we in them, by Christ; and the power of both the other is diminished, and shall be wholly de­molished.

If Adam hurt all mankinde one way or other, Christ hath helped all mankinde many wayes. In this life he giveth many blessings unto the reprobate: his sunne shineth on all, his rain falleth both upon good and bad: and I do not think, that there ever was the man, at least within the verge of the Church, but had at some time or other such a portion of Gods favour, and such sweet inspirations put into his heart, that, if he had not quenched by his naturall frowardnes the holy motions of the Spirit, God would have added more grace, even enough to have brought him to salvation. For God is rich in mercy, Ephes. 2.4. The Father of mercies, 2. Corinth. 1.3. Thou lovest all things that are, and abhorrest nothing that thou hast made: for never wouldest thou have made any thing, if thou hadst hated it, Wisd. 11.24. What thou dost abhorre or hate, thou dost wish not to be; what thou dost make, thou dost desire it should be, saith Holcot on the place. In our Com­mon-prayer-book, toward the end of the Commination, this is the acknowledgement of our Church, O mercifull God, which hast compassion of all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, which wouldest not the death of a sinner, but that he should rather turn from sinne, and be saved, &c. God is intituled [...], Ama­tor animarum, A lover of souls, Wisd. 11.26. Holcot on the place confirmeth it by Ezek. 18.4. All souls are mine, saith God. Men commonly love the bodies, saith Holcot, but God the souls. Amat Deus animas, non singulariter, sic, quòd non corpora amet; sed privilegialiter, quia eas ad se in perpetuum fru­endum praeparavit. God loveth the souls; not onely, as if he did not love the bodies; but principally, because he hath fitted them for the eternall fruition of himself. It is not the best applied distinction: for whose soe­ver souls shall enjoy God, their bodies also shall, and that im­mortally for ever. If he had said, that God had loved humane souls privilegialiter, because man had nothing to do in their [Page 187]creation or preservation; he had spoken more to the purpose. Nor think I, that God forsaketh any, but such as forsake him: but, Froward thoughts separate from God—(Wisd. 1.3. &c.) For into a malicious soul wisdome shall not enter, nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sinne. For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding. Concern­ing the souls of infants, dying without the ordinary antidotes to originall sinne, baptisme and the pale of the Church; though they may most justly be condemned, yet who knoweth how ea­sy their punishment may be, at least comparatively, as some imagine? For, that some drops of mercy may extraordinarily distill upon them, they cannot deny who say, That the rebellious spirits of actually sinfull men and Angels, are punished citra condi­gnum. But to leave these speculations, I dare boldly affirm, that if there be any mitigation of torments in any of them, it is not without reference to Christ.

Moreover the redeeming of man was of more power, then the very creation: for this was performed by a calm Fiat; but the redemption was accomplished by the agony, passion, and death of the Sonne of God. Aug. in Joan. Tracta­tu 72. post medium. Augustine on those words, John 14.12. Greater works then these shall he do, saith thus, It is a greater work, to make a wicked man just, then to create heaven and earth: Therefore much more doth Christs merit surmount the fault of Adam.

In the first Adam we onely had posse non peccare, posse non mo­ri, A possibility of not sinning, a possibility of not dying; (We should have been changed, though we had not died) posse bonum non dese­rere, A possibility of not forsaking goodnesse: and should, by his inte­grity and our endeavours, have attained, at the utmost, but bene agere, & beatificari, To do well, and be blessed. By Christ we have not onely remission of sinnes, and his righteousnes imputed; but rich grace, abundance of joy, and royall gifts; (Not a more joy­full, but a more powerfull grace, saith Non laetiorem, sed po­tentiorem gratiam. Aug. de Correp. & Gratia cap. 11. Augustine) and we shall have non posse peccare, non posse mori, An impossibility of sinning or dying, An unchangeable and immortall life, Non posse deserere bo­num, vel adhaerere malo, An impossibility of for saking goodnesse, and cleaving to evil; and not onely beatitudinem & gloriam, but co­ronam gloriae, Not onely blessednesse and glory, but a crown of glo­ry, [...], An immarcescible crown of glory, 1. Peter 5.4.

Lastly, if we go to the numbring of them that were hurt by Adam, and the number of those who receive benefit by Christ; the greatest number is on Christs side. I would be loath to say, what the Apud Sleidan pag. 293. Franciscane preached publickly at the Councel of Trent, Eos, qui nullam habe­rent Christi cognitio­nem, & alioqui vitam egissent honestè, salute [...] esse consecutos. That they who had no knowledge of Christ, and yet had lived honestly, had obtained salvation. Nor will I conclude with others, that Aristides, Cato, yea Julius Cesar himself is saved; [Page 188]though, according to the fertility of the Italian wits, divers of them have found quaint passages and conceits tending that way. Nay, in these dayes of presumption, (wherein, by all likeli­hood, a thousand surfet and perish in the hope of mercy, in comparison of one soul ship-wracked on the rock of despair) I am afraid to confirm what Coelius secundus Curio hath writ, in his books de Amplitudine regni Christi; or Marsilius Andrea­sius of Mantua, de Amplitudine misericordiae Christi, before him; who maintaineth, That farre more are saved by Christ, then are condemned. For though Christ saith, Matth. 7.13. Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that lead­eth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: and vers. 14. Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that finde it: and though divers other passages of Scripture (by the little flock, and few labourers, with the like phrases) seem to import the paucity of humane souls saved, in comparison of the many condemned: yet he restraineth all those places to the dayes of Christ; when indeed few belee­ved, in respect of the unbeleevers: and the emphasis may accor­dingly be set upon that word YE; Enter YE. And, perhaps, the antithesis is observable, Many there be which GO in to the wide gate, and broad way; but it is not said, Few SHALL go in at the nar­row gate; nor, Few SHALL enter in: but, Few there BE that finde it. And it may be expounded, Few there be that finde it; by them­selves, or by their own naturall power, without patefaction divine. But what they cannot finde without a guide, they may finde by a guide: and many may enter in at Christ the Doore, and many may walk in Christ the Way. Where sin abounded, grace may much more abound. As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one may many be made righteous. Concern­ing which places, with the precedent verses, Rom. 5. we shall treat by and by. But I return to their answer, That respect was had to the primitive dayes of Christs Church; and, That we are to consider, that when Christ likened the Kingdome of God to a grain of mustard seed, which waxed a great tree; and to lea­ven, which leavened the whole lump, Luke 13.18, &c. he spake not without reference to his own dayes, in which they were generally perswaded, (as the Papists are now) that many were easily saved in their Church: whereupon one wondering at Christs doctrine, of the hardly obtaining of heaven, and that by few, saith (Luke 13.23.) Lord, are there few that be saved? And Christ answereth, not without respect to those times, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many will seek to enter in, and shall not be able: because they sought awry, and refused the right way offered. Yet many might be saved, and more in after­times then at that present time; more by farre in the Church of Christ growing and increasing, then in the Church of the [Page 189]Jews, waning and decreasing. Yea, at this present, though a diligent computer shall not finde much fault with me, for saying, that, if the world were divided, for places and people, into thirty parts, Nineteen thereof are Infidels, six of the Ma­hometane Religion, and five of the Christian, the Romane Church and the Reformed Churches making but one part of the five; (so that the Greek Churches may more brag of their Catholicisme, then the Romane; and the scabbed petite flock, and schismaticall parlour-full, yea scarce hand-full of Separa­tists of Amsterdam, may cease to claim themselves to be the onely Church, by their paucity; which the least number of the never-agreeing, and subdivided Brethren may appropriate to themselves; excluding by that argument all the Churches of the world besides, yea even their own fellow-schismaticks) yet this I will be bold to say, that many places of the Prophets in the old Testament, and many in the New, did and do fore­signifie, that great abundance of men, women, and children of all nations, of all places, shall be saved by Christ; that there shall be (as it were) Mundus hominum electorum, A world of elect men, a great multitude of men, which no man could number, Rev. 7.9.

Unto which number of humane souls, if we annex those thousand thousands of Angels, and ten thousand times ten thousand, Daniel 7.10. even that innumerable host also; we may confi­dently averre, what Elishah said of the blessed Angels in an other case, 2. Kings 6.16. They which be with us, are more then they that be with our enemies, or, more then our enemies. More in number enjoy eternall life by Christ, then are condemned to eternall death by Adam. For though Christ be not a Mediatour of re­demption unto the Angels; yet was he a Mediatour of confirmation in grace; and whatsoever blessings they did, or do, or shall enjoy, they had it for and by the merit of Christ foreseen. For he is the head of the Church, and they be but members: and all the vertue or happinesse in the body, or in any part of it, is derived from the head. All things visible and invisible, thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, were created by him, and for him, Coloss. 1.16. In him all fulnesse dwelleth, vers. 19. From him the whole body is fitly joyned together, Ephes. 4.16. In him all the building fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy Temple, Ephes. 2.21. And of his fulnesse have all we received, and grace for grace, John 1.16. And not we alone, but the good Angels also were predestina­ted, created, confirmed, and glorified by his means, as Suarez well concludeth, in his Commentaries on the third part of A­quine his Summe, Tom. 1. pag. 656. Dico Christum me­ruisse Angelu gratiam, & gloriam, quae illis da­ta fuerat propter meri­ta Christi praevisa. I say, saith he, that Christ merited for the Angels grace, and glory, which was given them for the merits of Christ foreseen. So Aquinas, Cajetan, Albertus, Sentent. 3. Distinct. 13. Artic. 2. Marsilius, In illud, Psal. 102. BENEDICITE DOMINO OMNIA OPERA BIUS. Jacobus de Valentia, Lib de Regno Christi. Melchior Flavius, Theosophiae, 3.13. Arboreus. And again, the same Suarez pag. 65.8. Christus Dominus meruit sanctis Angelis omnia dona gratiae, ex­ceptis iis quae ad reme­dium peccati pertinent: meruit iis electionem, praedestinationem, vo­cationem, auxilia om­nia excitantia, adju­vantia, sufficientia, & ef­ficacia; denique, omne meritum & augmen­tum gratiae & gloriae. The Lord Christ [Page 190]hath merited for the holy Angels all gifts of grace, except those which belong to the remedy of sinne. He hath merited for them election, predestination, vocation, all means exciting, helping, suf­ficient, and effectuall: Lastly, all merit and increase of grace and glo­ry. As the precious ointment, upon the head of Aaron, ran down upon his beard, and thence descended to the skirts of his garments, Psal. 133.2. so all vertue distilleth from Christ the Head, upon every member of his Church, Angelicall, or Humane; Trium­phant, or Militant: neither have they ought, but what they recei­ved, and from him onely. In brief, we have exchanged, and bar­tred our brasse for gold; Periiss [...]mus, nisi pe­riassemus. We had perished, if we had not perished, as Themistocles said of old. O felix culpa, quae tan­tum & talem meruit Redempterem! O happy fault, that hath obtained so great and excellent a Redeemer! Christ hath done us more good, then Adam did himself or us hurt.

If these my humble private speculations, or rather relations of other mens opinions, give not satisfaction; I desire you to have recourse unto the Apostle, who hath put the first and second Adam into the balances; and behold, the first Adam is found too light. In which comparative, being like in the genus, and unlike in the species, (as Origen soundly and wittily observed) First let us see the [...], the things wherein they are like. Rom. 5.12. As by one man sinne entred into the world, and death by sinne: the Apodosis is not expressed, but thus to be conceived, So by one man grace came into the world, and life by grace. See the same con­firmed, v. 19, 20. Secondly, As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. The third thing wherein they were like, is set down in the 18. verse; of which hereafter.

Concerning the [...], the things wherein they differ, they are set down in the 15 verse, and so downward: Not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one, many be dead; much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. An other dissimili­tude is in the 16 verse, And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgement was by one to condemnation; but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. And verse 17, If by one mans offence, death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousnesse, shall reigne in life by one, Jesus Christ. After this, he returneth to the third point of their comparison (the [...], the things wherein they differ, being involved in a Parenthesis) which indeed may seem at the first sight more strange, Therefore as by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousnes of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life, vers. 18. But the true meaning is this, according to the way of S. Au­gustine: As none cometh to death, but by Adam; and none to Adam, but by death: so none cometh to life, but by Christ; [Page 191]nor to Christ, but by life. Thus the free gift came on al, as the of­fence came on all. As when we say, All entred into the house by one doore; it is not intended or included, that all that ever were, farre or nigh, came thither, into the house; but that no man en­tred into the house, save by the doore: So though the Apostle saith Omnes, in the application; he meaneth not, that all and every one are justified; but that all that are justified, are not otherwise justified then by Christ: and this is S. Augustines exposition, a­gainst Julian the Pelagian, 6.12. As if he had said, Christ is the Α and Ω, the beginning, means, and end. There is none other name by which we must be saved, Acts 4.12. He perfecteth them for ever who are sancti­fied, Hebr. 10.14. And they are Christs, and Christ is Gods, 1. Cor. 3.23. [...], He is my love & delight, said Ignatius. And I professe, I desire not heaven, or the blessednes of heaven with­out him, as I, undeserving, ill-deserving, poore I, hope to reigne in life by him onely, who giveth spirituall birth, life, and increase, till he bring us unto blessednesse; even all them who are saved, even the universality of the chosen in Christ. The limitation of the word Omnis is frequent in Scriptures; not comprehending generally, or universally every one in all, and all with every one; but being put for a great number, for many: Luke 6.26. Wo unto you when all men shall speak well of you: where All must not be tentered and stretched to its utmost extent; for all and every did never, do never, and never shall, speak well of them. So Acts 22.15. Thou shalt be witnesse unto all men, saith Ananias to S. Paul: which was not accomplished, if All have no restraint. Again, Titus 2.11. The grace of God which bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all men: and yet there were then, and now are many, who never saw or knew that salutiferous or saving grace. So here you are to reduce the word Omnes, to omnes sui; All that are in Christ, saith the Glosse. Again, why may not All be aswell taken for Many in this our 18 vers. as Many is taken for All in the 19 verse? where it is said, By one mans disobedience many were made sinners: when all and every one that descended ordinarily and naturally from Adam, sinned in him and by him, as is ex­pressed, verse 12. and proved before, Genes. 17.4. Thou shalt be a father of many nations; which is repeated word for word, Rom. 4.17. and is thus varied, Genes. 22.18. In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed: and this is confirmed, Galat. 3.8. where Many and All differ not in sense and substance.

By Omnes homines, All men, you may understand Humanum ge­nus, Mankinde; and because all mankinde must be distinguished into two sorts, goats and sheep; and considered according to two estates, fallen and repaired; and their different receptacles, the two cities; the one the city of God, the other of the Devil; in the first member the word All must be interpreted generally, without restriction; because in it was speech of Adam, by [Page 192]whom death came upon all, without exception: but in the se­cond and opposite member, All is not to be taken in the same amplitude, sed juxta rem subjectam, But according to the subject spoken of: All that have grace, and the gift of righteousnesse: Omnes vivificandi, All that are to be made alive, saith S. Augustine; All that are Christs.

So much in defence of those who by All understand genera singulorum, but not singula generum, Some of all kindes, but not all of every kinde; restraining and imprisoning the word, yet, as it were, in libera custodia. The free gift came upon all men to the justification of life, that is, it came upon all, upon whom it did come, freely: and yet upon many, which were not of Christs flock, it came not at all. If this seem harsh to any, there is a second interpretation, which came in my minde before ever I had heard or read, that any other thought so: and amongst a whole army of expounders, I never met with any who wholly agreeth with me; and never but one, whose opinion, in part, concurreth with mine: and he is Cardinall Tolet, who is found fault withall covertly, by Justinian the Jesuit, and by the learn­ed Estius, under a generall Quidam vir doctus, A certain learned man; and expressely by name by Cornelius à Lapide the Jesuit: whose judgement otherwise I had been ignorant of, as not having Tolets labours on the Romanes. The words of S. Paul, Rom. 5.18. at the latter end, are these, By the righteousnesse of one, ( [...]) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. So it is read (according to the Vulgat) in our late Translation: the Bishops Bible hath it, Good springeth upon all men to the righteousnesse of life: but it is certainly amisse; for they take [...] for [...] whereas there is great discrepancy between them: for [...] is gene­rally confessed to be (according to Philosophers) that vertue, or aggregation of vertue, which is named Justice generall: or (ac­cording to Divinity) the vertue, or the habit of justice, the work of grace, sanctification, righteousnesse, or holinesse inhe­rent. Neither is [...] all one with [...]. for though I would be loath to say, as Beza doth on that place; I do not admit, saith he, Nè in anis quaedam ar­gutia tribuatur Aposto­lo, id est, Spiritui sancto. that these two are all one, for this reason among others, Lest some vain nicety should be attributed to the Apostle, that is, to the holy Ghost; (for if I did admit them to be all one, yet I would rather admire the depths of the holy Spirit, which I am not able to sound, then ascribe any empty or vain nicety to the perfection of divine Scripture; Adoro Scripturae ple­nitudinem. Tert. lib. contra Hermog. Whose plenitude I adore, that I may use Tertullians phrase: whereas Beza intimateth, as if the infinite Spirit knew not to dictate what he could not understand) yet will I be bold to say, there is a main difference between them. [...] com­monly is rendred justificatio: For grant, that among Heathen writers [...] be now and then expressed, A just cause, or The [Page 193]ground-work or foundation of a just cause, as 1. de coelo. Aristotle useth it. Grant we also, that in Scripture [...] is used sometimes for the judge­ment of God, as Rom. 1.32. and Revel. 15.4; sometimes for the ordinances of God, as Luke 1.6. and Heb. 9.1, and 10 verses, and Rom. 2.26: yet most properly it is rendred Justificatio, and by it is meant the merit of Christ, and his righteousnesse imputed to us; and is in Christ, and not in us. Beza saith right in this, [...] ipsam justificationis nostrae (ut ità dicam) materi­am hîc declarat ab ef­fecto, nempe illam Chri­sti obedientiam, cujus imputatio nos juslos in ipso facit; quam paulò antè vocavit [...], quò Deus gratis eam nobit largiatur. The word [...], Justification, declareth (as I may say) the very matter of our justification from the effect, namely that obedience of Christ, the imputation whereof makes us righteous in him: which a little before he called [...], the free gift; because God gives it freely to us. Thus is the imputation of Christs righteousnesse and our justification all one in effect, and onely divers in words to the same sense. Thus [...] is used both in the 16 verse, and in this present place: and thus Rev. 19.8. The fine linen is the righteousnes of Saints: Not of themselves, not inherent: for to the Church was given, or granted, that she should be arayed (ut cooperiat se, as some reade it; [...]) in fine linen, pure & white: [...], pure in it self; [...], white to be seen by others. And since our Saviour, Revel. 19.13. was clothed with a vesture dipt in bloud; which Blasius Viegas saith, is commonly interpreted of Christs humanitie begored with its own bloud, by the Jews (which suffer me to term Meritum rubrum, as well as the School-men stile it Meritum udum) which was pointed at, Esai 63.1. Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? and verse 2. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparell, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the wine-fat? which Ter­tullian wittily thus expounded, Spiritus propheticus, veluti jam contemplans Dominum suum ad pas­sionem venientem, car­ne scilicet vestitum, ut in ea passum, cru­entum habitum car­nis in vestimentorum rubore designat concul­catae & expressae vi pas­sionis, tanquam de foro torcularis; quia exinde quasi cruentati homines de vini rubore descen­dunt. Contra Marci­onem, 4.40. The spirit of the Prophet contem­plating, as it were, his Lord going to his passion, clothed with flesh, as suffering in it, describes by the rednesse of his garments the bloudy habit of his flesh troden and pressed by the force of his passion, as by a wine-presse; because men come out thence, as it were, all bloudy with the rednesse of the wine: According to that prophesied of him, rather then of Judah; or of Judah, as a type of him, Gen. 49.11. He washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the bloud of grapes. So that S. John may be thought to expound Esai, and Esai to reflect on that prophesie of Jacob; and all to designe out our Saviours passive obedience, by which (that I may so speak) our sinnes are most properly washed away, or not imputed. Upon proportionable semblance of reason, permit me to say, that the pure and white linen describeth Christs active obe­dience, his fulfilling of the Law, in number, weight, and mea­sure: (which the School-men call Meritum siecum, a drie merit; and I, Meritum candidum, a white merit) which actions and per­formances of his, are as the fine linen with which the Saints are properly clothed and apparelled, when they are imputed to us. And thus, to return to my old matter, [...] in the place of [Page 194]the Revelation is taken for the merits of Christ, clothing us with fine linen; as Jacob was with his elder brothers clothes, when he was to receive the blessing, Genes. 27.15. so we with his righteousnesse, which is ascribed unto us, as if it were our own; and now called ours, because it was given unto us by Him. Yet thirdly and lastly, besides these two words, [...] and [...], the Apostle useth another verball, differing from both: and that is [...] which (under correction) I opine is not to be translated, either, with the Bishops Bible, righteousnesse of life (for that is coincident with [...]) nor yet justification, or Christs righteousnesse; for then it were all one with [...], which was immediately before ascribed to Christ. But what is then [...]; & how is it to be translated? It is but twice used in the New Testament. First, Rom. 4.25. [...]. He was raised again for our justification. But some Greek Copies have [...], in stead of [...], in that place; and then the sense altereth of it self. Beza saith, [...] in the fifth to the Romanes signifieth more then it doth in the fourth, and seemeth thus to difference it, That, in Romanes the fourth, the passive obe­dience imputed is understood; and, in Romanes the fifth, the active obedience imputed is meant. And though in both places he doth Latinize it, Justificatio; yet the new coined words of Justificamen, or Justificamentum, seem better in his judgement to expresse the sense in the latter place. In this he saith wittily, that [...] is opposed [...]. And this is the onely argument of worth against the following opinion. Yet thus it may be answered, That though [...] be expounded damnation, or condem­nation, or a sentence damnatorie, as Beza calleth it; yet Beza himself will not translate [...], Sententia absolutoria, vel salvifica. a sentence absolutorie, or saving. For there is no necessitie, that a direct opposi­tion, in all parts, should be between those terms; neither doth the nature of the antithesis necessarily require such an exact contradiction. But how doth Tolet render and interpret these words? Putat justificationem vitae bîc appellari actio­nem & eperationem, quâ Deus, ex justitia & merito Christi, omnes homines, etiam repro­bos, à morte suscitabit ad vit [...]m perpetuò duratu­ram. He thinks (saith Cornelius à Lapide of him) that by the words jusTIFICATIO VITae, The justification of life, (which in the Vulgat is the exposition of our [...]) is here meant that action or operation whereby God through the righteousnesse & merit of Christ will raise up all men, even the reprobate, from death to a life for ever to endure. And so the similitude between Adam & Christ is every way compleat: for as by Adams sinne all & every one die; so by Christs merit all & every one shall be made alive. And certain­ly for the truth of Tolets opinion, it is a part of our Creed, & de­nied of none: & it is expresly avouched, even in the same compa­rative form, 1. Cor. 15.22. As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But my opinion herein differeth from Tolets, That I do make, not onely Gods power & the merits of Christ concurring to this [...], but also make [...] (which is more [Page 195]commonly, then properly rendred justificatio) to be an act of man defending and pleading for himself, at the resurrection. As if the Apostle had thus balanced Adam and Christ: As by the of­fence of the one, judgement came upon all to condemnation: so by the righteousnesse of the other, the free gift came upon all, that they shall all, without exception, be raised up; to know the cause, why they de­serve wrath; to excuse themselves, if they can; to plead in their own defence, if they can justifie their lives, and free themselves from con­demnation. (For God condemneth no man without reason, nor without suffering him to come to his answer, nor without let­ting him see and know the just cause of his condemnation.) The substantiall truth whereof is confirmed, Rom. 14.10. We shall all stand before the judgement-seat of Christ, and every one of us shall give an account of himself to God, vers. 12. The end is specialized, 2. Corinth. 5.10, That every one may receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. As for the objection of our adversaries, and their demand, where the word [...] is so used in Scripture: I first retort it thus; Let them prove the use of the word, in Scripture, as they apply it. Secondly, I say, It is iniquum postulatum, An unjust demand on either side; since the word is onely once, onely here, in the New Testament, without variation of reading, so farre as I remember. Thirdly, I think that [...] is opposed to [...], crosse-plea­ding, and all one with [...], as Apud Lysiam. Suidas expounds it: and what is [...], but causificatio, causae suae defensio, juris sui in medium prolatio? 2. Maccab. 4.44. [...], They pleaded the cause before him. Yet nearer to the purpose, Psal. 43.1. Plead thou my cause, [...] Litiga litem meam, as it is in the Interlineary; Disceptando tuere causam meam, as Va­tablus interprets it. And Psal. 35.23. Awake to my judgement, even unto my cause: The Septuagint have it, [...] and Symmachus readeth it, [...]. Where David makes God a Judge and Umpire, between David himself pleading his own cause, and Davids adversaries who pleaded against him, and opened their mouth wide against him, vers. 21. So that with Symmachus, [...] is exactly the pleading of ones own cause, as here [...] is the defence of a mans thoughts, words, and deeds in this world, and may in a good sense be called a justifi­cation of his life. Moreover, it is said, Exod. 12.49. Lex una erit indigenae, & peregrino, One law shall be unto him that is home-born, and unto the stranger. Which is diversified, Levit. 24.22. Ye shall have one manner of law: Judicium unum erit vobis, as the Interli­neary readeth it; it being [...] here, whereas in the place of Exodus it was [...]. Also in the Septuagint, the first place is thus, [...] and in Leviticus, [...] where [...] may well be expounded one manner of pleading their causes, as there was one law. This I am sure of, the verb is so used, Micah [Page 196]7.9. I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him, [...], untill he plead my cause. Why may not then [...] be the pleading of ones cause? And why may not the meaning of our Apostle be, That as Adam was ostium mortis, The doore of death: so Christ is clavis resurre­ctionis, The key of the resurrection? as Tertullian sweetly calleth him: And as by Adam all and every one was guilty of death and damnation: so by Christs merit every one shall arise, to free himself from it, if he can; and to plead wherefore he should not be condemned; to defend himself, and answer for himself, as Paul did, Acts 26.2. to apologize: And herein Adam and Christ to be like, That as every one was made guilty, by one, of condemnation: so every one, for Christs all-sufficient condignity, shall be permitted, yea enabled, to speak for himself, why the sentence shall not be executed. But these things I leave to the Professours of the Greek tongue, and suo quisque judicio abun­det.

So much for the second exposition of the words, and for the similitudes and dissimilitudes between Adam and Christ; from which resulteth, That Adam representing us, did not so much hurt us, as Christ representing us did do good unto us. And therefore, since we are acquitted from sinne, from all sinnes, originall and actuall; since we are acquitted from eter­nall death, and have grace, and abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousnesse, and shall have life eternall, and shall reigne in life, by ones obedience, by one onely Jesus Christ, who in his life, and on the altar of the crosse merited all these things for us: it is no hard measure, no iniquity of God, if for Adams sinne and disobedience, when he sustained our persons, both himself and his posterity in his loyns, implicitly consent­ing with him, be appointed to die. And thus much shall suf­fice for the first generall Question upon the words of the Text. The second followeth.

Drusius towards the end of his Preface before his book cal­led Enoch, thus, Haec, & alia quae hoc libro continentur, ut & in aliis omnibus à me unquam editis aut edendis, subjicio libens Ecclesiae Catholicae ju­dicio; à cujus recto sen­su si dissentio, non er [...] pertinax. These, and other things which are contained in this book, as also in all other books which have been or shall be set forth by me, I willingly submit to the censure of the Catholick Church; from whose right judgement if I dissent, I will not be pertinacious.

O Deity incomprehensible, and Trinity in Unity, in all respects superexcellent and most admira­ble; with all the faculties of my soul and body I humbly beg of thee to shew thy mercy upon me, for Jesus Christ his sake: and O blessed Redeemer, accept my prayer, and present it with favour to the throne of grace, where thou canst not be denied. If thou, O gra­cious Jesu, art not able to help me, and to save my sinfull soul; let me die comfortlesse, and let my soul perish: but since thy power is infinite, I beseech thee to make me one of those whom thou bringest to more happinesse, then all our enemies could bring to miserie. Heare me, for thy tender mercies sake, and for thy glorious name, O great Mediatour Jesu Christ. AMEN, AMEN.

CHAP. I.

SECT. 1. THe second Question, which, from the words of my Text, I propounded, is this: Whether such as have been raised from the dead, did die the second time, yea, or no? because it is said, It is appointed for men once to die. I speak not of those who have been thought to be dead, and have been stretch't out, and yet their soul hath been within them; though divers, for divers daies, and upon severall sicknesses, have had neither heat, nor breathing discernable: but onely of such, who have suffered a true separation of their souls from their bodies: Whether these have again delivered up the ghost, and died, I make my que­stion.

2. Before I come to mention those whom the Scripture re­cordeth to be truly raised, I hold it not amisse, to propound to your view a few stories out of other authours. Theodoret, lib. 10. de fine & judicio, hath two strange relations. The first is out of Plato, of one Armenius: but Clemens Alexandrinus, Stro­mat. 5. relateth from Zoroaster himself, that it was Zoroaster, [Page 2]the sonne of Armenius; He who onely, of all the world, laughed so soon as he was born (saith Plin. 7.16.) and was so famous a Magi­cian: One of these two, either father or sonne, the twelfth day after he and others fell in the battell, and was to be buried, ante pyram constitutus, revixit, and being come to himself, told what he had seen apud inferos: namely, that his soul being divided from his bodie, came with many others, (who died with him) to an admirable and incredible place, in which there were two gulfs, opes, or ruptures of the earth: and two open places of heaven right over them. In the midst of these hiatus, or gulfs, judges did fit; who, when judgement was ended, bade the just souls ascend by the heavenly opennes and gaps: the judges sowing on their breasts, the notes of their judgement. But the souls of the wicked men were commanded to go on the left hand, and to be hurried to hell, carrying with them, on their backs, the memoriall of their passed life. But as for himself, being now come in fight, the judges bade him diligently heare and see all things, and tell all those things which were done, when he re­vived. These are sayings worthy of Philosophy, saith Theodoret.

3 A second storie is cited in the same place, by Theodoret, from Plutarch, among those things which he wrote De anima. Sositiles, Heracleon, and I (saith Plutarch) were present, when Antillus told us this, of himself: The Physicians thought Antillus to be dead: but he came to himself, as one out of a deep sleep, and neither said, nor did any other thing, Quod emetae mentis signum possit censeri. which might argue him to be crazy or light-headed: but he told us, that he was dead, and that he was again revived, and that his death, upon that sicknesse, was not altogether irrevocable: but that the messengers, who brought him to judgement, were sharply blamed by their governours, because they brought Antil­lus in stead of Nicandas. Within a while after, Nicandas died, and Antillus recovered life and health. And Plutarch, in my opinion, seemeth to insinuate, that he was present at the reco­very of him. Of both these (if each particular were true, that they were dead, and relived) we may boldly averre, that they died again. Neither doth Plato, Plutarch, or Theodoret doubt of it. As strange a storie, though more remote from our subject, you shall finde in Alexander ab Alexandro, Genialium dierum, 6.21.

4 An other istance you shall finde in Bellarmine, De arte bene moriendi, lib. 2. cap. 1. taken out of Joannes Climachus, in scala sua, grad. 6. who relates thus of a man, that died twice: In his first life (saith he) he lived most negligently: but dying, and his soul being perfectly separated from his bodie, after one houre, he return­ed again, and he desired Climachus, and the rest, to depart. Where­upon they walled up the cell, and he lived (as an Anchoret) within the cell, twelve yeares; speaking to no man till he was ready to die again; eating nothing but bread, and drinking water: sitting so, he [Page 3]astonishedly revolved those things onely, which he had seen in his separation, with so earnest a thought, that he never changed coun­tenance, but continuing in that amazement, secretly wept bitterly. When he was at deaths doore the second time, they forced open the entrance into the cell, and coming to him, humbly desired him to speak some words of doctrine. He answered nothing but this onely, Nemo qui revera mortis memoriam agno­verit, peccare unquam poterit. The serious remembrance of death will not consist with sinne. The like storie you may finde in Venerable Bede.

All these, if they lived again, died again, and rose not to life immortall. And in this sense is that averred, Wisd. 2.1. Never was any man known to have returned from the grave; viz. not to die again: for otherwise, some were known to have been raised. From these I come more especially to speak of such, whom the word of God reporteth to have been raised.

MOst gracious God, who didst breathe into the face of man the breath of life, and at thy pleasure drawest it forth again out of his nostrils; grant that we make such use of this present life, that we may see, love, and enjoy thee in the life eternall, through Jesus Christ our onely Lord and Saviour. Amen.

CHAP. II.

1. ANd because divers have been raised up, of whom there is not the like doubt, and answer in each kinde to be made, I will therefore distribute them, in regard of their times, in­to three sorts:

Such as were raised

• 1. Before Christs death.
• 2. After he was ascended.
• 3. About the time of his death.

Which inverted method I purposely choose, because I will re­serve the hardest point to the last.

The first sort again is subdivided into such as were raised, either before Christ was incarnated, or by Christ himself.

They who were raised before Christ was born, were three:

• 1. The widow of Zarephath her sonne, 1. King. 17.22.
• 2. The Shunammites sonne, 2. King. 4.35.
• 3. A dead man who was cast into the grave of Elisha, and when he touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood upon his feet, 2. King. 13.21.

All these three were raised up to live, and lived to die again. Neither did the intention of such as requested to have them raised, or of such as raised them, aim once, that they should live immortally: but live onely on earth again as other men did, and then die again. Neither did I ever reade any, who held these to arise to immortall glory: neither stands it with reason. For that they were once dead and raised to life, the Scripture saith: and that they must either live to this time, or be translated to immortall glorie in their bodies, or die, is as true as Scripture. Now, because there is no ground to say, that they yet live, or were translated bodily into heaven; there is good ground to conclude, that again they died.

2. Concerning the first of these: the Jews think he was Jo­nas the Prophet: and S. Hierome, in his Prologue on Jonas, citeth their opinion, and dislikes it not. Tostatus also saith, Dïvers others think so. If Jonas were the widow of Zarephath her sonne, we know that Jonas died afterward: for the Prophets are dead, Joh. 8.53. and he was one of the Prophets. And concerning both the first and second instance, it is thought by many good Authours, that they are pointed at, Heb. 11.35. The women received their dead raised to life again: or, the Pro­phets delivered to the women their dead, as the Syriack reads it; that is, to converse with them as formerly, being raised not to an eternall, but a temporary resurrection; and so to die again at their appointed times. And to this truth the Text it self giveth in evidence: for it is said in the same verse, [...], that they might obtain a better resurrection.

Of holy men there is a double resurrection; the first, and the last; the good, and the better. The resurrection mention­ed in the beginning of the verse was good: and with reference to the former (saith Chrysostom) the latter resurrection is cal­led the better. For the former was temporary, the latter eter­nall, called also The holy resurrection in our book of Common Prayer, in the Epistle on the sixth Sunday after Trinity; though there is no substantiall ground for the word holy, ei­ther in the Latine, or Greek, Rom. 6.5. Of the former, Aqui­nas, in his Comment on Hebr. 11.35. saith it was rather a re­suscitation then a resurrection: and again, Isti sic resuscitati, sunt iterum mortui: Christus autem resue­gens ex mortuis, jam non moritur, Rom. 6.9. These being raised died again, but Christ rising from the dead, dieth no more, Rom. 6.9.

3. And therefore Christs resurrection was (as Aquinas saith, and as it is indeed) the beginning of the future resurrection. Then must they needs die again who were raised before him. He was the first Guide that lead the way to the eternall re­surrection. He abolished death, and hath brought life and immor­tality to light, 2. Tim. 1.10. Life and immortalitie to light, which were before in darknesse. And I think that the Apo­stle may well be thus paraphrased in that place to the He­brews: The women desired that their dead children might be rai­sed again, (1. King. 17.18. 2. King. 4.22, &c.) and, as a gift they received their dead raised to life again, to live with them accor­ding to their desire. But others were tortured, and would not ac­cept deliverance, and cared not for the joyes of this life, or the pu­nishment unto death, nor temporary raising, that they might obtain the better resurrection: not to die again, as the others did; but to live for evermore.

4 But as for the third, Tostatus saith, He lived a long time, and he was more healthie then he was before he died: And he giveth this sound reason; Because what things are done superna­turally, are farre more perfect then they that are done naturally. Never was there so good wine, as the water turned into wine: the choicenesse whereof was so easily discerned, even when the palate was cloyed, when the taste was corrupted and dull'd, towards the end of a feast, Joh. 2.10. Now as he lived a long time, so out of doubt in the end he died, tasting of mortali­tie as truely as the Prophet did, whose bones before had rai­sed him.

O Blessed Jesu, I beg not at thy hands the reuniting of my soul unto my body, for a temporary life: but, if it be thy holy will, let the vertue of thy Passion raise me first, from the death of sinne, to the life of righteousnesse; and from a righteous temporary life, to the life of immortall happinesse. Grant this, for thy glorious Names sake, O holy Redeemer. Amen.

CHAP. III.

1. THe next place of my division leadeth me to treat of those whom Christ himself raised. For if Christ did give authoritie to his twelve Apostles to raise the dead, Matth. 10.8. though both in the old In­terpreter and Theophylact these words are wanting, saith Beza: yet did they not, or the Seventie, at their return to him, say they had raised any, (which he himself did so sparingly) though they healed the sick, Mark 6.13. and the devils were subject unto them through his name, Luk. 10.17. Neither did the Baptist, nor any in Christs life-time raise up any, so farre as can be gathered. It was a work he appropriated to his own power, for the act thereof, whilest he lived; and which he maketh to be an infallible token and proof that he was the Messiah; as appeareth by the answer of the ambassage which Christ returned to the Ba­ptist, Luk. 7.22. The dead are raised by me, or by my power: Therefore I am he that should come. For that is one member of his argument. And indeed (perhaps) he raised divers, whom the Scripture hath not particularized: for he did very many things that are not written, Joh. 21.25. Yea, many signes truely did he in the presence of his disciples, which are not writ­ten in this book, Joh. 20.30. and his Apostles after his death did actuate that power, which habitually in his life they re­ceived.

2. But those that are mentioned to be raised by Christ, whilest he lived on earth, are likewise three:

• 1. A Rulers daughter, Matth. 9.25.
• 2. A dead man, the onely sonne of his mother, Luk. 7.15.
• 3. Lazarus, his friend, Joh. 11.44.

And all these returned to do their offices, and follow their vo­cations in this life; and in the end payed their due to nature, and died again.

In the first we observe, that she was a damsel of twelve yeares of age; and being dead, her spirit came again, Luk. 8.55. She arose and walked, Mark 5.42. and Christ commanded to give her meat, in the same place of Luke. And as the meat was commanded to be given her, that they might see she was to live such a life as before she lived: so, out of doubt, the com­manded meat was offered unto her, and she did eat, and was strengthened by it: both living and dying afterwards, as other maids and men did, and no way rising to immortall life.

3. As for the second, he was a young man, on whose mo­ther Christ had compassion, Luk. 7.13. She was a widow, the youth her onely sonne: and when Christ touch'd but the coffin, and said, Young man arise; (that you may see both his vertue and his voice had a piercing and quickning power) he that was dead sat up, and began to speak; and Christ delivered him to his mother, vers. 15. Now, these are evident signes of a naturall life in a naturall body, which must yeeld in the end to the stroke of death. And the raising of this young man be­ing bruited abroad, was the especiall motive why the Baptist sent two disciples with a message unto Christ, Luk. 7.17, &c.

4. The third whom Christ raised was Lazarus, who had been buried foure dayes ere Christ came unto him, Joh. 11.17. (that I may passe over the uncertain time from his death to his buriall) Foetens, & quairi­duanut. Stinking after foure dayes, enterring, saith S. Augu­stine: Yet when Jesus cried with a loud voice, Lazarus come forth; he that was dead came forth bound hand and foot with grave­clothes, and his face was bound about with a napkin: and Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go, Joh. 11.44. In which miracle I finde foure or five wrapped up and involved: That so suddenly his soul did come from its abode: That the stink­ing ill-organized body was so soon, so well prepared: That the soul was so quickly united; and no sooner united, then exercising her faculties on the bodie, which yeelded such ready obedience: That he could see the way out of the grave (and, perchance, approach towards our Saviour) when his eyes were blinded: That he was able to go and walk before he was loosed by them, while his hands and his feet were bound with grave-clothes. Yet that the miracle aimed not to raise him to an immortall life, appeareth, because he did not onely go from his grave to Bethanie, to the house where his sisters, Mary and Martha were; but because he supped with our Saviour; he being one of them that sat at the table with Jesus, Joh. 12.2. where, out of doubt, he did eat as the rest did.

There is an argument yet left, as undeniable, as unanswer­able. That the then living did think Lazarus lived to die again: For, the chief Priests consulted that they might put Laza­rus to death, as well as Christ, Joh. 12.10. which they would [Page 8]not, they could not have done, if he had not lived, and could not die like other men; if he had been raised to life immor­tall: and they knew he was once raised, Joh. 11.45, 47.

5. Concerning the sick that were healed, and the dead raised by Christ, worthy Writers further agree, that Christ did integram corporis sanitatem conferre, omni infirmitate rejectâ, Left no reliques of sicknesse or infirmity when he healed. Christ never healed any one man twice, Joh. 7.23. [...], Totum hominem sanum feci, I made a man every whit whole; Healed a man wholly, say the Rhemists. Perhaps I may adde, that Christ never healed the body of any, but he heal­ed his soul likewise, at least for the instant time. I am sure Chrysostom, Augustine, and Beda to this purpose say, The same man was healed by Christ, Joh. 5.14. Qui foris ab infir­mitate, ipse etiam intus salvavit à scelere: He saved the man from outward infirmitie and inward sinne: He healed (as I may comment on the words) his body at the pool of Bethesda, his soul in the Temple. Christ himself said, Totum hominem sanum feci, I have healed the whole man: and Beza on Joh. 7.23. saith, He was healed both soul and body: Corporaliter &▪ spirituali­ter, Both bodily and ghostly, saith Hugo Cardinalis. Even he, who was impotent, and had an infirmity thirty eight yeares, upon Christs command immediately was made whole, and took up his bed and walked, Joh. 5.9. and immediately, upon Christs word, the blinde received his sight, Mark 10.52. the deaf and ill-speaking man, after Christ had said, EPHPHATHA, his eares were straightway opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain, Mark 7.35. The fever immediately left Si­mons wives mother, after Christ took her by the hand, and lift her up: and she ministred unto them, Mark 1.31. Christ left no re­lique of any old disease; and whom he healed of any one infir­mitie, we never read that he complained of any other. So though Lazarus before his death, was [...], Languens, longâ infirmitate fractus, actu aegrotus, Pining, feeble, sick, saith Salme­ron: yet was he immediately and perfectly cured: and (as I imagine) he was upon his resuscitation, not onely in latitudi­ne sanitatis, Void of all weaknesse; so that no part was sick or mis-affected by any dyscrasie: but in perfectione salutis, In full compleat health; and had obtained by Christ, [...], The height and fulnesse of health; a constant, setled, habituall sound­nesse in each part of his body. For as art is but the ape of na­ture, and naturall things are farre more absolute and perfect then artificiall: so things miraculous as much exceed things naturall in perfection. So that no naturall crasis, no temper or temperature, no health is so pure and exact, as that which is wrought immediately by a divine finger: In the vigour and strength whereof Lazarus might have lived, as Adam and Eve did, a long time.

6. What do I speak of likelihoods, or possibilities, when we have good Authours which give us more light concern­ing Lazarus his life, and concerning his death? There is a manuscript of the English historie in the Vatican at Rome, testify­ing, That about the 35 yeare of Christ (saith Baronius on the same yeare) Lazarus, Marie Magdalene, and Martha, with Mar­cella their waiting-woman, with Maximinus their disciple, with Jo­seph of Arimathea their companion, Imponebantur navi, abs (que) remigio. were put into a little sciph, or great boat, without oares or fit tackling, and so were in great danger at the sea: but by Gods providence, Massiliam appule­runt. they arrived at Mar­sillis, a citie of Provance in France. Tostatus upon 1. King. 17. saith, Lazarus was a Bishop, and an holy Martyr. Epiphanius in the catalogue of Manichaeus his assertions, saith he hath it by tradition, that Lazarus was thirty yeares old when he was rai­sed up, and that he lived afterward other thirty yeares. See the same Epiphanius, Haeres. 66. Gregory the great, Dialog. lib. 4.28. addeth, that Lazarus never laught after he was raised, and he did so tame himself with fastings, watchings, and labours, that his very conversation did seem to speak, (though he held his tongue) that he had seen the infernall torments. So farre Gregorie. Yet, under his correction, he might as well, and as much bring his bodie under, and flee from the verie inclination to sinne, be­cause he had tasted of the joyes celestiall, and peace uncon­ceiveable. Thus have you the life and death of Lazarus.

O Thou who art the Resurrection and the Life, quicken me with thy Spirit, lead me by thy grace, and crown me with thy glory, for thy tender mercy, O my sweet Savi­our, my joy and delight, the life of my soul, my Mediatour and Advocate, Jesu Christ. Amen.

CHAP. IIII.

1. NOw am I come to speak of those, who after Christs ascension were raised. For though in his life time, none of Christs inwardest disci­ples or friends raised any; (as Elisha's servant could not raise the Shunammites sonne, but Eli­sha himself must do it, and did it, 2. King. 4.31, &c. And Eli­sha [Page 10]himself raised none, while his master Elijah lived, but Eli­jah himself did it, 1. King. 17.22.) yet after Christs ascension, by his power communicated to them, the beleever shall do the works that I do, and greater works then these shall he do, saith Christ, Joh. 14.12. One was raised by S. Peter, an other by S. Paul. You shall finde the first, Act. 9.40. When Peter had kneeled and prayed, and turned him to Tabitha her body, and said, Tabitha, arise; she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter, she sat up. Yet was she dead before, and washt, and laid in an upper chamber, vers. 37.

2. And for the other, the storie is this, Act. 20.9. As Paul was long preaching, Eutychus sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead: perchance broken in some parts of his bodie; bruised certainly: him S. Paul raised, and they brought the young man alive, and were not a lit­tle comforted, vers. 12. Of these two, as well as of the rest, there is no doubt but that they lived again, again to die. So thinks Aquinas, 3. part. Summ. Quaest. 53. Artic. 3. and the whole School (following him) agree with us in this. So Suarez, Lorinus, who not? Take one of the ancients for all: Cy­prian reckoneth up those who were raised in the Old Testa­ment; and others raised by Christs command; and saith of these, Aliquo tempore be­neficio vitae usi, iterum ad funera rediêre; Pag. 523. de Resur. Christi, paragr. 8. They lived a while, and died again: and a little before of them in the Old Testament, Ad mortem quam gustaverunt iterum re­dierunt. They tasted of death the se­cond time. And therefore it needs the lesse proof, because none denieth it: and the contrary needeth the lesse disproof, because none hath averred it.

3. Now it is time to come to the third and last part of my main first division, and to speak of them who arose about the time that Christ died; for of them there is a deep and in­tricate question: and the historie of them is set down at large by the Evangelist, Matth. 27.52, and 53 verses: The graves were opened, and many bodies of Saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. So farre the text. Of the various pointing of which words see more hereafter, opening two windows for two expositions. On which words, divers wor­thy men, both modern and ancient, conclude, That those Saints died not again, Sed apparuerunt mul­tis, & etiam cum Chri­sto, nunquam ultrà mo­rituri, abierunt in coe­lum. But appeared to many, and, with Christ, never after were to die, but went into heaven, saith Jacobus Fa­ber Stapulensis. And M ^r. Beza on this place opineth, that they did not rise, that again they might live among men, and die as Lazarus and others did: but that they might accom­pany Christ, by whose power they rose, into eternall life. The late Writers (saith Maldonate) think, that they went into heaven with Christ: and with them doth himself agree. So Pi­neda on Job 19.25. So Suarez a third Jesuit. So Anselm. [Page 11]So Aquinas on the place, and on the Sentences. So (if Suarez cite them truely) Origen in the first book to the Romanes, about those words of the first chapter, By the resurrection of Jesus our Lord: and Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 6. and Ju­stinus, Quaest. 85. Ambrose in his Enarration on the first Psalme; and Eusebius, Demonst. 4.12. and of modern Authours, and of our Church, Bishop Bilson in the effect of his Sermons touching the full redemption of mankinde by the death and bloud of Jesus Christ, pag. 217. So Baronius ad annum Christi 48. num. 24. concerning those Saints whom Christ piercing the heavens carried with himself on high, leading captivitie captive, Ephes. 4.8. More reserved and moderate is M ^r. Mon­tague, that indefatigable Student, sometime my chamber­fellow, and President in the Kings Colledge in Cambridge, now the Reverend Lord Bishop of Chichester, who in his answer to the Gag of the Protestants, pag. 209. saith of these Saints, They were Saints, indeed deceased, but restored to life, and peradventure unto eternall life, in bodies as well as souls.

MOst cleare Fountain of Wisdome inexhaustible, wash, I beseech thee, the spots of my soul, and in the midst of many puddles of errour, cleanse my understanding, that I may know and embrace the truth through Jesus Christ. Amen.

CHAP. V.

1. TO the clearing of this cloud, and that we may carry the truth visibly before us, I think it fit to enquire, First, Who these Saints were which thus miracu­lously arose: and then secondly to de­termine, Whether their bodies were again deposited in the earth till the re­surrection: or, Whether in their bodies with Christ they ascended into heaven.

2. For the first, Hugo Cardinalis on Matth. 27.53. hath an old storie: It is said (saith he) in the Evangelisme of the Na­zarens, that two good and holy men, who were dead before about fourty yeares, came into the Temple, and saying nothing, made signes to have pen, ink, and parchment; and wrote, That those who were in Limbus rejoyced upon Christs descent, and that the devils sorrowed. Though the rest be fabulous, yet herein the Gospel of the Nazarens agreeth with our Gospel, That the names of the raised are not mentioned. Others have been bold to set down both the names and the order of them who arose.

3. Augustine, Epist. 99. ad Euodium, thus, De illo quidem pri­mo homine, patre ge­neris humani, quòd eum ibidem (Christus ad in­serna descendens) sol­verit, Ecclesia ferè tota conseutit. Almost the whole Church agreeth, That Christ descending into hell, freed the first Adam thence. That the Church beleeved this, non inaniter, not vainly, but upon some good ground, we are to beleeve; from whence soever the tradition came, though there be no expresse Scripture. If this be true of Adams soul, yet is it nothing to our question of his bodily resuscitation. Proceed we there­fore to those that think his very bodie was raised.

Adam then arose, saith Athanasius in his Sermon of the Passion and the Crosse: saith Origen in his 35 Tractate on Matthew: saith Augustine, 161 quest. on Genesis: and others also, if Pineda on the fore-cited place wrong them not. And he giveth this congruentiall reason, That Adam, who heard the sentence of death, should presently also be partaker of the resurrection by Christ, and with him, who had expiated his sinne by death. To which may be added, That (as S. Hie­rom reports) the Jews have a tradition, that the ramme was slain on mount Calvarie in stead of Isaac; as also Augustine (Serm. 71. de Tempore) ratifieth. And to this day they say they have there the altar of Melchisedech. So Athanasius reports from the Jewish Doctours, that in Golgotha was the sepul­chre [Page 13]of Adam. This is true; but it is not certain that Adam was raised; and not true, that he ascended bodily into heaven.

M ^r. Broughton, in his observations of the first ten Fa­thers, saith thus: Rambam recordeth that which no reason can deny, how the Jews ever held by Tradition, that Adam, Abel, and Cain offered, where Abraham offered Isaac, where both Tem­ples were built, on which mountain Christ taught, and died. And as the place was called Calvaria, because the head or skull of a man was there found, and found bare without hair, and depilated, saith Basil; so divers Fathers have concluded, that Adam was there buried, and that it was his head. See Origen, tractat. 35. on Matth. Cyprian in his sermon on the resurrection; Am­brose in his tenth book of his commentaries on Luk. 23. Ba­sil on the fifth of Esay; Epiphanius contra Haeres. lib. 1. Chry­sostome Homil. 84. in Joannem; Augustine Serm. 71. de Tem­pore, and de Civitat. 16.32. Euthymius on Matth. So Athana­sius Sinaita, lib. 6. in Hexam. in Tom. 1. Bibliothecae Patrum; and Sanctus Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople, in Theo­ria rerum Ecclesiast. as you may see in Tom. 6. Biblioth. Patrum; besides abundance of new writers, with whose names I de­light not to load my page.

4 Hierom on these words, Ephes. 5.14. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, &c. telleth, how he heard one disputing in the Church, of this place, thus: This testimonie is spoken to Adam buried in Calvarie, where Christ was crucified. Which place was called Calvarie, because there was placed Caput antiqui hominis, Adams skull. Therefore at that time, when Christ, being crucified, did hang over his sepulchre, this prophesie was accomplished, saying, Arise Adam, that sleepest, and stand up from the dead; and not as we reade, [...], Christ shall give thee light; but [...], Christ shall touch thee because by the touch of his bloud, and of his bodie hanging over him, he might be enlivened, and rise. Now though Hierom himself saith, that this sense agreeth not with the context; yet he leaves it to the Reader to judge, whether the thing be true, or no; and confesseth, that the words were pleasingly enter­tained by the people, and Quodam plausu & tri­pudio sunt accepta. approved with applause extraor­dinary both of hand and foot. And Haeres. 46. contra Ta­tian. in fine. Epiphanius expresly affirm­eth, that Adam was buried in Calvarie, and that the moun­tain was so called from Adams head there found; adding, In quo crucifixus Do­minus noster Jesus Chri­stus, per aquam & san­guinem, qui fluxit ab ipso, per compunctum ipsius latus, in aenigma­te ostendit salutem no­stram ab initio massae, primi bominis reliquias respergere auspicatus. Where our crucified Lord Jesus Christ, by water and bloud which flowed from his pierced side, figuratively shewed our salvation from the primitive lump, whilest auspiciously he sprinkled the reliques of the first man.— Therefore, Now was fulfilled, saith he, Surge qui dormis, Arise thou that sleepest, &c. Ambrose and Paulinus seem to have read it [...], and [Page 14]Augustine on these words, Psal. 3.5. The Lord sustained me, citeth this place thus: Surge qui dormis, & exurge à mortui [...], & continget te Christus. Arise who sleepest, and stand up from the dead, and Christ shall touch thee: which reading was used also by others in Hieromes time.

5. Theophylact on Matth. thus: They that hold Traditions, say, Adam was buried in Calvarie. It is a Tradition (saith he, on Mark) from the ancient Fathers: adding this, Therefore Christ, who healed the fault and death of Adam, was there buried; that where was the beginning, there should be the end, and destruction of death. On Luke he alledgeth this reason, Ʋbi per lignum casus, illic per lignum & re­surrectio. Where the fall was by the tree, there by the tree also should be the rising again. Now as this reason is but weak, so his words on John are worthie remembrance: That the Tradition is Ecclesiasticall, not Judaicall; that it was published by Noah after the floud. Whence we may justly tax Drusius in his first commentarie ad voces novi Testamenti, on the word Golgotha, who ascribeth the finding of Adams skull, and his buriall on Golgotha, to the too much credulitie of the Fathers, in beleeving the Jews. It rather makes against the Jews, and the Jews gain nothing (in my opinion) by that report. Certain old verses fathered on Tertullian, prove directly, that in the same place that Adam died Christ died also; and of Golgotha, and Calvaria in parti­cular, thus runne the verses,

Tertullians Latine verses may be seconded with Nonnus his Greek verses on John 19.17.

Which are thus translated,

Where Nonnus concludeth, (as many other more anci­ent did before him) that it was called the place of a skull, from the first Adams head. The learned Heinsius (Exercit. sacr. pag. 196.) contradicting saith, The Evangelist did not think the place was so called from Adams skull, nor that the word SKULL inclines to that sense: nor is it called ADAMS [Page 15]SKULL, but THE PLACE OF A SKULL. — And where­as Epiphanius saith, that Adams skull was found in that place, (which gave occasion to the words of Nonnus) I marvell that they who were conversant in books of the Hellenists, found not the be­ginning of that fable. For in them, the word ADAM is taken Col­lective, after the Hebrew manner. So in the Latine, 1. Sam. 7.9. The words are in 2. Sam 7.19. This is the law of men, saith Hein­sius, not of Adam. Our translation hath it, This is the manner of man, without restrain­ing it to the first A­dam. Ista est lex Adam, hoc est, [...]. Moreover Symmachus interpreteth [...], Humane nature. So where Josiah (2. King. 23.20.) is said combussisse ossa [...], to have burnt the bones of Adam, the Seventie have it, [...], He burnt the bones of men on it. Because therefore in this place were the skuls of Adam, that is, of men, the place is called so. And whereas ADAM should be taken for MEN, Nonnus by signing out the first Adam hath increased the absurditie of this er­rour. To this effect Heinsius on that place. In this my defence of Nonnus, I give but a touch at the slip [...], which the Septua­gint have [...] answerable to the Hebrew; & at the other slip of citing 1. Sam. 7.9. in stead of 2. Sam. 7.19. and, grant­ing that [...] is taken sometimes Collectivè both in Scri­ptures and some Hellenists, do desire to know how it is applied to this place. For, though there be mention of Adam in Nonnus, yet there is none in the Text; which might give the hint to the errour of Nonnus, as Heinsius mistermeth it. And when Heinsius produceth one Hellenist expounding Golgotha, and there using [...] Collectivé, he shall say something. But saith the worthy Heinsius, it is not called Cra­nium Adami, The skull of Adam; but [...], The place of a skull. I answer, Neither are the words Crania Adam, The skulls of men, as Heinsius understandeth it. For Luke 23.33. it is said expresly, The place is called [...] the other three Evangelists have it also, all and every of them, in the singular number, [...]. To the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, the place of a skull, Mark 15.22. Called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, as it is Matth. 27.33. or as it is varied by S. John, He went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the He­brew, Golgotha, John 19.17. Even in the Hebrew, GOLGOTHA Syrum est, non Hebraeum. GOLGOTHA is a Syriack word, not an Hebrew one, saith Hierom on the word, in his exposition of the Hebrew names, used by S. Matthew. He is seconded by De verbo D [...]i 2.4. Bellarmine, who is confident, that the vulgar tongue, spoken, and written in the Apostles dayes, was the Syriack, and not the pure and sacred He­brew; instancing in Golgotha. The truth is, though the termi­nation be Syriack, yet it is an Hebrew word of the radix [...], Circuire, To compasse: from whence comes GALGAL, Sphaera, An orb, and GULGULETH, or GOLGOLETH (which the Calde­ans and Syrians expresse by addition of Aleph) Caput, ob ejus rotunditatem, An head, for its roundnesse. Mercer and Cevallerius [Page 16]adde in the Italick letters, The skull is properly so called: Pars pro toto, imò & pro toto homine dicitur, ut cùm Latinè dicimus, Per capita. Part is taken for the whole; and not for the whole bodie onely, but for the whole man: as when after the Latine guise, we say, By the heads; meaning, By the people. So also in the common proverb, Quot capita tot sen­tentiae. So many heads (that is, men) so many mindes. From Golgoleth co­meth Golgoltha, or Golgotha, the letter [...] being taken away by Syncope, Ex consuetudine illi­us temporis. As was then usuall, saith Drusius: yea, and Euphoniae gratiâ. for a sweet and pleasant sound sake, saith Lucas Brugensis. For as the Syriack omits the first [...], reading it Gogultha, or, according to Dru­sius, Gagultha; (though Mercer and Cevallerius say it is Gol­golta in the Syriack tongue) so the Greek and the Latine leave out the second [...], and reade it Golgotha. Now since none of the Evangelists have the exact Syriack word, and S. John saith, The place is called Golgotha in Hebrew; let Golgotha passe, not for a Syriack, but an Hebrew word, especially since the Syrians have an other word, by which they signifie a skull, viz. Kar­kaphto; and let us come up close to Heinsius.

If he could prove, that Cranion, a skull (being the word which all the Evangelists insist upon) is taken collectivé, for many skuls, in the Hebrew, Syriack, or by the Hellenists; if one skull could belong to many men; I would say his proof were sharp, and pointed: but since it is harsh to conceive, or to write, or say (not the places, but the place; not of skulls, but of a skull) the place of a skull of men (it being a very Solecism in the Hebrew, and the Syriack, in the Greek, whether sacred or profane, and indeed in all languages) I must take libertie to say, Heinsius his argu­ment is too weak and blunt, to hurt Nonnus; though we adde this his other exception, Quia in isto loco cra­nia fuerunt Adam, hoc est [...], ità dictus est locus. The place was called a skull, because mens skuls were there. I answer, Though many were there bu­ried, and many other skulls were there extant; (as in other Po­lyandriis, or Ossaries, Church-yards, or Charnell-houses) yet since Adam was there buried also, how followeth it, that the place was called so from the ignoble many, rather then from the first Adam.

To speak truely, Golgotha was not an ordinarie dormitorie; there were no caves for buriall, there were no places of sepul­chres. All malefactours, even amongst them at that time, were not there executed; onely some, for some offences: and all that there were executed, were not there interred; but some were re­moved to their private buriall-places. If from the multitude there congested, the place had its denomination; the three Evan­gelists (who have it [...], The place of a skull) might most easily, and, in likelihood, one of them would have varied it [...], The place of skulls: but because the Scripture is expresse, it was one single skull, from which the place was so called; and con­stant Tradition hath delivered, that Adam was there buried; and divers Ancients, besides Epiphanius, have both beleeved, and [Page 17]written, that Adams skull was there found; Nonnus had reason, in his paraphrase, to apply the Text unto Adam: neither is it a fable, errour, or absurditie. The Scripture saith, The place of a skull; Nonnus saith, with Antiquitie, The place of Adams skull; Heinsius saith, It was called Golgotha, or the place of a skull, from the skuls of many men there buried. Who hath most likelihood? Nonnus, or Heinsius?

6. M ^r George Sands, in the relation of his journey, pag. 163. reporteth, that on the left side of an altar, in mount Calvarie, there is a clift in the rock, in the which they say, that the head of Adam was found, and (as they will have it) there buried, (others say in Hebron) that his bones might be sprinkled with the reall bloud of our Saviour; which he knew should be shed in that place, by a propheticall fore-knowledge. And in the next page, he picturing out the chappels, and severall monuments, hath honoured that clift, where they say the head of Adam was found, with a locall de­lineation.

Now because it may be thought, that the floud did over­throw sepulchres, houses, and monuments, and Adams among the rest; Moses Barcepha, in his book de Paradiso, excellently secondeth Theophylact, and saith, That Noah, fore-knowing the floud, took into the ark with him, the bones of Adam; And (having tripartitely divided the world unto his three sonnes, saith Epiphanius in Anchorato, neare the end; all Asia even to Egypt, unto Sem; Africa unto Cham; Europe to Japheth) he gave to Sem, the head or skull of Adam, who, burying it in the old grave, called the place Calvaria.

Not farre from the beginning of the first book Oraculorum Sibyllinorum, Sibylla Babylonica saith, She was with her husband in the ark, at the generall undage, or cataclysme, which some do thus expound; that by Sibylla, is meant the Kabala; which is nothing els, but the constant belief, and knowledge of the Fa­thers, delivered by Tradition: so Kabala, or Sibylla might be in the ark at the universall inundation, and, in a sort, may be said to be married to Noah, or to Sem, with whom there remained (out of doubt) the most certain agraphall Traditions: and among those, this might be one, of the grave of Adam, and his head there, after the floud, buried. See Baronius ad Annum Christi 34. numero 112. & sequent. Lastly, S. Hierome is fully and exact­ly for us, Epist. 17 ad Marcellum.

7. The Romanes have a storie somewhat resembling this. Suffer a digression not unworthy your reading.

In Rome there was an hill, called first, Mons Saturninus, from Saturn who dwelt there, saith Terentius Varro, Dionysius, and Festus. Afterwards ‘A duce Tarpeio mons est cognomen adeptus,’ saith Propertius, lib. 4. ante medium: and was called Mons Tar­peius, [Page 18]from Tarpeia, a traiterous maid there killed, and (as it were) buried under the spoils. See Plinie, lib. 19.1. Properti­us there intimateth, that she expected marriage with Tatius, and specializeth his reply in disdain,

But Livie, confessing that by their armour she was smother­ed, reporteth two different relations. First, that she compound­ing with them to have what they wore on their left arms, (which were, according to the present fashion, bracelets of pure gold) they thought their promise quitted, by throwing to her, and on her, their targets. Others secondly say, she demanded their principall armour of defence, and thereupon suspecting that her intent was to deceive, they payed her in her own kinde, and by them killed her.

Thirdly, upon this accident it received its surname of Mons Capitolinus: Ludovicus Vives, on Augustine de Civit. 4.10. ci­teth Dionysius saying that it was called CAPITOLINUS, Ab humano capite in fundamentis reperto, From a mans head found in the foundation of it. Livius, towards the end of his first book, saith, That in the foundation of the temple there appeared a mans head, and his whole face sound and uncorrupt. Arno­bius, contra Gentes lib. 6. almost in the beginning, instructeth us at large, whose head this was: and from the ancient authori­ties of Sammonicus, Granius, Valerianus, and Fabius, decla­reth to the Romanes themselves, as well as to the other Gentiles, That there was one Tolus, slain by his brothers servant: that his head was cut off, and carefully hid for good lucks sake: that his grave or sepulchre was the Capitol: that the composition of the name, made the thing to be known: and that the citie of Rome, being to dedicate and name the temple, was not ashamed to call it, ex Toli capite, CA­PITOLIUM; rather then after Jupiters own name. And perhaps, upon a relation of the head found on mount Cal­varie, Adrian might cause Jerusalem to be called not onely Aelia-Adria, but also Capitolina, with reference to their hill and the head there buried also.

O Righteous Saviour, which didst shed thy most precious bloud on the Crosse, to purifie thy Church; let one drop of thy bloud distill upon my soul; that it may be presented blame­lesse at the Throne of Grace, and avoid the second death, which, without thee, is due unto me. Grant this (I humbly beseech thee) for thine own Merit and Mercy. Amen.

CHAP. VI.

1. ON the other side, and for the contrary opinion, the same Hierom, on Matth. 27.33. saith, Cal­varia signifieth not the sepulchre of the first man (Adam) but the place of those that were beheaded. Secondly, Adam was buried by Hebron, and Ar­bee, saith Hierom. Thirdly, the accurate Adrichomius, in verbo HEBRON, pag. 49. saith, Hebron or Chebron was first called Arbee, and Mambre, and Cariath-Arbee, the citie of foure men, because the foure Patriarchs, Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob there [Page 20]dwelt, and were buried. Franciscus Zimenes Archbishop of To­ledo, and many others accord with him. S. Hierom led them all the way; though awry: Hierom, in lib. de locis Hebraicis, on the word ARBOCH, thus, Corruptè in nostris codicibus Arboch scri­bitur, cùm in Hebraeo legatur Arbee, id est quatuor: [...]ò quòd ibi quatuor Patriarchae, Abraham, Isaac & Jacob sepulti sunt, & Adam magnus, ut in Jesu libro scriptum est; licèt eum quidam con­ditum in loco Calvariae suspicentur. It is corruptly written in our copies ARBOCH; since in the Hebrew it is read ARBEE, that is, Foure: because there the foure Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were buried, and the great Adam, as it is written in the book of Joshua; though some suppose Adam to be buried in Cal­varie. The same Adrichomius, pag. 46. describeth a double cave in the tribe of Judah; which cave, with the ground and trees, Abraham bought of the sonnes of Heth, in which were buried Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebec­ca, Jacob and Leah, which Mausoleum continued till the time of S. Hierom. Now this place was close by Hebron; and Hebron and this sepulchre farre from mount Calvarie; 250 stadia, or there-abouts. Lastly, saith Hierom, If any will strive that Christ was crucified in Calvarie, that his bloud might distill on the tombe of Adam; I will ask him, why others, even theeves were there crucified? The force of these authorities, or rea­sons, is not such, as to remove me from the common opinion, that Adam was buried in Golgotha. And thus I answer the Objections in order.

Bellarmine, de Amissione gratiae, & statu peccati, 3.12. bring­eth Hierom against Hierom, and wondreth at his doubling: and he refuteth Hieroms arguments; and produceth many strange proofs, that Adam was buried in mount Calvarie. But I descend to the particulars.

2. The first is, a mistaken imputation of S. Hierom. For who saith, or ever said, that the word Calvaria signified the sepulchre of the first man? Neither can any man primarily argue from the names of Golgotha, or Calvaria, and [...], or Calvariae locus, The place of a skull, that Adam was there bu­ried: nor yet doth Calvaria signifie locum decollatorum, though Hierom would have it so. But since Calvaria, [...], properly and natively, is truely translated a skull, the skull of a man; and GOLGOTHA, the place of a skull, Matth. 27.33. not of skuls, or beheaded men, in the plurall number, (for it is in the singular, in every of the Evangelists) and constant Tradition hath deli­vered, that Adam was there buried; we may conclude, not from the name to Adams buriall; but from the received opi­nion of Adams buriall in that place, unto the name; and may say, with divers Fathers, more then probably, It was termed Golgotha, or the place of a skull, with reference to Adams bu­riall, or his skull.

3. Secondly, S. Hierom groundeth his second reason on the sands, and offereth violence to the place of Scripture. Thus he readeth it, Josh. 14.15. Nomen Hebron antè vocaba­tur [Page 21]Cariath-Arbee; Adam maximus ibi inter Enacim situs est: He­bron was before called Cariath-Arbee; The first Adam was there placed among the Anakims. Whence he concludeth, That Adam was buried by Hebron and Arbee, and so not on mount Cal­varie: for they were many miles distant each from other.

I answer, that neither the Seventy nor Hebrew have, Ibi si­tus est. Secondly, what had Adam our Protoplast to do, or to be buried among the Anakims? Wiser Baronius in the place above-cited, misliking Hierom, makes the giants name in that place of Joshua, to be Adam: and not the first Adam to be one of the giants, or to be buried with them. Thirdly, both Hie­rom and Baronius are deceived, in thinking that Adam in that place is a proper name; for the words may, yea must runne thus according to the Hebrew, and is seconded by our later translation; The name of Hebron before, Kirjath-Arba, who was (or which Arba) was a great man, among the Anakims. Now it were non-sense to say, The name of Hebron, was the citie of foure, who was a great man among the Anakims: and as senselesse were it, Josh. 15.13. to reade it, Caleb had the citie of foure, the father of Anak: But taking Arba, for the proper name of a man, and the citie so called of him; the sense, reason, and truth are all ap­parent. A great man, of whom the citie was so called, saith Tremel­lius: Arba was the name of a great man among the giants, saith Aben Ezra: Homo maximus, saith Andrew Masius: The great­est and chiefest among the giants, saith Vatablus in his commen­tarie, and Emmanuel Sa in his notes on the place. This Arba was the father of Anak, Josh. 21.11. And the sonnes of Anak were gi­ants, and came of giants; and we were, (say the Israelites) in their and in our own sight as grashoppers, Num. 13.33. And this also re­flects an answer upon the third objection of Adrichomius, who though he be most accurate in other things, yet here he is a­sleep. For though Arbee signifie foure, when Arbee is not a pro­per name; and Kiriath-arbee may be rendered, The citie of foure; yet it may also signifie The citie of one Arba, or Arbee: and so Kiriath-Arbee in Hebrew is no more, then Arbepolis in Greek; so called of one Arbee, who was a man, The father of Anak, Josh. 21.11. as I proved before: as Persepolis, Adrianopolis, Con­stantinopolis, Alexandrinopolis in India (as Appian Alexandrinus hath it in his book of the Romane warres with the Syrians) and Alexandropolis, a citie of Parthia, as Plinius 6.25. varieth it. So Magnopolis, as Appian calleth one citie, in his book of the Romane warres with Mithridates; and Pompeiopolis, a citie of Cilicia: both of these so styled of Pompey the great: though the latter lost its name, and was after (at the best of the em­pire, and at its greatest growth) called TRAjANOPOLIS, be­cause Trajan died there, saith Solinus. So Claudiopolis, a citie of Cappadocia, Plin. 5.24. and Philippipolis, a citie in Arabia, [Page 22]so called of Philip the Emperour. All these cities, & many other (if it were worth the labour to recite them) had their deno­mination from men: likewise might Arbepolis be the citie of Arba. But why do I stand on potentialls, or may-bees, when Joshua at the chap. 15.13. calleth it [...], as the Septu­agint translates it? and Josh. 20.7. [...], where it is in the Hebrew, Arba. Sara died [...], Genes. 23.2. The citie of Arbock: where both Hebrew and English have Kiriath-Arba; and the Vulgat, In civitate Arbae, which is impossible to be rendred The citie of foure, in reference to the foure Patriarchs buriall: for both Abraham and Isaac were not buried, but alive then, and Jacob was not as yet born: yea the citie of Arba is called [...], Josh. 14.15. And they gave them [...], Josh. 21.11. she being the mother-citie; and therefore the villages about Kariath-Arbee, are called her daughters, Neh. 11.25.

4. Secondly, let us grant ex superabundanti, More then we need, that it is to be expounded in this place, Civitas quatuor, The citie of foure; yet it may be called the citie of foure memorable things that were there: as Kiriath-jearim, Josh. 15.60. or Ka­riath-jarim, as Adrichomius reades it, is, urbs sylvarum, a citie of woods; for so he expounds it pag. 22. and Cariath-sepher, Josh. 15.15. that is, (saith he on that word Dabir, pag. 133.) Civitas literarum di­cta, s [...] Ʋniversitas & Academia Palestinae. A citie of learning, an Ʋniversitie of Palestine. And he addeth, It was Valida & regia urbs da­ta sacerdeti [...]us. A strong and royall citie given to the priests. The name of KARIATH-jARIM, signifieth a citie of woods, saith Masius, on Josh. 9.17. and KARIATH-SEPHER is Literarum vel libre­rum urbs. A citie of Records, or Libraries: and so called, in all probabilitie, saith the said Masius, on Josh. 15.15. See his conjectures on the place. Yea, the other name of Kariath-sepher, to wit, Kariath-senna, is either so called, à spinis, from the thorns (which may grow a­mong the woods) as most do think; or if the letter [...] was set for [...], then the word hath reference to the disputations of learned men, as it is Deuter. 6.7. saith Masius. And the Seventy render it, in both places, [...], The citie of writings or letters. Howsoever, as one of the cities was so called from the woods, or thorns; the other, from the Academie there flourishing, or from the monuments and records there kept, as Masius would have it: So might Kariath-Arbee be so named, from some other foure eminent things. For many excellent monuments, most fa­mous in their kindes, were thereabouts: from some foure of which it might be named Kiriath-Arbee, Civitas quatuor rerum, The citie of foure things. The first was the Altar that Abram built there, Genes. 13.18. Which perchance made Absalom feigne a vow, to sacrifice in Hebron, at the altar of Abram, 2. Sam. 15.8. So the Seventy and Vatablus expound it. The se­cond may be that famous tree, which some call Ilex, An holm: others Quercus, An oak, which is favoured by the Originall, [Page 23]Gen. 18.1. and 8. vers. Hierom, Terebinthus, The Turpentine tree: Ʋnder which, saith Adrichomius, Abraham ministred to the An­gels; which continued till the time of Hierom; yea, saith Salignia­cus, Ostenditur adhuc ho­die ilex illa, ante ostium tabernaculi Abrahae. The holm is yet to be seen, before the entrance of the Tabernacle of Abraham. The old being dried, an other sprung out of its root. Now this Saligniacus lived but a while since. Besides, the Quer­cus Mambre, The oak of Mambre was so renowned, that Adricho­mius, in his map of the Tribe of Judah, hath the resemblance, and picture of an oak there growing. And Constantine appointed a fair Church to be built at the oak of Mambre, saith Eusebius in vita Constantini, 3.5. S. Hierom, de locis Hebraicis, thus, Quercus Abraham; quae & Mambre, us (que) ad Constantii Regis impe­rium monstrabatur: & Mausolcum ejus in prae­sentiari [...] cernitur. Cúm (que) à nobis jam ibidem Ec­clesia aedificata sit, à cunctis in circuitu genti­bus, Terebinthus super­stitiosè colitur, (or as others better reade it, Terebinthi locus co­litur) eò quòd Abraham sub ea Angelos hospitio susceperit. The oak of Abraham, called also the oak of Mambre, continued to the Empire of Constantine: and its monument is yet seen: And since we have built a Church in that place, all nations do reverence the place of the Turpentine tree, because under that did Abraham entertain Angels. The third may well be Spelunca Adam, the cave where Adam mourned. Fourthly, the very plot of ground, where Abel was slain, which is shewed to this day. Fifthly, the monument of Caleb. Sixthly, the field of Dama­scus, where the red earth lieth, of which they report Adam was formed; which earth is tough, and may be wrought like wax, and lieth close by Hebron; all the other things also being in the circuit neare that place. Seventhly, the Montana He­bron, Josh. 11.21. and the Vallis Hebron, Genes. 37.14. and the Convallis Mambre, as the Vulgat hath it significantly, Gen. 14.13. Convallis Mambre, quae est in Hebron, The dale of Mambre, sur­rounded with hills, which is in Hebron, Genes. 13.18. The un­parallelled eminencies of which hills and dales, for profit and pleasure, (the two main load-stones of the worlds desires) you may discern by what M ^r George Sands saith (if he do not poetize, or hyperbolize) in the third book of the relation of his journey, pag. 150. We passed this day (saith he) through the most pregnant and pleasant valley that ever eye beheld: on the right hand, a ridge of high hills, whereon stands Hebron, (oh how delicately situated!) on the left hand, the Mediterranean sea, bordered with continuall hills, beset with varietie of fruits: the champion between, about twentie miles over, full of flowry hills, ascending leisurely, and not much surmounting their ranker valleys: with groves of Olives, and other fruits dispersedly adorned. Eighthly and lastly, there were other things of singular note; Abrahams Church-yard, the field of Machpela, consecrated from heathenish profanation, to holier uses; and the cave, which was the place of his sepulchre. From some foure of these most reverend monuments, or the like, being but a little distant from Hebron, might the place be called Kariath-arbee, Civitas quatuor rerum, The citie of foure things.

5. Again, if that citie of Hebron were quadrata, as many cities then were, and now are, and with us Bristol amongst [Page 24]the rest (built of old by Brennus, as I have read in a manu­script of Edward the fourth his time) and renowned Rome (as some say, varying from Livie) which was first founded on the foure hills, Palatine, Capitoline, Esquiline, Aventine, (though afterward Servius Tullus enlarged it on the other three hills, Coelian, Viminal, and Quirinal) and answerable to which Romulus left (as they say) but foure gates, Carmentalis, Romana, Pandana, Janualis: though afterward there were many more gates belonging to that citie. You may finde this in a map of Rosinus, Antiq. Roman. lib. 1. cap. 13. describing the citie of Rome as it was built by Romulus; and afterwards made more great and capacious by the Kings. And Livie himself saith, That when Romulus divided the tribes or wards of the ci­tie into foure parts, he did it answerable to the quarters and hills of the citie. It being (I say) probable, that the citie of Hebron was quadrata, it might be called [...], and Kiriath-arbee, of [...], RABA, quadravit: from whence cometh [...], RABUA, or RABUANG, quadratum & quadrum; cujus latera quatuor longitu­dine & latitudine sunt aequalia, Whose foure sides are equall in length and latitude. As Exod. 27.1. Altare erit quadratum, The Altar shall be foure-square: from whence also cometh [...], AR­BA, quatuor. So from the foure-square building of the citie, it may be called Kiriath-arbee; as old Jerusalem, which was built foure-square on the foure hills, mount Sion, mount Moria, mount Acra, and mount Bezetha, saith the Translatour of the travels of the holy Patriarchs. As the new Jerusalem [...], Quadrangularis sita est, vel, In quadro posita est, Lieth foure-square, Apoc. 21.16. So that Kiriath-arbee, Civitas quatu­or, may be expounded, Civitas quadrilatera, quadrimembris, quadricollis, A citie of foure sides, foure parts, foure hills: for even so Rome is called Septicollis, The citie of seven hills. And Douza of late, and ancienter Nicetas, call Constantinople al­so [...], Ʋrbem septicollem, The citie of seven hills. And indeed, the same Translatour in his Itinerarium totius Sacrae Scri­pturae, pag. 85. thus reporteth, Others there are that say, the citie Hebron, being divided into foure parts, was therefore called [...] for ARBA signifieth a quaternion, from the root [...], RABA, Foure-square.

6. But grant we further, that Kiriath-arbee doth here signi­fie the citie of foure men: yet it followeth not, it was so cal­led because Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were these foure men. For Heth, the sonne of that cursed Canaan, whose posteritie (the Hittites) inhabited in it, first built the citie, saith he ibid. in his Itinerar. and Heth might be one of these foure men. Se­condly, it is said Gen. 35.27. Jacob came unto Mambre, unto the citie of Arbee, which is Hebron. Whence we may conclude, that the citie had three other names, of three other distinct men, [Page 25] viz. of Mambre, who was Abrahams friend and confederate, Genes. 14.13. of Arbee, a great giant (as I proved before) of Hebron, one of Calebs sonnes so called, 1. Chron. 2.42. But how in Jacobs time (or perhaps in Moses time, who wrote the book of Genesis) it might be called Hebron of Calebs unborn sonne, is difficult to conceive, unlesse by propheticall anticipation. Howsoever, Adrichomius saith word for word out of Hierom, Hebron, ab uno fili­orum caleb, sortita est vocabulum. Hebron was so called from one of the sonnes of Caleb. I should rather think, Caleb himself, well known to Moses, might be the fourth man, of whom the citie might be called Civitas quatuor hominum, The citie of foure men, if from men it had its denomination of Kiriath-arba: For Josuah gave unto Caleb, Hebron for an inheritance, Josh. 14.13. and because he drove thence the three famous giants, the grand-children of Arba, the sonnes of Anak; Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmi, Josh. 15.14. for Conquerours left their names unto the cities which they overcame, 2. Sam. 12.28. Neither is it unlikely, but Caleb might call his sonne Hebron, after the name of the citie bequeathed him, rather then the citie, after his sonnes name, especially, since there is mention of a citie Hebron before there is any mention of a man Hebron, or of Caleb himself.

Moreover, I reade of an other exposition given by Solo­mo Trecensis, that it might be called Civitas quatuor virorum, The citie of foure men, from Anak and his three monstrous be­fore-recited sonnes, who dwelt there. For both cities and lands have been called after the names of giants: as Ashtarosh, aliàs Hashtaroth, Aseroth, and Astaroth-Carnaim, and Car­naim-Astradoth in the confines of the land of Hus was a great citie, inhabited by giants called Carnaim, or Rephaim (and the place, saith Adrichomius, was called TERRA GIGAN­TUM) whom Chedorlaomer killed when in the time of Abra­ham he led an armie, and fought against the king of Sodom, Genes. 14.5. And there was a valley of giants not farre from the cave of Adullam, saith Vatablus on 2. Sam. 23.13. and the Seventie reade in that place, [...], In the cave or den of giants: and so both the Interlinearie and Genevans have it in the margine, which others reade in valle Rephaim. So much be said to shew it might be called Kiriath-arbee, from other foure men, and not from the foure Patriarchs, if from foure men it had its appellation.

7. Grant we yet once again, more then we need, that it was called Kiriath-arbee from foure Patriarchs, yea and from the buriall of foure Patriarchs in that place (which can ne­ver be proved;) yet it is not evinced, nor will follow necessa­rily, that Adam was one of these foure Patriarchs there bu­ried. S. Hierom, in Epitaph. sanct. Paulae, saith, Kiriath-arbee was Oppidum quatuor virorum. The town of foure men, of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the [Page 26]great Adam, whom the Jews say to be there buried, accor­ding to the book of Joshua; Though (saith he) Plerique Caleb quar­tum putant, cujus ex latere, memoria mon­stratur. most think Caleb was the fourth man, whose rib is a memoriall. And Adri­chomius himself makes the sepulchre of Caleb not farre from Hebron. The opinion of Adams being there buried, is father­ed on the Jews: the common Tenet was, that Caleb was the fourth man. Probabilitie also consorteth therewith: for if Adam had been there buried; as Abraham could not have been ignorant thereof, so he would, in that regard, have the rather bought that place, and perhaps would have given in­timation of it to the children of Heth. But as it should seem, Abraham stood indifferent at the first, and said onely, Give me a possession of a burying-place with you, Genes. 23.4. And when they offered him any of their sepulchres, he chose the cave of Machpelah. To conclude, the objection of Adri­chomius is thus answered: Kiriath-Arbee may signifie the ci­tie of Arbee; or the citie of foure things noted and memo­rable; or the citie of foure angles, sides, or parts; the citie sited on foure hills; and if it be to be interpreted, Civitas quatuor hominum, A citie of foure men, the foure men may be, Heth, Mambre, Arbe, and Caleb; or Anak and his three monstrous sonnes. Howsoever, the word proves not, that foure men were there buried: and if it proved so much, yet Adam was none of these foure; for Adam was not buried in Hebron, but in mount Calvarie, as I proved before to the full, and yet shall adde more by and by.

8. To the last and fourth objection of S. Hierom, being a demand, why others even theeves were there buried? I answer, Though Adam were there buried, yet what hindered, but it might be a fit place for malefactours to be executed, especially being on high, and without the walls of the citie? and both theeves might there suffer as in a place appointed for such use by the Magistrate; and Christ might there die, as appointed by the secret providence of God, beyond the reach of man, that the bloud of the second Adam might fall on the sepulchre of the first Adam, and other sinners: to signi­fie, that the water and bloud flowing from Christ, did purge even the greatest malefactours, Adam, and the notorious sonnes of Adam. Divinely saith S. Augustine, Serm. 72. detem­pore, Et verè fratres non incongruè creditur, quia ibi erectus sit Medicus, ubi jacebat Aegrotus: & diguum erat, ubi occide­rat humana superbia, ibi se inclinaret divina Mi­sericordia; ut sanguis ille pretiosus, etiam corpo­raliter puiverem anti­qui peccatoris dum di­guatur stillando contin­gere, redemisse credatur. Truely, brethren, with good reason we beleeve, that there the Physician was lifted up where the sick man lay: and it was well worthy that divine mercie should there stoop, where humane pride fell; that Christs precious bloud vouchsafing corporally to touch and moisten the ashes of old Adam, may be beleeved to redeem him.

To conclude, either the two learned women, Paula and Eustochium, or Hierom rather himself (whose style it seems to be) in Epist. 17. ad Marcellam, saith, In hoc tunc loco, & habitâsse dicitur, & mortuus esse Adam: unde & locus, in quo crucifixus est Dominus noster, CALVARIA appellatur; quòd ibi sit antiqui hominis Calva­ria condita, ut secundi Adam, id est, Christi sanguis, de Cruce stil­lans, primi Adam & ja­centis Protoplasti pec­cata dilueret. In this place then [Page 27]Adam both dwelt and died: From whence that place where our Lord was crucified is called CALVARIA; because there was buried the head of the old Adam, that the bloud of the second Adam, namely Christ, distilling from the crosse, might blot out the sinnes of the first-formed Adam, thereunder lying.

9. An objection more, Franciscus Lucas Brugensis toucheth at, against this opinion: namely, that if the Jews had known that Adams sepulchre was on that mount Calvarie, they would have had the place in farre greater esteem; they would have deckt it with some stately monument; and never have suffered the malefactours inordinately there to be executed. The former part of which objection, as I do strengthen by Matth. 23.29. Ye build the tombes of the Prophets, and garnish the tombes of the righteous, saith Christ to the Scribes and Phari­sees: so to it I answer thus; That there is not the least touch in Scripture, nor in any Authour, that I remember, that the Jews ever regarded or honoured Adam, or held him righte­ous, or gloried in him above others: nay, they thought ill of him, 2. Esdr. 3.21. &c. and 2. Esdr. 4.30. and finde fault with him 2. Esdr. 7.48. O thou Adam, what hast thou done? for though it was thou that sinned, thou art not fallen alone, but we all that come of thee. And a little before, namely verse 46. This is my first and last saying, that it had been better not to have given the earth unto Adam; or else when it was given him, to have restrain­ed him from sinning. Mark also the Antithesis used Ecclesia­sticus 49.16. Sem and Seth were in great honour among men; and so was Adam above every living thing in the creation: where he remarkably extolleth Sem and Seth; but praiseth Adams excellencie onely at the creation: And so Vatablus ex­pounds it. Howsoever, after his fall he was not so highly esteemed as others were. No more did the multitude shew any extraordinary estimate of Noah, though as Adam was the fruitfull root, the protoplast; so Noah was the restorer of mankinde, under God: For these were the founders as well of Gentiles as Jews. But Abraham, and the Patriarchs, and the Prophets since them, they reverenced above measure, for the extraordinary blessings vouchsafed by God unto the Jews above the Gentiles for their sakes, and in them, and by them. Now to such indeed their posteritie builded tombes, Matth. 23.30. though their fathers had killed some of them.

To the second part of the objection, Why they did suffer malefactours to be there punished; I answer, that it is a doubt undecided, whether the ordinary delinquents were put to death on mount Calvarie, before the Romanes overcame the Jews. If not, then patience perforce; they could not remedie it, if the other appointed it. If so, yet the Jews might be ignorant of Adams sepulchre: and how could they grace [Page 28]and beautifie his tombe, when they knew not where he lay? Again, what if I say, That like as Gods eternall decree and determinate counsel being, that Christ should die for our sinnes, the Jews and Gentiles, Priests, Scribes and Pharisees, yea the devils themselves were, for a while and a time, blinded, that they knew not, or would not know Christ to be the Messiah, though they had more evident miraculous proofs of his work­ing, then could be of a buriall-place, so long fore-passed, as Adams was; but put him to death, Act. 2.23. and chap. 3.17. So Gods eternall decree, that Christ should be crucified in the execution-place of malefactours, and in the place of A­dams sepulchre, being (perhaps) to this end, to manifest, that Christs bloud did wash and purge sinne originall, sinne actuall; Adam and notorious offenders, with all and all manner of per­sons; and all, and all kinde of sinnes; the people were also blinded, that either they did not know, or not respect the place of Adams buriall; especially since God often casts in their teeth Adams disobedience, and compared their sinnes to his; They, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant, Hos. 6.7. Where Drusius preferreth this reading with us, with Hierom, with Pagnine, and with Rabbi Solomon, the ordi­narie Interpreter of the Hebrews, before the reading of Ju­nius and Tremellius, and the Genevans. And Jerem. 32.19. Gods eyes were open to all the wayes of the sonnes of Adam. Which is also confirmed, Isa. 43.27. 2. Esdr. 7.11. Thus much in love of truth, against all opposites, with Pineda, for the common opinion of the Fathers, that Adam was buried on Golgotha. I adde, that if any of the Patriarchs arose bodily, Adam was one. For, upon other reasons hereafter to be shewen, I dare not be so assertive, as the Liturgies of divers Churches, and as divers Fathers, who are expresse, that Adam was raised from his grave. See them cited by the learned James Usher, Bishop of Meath, in his answer to a challenge made by a Je­suit, pag. 324. — which is the next point to be handled.

O Light inaccessible, O Ancient of dayes, O Fulnesse of knowledge, govern me walking in the paths of darknes, in things of old, in ambiguities and uncertainties of opinion, and keep me from singularitie of self-presuming; that I may keep the unitie of truth in the bond of peace, through him, who is both our Truth and our Peace, even Jesus Christ the Righteous. Amen.

CHAP. VII.

1. BUt the second part of Pineda his opini­on, on Job the 19.25. I cannot like, though he laboureth to prove it, partly by authoritie, partly by reason; That those many, who arose about the time of Christs Passion, ascended bodily into heaven with him. As Authours, he ci­teth Athanasius in his Sermon on the Passion and the Crosse, Origen, &c. That Adam was buried on Golgotha, Athanasius saith; but that Adam arose not long after Christs resurrection, I cannot finde in him, or cited by any other out of him. As for Origen his second Authour, in the same Tractate cited by Pineda, he maketh directly against him: for he maintain­eth from Tradition, that the first Adam was buried where Christ was crucified: that as in Adam all die, so in Christ all should be made alive: that in the place of a skull, the head of mankinde (namely Adam) Resurrectionem inveniat cum po­pulo universo, Should partake of the generall resurrection, by the resurrection of our Lord and Saviour, who there suffered and rose again. But the last and best Authour, the divine S. Au­gustine, is palpably and apparently falsified: for he hath no such word in the quoted place. Lastly, the reason that Pi­neda alledgeth is shallow, That Adam who heard the sentence of death, should presently be partaker of the resurrection by him, and with him, who had satisfied for the sinne. What likelihood is there of inference or coherence? I dare say, not one of the Fathers cited at large by Baronius, Salianus, and Maldonate, to prove that Adam was buried in Golgotha, do [Page 30]give the least touch at this reason of Pineda; but many other ends of Adams being there buried do they muster up.

2. And the Jesuite Pineda, either knew it not, or forgot it, or sleeked it over, as little imagining we should have notice that the cheating priests, who kept the sepulchre, and the Church built over it, at Jerusalem, did shew to the devout Christians a skull, which they said was the skull of Adam: of which, they said also, the mountain was called Golgotha, as saith the eye and eare-witnesse, M ^r. Fines Morison, in his first part, 3. book, 2. chap. pag. 230. and pag. 233. Thus, according to them, Adam either arose not hitherto; or arose without a head, at least without his skull; or with an other mans head: which three latter wayes destroy the truth of the resurrecti­on. Therefore he arose not at all as yet. Lastly, should we grant that Adam did bodily arise with Christ; yet hath Pi­neda neither Authour nor reason, that Adam ascended with Christ into heaven (as I said before) which is the main point now in question. Thus much (if not too much) touching Adam.

3. Eve also arose, saith Dionysius Carthusianus on Matth. 27. but voucheth no authoritie, nor produceth any reason, or probabilitie: and therefore I passe it over the more slightly; adding onely this, that in the Original it is not, [...], but [...] so that except [...] be understood, either no wo­men arose, or more then one or two; though Pineda men­tioneth not one woman; and Carthusian, but onely and soly Eve. But why Eve should rather arise, then Sarah, or the mother of Moses, who were singled out for famous Heroinae, Hebr. 11. or other Prophetisses, in the Old and New Testa­ment, as old Anna, and the like, I see no reason: or that Eve in her raised bodie, should be translated into heaven, and not Adam her husband, nor Abraham, nor David, is both foolish and fabulous. This have I said, as supposing the words to be understood of women alone, as indeed they are not; nor pro­bably can they be applied to women mixt with men, so far as any likelihood could present it self to the great conjecturer Pineda, who would have balked none of them.

4. Abraham arose, saith Pineda on Job 19. and annexeth this colour, because Abraham rejoyced to see Christs day, and saw it, and was glad, John 8.56. I answer, Whatsoever is meant by these words of the Text, My day: either Christs Godhead; which Abraham saw, Quia mysterium Tri­nitatis agnovit. Because he acknowledged the mysterie of the Trinitie, saith S. Augustine: Or the day of Christs nativitie; which Abraham might have notice of in his life time, by supernaturall inspirations; and then did remember, being dead; and desired that day (for, separated souls have both remem­brance and appetite intellectuall, as I shall evidence hereafter:) [Page 31]Or it may be, Abraham being in blisse, might first know it, by divine illumination, so soon as the day came; and thereupon rejoyced, as the Angel did; and the heavenly host, Luke 2.13. of which host, Abraham might be one: for, even the souls of men are also called [...], Revel. 19.14. saith Gregory, Moral. 31.12. In the foresaid place of Luke mention is made of an Angel and the heavenly host; whereas, if onely Angels were the heavenly host, it might have been onely said, The Angels: or onely, The heavenly host: but, The Angel and the heavenly host may give us cause to think, that there were some of the heavenly host, which were not An­gels; though Angels onely be mentioned. If so; humane souls were part of that quire: and then Abraham, in likelihood, was one of them. Now, as the chief Angel, like a chaunter, began the Evangelisme of Christs birth; so might it be answered by the heavenly host; viz. (as is probable) partly by the Angels singing Glory to God in the highest; partly by Abraham, and the souls of men, concluding the Anthem, On earth peace, good will toward men. I say, Whatsoever is meant by the words My day, they cannot be expounded of Christs resurrection.

Some there are, who interpret My day, of the time of Christs passion; whom Maldonate justly misliketh, because (saith he) it is added, ABRAHAM SAW IT, AND REJOYCED: but then, when Christ said these words, Abraham could not see Christs passion, be­cause it was not yet come. I may say the same or more, against Pineda, who will have it expounded of the day of Christs resurrection: for, Christ speaketh of the day that was past, he did see it, he was glad, and rejoyced: so that day was ended, when Christ said this: but Christs resurrection was not accom­plished, when he uttered these words: therefore they cannot be understood of Christs resurrection. And if they were so to be interpreted, yet it is not written, Abraham arose, or A­braham was partaker with Christ, or Abraham ascended bodily into heaven (this being the issue, which we joyned, in this controversie:) but, Abraham rejoyced, he saw it, and was glad: which words differ farre from Pineda his ridiculous interpre­tation.

5. An other, which rose at the same time, was Isaac (saith Pi­neda, ibid.) for he was a parable of the resurrection; and this was done, to recompense the fear (which possessed Isaac) of being slain, when he represented Christ.

To this puncto I answer; Pineda himself will not say, that e­very one, who was a parable, or pledge of the resurrection, or who figured it, was raised; as Samson from his sleep, arising in strength, and carrying away the gates of Azzah, in type of Christ, who brought away the gates both of death and hell: or those, who were raised by the Prophets, or by Christ himself, or [Page 32]the like; for he mentioneth none of these. Secondly, what proof, what consequence, what shadow of truth is there, that Isaac his fear, which was past (he being dead one thousand seven hundred yeares before) should just now be recompensed, and recompensed by being raised to a temporall life? which was a poore reward, if he ascended not into heaven: which Pineda proveth not, nor can prove. Lastly, though it be truth it self, that Jacob sware by the fear of his father Isaac, Genes. 31.53. yet it is not meant, as Pineda fancieth, the fear that Isaac was in, when he was to be offered. For (I suppose) he knew by Abra­ham, that it was Gods especiall appointment; and that he also willingly offered himself; and might think (as Abraham did) that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, Hebr. 11.19. that in his voluntarie condescent, and free-will-offering, he might be a type of Christ, who layed down his life, John 10.17. But the fear of Isaac was either the filial fear, by which Isaac reverenced & worshipped God, (as Aben Ezra and Cajetan say) or the pious and humane fear, wherewith Jacob revered his father Isaac: or rathest of all, Fear is here taken for the object of fear, Metonymi­cally, for God himself: as it is also taken, Esa. 8.13. Let God be your fear; let God be your dread; as Cornelius Cornelii à lapide hath ob­served, after Augustine, and divers others: for, not Isaac his fright, or Jacob his pietie, is to be sworn by, but God, Deuter. 6.13.

O God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the living, and not of the dead; I beseech thee, make me to die to my self, and live to thee; through him, whom the Fathers look­ed for, and whose day Abraham rejoyced to see, even Jesus Christ, thy onely Sonne, my alone Saviour. Amen.

CHAP. VIII.

1. JAcob then also arose, saith Pineda in the same place; since he had a great care of translating his bones, out of Egypt, into the land of Canaan, Genes. 49.29. By the same reason, the Jesuit might have argued, that Joseph then also arose: for he had the like care of his bones, Genes. 50.25. yea a greater care: for he took a strict oath (Exod. 13.19.) of the children of Israel, for the performance of his desire; whereas Jacob put Joseph onely to the oath; and concerning the rest of his chil­dren, it was but a fatherly command. Yet Pineda skippeth over Joseph, who was a lively parable and figure of Christ in most things; as being the best beloved of his father; as being sent to look to his brethren; as hated of them and sold by them, and put into the pit; as thrust into the dungeon; as being innocent, and falsly accused; as being taken out of the pit, Genes. 37.28. and out of the dungeon, Genes. 41.14. as raised, and raised to be next to Pharaoh himself; as being worshipped by his brethren; as having the double portion of the first-born; as a mediatour for his brethren, and a preserver of them in the time of need.

2. But the truth is, neither Jacob, nor Joseph ever desired the removal of their bones, in that regard, which Pineda aimeth at: and never any (that I could reade) but he, and the Authour of the scholasticall historie, Quaest. 100 in Genes. averre so much: it being against reason; for then the Patriarchs would have caused their bones to have been translated to Jerusalem, being the right way from Hebron to Calvarie; or to mount Calvarie itself. But Jacob was buried by Hebron, thirtie miles, or there­about, from Golgotha; and Joseph was buried in the Tribe of Ephraim, and not of Judah. Now as they were to passe from the land of Goshen to Sychem, they must passe not farre from Hebron; and from thence neare to Jerusalem; and leaving Jerusa­lem, and mount Calvarie but a little, the way was to Sychem, in the Tribe of Ephraim. Therefore, if they desired to be translated, in hope of such a resurrection with Christ, (as Pineda wildely imagineth) they would never have carried their bones close by mount Calvarie, and so beyond it; but there would [Page 34]have deposited them: nor would have transported them to Sy­chem, which was about as farre beyond the sepulchre of the first and second Adam, as Hebron, the buriall-place of Abra­ham, Isaac, and Jacob, was short of mount Calvarie. Their aim was to be buried in the land of Canaan, as the land of pro­mise, as the figure of heaven, as the ground which their Fathers bought and payd for, and were interred in. I will lie with my Fathers, and thou shalt carrie me out of Egypt, and bury me in their burying-place, saith Jacob, Genes. 47.30. and bury me with my Fathers, Genes. 49.29. saith the same Jacob. Besides, if with reference to Christ his resurrection, and in hope to be then and there raised by him and with him, they removed their bones into Canaan; it was to be neare to Christs rising-place, and to save part of the long journey from Goshen to Golgotha. But this can be no reason; for Job arose, saith Pineda: but he was buried in the land of Hus, in Arabia, not neare unto Calvarie, though not so farre indeed as Goshen. And Moses died in the wildernesse; and Daniel in the captivitie of Babylon; which was farther off, then the land of Goshen, from Christs sepulchre, by almost five hundred miles; and yet Daniel and Moses arose also, saith Pineda. And Noah died hard by mount Ararat in Arme­nia, 600 miles North-ward from Jerusalem, or thereabout: yet Noah also arose, saith Pineda. Now, why could not Jacob and Joseph be raised, and come a shorter way, from Goshen to Jeru­salem, then Daniel or Noah could a longer way? And to beat Pineda with his own words, Nunquid lassitudine viae deterrerentur & fatigarentur, qui im­mortali vitâ potieban­tur; ut venire ex regi­one longin qua opportunè non possent? Were they terrified or wearied with the tediousnesse of the way, who enjoyed an immortall life; that they could not come fitly from so remote a region? Or, can they be truelier said to come into a place, into the holy citie, that come from neare, then they that come from farre? This Pineda alledgeth, to prove that the graves of Saints opened afarre off, as well as at Jerusa­lem: Therefore say I, What need they care to have their bones brought neare to Golgotha, to that end and purpose?

3 Concerning Joseph, he was first buried on an high ground, upon a little branch of Nilus, in a citie now called EL-FIUM (saith John Leo, upon report, in his eighth book of the historie of Africa) and Moses digged up his bones. Secondly, it is said ex­presly, Josh. 24.32. the children of Israel buried his bones in Sy­chem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sonnes of Hemor, the father of Sychem, for an hundred pieces of silver; and it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph. On which place, Masius inquiring, why holy men should so earnestly contend to be bu­ried in Canaan, answereth himself, Ʋt apud sucrum po­pularium animos, fidem promissis Dei firma­rent, qualem nè mors quidem cripere potuisset. To confirm their countrie-mens mindes by the promises of God, with such a faith, as death should not take away. Whereunto I adde the place of the Apostle, Heb. 11.22. By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his [Page 35]bones; making the removing of his bones, and the memoriall thereof, a divine prognostick, that they should come forth of the Egyptian captivitie or slaverie, and enjoy the land, promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; of which their bones, and their wives bones, before-hand did, and Joseph his bones should take seizen and possession. Kimki saith (and Masius likes it) that Jacob gave to Joseph that place of buriall, because he being, as it were, the Parent, Monitour, and Guide of his brethren, should be wholly alienated from Egyptian affairs, to think of the land of promise. And since Masius taxeth the Jews for thinking, that they who were buried in Canaan should first arise; he would have laughed at Pineda, if he had read in him, that a Pa­triarch caused his bones to be translated, in hope to be raised within a while of Christs resurrection. Solenne autem fuit priscis illis Patribus, ut quisque in suam inferre­retur possessionem. Each of those Fathers were solemnly brought into their own possession (saith the same Masius:) which is thus confirmed, because Abraham did bury Sara in his own possession, Genes. 23.19, 20. Isaac and Ishmael buried Abraham in the field which Abraham purchased of the sonnes of Heth, Genes. 25.9, 10. And to summe up the rest, In the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, (the purchased cave and field) which is before Mambre, was buried Abraham and Sara, Isaac and Rebeka, Jacob and Lea, Genes. 49.30, 31. The distance of which cave or field from Calvarie, I gathered before, from Adrichomius, to be 250 Stadia; which, upon allowance of eight Stadia to one Mile, amounteth to one and thirty miles, and a quarter: from which account S. Augustine differeth but little, considering the various reckoning of miles, with the di­verse measurings of beginnings and endings: for, Augustine, Quaest. sup. Genes. lib. 1. quaest. 161. thus reporteth, Dicunt, ab eo loco, quod ABRAHEMIUM vo­catur, ubi sunt ista cor­pora, abesse locum, ubi crucifixus est Dominus, ferè triginta milliari­bus. From the place called Abrahemium, or Abrahams church-yard, where are these bodies, (namely of Abraham and Sara, Isaac and Rebeka, Jacob and Leah) to the place where our Lord was crucified, there is almost thirty miles distance. Now, as the sepulchre of the three Pa­triarchs was thus farre from Jerusalem, South-west-ward; so Sychem, where Joseph his bones were buried, was farther from Jerusalem, toward the North.

4 One difficultie more there is, and a great one: I may not passe it; for the length will be recompensed by the sweetnesse. Acts 7.15, 16. Jacob, and our fathers died, and were carried over unto Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a summe of money of the sonnes of Emor the father of Sychem. Which passage seemeth to contradict what out of other parts of Scripture I proved concerning the Patriarchs sepulchre.

That this is a knot hard to be untied, all confesse: S. Hierom promised in his 101 Epist. to clear it, saith Lorinus: And in his Questions on Genes. saith Beza: but he hath not performed his promise, say both of them, on Acts 7. Nodum nectit Hieroni­mus, [Page 36]nec eum dissolvit, saith Erasmus: And I onely propound it, saith he, that the studious reader may be stirred up to discusse it. But this is a shallow slurre, unfit for so great a Critick; for many had done so much before, and more then so. I come to the point.

That there are invented many wayes, and means of answer­ing, cannot be denied: but some are vast and improbable; some more fair and expedite. The absurd answers are two. The first, That the Originall is there corrupt; and that, for Abra­ham, Jacob is to be written and read; I say, not meant, expound­ed, or interpreted, but exchanged, and intruded into the Text; and that, [...], should be expunged, as needlesse; it being with equall ignorance and boldnesse, added by one or other, saith Andrew Masius on Josh. 24.32. With Masius agreeth Beza in this, that the name of Abraham is crept into the Text; adding, that the erring, in notes of number, or proper names, must not be ascribed to the Authours; but to the ignorant transcribers. But I say, that the erring in a proper name, or notes of number, may breed as great and unsufferable confusion, unlikelihood, incon­venience, yea untruth, as the errour in any other common word. And why the errours in proper names should be ascribed to ignorant transcribers, rather then errours in other words; or that the holy Spirit doth priviledge other words, and not pro­per names, or numbers, from being mistaken, misplaced, mis­added, or superadded in the Text, I see not.

Aretius bluntly blundereth it out, that you must understand Jacob for Abraham: yet by what example, or for what reason, he mentioneth not: but stumbleth on a truth; of which hereafter.

Drusius, Praeterit. lib. 5. on the words Quod emit Abraham, hath yet some shew of reason. It seemeth (saith he) it was some­times written, EMIT IPSE, that is JACOB, into whose place the name of ABRAHAM is crept.

5. Beza defends it by two parallels: the first out of Hierom, who in his book de optimo genere interpretandi, ad Pammachium, noteth, that the name of Isaiah was crept into many copies, on Matth. 13.35. that afterward, the name of Asaph was sub­stituted for Isaiah; and now neither of them is there read.

I answer to the misapplied instances of Beza, that I cannot abide to hunt after errours in the Scripture, and to cast asper­sions on it. To question the corruption of the Canon, to passe our judgements, whether the square or rule be right or crooked, to put into the Text, or to take from it, as some Philologizing Neotericks endeavour in their super-nice criticisme, is to tear up the very foundation of religion. Whilest other answers may be found, though but probable, I should not have such a thought, as Beza had, on Luk. 24.13. where he acknowledgeth, both the Syriack, and all our Copies have it [...], Sexaginta, [Page 37]Threescore; and the exact truth is accordant to that reading: for Emaus is seven miles from Jerusalem, as M ^r Sands (who rode from Jerusalem to Emaus) witnesseth, pag. 174. and threescore Stadia (allowing eight Stadia to a mile) make seven miles and an half; which halfe-mile, upon diversitie of measures, or the beginning of measuring, or ends thereof, maketh small dif­ference. Yet Beza saith, Aut hîc peccatum est in numero, aut apud Josephum, de Bello Judaico 7.27. non rectè scribuntur stadia triginta. The more favourable phrase should have been by Beza ascri­bed rather to the Scripture, then to Josephus. Or can we think, that all Copies do erre? He maketh us fight upon the ice, and to have no firm footing. Why should he use the first part of the disjunction, when he might better distinguish, and so re­concile all? Likewise Beza, on Luke 22.20. confessing the uni­formitie of reading, both in the Syriack, and all the Greek Copies which he had seen; yet addeth boldly, Aut manifestum est soloecophanes,—aut potiùs, cùm haec essent ad marginem annotata ex Matthaeo, & Marco, postea in Contextum irrepserunt. Now, though he would sleek it over afterwards, saying, Potest excu­sari soloecismus, &c. yet the wound, which he gave to the Word of Truth is too deep, to be so healed; and the very plaister is offensive: for he committed a soloecisme, who looking on the earth, cried out, O Coelum! and casting his eyes up to heaven; cried, O Terra! Had the Reverend Beza no handsomer word for his plaister? might he not have defended it, by the He­brew Idiotisme, without calling it a Soloecisme? Soloecophanes might have well been spared: but Soloecismus is not to be en­dured.

Much more might be said: but I dwell unwillingly on this point; and return to the first place of Matth. 13.35. and say, Who ever denyed, but that some Copies have been corrupted? and in some of them, some words foisted in? but all Greek, all Latine Copies, with the Arabick and Syriack translations, reade Abraham, and not Jacob: Whereas some Copies were al­wayes perfect, in that place of Matthew. Now, if you grant corruption in any point, or title, in all the Greek, and all the Latine Copies; how will you prove any part or word of the New Testament to be uncorrupt? Which razeth up the very Corner-stone of our Faith.

M ^r Beza again objecteth, that the name of Jeremie is written for Zacharie, Matth. 27.9. I answer, that the Authour of the book of Maccabees, giveth us to understand, that Jeremie wrote other things, which now we have not, 2. Maccab. 2.1. and so did divers of the Prophets: and why may not this be then taken from some of those works, which are perished? Secondly, S. Hierome saith, a Jew brought him an Apocry­phall book of Jeremie, in which he found this testimonie, [Page 38]word for word; and this book was called APOCRYPHA, or OC­CULTA JEREMIAE, The Apocryphals or hid writings of Jeremie, saith Erasmus on Matth. 27. As what S. Paul saith of Jannes and Jambres, 2. Tim. 3.8. and what S. Jude saith of Michael the Archangel, striving with the Devil, is thought to be taken out of the books Apocryphall: so might this testimonie be cited also out of Jeremies Apocryphals. Thirdly, Erasmus sup­poseth, that Zacharie had two names, and was called both Zacharie and Jeremie; and so no inconvenience followeth. Fourthly, not onely the Syriack leaves out the name of Jeremie, but even in Augustines time, the name of Jeremie was not in many Latine Copies, as Augustine himself testifieth, de Con­sensu Evangelistarum lib. 3. cap. 7. The ordinarie glosse also saith, that in some editions, it is onely thus, By the Prophet, and the name of Jeremie is left unmentioned. Fifthly, Augustine in the last recited place of his, resolveth, that the Divine pro­vidence purposely set down Jeremie for Zacharie; and what the holy Spirit did dictate, S. Matthew did truely write. And one reason why the Spirit of God confounded the names of Jeremie and Zacharie, was this, saith Augustine; To insinuate, that all the Pro­phets wrote by one Spirit, and wonderfully consented in one; and therefore we must beleeve that Quacunque per eos Sp [...]itus Sanctus dixit, & singula esse omnium, & omnia singulorum. What the holy Ghost spake by them is not to be appropriated unto any one, but to all and every of them. What was said by Jeremie, was as well Zacharies, as Jeremies; and what was said by Zacharie, was as well Jeremies as Zacharies. God spake, not by the MOUTHS; but, by the MOUTH of all his holy Prophets, since the world began, Act. 3.21. and they had but one Spirit to guide them into all truth. The Prophesie of Amos, is called The book of the Prophets, Acts 7.42. and the Word of God, which in divers places is called, in the plurall number, Scriptures, (as John 5.39. [...], Search the Scriptures) is also oftentimes called, in the singular number, The Scripture: as John 2.22. they beleeved the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. Beleef was to rest, as well on his Word onely, without Scripture, as on Scripture, though he had said nothing: and the word Scripture is not to be restrain­ed onely to that place of Scripture before pointed at; but to the whole Word of God written, which they beleeved. The Scripture hath concluded all under sinne, Gal. 3.22. where not one single place onely, but either common places of that point, or the whole bodie of the Scripture is to be understood. A few words of a Psalme of David, is called by Christ himself, The law of the Jews; It is written in their law, They hated me with­out a cause, John 15.25. which is onely so written, Psal. 35.19. Again, he saith to the Jews, John 10.34. Is it not written in your Law, I have said, ye are Gods? but it is written so onely, Psal. 83.6. Yea, though one and the same thing in effect be [Page 39]written, both Isa. 28.16. and Psal. 118.22. as also Matth 21.42. and Acts 4.12. yet S. Peter reckoneth all, but as one; All, but one Scripture, though severally written by these foure: It is contained in the Scripture, (saith he) 1. Pet. 2.6. in the singular number; he mentioneth Scripture, as if what one wrote the rest wrote. S. Peter saith not, It is contained in the Word, with re­ference to one Spirit inditing or inspiring, (though that might have also been truely spoken) but contained in the Scripture, with relation to the unity and consent of the Pen-men. Lastly, the words of the Evangelist are these, Matth. 27.9. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Prophet Jeremie, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver; [...], effa­tum Jeremiae, dicentis, That which was spoken by Jeremie, saying, &c. Now Jeremiae might say it, speak it, dictate it, which is most true, and is all that S. Matthew saith; who by the Spirit might also know, that Jeremie did teach, preach, prophesie, and utter these words: and yet for all this, and after all this, Zacharie by the same Spirit might write, transcribe, and insert those words of Jeremie into his own Prophesie (which S. Matthew denieth not) as Baruch wrote divers things which he had heard from Jeremie; as Agur collected some Proverbs of Solomon. Again, there was no necessitie that all things whatsoever Jeremie, as a Prophet, did speak, Jerem. 36.2. he himself or Baruch should write, much lesse presently: since there were many yeares between Jeremie his speaking and his writing; for Enoch prophesied, as it is in the 14. verse of the Epist. of S. Jude; but he prophesi­ed, Saying, &c. as it is there written: for writing was none, till God set the Copie unto Moses, by writing the Law in the Tables on the mount.

Again, S. Paul (Act. 24.35.) remembreth the words of our Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give, then to re­ceive: yet none of the Evangelists record such words: but this might the Apostles relate unto S. Paul; or by divine inspirati­on he might know that Christ spake them; or they might be part of the words which Christ himself spake unto S. Paul: for there is no certaintie, that they were written. S. John the Evangelist was commanded to conceal, and not to write, the words of the seven thunders, Revel. 10.4. If he had wholly concealed such a thing, we could not know it: he spake it, but wrote it not. Jeremie might speak this, and not write it; or write it, and not speak it. Any of these answers is better, then to incline to Beza, that the Text is erroneous, or patched up with a false addition; or to Erasmus, on Matth. 27. intimating, there was lapsus memoriae in Evangelistis: howsoever he quali­fieth it; That, if there were memoriae lapsus, in Nomine duntaxat, he did think no man should be so morose, nosy, and stern, as thence to question the authoritie of the whole Scriptures. [Page 38] [...] [Page 39] [...] [Page 40]But his opinion is justly exploded as hypercritically nice, and Julius Scaligers whip here fetcheth bloud of Erasmus, Maxi­mus esse potuisset, si minor esse voluisset: He diminisheth himself, by taking upon him to be a censor of the Scripture. Nihil partu­riens, continuò parit omnia, saith a Papist of Erasmus.

6. Wiser S. Augustine, in Epist. 19. ad Hieronymum, thus; Ego solis cis Scriptu­rarum libris, qui jam Canonici appellantur, ti­morem hunc, & honorē didici deferre, ut nullum corum autorem scri­bendo aliquid errâsse firmissimè credam. I have learned to give that reverence and honour onely to those books of Scripture which are called Canonicall, that I most fully be­leeve, no writer thereof erred any Iota. But if there were a fail of their memory, they did somewhat erre, whatsoever Erasmus should seem to suggest; who would have taken it in fume, if the Friers his opposites had said, there had been in his books lapsus me­moriae, A fail of memorie. S. Augustine is constant to himself, and to the truth: for again he saith, concerning the Evangelists, Omnem falsitatem abesse ab iis decet, non solum eam quae menti­endo promitur, sed eam etiam quae obliviscendo. The Evangelists must be so farre from lying, that they must not fall into an untruth of forgetfulnesse. S. Cyril. lib. 6. in Levitic. toward the end of his book, ascending from one particular, saith of the whole Scripture, divinely inspired, Quid dicemus? Ob­livionem dabimus in verbis Spiritus Sancti? What shall we say? shall we grant forgetfulnesse in the words of the holy Ghost? And he answereth his own question, in generall, Non audeo hoc de sa­cri [...] sentire sermonibus. I dare not think so of the sacred Text.

7. Yea, but saith Masius, The Syriack translation proves, that this place is faulty: for the Syriack Copies have it thus, Jacob was trans­lated into Sychem, and laid in the grave that Abraham bought for money of the sonnes of Hemor. Junius his Syriack accordeth with Masius; and on that place Junius thus, The Syriack Interpre­ter either used a diverse Copie, or his own judgement and authoritie. Lastly, the Arabick translation, as it is set out by Junius, read­eth it correspondently to the Syriack: and Junius on the Text, in the Arabick translation, preferreth the Arabick and Syriack reading before the Greek; and the meaning of the Arabick and Syriack is this, That Jacob being dead, was carried into the field of the Sychemites; the Egyptians accompanying Joseph, and the Israelites; where septemdialis luctus, Seven dayes mourning was made; and after the mourning he was carried again from Sychem to Hebron, to be buried with Abraham. This is wittily invented, (saith Beza) yet not to be admitted. And indeed, Junius himself in his Parallels retracts it: and Chorographie sheweth, it is no wittie invention. For Hebron lieth between Goshen and Sychem: now that they should carry him from Goshen, even almost through Hebron, it is not likely. Where­fore, to conclude, neither be the Arabick or Syriack Copies of authoritie enough to confront the Greek (for the Greek was not translated out of them, but they out of the Greek) neither may we yeeld, that either the Evangelists did labi me­moriâ, fail in their memories; or that generally, in any place, all the Greek and Latine Copies are corrupted. If it had been a [Page 41]literall errour (as Genes. 3.15. the Vulgat readeth ipsa, for ipse or ipsum; or Dei, for diëi, in Epist. Jude, vers. 6. or lapides seculi, for lapides sacculi, Proverb. 16.11. or viduam ejus, for victum ejus, Psal. 132.15. or fontem, for fortem, Psal. 42.2.) we would yeeld it was the fault of the transcriber: but to admit such a corruption, wherein is no similitude of letters, and in all Co­pies, both Greek and Latine, I cannot like, though more Au­thours, then Masius, Beza, Drusius, or Erasmus, did joyn hand in hand to justifie it.

O Infinite Spirit, unsearchable, yet searching all things; Omnipotent, yet unable to lie or be untrue; who never didst lead into errour thy holy Instruments, nor sufferedst the Pen-men of thy sacred Scripture to take thy Dictates amisse; I humbly beseech thee to inspire me with knowledge and zeal, to vindicate thy heavenly Word, and the most blessed Writers thereof, from imputed corruption, mistaking, or obliviousnesse. Grant this, at the Mediation of my onely Lord and Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Amen.

CHAP. IX.

1 THus then, the constant and uniform ac­cordance of the Greek and Latine Copies being held for Authenticall and Canoni­call, and all manner of corruption and generall aberration in any one letter be­ing wholly removed; there is invented a second way of answer, grosse and ab­surd; which I dislike as ill, if not worse then the former. A defender of it is Melchior Canus, de Locis Theologicis, lib. 2. cap. 18. toward the end of that book and chapter. For he would seem to gather from Beda and Rabanus, That it happened to Steven, as to other common people; namely, that in a long narra­tion, especially if it be sudden, he hath mingled and confounded some things, In quibusdam etiam memoriâ lapsus fuerit. And forgot himself in some things, to wit, in such things as belonged little or nothing to the purpose: for he was busily musing, and intent upon the main matter. But (saith he) S. Luke writing the historie, changed not one jot, but writ as Steven spoke. Now we need not defend Steven from all errour and fault (saith he) but we must quit the Evangelist. For onely the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, did never labi memoriâ, or erre in any matter, great or small; other men did. His proofs are these.

Jephthah in Judges 11.26. pretendeth 300 yeares possession, when they were not so many: and the divine Pen-man or Histo­riographer, writeth as Jephthah pretended; and established not the truth of the thing it self.

I answer, that Salianus, in his Annales, Anno Mundi 2849, ma­keth [Page 43]one account, wherein the time of the Israelites coming out of Egypt, to the instant of Jephthahs arguing, is 377 yeares: and from the death of Sihon king of the Amorites, 337 yeares. But the truth is, (if we will hit the exact number) both Sa­lianus and Tremellius, and many others say, That from the coming out of Egypt, and from the giving of the Law, unto this present controversie of Jephthah with the King of the Amorites, there were 305, or 306 yeares expired. And Tre­mellius well observeth, that Jephthah began his narration from their coming forth of Egypt, vers. 16. Therefore thence beginneth the number, and the reckoning. Now the shortning of an account, is an usuall Ellipsis, both in Scripture, and in other Authours. The 70 Interpreters are cited for 72. Among the Romanes, the Centum-viri consisted of one hundred and five men. Judges 20.46. all which fell of Benjamin that day, were 25000. yet there fell that day 100 more, vers. 35. So 2. Sam. 5.5. the account is shortened by six moneths lesse then was set down in the precedent verse; it being Synecdoche frequent, ad rotunditatem nume­ri. A frequent Synecdoche, to make a round and smooth reckoning, saith Tremel­lius. If any shall yet contend, that Jephthah saith expresly, v. 26. Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns; and in Aroer and her towns; and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, 300 yeares; Peter Martyr on the place answereth, That the Scripture-ac­count often followeth the greater number. Now because the yeares from Sihons death, were nearer 300. then 200. Jephthah reckoneth not the refract, but the whole number; and accounteth them 300 yeares, as inclining to the greater number. For Sihon was overcome, and slain the last yeare of Moses his life; being to the present debate, 266 yeares, saith Abu­lensis; 267, saith Lyranus; 270 yeares, saith Peter Martyr. If Peter Martyrs answer be sleighted, I adde, that the perfection of Scriptures stands not so strictly on exactnesse of number, but that it puts a certain number for an uncertain. Instances are obvious. So, while we plead too much for number, we shall, as S. Augustine saith, forget, or neglect, both weight and measure. Lastly, grant that Jephthah either mistook, or mispleaded the yeares, in a braving fashion; and say, that the holy Ghost hath penned, not what was truth in it self, but what Jephthah al­ledged erroneously, or covetously, for his prescription (for Jephthah had more then one errour:) yet, it followeth not, that S. Steven was deceived; for he was full of the holy Ghost, when he spake this, Act. 7.55. and before he spake this, he was full of faith, and of the holy Ghost, Act. 6.5. Full of faith and power, vers. 8. and they that disputed with Steven, were not able to resist the wisdome and the Spirit, by which he spake, v. 10. Therefore he spake wisely, truely, and by the Spirit, as well as S. Luke wrote by the Spirit; and neither of them could in this [Page 44]passage erre, though Jephthah be held a man of imperfections.

2. Secondly, saith Canus, the Evangelist hath it, Matth. 2.6. That IT IS WRITTEN BY THE PROPHET, AND THOU BETHLEHEM, IN THE LAND OF JUDAH, ART NOT THE LEAST AMONG THE PRINCES OF JUDAH, when it is not so written by the prophet; who saith, Micah 5.2. BUT THOU BETH­LEHEM EUPHRATA, THOUGH THOU BE LITTLE AMONG THE THOUSANDS OF JUDAH; the sense being very different, almost contrary. In which place S. Matthew reports the words, not as they are in Micah; but as the chief Priests and Scribes recited them to Herod. Quod testimonium nec Hebraico textui, nec 70 Interpretibus convenire, me quoque tacente, perspicuum est. Which testimonie (saith Hierome on Micah 5.2.) agreeth neither with the Hebrew, nor the Seventie; as is plain, though I say nothing. Then followeth his opinion, Arbitror, Matthae­um volentem arguere Scribarum & Sacerdo­tum erga divinae Scri­pturae lectionem negli­gentiam, sic etiam posu­isse, ut ab iis dictum est. I think that S. Matthew being willing to reprove the negligence of the Scribes and Priests, toward the reading of holy Scriptures, related the words, as they were cited by them. So that though the Scribes and Pharisees were blinde, and, seeing the Prophet through a vail, took one thing for an other; and though the Evangelist purposely reciteth their mistaking, that we might discern the fault of these ill guides, and ignorant teachers, yet it no way followeth, that S. Steven did erre, or was mistaken, or that S. Luke misreported the words of S. Steven. But enough of this, to testifie my dislike of the second opinion, and of such, who excusing the Greek Text from corruption, (wherein I wonderfully applaud them) do impute an errour and slip unto the holy, powerfull, gracefull, truth-speaking, and dying Protomartyr, S. Steven (which I cannot endure in them.) And certes, both these former rejected opinions are built on a false ground, and idlely do presuppose, that there is no reall historicall truth in the words, as they are in the Greek, and in the Latine Text. But truth there is, and though truth lie deep hid, as in a well (said he of old;) yet, by Gods help, we shall winde her up, and draw her above ground, that every eye may see her, though we have many turnings.

3. Which that I may the better accomplish, I must straggle awhile after two most learned men, Cardinall Cusanus, and Daniel Heinsius; especially Heinsius; whom when I have over­taken, and wrung and wonne from him some holds, which are offensive to the majestie of sacred Scripture, then shall I re­turn, and descend to the most difficult place of Acts 7.16, &c.

The learned worthie Heinsius (whom I name not without honour, though I dissent from him) in his Exercitations upon Nonnus, and in the Prolegomena, beats out certain paths, which never any on the earth trode upon, before him; pag. 27. making the Hellenisticall language to be the best interpreter of the Hebrew and Chaldee; and the Hebrew and Chaldee, interchangeably, the best interpreters of it.

Before all his words or my answer be recited, I think fit to premise these things:

First, If Heinsius mean onely to extoll the knowledge of the Hellenisticall language, and of the Chaldee and Syriack; I assent unto him: nor shall any man, in right, ascribe more to the holy mother of them all, and of all other languages, the primitive Hebrew, the language of God (when he spake au­dibly) and of Angels, unto men, then I will. Yet the purest gold may be over-valued, and the very shekel of the Sanctuarie thought heavier then it is. And indeed I should be loath to say, what the most learned Cardinall Cusanus hath written in his Compendium, cap. 3. pag. 240. Nec absurdum vide­tur, si creditur, primam dicendi artē adeò fuisse copiosam, ex multis Syn­onymis, quòd omnes postea linguae divisae in ipsa continebātur. Omnes enim linguae humanae sunt ex prima illa pa­rentis nostri, Alae sci­licet hommis, lingua. Et sicut non est lingua quam homo non intelli­git; ità & Adam (qui idē quod bomo) nullam, si audiret, ignoraret. Ipse enim vocabula legitur imposuisse; ideo nullum cujusque linguae vocabu­lum ab alio fuit origi­naliter institutum. Nec de Adam mirandum, cùm certum sit, dono Dei, multos linguarum omnium peritiam subitò habuisse. It is not absurd to beleeve, that the first art of speaking was so copious, and full of many Synonymaes, that all the afterward-divided tongues were in it contained: For all languages are derived from our first parent Adams language. And as there is not a tongue which man understandeth not; so even Adam (who was no other then a man) could understand any lan­guage if he heard it: For he was the [...], who imposed names upon the creatures; and therefore no word of any other language was originally instituted by any other. Neither are we to wonder at this in Adam, when it is certain, that by the gift of God many have suddenly obtained, and speedily were inspired with the skill and knowledge of all languages. So farre Cusanus.

That there is no language under heaven, but hath some words retaining the foot-steps of the Hebrew, I beleeve; and in the languages which I understand, I can demonstrate: but that A­dam could understand all languages now spoken, if he had heard them, is not credible. When God confounded their language, Genes. 11.7. &c. the language of all the earth, he did it to this end, that they might not understand one anothers speech. The confusion was not of inventing of new letters, vowels, and consonants; for they are still the same: and if there were seventie two languages, as say the Ancient, Hierom, Augustine, Prosper, Epiphanius; or but fiftie five, (as our Modern writers conjecture) answerable to their families, Genes. 10. yea two thousand foure hundred languages more; they might all be ut­tered by the first two and twenty letters: Nor was it onely such a confusion, as when the sweet singing of the nightingales is undistinguishable through the obstreperousnesse of gagling geese, and chattering daws. For if at the beginning of that confusion every one had spoken to another articulately and distinctly, alternis vicibus; they could not have understood, what either said; though afterward by use, each familie under­stood themselves, as we may dumbe men. But the confusion consisted in this, That God took away from all, save the fami­ly of Heber, the habituall, or actuall knowledge of the He­brew tongue; emptying the treasuries of their memories, both [Page 46]sensitive and intellective, from all and every old note, impres­sion, character, figure, or species.

Secondly, when by an universall [...], or oblivion, he had drowned or blotted out all former conceptions; he prompted readily unto them new forms, and furnished their intellectualls with new notions; which the pliable obedience of the tongue (at first not knowing what it said) uttered in new words and languages; by the transposition and trans-changing, adding or diminishing of a letter, or letters. See Avenarius, drawing almost all Greek; and our Minshaw, many languages from the Hebrew. But if they retained the same syllable, and the same word; yet in one language it signified one thing, and in another, another thing; as sus signifieth, in the Hebrew, an horse; with the Flaunderkins, silence; among the Latines, an hogge: as Cor­nelius à Lapide hath observed. Nor think I, that Noah (who lived at the confusion of Babel; and was born within sevenscore yeares of Adams death) could understand all their languages, without much commerce, studie, or divine revelation. Besides all this, all ages have made and framed new words; nor is any time to be blamed,

it was lawfull, and is yet, — dabitúrque licentia sumpta pudenter, It shall be lawfull, so it be done modestly without enforcement, saith Horace, De arte Poetica. And though there were but few yeares, about half a mans age, between the first and second Punick warre; yet the articles of peace made at the end of the first warre, were hardly understood at the second, as may be ga­thered from Polybius. What speak I of words, when new languages have sprung up, more then ever were at the confusion of Babel? If God at the overthrow of Babel coyned or stamp­ed the Greek; and if Adam could have understood it; were all its dialects distinguished, or no? and the Hellenisticall Greek, or Grecanick language? (that I may use some of Heinsius his words.) And if those were then spoken, and then intelligible; was the now common corrupt Greek misformed? or could Adam understand that, which Plato or Aristotle would sweat to expound? If the Teutonick were then spoken; was the Sa­xon, English, Scotish, &c. (the derivatives from it, as Ver­stegan and others will have it) then in use? If the Latine was framed in Babel; was it the first old blunt Latine, or the refined? If the refined; was the Valachian, Italian, Spanish, French, (the Provinciall tongues of Rome, if I may so call them) at that time spoken? I could be plentifull herein. But I passe unto the objections of Cusanus, which shall receive this satisfaction in order.

Object. 1. The first art of humane speech was copious by many Synonymaes.

I answer, The Hebrew had but few Synonymaes, few pri­mitive Radixes, in comparison of other languages; many words signifying contrary things, every one divers things: nor did Adam speak any but Hebrew, nor needed he know any more. Cicero cried out of old, O inops verborum Graecia! O word-wanting Greece! and much more Judea, say I.

Object. 2. All languages came from the Hebrew which Adam spake.

I confesse it, quoad fundamenta sermonum, id est, quoad lite­ras. There were no new letters stamped or added to the first: but the tongues themselves came after divers descents: so that many languages now in use may acknowledge other mothers; though even those mothers were grand-children, or daughters of the Hebrew: neither of which, by reason of the long tract of time, and the insensible degrees of their growing, could know one another, if they could meet.

Object. 3. As there is no language but some man understandeth, so there is no language but Adam, who signifieth a man, could un­derstand if he heard.

I answer, The word Adam is homonymous, and the simi­litude unlike, and disjoynted.

Object. 4. But Adam imposed names on all things: therefore no man else originally invented any other name.

I answer, He saith true, if he confine his meaning to the He­brew, to that Origo originans. But that Adam called Cheese, Coise; or Cattell, Catalla; or a Chappel, Capella; a learned man should not think.

Object. 5. Oh, but some, by Gods gift, had the knowledge of all tongues: then wonder not if Adam had.

I answer, They had the gift of all tongues then necessarie to be spoken or understood; perchance of all tongues then in being: that as when people inclined to idolatrie, the diversitie of tongues was introduced; so when they were to be recon­ciled to Christ, the cloven tongues sitting on the Apostles, might finde a remedie for that diversitie, by the gift of lan­guages. Yet saith Aquinas, 2 ^a.2 ^ae. quaest. 176. art. 1. ad 1. Instructi fuerunt di­vinitus in linguit omni­um gentium, quantum requirebatur ad fidei do­ctrinam, &c. The Apostles were taught from heaven the languages of all nations, so farre forth as was requisite for the doctrine of faith; but for points of elegancie, the Apostles were onely skilfull in their own tongue. As in wisdome and knowledge they were sufficiently instructed, so farre as the doctrine of faith required; but they were not furnished (saith he) with acquisite knowledge, or conclusions Arithmeti­call, or Geometricall. Thus farre Aquinas. But that they under­stood or spake tongues which since have sprung up, is not like­ly: no more did Adam.

That Adam could have done it by Gods miraculous power, I confesse: that he could out-weather any meer man by his na­turall gifts, I beleeve: what he could have done by labour or studie in a little time, if he had heard or read any language, I will not question; since man hath found out the language of Hieroglyphicks; and the tongue of characters hath been read; and if you place constantly severall things in the room of severall letters, a dog for A, a tooth for B, a lion for C, and the like; a little practise will discover the true meaning. But my controversie with Cusanus is, What Adam could do suddenly, naturally, and ordinarily, if he heard our mongrell Neoterick languages. He is for the affirmative, That Adam understood them, or could understand them. I am for the negative.

4. But I must return to Heinsius, with whom I will ac­knowledge, that the Orientall languages are of infinite worth, most necessarie to be studied, exacting as much labour and pains before they be gained, as they afford delight and pro­fit spirituall when they are obtained; yea, I heartily wish, that even the learned would not presume to interpret the harder places of Scripture, unlesse they be furnished with knowledge in the Eastern tongues: much lesse should the igno­rant Laicks expound it. Those beasts ought not to touch this mountain.

That I may omit many memorable passages concerning the Old Testament; I say, that an unusuall splendour from the Syriack, hath fully inlightned many places of the New Te­stament, which lay in darknesse. View two instances.

5. What was the meaning of Anathema Maranatha, 1. Cor. 16.22. was long unknown, long sought after in vain; as being impossible to be found in the Greek or Latine languages, how copious soever: in the end, it was traced to be an Idio­tisme of the Syriack; and a phrase borrowed from the usance and practise of the Jews: for their politie had three sorts of Ex­communication. The first called Niddui, which regularly was a separation for thirty dayes: during which time, the excom­municated person must keep himself foure cubits aloof from all men and women in all places. The Evangelist seemeth to touch at this, when he recordeth the Constitution of the Jews; that, if any confessed Christ, [...], extra Synagogam fieret, He should be put out of the Synagogue, as the last Translation well expounds it, Joh. 9.22.

The second, and heavier degree was called Cherem; in the Greek [...] in the Latine, by the Livian phrase, Devotorius; by the Cesarean, Devotus. It were easie to mention some, who have vowed-away themselves, as that resolute young Ro­mane Knight, Marcus Curtius, (see it in Livie lib. 6.) and the [Page 49] soldurii (from whence in likelihood cometh the name of souldiers) in Cesars commentaries conditionally devoted.

Also, at severall times and places, divers others, both ca­ptives and natives, have been dedicated to the infernall deities. To which, in the spirituall censure of Christian Excommuni­cation, there is some allusion, where S. Paul delivered Hyme­neus and Alexander unto Satan, 1. Tim. 1.20. and 1. Cor. 5.5. where he likewise decreed the like sentence against the ince­stuous Corinthian.

The third and highest step in this Excommunication, is cal­led Anathema Maranatha, [...] for so some reade it in the Greek; also most of the Latine Bibles make it all one word, Maranatha; others, Maranata, saith Cornelius à Lapide. What it did signifie, Diu doctos Theole­gos torsit. the learned Divines long and much endeavoured to know: and all much laboured to finde the fountain and origination of that Anathema, saith Bertram in the Preface on his compa­rison of the Hebrew and Aramean Grammar. Elias, in Thisb. saith, MARA signifieth DOMINUS; and so the letter [...], is paragogicall: And it may be read, DOMINUS VENIT, The Lord cometh, saith Peter Martyr. Likewise for the language, Some (saith he) think it is Ʋna dictio Syriaca. one Syriack word. Vox Hebraeo-Syriaca. Half Hebrew half Sy­riack, as Cornelius à Lapide hath it. Magis Syrum est quàm Hebraeum. It is more Syriack then Hebrew, saith Hierom, Epist. 137. ad Marcel. Tametsi ex confinio utrarumque linguarum aliquid & Hebraeum so­net. Though (as he ad­deth) it somewhat sounds like Hebrew, by the nearenesse and proxi­mitie of those languages. In the perfect Hebrew, Marenuatha, is, Dominus noster venit, Our Lord cometh. ATHA is used Deut. 33.2. [...], Et venit. That MAR, MARA, or MARAN, is used for Dominus, till after the Babylonish captivitie, I reade not. What in the Hebrew is MORE, in the Chaldee is MAR; MAR Dominus; MARA or MARIA, Domina. Some Christians of the East at this day call their Prelates MAR-ABRAHAM, MAR-JOSEPH, saith Cornelius à Lapide. Yea, the whole sen­tence is Chaldaick (if ye beleeve the learned Estius:) at large, MARANA-ATHA; contracted, MARAN-ATHA. He also hath a wittie relation, That the Jews, before Christs coming, were wont ordinarily to have this word in their mouths, Maran, in expectancie of Christ the Lord; and on every occasion with re­ference to him, MARAN, Our Lord, He will come, he cometh; MARAN, MARAN. But after Christ was born indeed, and God took on him our nature, and many Jews beleeved; when­soever the unbeleeving brethren still cried their old MARAN, as if the Messiah were not come; the beleevers answered, ATHA, to their MARAN; MARAN-ATHA, Our Lord is come: which because the other would not beleeve, they were called Marani, and Maranitae, from their iterated Maran, and rejecting of Maran-atha.

Baronius in fine Anni 775. reporteth from Mariana, in his Spanish storie, 7.6. That a gift was given to a Monasterie; and the violatour of that donation, jubetur esse Anathema, Mar­rano, & Excommunicatus. Where the word is not taken (as some suspect) à Mauris, from the Moors; because most of them (in Italie) renounced their Christianitie in the dayes of Fre­derick Enobarbus; for he reigned 360 yeares, and more, after that gift: but rather, it is to be borrowed from the Syriack, MA­RAN-ATHA, saith Mariana, commended by Baronius.

The consideration of which curse and excommunication, strikes horrour to my soul, in compassion of those who have raised their houses out of the ruines of things sacred with such dreadfull imprecations, and feed themselves fat with revenews properly belonging to the Altar. If man had not cursed such sacrilegious infringers, God would: but Founders have blast­ed them with lightning and thunder from heaven. What saith King Stephen in confirmation of his gift to the Priorie of Eye in Suffolk, cited by M. Selden in his Historie of Tithes, cap. 11. pag. 350? Quicunque aliquid de his quae in hac charta continentur, auferre, aut minuere, aut disturbare scienter voluerit; auto­ritate Domini Omni­petentis, Patris, & Fi­lii, & Spiritûs Sancti, & sanctorum Apostolo­rum, & omnium San­ctorum, sit excommuni­catus, anathematizatus, & à consortio Domini, & liminibus Sanctae Ecclesiae sequestratus, donec resipiscat. Whosoever shall willingly and wittingly take away, diminish, or disturb any one of all these things which are con­tained in this Charter: By the authoritie of God Omnipotent, the Fa­ther, Sonne, and holy Ghost, and of all the Apostles and Saints, let him be excommunicated and anathematized, and sequestred from the companie of the Lord, and not be admitted into the Church till he repent. By which words he intended to terrifie succession, and to keep them from sacriledge. Let the world know that there are many, and, as it falleth out now, too many such direfull execrations annexed by holy Benefactours, to eternize their gifts: And as that good King said of himself, That he was Volens partem habe­re cum iis qui felici commercio coelestia pro terrenis commutant. Willing to partake with them who by an happie commerce ex­change earth for heaven: So I fear, that the sacrilegious Usurpers have indeed exchanged Heaven for Mammon; and I pray to God that such devout and deliberate maledictions hang not over their posteritie to this day, nor may extend beyond the first Atheisticall cormorants.

The same M. Selden in his book called Marmora Arundellia­na, pag. 65. mentioneth a Christian inscription which (as he conjectureth) both prayed to the most holy Mother of God for such as were Benefactours to a Monasterie; and cursed them who did it any damage, with the imprecations of di­vers holy men; wishing, that whosoever did so, might in the day of judgement have against him for an adversarie the same most holy Mother of God. These things I have related out of that most learned Antiquarie, my worthy friend M. Selden, rather then the like out of other Authours; because I would not have either Clergie or Laitie conceit of him (as full many do) that he intended as great a devastation to our tithes [Page 51]consecrated by God and to God, by a double Jus divinum, as ever the Black-smiths sonne brought upon Religious houses; or that he was the instrument of ungracious Politicians; or his book the trumpet to animate the armies of the destroy­ers against the pitifull poore remnants of our Church, not enough (forsooth) as yet reformed; that is, not enough beg­garly: though some poison in that book hath already wrought so piercingly upon us, that our hair is fallen from our heads, and our nails from our fingers, as needing no more paring; and in the cases of our tithes we are shaved and cut worse then the messengers of peace, 2. Sam. 10.4. Yet saith M. Selden himself in his Review, pag. 471. The many execrations annexed to the deeds of conveyance of them, and poured forth against such as should divert them to profane uses, should be also thought on: Not onely thought on, say I, but trembled at, till the houre of restitution. And let them remember also who saith, That it is a destruction for a man to devoure what is consecrated, Prov. 20.25. which destruction is damnation; not cared for by our de­vouring Esaus, if they may fill their bellies with our hallow­ed morsels; as appeared in those whirl-winde-dayes of Henrie the eighth, and would have appeared since, if God had not ruled the heart of religious King James, of most happie me­morie, and of our sacred Soveraigne (to whom we of the Clergie do more especially pray God to send all happinesse, equall to his desires on earth, and a more glorious estate among blessed Saints, then he hath now among men) to keep the commandments of their and our God, above any worldly benefit.

I must return back to Maran-atha; whose composition is thus, as Martyr opineth. The first part of it, is the Noun MARA: the second is an affix of the possessive Pronoun, of the first person, with the number of multitude, making MA­RA to be MARAN: the third particle and the close is the Verb ATHA, venit. Moreover, concerning the tense of the Verb there is question. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact reade it in tempore praeterito, [...], Our Lord is come; with whom agree Hierom and Estius: others will have it to be the present tense; speaking as if he did come presently, because he shall come certainly; and because none can say, he shall not come at this present. This tense Cornelius à Lapide approveth, on this consideration, because the Jews condemn­ing any were wont to do so, under the commination and con­testation of the instant divine judgement, as Psal. 9.19. Arise, O Lord,—let the heathen be judged in thy sight: or rather, saith Lapide, it may be in the Optative, MARAN-ATHA, Veniat Do­minus: howsoever he is peremptorie, that it is a cold exposi­tion which applieth the words to the Preterperfect tense, [Page 52]and the meaning to the first coming of Christ.

Let me adde, that whether the word be read in the Present tense in the Indicative, or in the Optative mood, Venit, or, ve­niat; He cometh, or let him come; it pointeth not at the past, but at the future coming of Christ. Yea, Jude 14. (where the word [...] is used) our Translation hath it, The Lord cometh; and the words immediately following, make it to have appa­rent, and undeniable reference to the last judgement. Nor were the words Maran-atha taken from Moses, Deut. 33.2. though he saith, The Lord came with 11000 of Saints: where is a great similitude of some particulars; for there is related what passed at the deliverie of the Law; and neither Mara nor Maran is mentioned; but rather by the semblance of words we may think Moses alluded to the prophesie of Enoch, which long after this S. Jude citeth expresly, as prophesying of fu­ture punishment to be inflicted for the breach of the Law. And indeed Ambrose well expounds our Maran-atha of the se­cond coming of Christ: so Clemens Romanus, Epist. 2. in fine. Augustine Epist. 178 thus, Anathema, condemnatus, Maran-atha, definiunt, Donec Dominus redeat; Condemned till the Lord return to judgement.

Most true it is, Maran-atha is added, to exaggerate the power of the Execration, and that it is a form of Execration: so was it in the intent of the Donor in Mariana. The Talmudists say, it signifieth one delivered into the hand of the Tormentour, by the judgement of the Lord himself. Answerable it is in sense, to the words in the 17. Chapter of the 6. Councel of Toledo; Perpetuò Anathemate damnetur. May he be perpetually anathematized: and Chapter 18. Anathemate divino perculsus, absque uilo re­medii loco habeatur damnatus aeterno judi­cio. Being stricken thorough with the divine curse, without all hope of remedy let him be esteemed damned by the eternall judgement. Therefore indeed foolish were they, who thought Anathema Maran-atha, to be a kinde of oath; as if S. Paul adjured them, by the coming of Christ; yet so some held, saith Peter Martyr. More foolish was Cornelius a Lapide the Jesuit, who on the place confessing the words to be Ʋerba execrantis, & denuntiantis aeternam damnationem, imò ver­ba condemnantis. Words of imprecation, of commination of the eter­nall damnation; yea words of condemnation: acknowledging also, that Maran-atha, is Anathema, like to Hasschammata, being usually contracted to Schammata, which was generally known to be an excommunication of an high form; adding also, that Maranus est idem, quod [...], excom­municatus ob apostasi­am. Maranus and a man excommunicate for apostasie are Synonymaes: yet for all these things, by himself avouched, saith expresly, Non sunt verba ex­communicantis. They are not words of one that excommunicateth. But indeed they are words of an excommunication, taken from the minatorie prophesie of Enoch, recited by S. Jude, verse 14. The Lord co­meth; Indè ergò nemo non videt deductam illam Anathematis ratio­nem, & ex primis illius Anathematis verbis, minùs aliàs ad alia alia­rum sententiarum initia usitatis, Anathema ip­sum de more Hebraeo­rum appellatum fuisse. From thence therefore every man seeeth that Anathema is de­duced, and that according to the Hebrew guise it is called Ana­thema, from the beginning or first words of that curse: which words [Page 53]are otherwise lesse used to the beginnings of other sentences, saith the learned Bertram. Maran-atha is Extremum genus ex­communicationis apud Hebraees. The highest and greatest degree of excommunication among the Jews, saith Drusius in his Henoch, pag. 29. who addeth, concerning the Apocryphall books of Henoch, that the Jews say, they have them yet, to this day. From whence it is likely, both that the Jews took their form of excommunication, and from the first words of the curse, Maran-atha, might denominate the intire Anathema, Maran-atha: as from the beginnings of writs, or from the principall words, many of our Common-law-writs are so called aswell as the decrees of Popes.

Nor let any object the unlikelihood, that this Anathema is taken from Enochs prophesie, because S. Jude hath it not, like Maran-atha, [...], but [...]. I answer, that neither He­brew, nor Syriack, nor our English, so well endure the placing of the Verb before the Noun, as the Greek doth; but follow­eth naturally the naturall sequele of the words: and not onely when Enoch spake it, but when S. Jude first wrote in the Sy­riack (if in it he wrote) that was Maran-atha, what after, by the Spirit was changed into [...] and the meaning is all one; whether it be [...], or [...], the Noun must be construed before the Verb, The Lord cometh, Maran-atha. This excommuni­cation S. Paul briefly and in two words reciteth, as an usance of the Jewish Synagogue; and fit to be introduced into the Chri­stian Temples, and exercised in Ecclesiasticall discipline. So much of that.

An other instance is in Act. 3.21. What is in the Latine and Greek full of Amphibologie, diversely, at divers editions, ren­dered by Beza and others, is plain, & radiant in the Syriack; [...], Quem oportet quidē coelum recipere, saith the vulgat; The sentence is altogether doubtfull both in Greek and Latine, saith Bellarmine, Tom. 1. pag. 409. whether Jesus suscipiat coelum, or coelum Jesum, as Cajetan openeth the case. Now the Syriack, translated by Tremellius, hath it, Quem oportet coeli capiant; Quem necesse est coelis ut capiant, as it is varied by the skilfull Linguist Bertram; Quem oportet coelum ut capiat, saith the Arabick; all running to the second exposition, that the heavens must contain Christ.

Which words being firm against the Ubiquitaries, they inter­pret Coelum, not properly, but figuratively, for the glorie, reigne, and majestie of God. Alioqui enim, si sermo esset de loco, dictum es­set, Quem oportet coelo recipi. For otherwise, if he had meant the place of Heaven, it would have been said, Who must be received into Heaven: So Illyricus, in lib. de Ascensione Christi. But Illyricus must not teach the holy Ghost how to speak; nor be offended, if the All-wise Divine Spirit use an Amphibolous phrase in the Greek, which is cleared by the more Eastern tongues. In my opinion, he might rather have said, that, perhaps, by Heaven [Page 54]GOD is meant; both because our blessed Saviours last words were, Luke 23.46. Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit; which most certainly was received into the hands of his Father in heaven; as also, for that not onely the word Coeli, in the plu­rall number, is taken for God; according to the use of the Aramaeans and also of the Jews; as appeareth in the record containing the jointure and dowrie which Rabbi Moses made to Clarora, the daughter of Rabbi David, explained by Ber­tram, at the end of his Aramaean and Hebrew Grammar; where the Bridegroom saith (among other things) Esio mihi in uxorem, juxta legem Mosit & Israel; & ego, ex verbo Coelorum, colam, hono­rabo, alam & regam te. Be thou a wife to me according to the law of Moses and Israel: and I according to Gods commandment will worship, honour, keep & govern thee: somewhat according, as in our marriages, the husband promiseth to wor­ship, comfort, honour, and keep his wife: save onely that the Jew did promise to govern his wife, which we leave out: which is also consonant to the authentick Hebrew, Daniel 4.26. Dominantes Coeli, or Coeli dominentur, The Heavens do rule, as it is in our late Translation; that is, God in the Heavens doth rule: But also because (the Jews, in reverence and fear, avoiding the naming of Jehova, and calling him, among many other attri­butes, Coelum) our Saviour representing in this historicall para­ble the person of a young penitent Jew, speaketh as the Jew would, and placeth the word Heaven in the singular number for GOD. Luke 15.18. Father, I have sinned against Heaven. Likewise Matth. 21.25. The baptisme of John, whence was it? from Heaven, or of men? it is not from Heaven, or from Earth; but from Heaven, or of men; not a place, but persons are to be un­derstood; and in Heaven, rather God then Angels: and if likelihood lead us to expound it of Angels (as it doth not) yet those Angels represented God, and were so called in his stead. And thus we will passe from this point.

6. The second thing, fit to be premised, is this. If Heinsius mean onely, that there are divers words, phrases, and sen­tences in the Greek Testament, which never were coyned, stamped, or allowed in Athens, as free-denizons of Greece; but are borrowed, and translated from the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriack; no man will oppose him; and the exemplifying of it were easie and delightfull, if I had not made too large excur­sions before, in a matter not much differing from this: But when he saith, They who were Jews by birth or generation, and withall did both know and speak Greek, may be called Helle­nists; and that these Hellenists, writing in Greek, much differed in language from the Heathen Grecians: As I deny it not in the generall; so some Jews there were, who, being wonderous­ly well versed in the Greek, wrote in Greek most politely: whence Philo judaeus was said to Platonize; and Josephus is styled by Baronius, The Greek Livius.

Thirdly, if Heinsius had onely said, that S. John saw the Hellenists; that S. John might have seen the paraphrase of Onkelos; that the Chaldee Metaphrase Sanctissimo Joanni pluri­mis in locis placuit; that S. John ad Chaldaicam saepe allusit inter­pretationem; quâ Judaei Asiatici, ut olim, ità nunc utuntur; all which he saith pag. 61. I would onely have wished to see his proofs.

Fourthly, if Heinsius mean, that the Hellenists onely, who were not inspired from God, conceived in one tongue, what they did write; and wrote in another, what they conceived; I will subscribe; and adde, that whatsoever they did speak in Greek, they first had the notions of it in Syriack; and thence did, as it were, translate their speech, or writings; even (per­haps) Philo, and Josephus, and such as trafficked much with Greece, and Greeks: unlesse among the Jews there might be such a case, as was of Lord Michael de Mountaigne, who (as him­self relateth in his Essaies, 1.25.) being born a French man, yet never heard French, till he was above six yeares old; nor understood any word of his mother-tongue, no more then he did Arabick; because he was brought up, where he heard no o­ther language spoken, then Latine onely: and therefore long after, when he usually spake nothing, but his Perigordin or French; yet upon great sudden exigents, his conceits were first shaped in Latine; and his words brake forth, ere he was aware, in La­tine, and not in French, as himself recordeth. So say I, if a Jew were thus brought up in the Greek, or in any other langua­ges, his conceits might be the apprehensions of his childish lan­guage, and not of that tongue which he used after.

Fifthly, and lastly, if because Heinsius himself is a daintie Critick, he will reduce the judgement of all Divinitie to Scri­ptures; of all Scriptures to Criticisme; I will not contradict it, if we confine this judiciarie Censorship and Criticisme to men skilfull and eminent in all arts, sciences, and languages: for who can so well interpret Scripture, as such men? It was a pas­sionate conceit of hood winkt men, as is recorded in the historie of the councel of Trent, lib. 2. pag. 122. Potestate unicuique factâ in Scripturae ver­stonem inquirendi, u­trùm proba sit, nêcue; vel cum aliis interpretibus eam comparando, vel contextu Hebraeo con­sulto: tum novos hosce Grammaticastros om­nia interturbaturos, & si­bi solis judicium & arbi­trium in rebus fidei ar­rogaturos. When each man hath power to inguire into the translation of the Scripture whether it be good or no; either comparing it with other interpreters, or consult­ing with the Hebrew Text: then these new-sprung pettie-Gramma­rians would make a confusion of all things, and arrogate to themselves alone the judgement and resolutions in matters of faith. And pag. 125. Almost all allowed the vulgat Edition, In praesulum animos vehementi indè impres­sione factâ, quòd diceba­tur, Grammaticos Epi­scoporum ac Theologo­rum instituendorum po­testatem sibi arrogatu­ros. This made a powerfull impression upon the mindes of the Prelates: because it was said Grammarians would assume to themselves authoritie to direct and instruct Bishops and Divines. Wisely, wisely; as if Divines and Bishops ought not to have been perfect Grammarians be­fore they were Divines: As if both could not consist together: As if famous and deep Divines had not been admirable, yea, [Page 56]the best and soundest of all Linguists and Criticks; whom they scornfully term pettie Grammarians: As if they envied any men these passages of learning, which they kenned not; and would put out the candle, which other men lighted; delighting rather in darknesse, then suffering some places, used by Popes and School-men, to be questioned and cleared: and it was a just in­dignation of the Friars against the Fathers, in the councel of Trent, because they were so prompt to define Articles, and pronounce Anathemaes, when they did not well understand, and were loth to be taught the things themselves, as it is in the Hi­storie of the councel of Trent, lib. 6. pag. 481.

But since he saith of the Evangelist S. John, Perpetuò ad Targu­mistas respexit. He alwaies had an eye to the Targumists, pag. 289. and, Ad Targumistas sem­per respie [...]t. He still respecteth the Targu­mists, pag. 250. and, Totum [...], quod voces & sermonem spe­ctat, peregrinum est. All the words and speech soundeth strange, pag. 230. as if there were not in S. Joh. one line, or phrase, of pure good heathen Greek. Since he maketh the Hellenisticall Greek & the other Greek, divers languages, pag. 373. though they differ not so much as some Dialects, (besides his jerk at Nonnus for his Grecanick, rather then Greek) adding to this effect, Prolegom. pag. 93. Many have known superficially the Hellenisticall tongue, but few the depth of it. Since he resteth not at this, saying, It much mat­tereth to know, whether an Hellenist expresse the Hebrew, or the Syriack in Greek; and whether he hath an eye to the Hebrew Text, or to the in­terpretations of the Grecians; but addeth, Quae nisi omnia di­stinguat, operam necesse est interpres ludat. All which unlesse the In­terpreter distinguish, he must needs lose his labour. And he hath little knowledge, and no conscience (as Heinsius censureth) Qui transferre sacra audet, & de his non co­gitavit. who dares translate the Scripture, and thought not on these things, Pag. 53. Prolegom. Whereby all the Primitive-Church, the Schoolmen, and late Writers, Interpreters or Translatours, who knew not Hebrew from Syriack, are censured as unconscionable igno­rants. Since he proceedeth, avouching, The knowledge of the New Testament Frustra petas ex Graecis, quia ad He­braeam aut Syriacam d [...] dictio & voces exigendae sunt. in vain shall you seek from the Grecians, because both words and phrases winde up to the Hebrew or Syriack. And again, The Greek Fathers Omni eruditione ad stuporem omnium in­structi. amazing the world with their abundant learning, have given document, that other things without the He­brew are little worth: Whence may be inferred, that the know­ledge of the Greek in the New Testament is not to be found in the Greek Fathers, and that their labours have been of little worth: though some Greek Fathers knew the Eastern tongues better then Heinsius; as Origen, Theodoret, and others; and the most learned of them all in those Eastern languages, to wit, Origen, was the worst of them all in the interpretation of Scriptures. Since he proclaimeth in his Prolegomena, Cùm plu­rima in novo foedere à summis maximísque hominibus sunt praestita, potissima pars superesse videtur: Which is as much as if he had said, All the world have not expounded the Greek Testament half well enough: or, not half of it well enough to this day: [Page 57]or, the choicest, learnedest men have laboured much; but the best or chiefest things have they not cleared: as if they who well interpreted Hebrew with her Dialects in the Old Testa­ment, had been faultie in their interpretations of the New Te­stament, because they understood not, or reflected not up to the same Hebrew and her Dialects.

I say, in all these regards we must sever from Heinsius; and leaving him to his singularitie, hold our selves to the gene­rall expositions which Fathers, Councels, and the Church of God hath made of Scripture; till this more then Doctor subti­lis, or Doctor Seraphicus (for they are by him rejected, as being wholly ignorant of the Hebrew, Syriack, or Hellenistick Greek) give us better and more light. All which things I passe by with a touch onely, because he hath one strain of farre more both difficultie and moment. In which one point many are in­volved, and some of those seldome or never handled.

His words are these in his Prolegomena, pag. 52. Si quis ex me quae­rat, Quanam lingu [...] scripserit Evangelista noster S. Joannes; Hel­lenisticâ scripsisse dicam: Si quis quâ conceperit, quae scripsit; Syriacam fuisse dicam: Ad cam au­tem, quod est Hellenistis proprinm, & voces & sermonē deflexisse Grae­cum. Quare ad allusio­nes, non quae extant, sed quas animo conceperat, eundum est. If one ask of me, In what language S. John wrote; I will say, He wrote as an Hel­lenist: If one enquire in what language he conceived the things which he wrote; I will say, He conceived them in the Syriack tongue, and that he did bend the Greek, and winde up to the Syriack both the words and the sayings, as is proper to the Hellenists. Where­fore we must not have recourse to the allusions which now are, but we must look to them which S. John then conceived in his minde. Yea, Proleg. pag. 49. he saith in generall, Novi foederis Scri­ptores linguâ concepe­runt aliâ, quae scribe­rent; aliâ scripserunt, quae conceperant. The Penmen of the New Testament conceived in one language what they wrote, and wrote in another what they conceived. So he.

Such is the power and vertue of naked truth, that if we could see her as she is in her self, Admirabiles sui amores exci­taret, She would make men wonderfully enamoured on her: and such is the ouglinesse of errour and untruth, that they dare not ap­peare without masks, vizors, colours, fucusses; but go common­ly trooping in the companie of truth or likelihoods. And so it fareth in these words of Heinsius; in which there are some truths mingled and shuffled together with some errours; which will easier be distinguished by their severall ranks and files, if we consider and handle three Lemmata, or Postulata, Reasonable axioms or demands, which I account as granted: seven Questi­ons and five Conclusions directly opposing Heinsius.

7. The first Postulatum is this, That the inspirations and conceptions of the sacred Penmen, were divinely delivered under one or other language.

S. Basil in Psal. 28. said remarkably, that the intellectuall and inward conceits of the inspired were after a wonderfull man­ner, as it were, figured and characterized. S. Augustine, de Ge­nes. ad literam, 12.26. saith thus of the kinde of prophesy­ing by spirituall vision: Si ab ipsis similitu­dinibus rapiatur, ut in illam quasi regionem intellectualium & intel­ligibilium subvebatur, [...]t sine ulla similitudi­ne perspicua veritas cernitur, nullis opinio­num falsarum nebulis obfuscatur; ibi virtutes animae non sunt opero­sae: ibi videtur claritas Domini, non per visio­nem significantem, sive corporalem, ut visa est in monte Sina, sive spi­ritualem, ut vidit Isai­as, & Joannes in Apo­calypsi; sed per speciem, non per aenigmata; quan­tum ea capere mens hu­mana potest, secundum assumentis Dei grati­am, ut os ad os loquatur ei, quem dignum tali Deus colloquio fecerit; non os corporis, sed os mentis. If the soul be rapted from and above [Page 58]the phantasmes, so that it is elevated and carried, as it were, into that region of things intellectuall and intelligible, where without any phantasme or similitude apparent truth is seen, no clouds of opinion dimming it; there the faculties and powers of the soul are not turmoiled or painfully busied: there the brightnesse or excel­lencie of the Lord is seen, not by any typicall or corporall vision, as it was seen in mount Sina; or spirituall, as I saiah saw, and S. John in the Revelation: but plainly and directly, not darkly or in riddles, so farre as the minde of man can conceive, according to the grace of the indulgent Lord, so lifting up the soul, that he speaks face to face to him whom the Lord makes worthy of such a conference: Ʋnderstand the face or mouth, not of the body, but of the minde.

Dionysius, coelestis Hierarch. cap. 1. somewhat otherwise: Impossibile est aliter nobis lucere divinum radium, nisi varietate sacrorum velaminum circumvelatum. It is impossible that the divine light should otherwise shine upon us, then clouded and surrounded with varietie of sacred vails and co­verings. For humane understanding cannot conceive the very bare and naked intelligible truth her self, without conversion to the Phantasmata; therefore things propounded to men by God or Angels, are propounded under sensible similitudes, and resemblances not meerly incorporeall: I say, by God, or Angels; for howsoever Dionysius cap. 4. de divinis nominibus, part. 1. aliquantulum ante medium, saith, Omnes divinae illu­minationes perferuntur ad bomines mediantibus Angelis. All divine irradiations are brought unto men by the interposition or help of Angels: and Gregorie, Dialog. 4, 5. In hoc mundo visi­bili nihil, nisi per crea­turam invisibilem; dis­poui potest. In this visible world nothing can be order­ed, but by the invisible creature: yet I would be loath perem­ptorily to exclude Gods immediate operation or illumination; but rather conclude, That all intellectuall irradiation of men, either by God immediately, or by Angels, is by known species.

Basil on Isa. 7.3. Arbitror Prophetas nequaquam percepisse Verbum Dei sensili auditu, per conforma­tionem aëris: sed quando animae intellectu praedi­tae, suae suppetunt aures, quae à supernis unntia­bantur, citra ullam cor­poris vocem, ad corum pertingebant notitiam. I think that the Prophets received not the word of God by sensible hearing, by the corresponding help and conformation of the aire: but since the intellective soul hath its proper kinde of eares or hearing, what was spoken from above and from God, came to their knowledge and notice without any bodily voice. See Aquin. part. 1. quaest. 210. art. 1.

In all three kindes of oracles, by which God speaketh to men (the Externall, the Imaginarie-spirituall, the Spirituall-intellectuall) there are some species or other intercurrent be­tween God inspiring and inlightning, and man apprehending or conceiving. Though where Fulgentius saith truly, that in divine inspiration, Sine sonis sermonum & elementis literarum, eò dulciùs, quo secretiùs, veritas loquitur. Without the sound of words or elements of let­ters, the truth speaketh so much the sweeter, by how much the se­creter, is rightly inferred; that there is no outward sound; yet there is an intellectuall loquitur of the Spirit to our inward man; and it attempereth and mouldeth it self to the capacitie, abilitie, and habituall species of the part recipient, that is, our understanding; or frameth our understanding to it.

Men may be taught new languages on a sudden, and under­stand as suddenly things before unknown; but to conceive without some kinde of word, is above conceit. God himself cannot be conceived by men, but by similitudes of things corporeall; and, perhaps, even Angels cannot conceive of him but under some shadow: for a finite thing cannot comprehend an infinite essence, but onely according to its model. An in­finite thing onely can comprehend infinitie as it is in itself.

When the Spirit of God immediately speaketh to the spi­rits of men, though the irradiation be spirituall and intelle­ctuall, yet it is shaped to the habits of knowledge acquired. Infused notions must be proportionable to acquired; actuall, to habituall; all homogeneall, not heterogeneall; having affi­nitie, and holding correspondent intelligence with the species received. Quiequid recipitur, recipitur ad modum re­ciptentis. Whatsoever is received, is received according to the measure, power, or facultie of the receiver, is a true ground, and sound maxime, as well in Divinitie as in Philosophie.

There is not an higher illumination then was that of S. Paul: yet was there in him, and in all others, somewhat loco signi & vocis, in the room or stead of the signe, voice, or species. 2. Cor. 12.4. I heard unspeakable words, (yet words spoken) which it was not lawfull (or possible) for a man to utter: yet to him they were uttered; and it is not certain that he was bodily rapt into the third heaven.

Augustine, de Genes. ad liter. 12.27. discoursing of Gods speak­ing to Moses, Numb. 12.8. Os ad os loquar ad illum, in specie, & non per aenigmata; I will speak to him face to face, apparently and plainly, not by riddles or obscurities, saith, This is not to be un­derstood according to the bodily substance presented to the eyes of the flesh; for so he spake to Moses face to face, when Moses said, Ostende mihi temetipsum, Shew me thy self: and addeth, Illo ergò modo, in il­la specie quâ Deus est, longè ineffabiliter se­cretiùs & praesentiùs loquitur locutione in­effabili. But in that way, and in that form as he is God, he speaketh in­effably, more secretly, more home and close to the purpose, more nearely present with words unspeakable. And in the Chapter following he saith, The speaking mouth to mouth was Per speciem scilicet, quâ est Deus quicquid est: quantulumeunque cum meus, quae non est quod ipse, &c. by such a species, by which God is whatsoever is: howsoever the minde of man which is not as God, cannot conceive him without bodie or bo­dily similitude: where still he maketh a kinde of not-speaking speech, or of speaking non-speech, according to the capacitie of man.

The second Lemma is this, That the holy Actuaries, or Writers of the Divine Scripture, could not erre in their con­ceptions.

Augustine, de Genes. ad liter. 12.25. proveth daintily in ge­nerall, that our outward and inward senses may be deceived; when onely the intellectuall vision is certain, and is not decei­ved: Aut enim intelligit, & verum es [...]; aut, si non est verum, non intelli­git. Either it understandeth, and then it is true; or if it be not [Page 60]true, it understandeth not. As the aire is enlightened by the resplendent rayes of the sunne, so was their intellect by su­pernall, bright, unfailing irradiation; which beam of di­vine light wrought these two effects: First, that they knew certainly it was God who spake unto them: Secondly, that they could not misconceive or take awry in an erring sense the things inspired: which illumination may be called Gustus Dei, The taste of God, Psal. 34.8. The wheels with strakes full of eyes round about them, Ezek. 1.18. Cloven tongues like as of fire, Act. 2.3. As it were, Sextus sensus praeno­scendi. a sixth sense leading to knowledge, as Clemens Recognit. lib. 2. termeth it: A joyfull sound, the light of Gods countenance, Psal. 89.15. In thy light we shall see light, Psal. 36.9. A burning and a shining light, Joh. 5.35. A marvellous light, 1. Pet. 2.9. Sol spiritualis, An intellectuall sunne: Sapor, a savour or taste; which Monica could not expresse by words, as her sonne relateth, Confess. 6.13. Intimus sapor, saith Gregorie, Dialog. 4.4. Intimus sapor & experimentalis illuminatio, A most inward relish, and experimentall illumination, as Gerson styleth it: Columna ignis, A pillar of fire, Exod. 13.21. Stella Magos in Ori­ente antecedens, The starre conducting the wise men of the East, Matth. 2.9. An holy, undeceiving, unambiguous influent corusca­tion: The Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters, Gen. 1.2. This made Abraham not unwillingly to sacrifice his sonne. The quenching of this Spirit against the cleare light of his own convicted conscience, made the old Prophet more inexcusable then the other officious lying Prophet, who de­ceived him, 1. Kings 13.16, &c. Nor did an Angel speak unto the seducer by the word of the Lord, vers. 18. Samuel being but a childe might not indeed, as a novice; or some others, for a while, might not know the voice of the Lord: as Peter at the present knew not the operation of God by the Angel, in his miraculous deliverie: But now I know (saith he) that God hath sent his Angel; yea, I know of a surety, Act. 12.11.

Profane ones I will not priviledge from mistaking of God: as perhaps, lest Satan might out-stretch his Commission from God, when he gave Job into his hands, God said restraining­ly, Onely save his life, Job 2.6. And S. Augustine, de cura pro mortuis gerenda, cap. 12. telleth an admirable storie of two men, each called Curma; to wit, How Curma the Countrey-man lay almost dead many dayes: onely, a little steam of breath co­ming from him, they kept him from buriall, though he was without motion, or any feeling, whatsoever they did unto him; in which time he saw many visions: So soon as he opened his eyes, he said, Let one go to the house of Curma the smith. Who was found dead that moment in which Curma the Husband­man came to his senses. And the surviving Curma related, that he heard in the place from whence he was returned, that [Page 61]the smith, and not himself, was to be brought to that place. A mistaking there was by the messengers of death, though it were after righted. Caiaphas might not know the inspiration or instinct propheticall which he had; because he was a wicked man: Dispensativè illi contigit sermo, He did distribute the speech to others, which he knew not himself, saith Basil in Prooem. Isaiae. He was a Prophet perchance; Casu, saith Origen on John. Ba­laam his asse and Caiaphas spake they knew not what. The pro­phesie was transitorie, saith S. Augustine. Wherefore I conclude, as before, That wicked men may be punished with mista­kings in things divine. But that ever any holy man was igno­rant to the end, that God moved when he moved him; or that the righteous were ever deceived by Oraculous, anfractuous perplexities; or that the Notaries of heaven, the writers of any part authentick of either Testament, could be deceived in their conceptions, is not agreeable to likelihood, reason, or truth.

The last Lemma is this, The holy Penmen could not erre in writing.

If they could, what difference is there between their Wri­tings, and other profane Authours?

And to what end had they infallibilitie of understanding, if what they understood they could expresse erroneously?

A readie, perfect, and quick scribe writeth not falsly; but, My tongue is the pen of a readie writer, saith the Psalmograph, Psal. 45.1. Holy Ezra, who was the divine amanuensis of the book of Ezra, is called by the same words, SOPHIR MAHIR, a readie, swift, exact scribe, Ezra 7.6. no question, with allusion to the words of the Psalmist.

John 16.13. When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth. How into all truth, if there be an errour in wri­ting? Or, had God care that the Apostles should not misse of the truth in their Speeches, and yet misse in their Writings?

If the Prophets could not erre, no more could the Evan­gelists or Apostles: for, if there were any superioritie in pri­viledge, we are rather to ascribe it to these latter, then to those former; in regard that the Law of Christ and of Grace, is farre above the Law of Moses, as the Apostle doth demonstrate to the Hebrews themselves. But that the Prophets could not erre is apparent, because Christ himself, who is Truth, would not have appealed from the present more visible pretending Syn­agogue, to them as all-sufficient Judges (as he often did) if they could erre. A perfect rule is not to be tried by an imper­fect one. Prophets writ their Prophesies, and fastened them to the gates of the Temple, and other publick places, to be read: and were rather judged by their Prophesies written, then by them as inspired or uttered by mouth.

The Gnomon of the Sunne-diall, which our late Hierogly­phical Poetaster doth make to signifie the Scriptures, is better to be judged by a moving clock, the curious handie-work of the same great Artist (I mean, by the Church, and Church­men; with whom Christ hath promised his Spirit shall be to the end of the world) then by the rude masons, or rather the senselesse stones and mortar of the walls, (I mean the ignorant people) who have plucked down not onely the Weather­cock (by his interpretation, the Pope) but usurp to themselves a power to judge the Gnomon; and to reform and amend the well wrought, well ordered clock. The shallow phantastick stateth not the question aright, when he is so magisterially peremptorie; saying, That the Clergie may not so judge of the Scriptures, as to conclude or teach any thing against them; or to vouch unwritten verities (if they be certain verities, it matter­eth not much whether they be written or unwritten: Veritie will vouch it self in spight of lying Poets) as some call them, or Traditions contradictorie to the written Word: Which contradi­ctorie Traditions do much differ from unwritten Verities, howsoever the Poet confusedly joyneth them. For, who of us ever taught that the Clergie may teach any thing against the Scriptures? when we professe with him, that the Church ought to subject it self to be directed by the Scriptures. But that fabling rymer may say any thing, who in his Sarcasmos and Frontispice is suffered thus to rave, ‘No wonder that the Clergie would be Kings:’ whereas we the now unpriviledged Clergie, do humbly pray to God to uphold our declining estates from the hands of those Atheists, and turbulent Anti-episcopall, Anti-monarchi­call Reformists; perhaps Pensioners of the forcin enemies of our State, who, under the pretence of Religion, labour to pluck down our Church and Ecclesiastick Hierarchie; and upon the ruines thereof to arise to the depluming of the Ea­gle; to the bearding of the Lion; not onely to the paring of the royall prerogative, but also the removing the very scepter and crown from the Anointed of the Lord, (whom God al­waies mightily defend!) and to the bringing in of popular government: for, No Bishop, no King, said the learned, wise, and pious King James, most truely.

I return to retort the Church-reforming Poets words up­on himself: In his Solarie he saith, That the diall is the Written Word, which is of it self dead and unprofitable, with­out further illumination; since none of the Philosophers, nor Solomon himself, by the meer strength of Nature, could from thence draw saving knowledge without saving grace. The question is not, Whether the Scripture or Church shall be Judge; but, Whether the Clergie or Laitie shall be Interpre­ters [Page 63]of this dead word, and unprofitable without further illu­mination. We bid not the people to pluck out their eies, that they may be led by us, as the Jesuites and Popish Priests do; neither do we like the other extream of the people, presu­ming that they can give better answer then the Ephod, the Urim and the Thummim; and over-see the Seers, who ought (by the expresse commandment of God himself) to have the oversight of them, Heb. 13.7. But they are to rest contented with the generall Commission given to the Ministerie, He that heareth you, heareth me; especially in things (as most things are) above their capacitie. But the people will expound Scri­ptures, contradict their Pastours, censure their labours, judge their Judges, even in matters of such speculation as they may most safely be ignorant of; and, under pretence of desire to have their consciences well informed, will not be informed at all in any thing against their humours and fancie; but mono­polize the Spirit to themselves, and yeeld no more in this point to the ordinance of God, who hath committed to us the word of reconciliation, then to the very devils, whom they are bound to beleeve and follow, in all things wherein their con­sciences are well informed.

My former task recalleth me. Bezaleel and Aholiab both did and could work all manner of work for the service of the Sanctuarie, according to all that the Lord had commanded, Exod. 36.1. Had God more care of his Sanctuarie, then of the Church of Christ? Or could God command an untruth, when he guided the Apostles and Evangelists as powerfully, if not more then ever he did the workmen of his Sanctuarie? Or had the Pen­men lesse grace or goodnesse then the workmen? Certainly they had, if they swarved in writing from what was com­manded by God. Moses was admonished of God, when he was about to make the Tabernacle; See (saith God) that thou makest all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount, Hebr. 8.5. which the Apostle borrowed from Exod. 25.8, &c. where God giveth this charge, Let them make me a Sanctuarie — according to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the Ta­bernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it. So, and no otherwise; not so much as a little nail or peg shall make any difference. And shall we think, that the Evangelists and Apostles might swarve in writing from what was delivered unto them?

That Christ himself could and did reade, is proved Luk. 4.16. That he could and did write is plain, John 8.6, &c. That he ever wrote any part of his doctrine, of the Law of Grace, of our Scripture, is not evident: for though Baronius, ad annum Christi 31. saith, That many of the Ancients beleeved that our blesved Saviour wrote an epistle unto Abagarus, or Abgarus, [Page 64]Prince of Edessa; yet since Salianus wholly balketh this storie, (which he would not have done, if there had been either truth or likelihood in the matter; because of the miracles mention­ed by Baronius, wrought by the image of our Saviours face, which himself sent to the same Prince) let us esteem it as a thing unworthy of belief. That whatsoever Christ did, he did both well and conveniently; and whatsoever he omitted, he also omitted well and conveniently, I take for most cer­tain: and yet, if he had done something which he omitted, I dare say he had also done well and conveniently: and I should be afraid to say, That it was not convenient for Christ to write any part of Scripture therefore, because personally he wrote none. It was convenient for others, and not for Christ him­self, to write his own doctrine (saith Aquin. 3. part. quaest. 42. art. 4.) for the excellencie both of the Teacher, and of the doctrine; which he confirmeth thus, The most excellent way was, to im­print his doctrine in their hearts: So did Christ teach, As HA­VING POWER, Matth. 7.29. and Pythagoras and Socrates, the excellentest teachers among the Gentiles, would write nothing. For the Scripture is ordained to imprint doctrine in the hearts, as to an end. Moreover, if Christ had written his own doctrine, Nihil altiùs de ejus doctrina bomines aesti­marent, quàm quod Scriptura contineret. men would never have had an higher esteem of his doctrine, then of that which might arise from things contained in Scripture. Those are the words of Aquin. Much of this is but meer froth, and the shadow of reason, unfitting the pen of so Angelicall a Doctour; who remembred not that God himself wrote the Law; and that God did write the Law in some mens hearts, as well as in stone, Hebr. 8.10. and so might Christ in both, if he had pleased. As for Pythagoras and Socrates, if they wrote no­thing, yet their words made no deeper impression upon the hearts of their auditours, then the writings of many other men have done upon the hearts of their readers. Moreover, some have thought that Pythagoras and Socrates were not the excellentest teachers among the Gentiles; Aristotle and Plato are esteemed their equals; and some have preferred Her­mes Trismegistus and Homer before both of them. Indeed the Scripture was ordained to imprint doctrine in the heart; was it therefore inconvenient that Christ himself should write? His speech was ordained to imprint his doctrine in their hearts, as to an end; yet was not his speech inconvenient: no more inconvenient had been his writing; yea rather more convenient (if so it had pleased him) because many of his words reached but to a few; but his writings might have reach­ed to many millions of places and persons more, and might have been everlasting. To conclude, If the Jews looked through the vails, types, and shadows of Moses Law, to the more spirituall things of Christ; then certainly, if Christ had [Page 65]writ his doctrine, we would not esteem of him according to the letter onely of that doctrine; but we would think (as we ought) that either he wrote not all, or wrote onely such things as were fit for us to know, or as we could understand; reserving more secret, deep, and divine things to himself. For reasons best known to himself, he baptized not any, no not his own Apostles. For reasons best known to himself, he wrote not immediately any part of Scripture. To say it was not convenient because Christ did it not, inferreth that Christ was bound to do all things convenient; yea, and which man judgeth convenient; and what he did not do was not conve­nient.

God might have bettered, and may yet better some of his own works, though they be very good: Shall we conclude, that because he did not, therefore it was not fit he should have done so? God did not say at the end of the second dayes work particularly and expressely, It was good, or God saw that it was good; as he did at all and every of the other five dayes creation: Was it therefore not good? Yes verily; for Gen. 1.31. God saw every thing that he had made, and be­hold, it was very good.

John 14.16, &c. The Comforter shall abide with you for ever: even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him: for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. And verse 26. The Comforter shall teach you all things: Therefore he shall teach them to write truely: the Spirit of truth will not suffer them to write falsly whilest he dwelleth with them, and in them; as he did when they wrote.

Inspiration was ordained as a cause, and as a means of right conceiving: conceiving or apprehension was appointed as a cause and a means of right expression: expression was either by word or writing. Many words were prophetically and most divinely spoken, which were not written; not so many were written, as were first spoken: The vocall expression was more transient and transitorie; perhaps, concerning some few, and those onely of those times: the expression perma­nent, and by writing, was and is directorie to mankinde to the end of the world. Inspiration, apprehension, and much ex­pression by voice, were all as means to this main end, that there might be a Scripture. Shall the means be certain, uner­ring, and inerrable; and shall the end be dubious, crooked and erring? The perfect use of the right means leads on in­fallibly to an undeceiving and exact end: If the Divine Pen­men could not erre or be misled in the former, which some­ [...]imes vanished, leaving no footsteps behinde them; it is not possible that they should erre in writing, which is the master­piece [Page 66]of that divine work, lasting for ever; the absolute square, and judge, and canon of all mens thoughts, words, and deeds; unlesse you say, God had lesse care to preserve from corruption divine records filed up on eviternitie, and necessarie at all times, for all persons, in all places (as the Scriptures now are) then he had of inspirations: which ended onely in the apprehension, if they were not expressed; or turned into aire, and vanished almost with the breath, if they were onely spoken.

Nor let any man say that writing is further removed from the divine operation, then inspiration was, and so more sub­ject to errour: for it shall appeare ere long, that the same Spi­rit which began by inspiration, sat, still moving on the wa­ters, not leaving his own work till there was a perfect pro­duction, till the end was accomplished, and the will of God was written in words and letters of truth; so that not one Iota or tittle had any errour. Yea, let me go one step further, and say, that when the Apostles did dictate to their scribes, actuaries, or secretaries, not onely not themselves, but not their notaries could erre.

And yet I have read of two mad stories crosse to my opi­nion: the one in Sixtus Senensis, Bibliothecae sanctae, 2. pag. 120. on the name Tertius: who recordeth out of Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus, that this Tertius, being no excellent speaker nor writer, made the obscure Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes to be more obscure, whilest he laboured to expresse S. Pauls thoughts and sense, by more confused and unabsolute sen­tences, and transposed explications. As if S. Paul could not write sufficiently himself: though he said (in humblenesse) Rudis sermone sum, I am rude in speech, 2. Cor. 11.6. yet was he powerfull in writing, 2. Cor. 10.10: As if he had not divers most sufficient scribes by him: As if he would permit the wri­ting of so divine, super-divine an Epistle to an Ignaro, a silly fellow: As if Tertius himself wrote not this Epistle in the Lord, that is, by divine authoritie, or (as Cajetan thinketh) these words, In the Lord, are added to shew that he did not write it as an hireling: which sense is made good by some authori­ties, according to the diversitie of punctation: As if the Spi­rit who inspired Paul dictating, ruled not the hand of Terti­us writing: As if S. Paul would make so block-headed a di­sciple as Tertius is feigned to be, to be his scribe, and that in his most majesticall and obscurest Epistle: Or if Tertius were so, that he should be thought worthy to be Iconii Episcopus, and have that extraordinarie grace to be crowned with Martyr­dome; as Ecclesiasticall historie recordeth of him: As if S. Peter (whom Paul withstood for a smaller matter to the face, Gal. 2.11.) when he said that there were in all S. Pauls Epistles [Page 67]some things hard to be understood, would have commended his fellow-Apostles wisdome, as he did, 2. Pet. 3.15. and not rather have found fault with his follie, and the manner of his writing, if not with the matter also, if Tertius had been so absurd as Diodorus imagined; especially seeing S. Peter saith, that the unlearned and unstable wrest some of those writings unto their own destruction: which in all likelihood should justly rather swallow up S. Paul for his carelesnesse of indi­ting, and Tertius for his supinenesse, or rather blasphemous forgerie of divine truths by mis-writing them, if any fault could have been truely imputed to either of them. But of this we shall speak (by Gods help) more at large in the next section save one.

The second mad storie followeth. Because some were wont to forge Epistles in S. Pauls name, (as is apparent 2. Thess. 2.2. where he beseecheth them, Not to be shaken in minde, or to be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as from us) therefore he alway subscribed his own name to all his Epistles, Ʋbicunque sciebat falsos adesse doctores. Wheresoever he knew that there were false teachers, saith Hierom on Gal. 6.11. On which place he also relateth, that a very learned man of those times said, S. Paul being an He­brew knew not Greek letters: and because necessitie required that he should subscribe with his own hand to the Epistle, Contra consuetudi­nem curvos tramites literarum vix magnis apicibus exprimebat. He wrote, though in ill-shaped, unhandsome, very great letters: shewing this testimonie of a kinde affection, that he would endeavour to do for the Galatians what indeed he could not do. Whereby he concludeth, that S. Paul could not write Greek, at least, not in a legible good hand. S. Hierom won­dered at the ridiculousnesse of his exposition (as well he might) because the Apostle used to subscribe to divers of his Epistles, and here he wrote this whole Epistle with his own hand: and yet S. Hieroms exposition is almost as forced as the former: Grandibus Paulus literis scripsit, quia sen­sus erat grandis in li­teris, & Spiritu Dei vivi, non atrameuto & calamo fuerat exaratus. S. Paul (saith he) wrote in large long cha­racters or letters, because the sense was great in the words, and was written by the Spirit of the living God, and not with penne and ink. For though the sense and words of this Epistle to the Galatians be from God, and most divine; yet there is no reason to imagine, that S. Paul intended to include that sense under these words, Videte, or Videtis qualibus literis scri­psi vobis manu meâ You see how large a letter I have written to you with mine own hand. But if the word [...], doth signifie quantitie; though S. Paul wrote in great letters and characters, yet it might be a verie good and fair hand: as there are few fairer writings then some where the letters are large and full drawn: and I doubt not but he who gave them the extra­ordinary gift of tongues and languages did also, as a necessa­rie appendant, give them the power to write well those lan­guages; [Page 68]especially since their writings were to benefit more then their voices could reach unto. We never reade that the holy Apostles, Peter, James, or John, were learned; or could reade or write before their calling; or learned it by degrees after their Apostleship: yet they could and did write; and as the Spirit guided their thoughts and words, so did he their hands; and they wrote both divinely for matter, and (as I think) exquisitely for the manner; yea, more exquisitely then other men, as being governed and actuated by the hand of God, which is perfect in all his works. And indeed the true sense of the place (in my opinion) toucheth not at the de­formednesse of the characters, or at the grand-greatnesse of them; but at the length or prolixitie of the Epistle: which is excellently rendered by our English, You see how large a letter I have written; as if S. Paul had spoke thus, more at large; I who before told you that we must not be weary of well-doing, but must do good unto all men whilest we have time, especially to the houshold of faith; I say, I my self have not been wearie in wri­ting this Epistle, though it be long: and whilest I had time, I have spent that time in doing you good, by writing this letter, by writing this long and large letter to you. For though I have written longer Epistles, yet I did rather subscribe to them, and wrote not all of any one of them with mine own hand; but you may take it as a token of my heartie love, that I wrote all this Epistle my self: You see how large a letter I have writ to you with mine own hand. And this sense better answereth to the coherence, then that of S. Hierom, or of the other learned man whom S. Hierom wondered at. So much for the third Lemma.

8. I come now to the first Question: viz. Whether it was necessarie that Scripture should be written for mens instru­ction?

That it was not absolutely necessarie, must be confest: for God might have used other means. He is liberrimum agens, the freest agent; or rather ipsa libertas, libertie it self, not chained to fate, nor bound in with nature or second causes. Necessitie, freedome of our will, or indifferencie to either side, and contingencie, are the issues of his will.

Yea, God did use other means in the law of nature; for above 2450 yeares the Patriarchs were nourished with agra­phall Tradition onely. No word was ever written till God wrote the Law; the two first Tables, the work of the onely­wise Almightie; The writing was the writing of God graven up­on the Tables, Exod. 32.16. Written with the finger of God, Ex­od. 31.18.

The Jews say, The book of Genesis was written by Mo­ses, before God wrote the Law. For though God spake all [Page 69]the words of the Decalogue, Exod. 20.1. &c. yet he delivered not the Tables to Moses till Exod. 31.18. but Exod. 24.4. it is related, that Moses wrote all the words of the Lord: and vers. 7. that he took the book of the Law, and read it in the audience of the people. Kemnitius answereth, That the things are record­ed per Anticipationem, seu per [...], The last is recorded in the first place: for the writing and dedication here mention­ed, were accomplished afterward, Exod. 34.32.

The pillar of stone, and that other of brick, which Jose­phus Antiq. 1.4. saith the children of Seth did write in before the floud, were either fictions, or antidated. The prophesie of Enoch was not written by him, as S. Augustine de Civit. 15.22. and Origen Hom. 28. in Num. think: but Enoch prophe­sied, Saying, Jude 14. As the prophesie of Adam, Genes. 2.24. and of God himself, Genes. 3.15. both of them concerning Christ, were spoken in Paradise, not written; and as the Apo­stles wrote not the Creed, but delivered it onely vivâ voce, by word of mouth, saith Irenaeus, 3.4. and Augustine de Fide & Oper. cap. 9. and Ruffinus on the Creed, and divers others: so is it likely, that Enochs prophesie was not written; or rather was written long after it was spoken: for writing was not so ne­cessarie for the Patriarchs: First, because they were purer in minde, saith Chrysostom, Hom. 1. in Matth. And it is the fault of our corrupt nature, and we may be rightly impleaded, that ever there was any writing; as may be gathered from Isido­rus Peleusiota, lib. 3. epist. 106. Secondly, the long lives of the Patriarchs supplied the room of writing: for Methusalah, who lived 240 yeares with Adam (with the first Adam, who was AETATIS ILLIUS EPISCOPUS, Bishop of those times, saith Kemnitius in Examine, part. 1. pag. 13.) lived also 90 and odde yeares with Sem, and Sem lived 50 yeares in Jacobs time, by the calculation of Helvicus; and there were not 200 yeares from Jacobs death to the writing of the Law. Thirdly, besides such aged venerable Prophets as were Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham (who was an eminent instructer with authoritie, and, as it were, with a Pretorian power: Gen. 18.19. I know that Abraham will command his sonnes and his houshold after him, that they keep the way of the Lord) other Patriarchs knew the will of God by immediate revelation, by dreams and visi­ons; [...], At sundrie times, and in divers man­ners, Heb. 1.1. Gods speech was in stead of writing. But when men grew more impure, and upon the increase of sinne mans dayes were shortened, God did withdraw himself, and his familiar conversation was not so common: but because their hearts of flesh were hardened, in which was printed the law of nature, by them even obliterated, and they recei­ved new evil impressions in stonie hearts; God himself [Page 70]wrote the Morall Law in two Tables of stone: and Gods own handie-work being broken by the occasion of their sinne, to shew that the Morall Law should continue for ever, the bro­ken Tables were removed (and none knoweth what ever be­came of them) and Moses was commanded to frame two new whole Tables of stone, like the former.

Two extreams about the written word are here to be a­voided: The first is of the Papists, who too much disgrace the Scripture, at least comparatively; Putáne piures baere­s [...] & sectas exerituras fuisse, fi nuila p [...]nitus S [...]riptura extitisset, quàm nunc cùm Scri­tura mortalibus à coelo data est? Ego certè pro­pior sum existimanti, pauciore [...] fuisse futuras. Do you think that more sects and heresies would have bubbled up, if there had been no Scri­pture at all, then now are, when God hath sent us the holy Writ? I rather incline to that side, who think there would have been fewer divisions, saith Gretser in his defence of Bellarm. de Verb. Dei, 4.4. Pighius de Eccles. Hierarch. 1.2. saith Apostolos quaedam scripsisse, non ut scripta illa praeossent Fidei & Religion [...] nostrae; s [...]d ut su [...]essent potiús. That the Apo­stles wrote some things, not that they might rule over our Faith and Religion, but be subject rather: and concludeth, that the Church is not onely not inferiour, nor onely equall, but in a sort superiour to the Scriptures. The Carmelite Antonius Marinarus, in the second book of the Historie of the Councel of T [...]ent, pag. 118. is confident, Ecclesiam fuisse per­f [...]ctissimam, prius [...]uam Sanctorum Apostolorii ullas s [...]ripsisset: neq Ec­clesiam Christi perfecti­ [...]e ullá carituram, eti­amsi nihil unquam scri­pto fuisset mandatum. That the Church was most per­fect before any Apostle wrote, and that the Church of Christ had never wanted perfection, though never any thing had been written. Majoranus Clyp. 2.28. thus, Ʋnus Ecclesiae con­sensus, qui nunquam ca­ruit Spiritu Dei, pluris apud nos esse debet, quàm omnes e [...]ingues & muti codices, & quoi­qu [...]t sunt & crunt un­quam s [...]ripta volumina; quae hominum ingemis semper materiam con­tentionis praebuerunt. The uniform consent of the Church, which never was destitute of Gods Spirit, ought more to be esteem­ed by us, then all the dumbe writings and volumes which are or shall be written: which have ministred matter of debate to the wits of men. These are accursed errours, and easily confuted; be­cause traditions are inconstant, and their number was never yet determined by themselves; but the Scripture is certain, and our Saviour both rebuketh the Pharisees for holding of traditions, Mark. 7.8, &c. Luk. 11.39. Matth. 23.18. and com­mandeth them to search the Scriptures, John 5.39. and refer­reth himself, and the whole course of his life and death to be examined by Scripture, Luke 24.25, &c.

The other extream is of such, who neglect or deride the Church and the very name thereof, because they have the written word: and these do as much glory in it, as the Jews did in the materiall Temple of Solomon; when, in truth, their contempt of the Church and its power, turns to their damna­tion, without repentance; and if the frequent, divine, immedi­ate revelation had been imparted by God to us, as it was to the Patriarchs, it had been better for us: for in that illumina­tion there was no errour, no mistaking, no doubtfulnesse, but an impossibilitie of being deceived. So that my discourse end­eth in the point in which it began, The Scripture was not ab­solutely necessarie to be written; but ex hypothesi, conditional­ly, and supposing the divine decree, it was necessarie; yea [Page 71]upon corruption of manners and doctrine, it was not onely [...], convenient, but [...], necessarie: not onely the most conve­nient way, but the most necessarie means. Otherwise, God would never have written it. It is necessarie, if not as a cause, yet as a concause; The word as a cause, the writing as a con­cause, saith Trelcatius. The Scriptures are not simply neces­sarie ad esse Eclesiae, to the being of a Church, whatsoever Schar­pius saith; but ad bene esse, to the wel-being: for nothing was written of the New Testament in Christs life-time, nor in some yeares after. Away with the Popish vilifying of Scri­pture; Materia litis, non vox judicis. Matter of strife (say they) and not the voice of the judge. Away with the Puritanicall cut, disdaining the Church, and the interpreters thereof (to wit, their thrice-reverend Bishops and Priests) and priding themselves in their own senselesse private Spirit.

The second question followeth; viz. Whether the holy Penmen or Actuaries wrote the Scripture casually?

I answer, If we take casually for fortè fortunâ, for sole chance, or onely bare contingencie, they wrote not casually: ‘Te facimus, Fortuna, deam, coelóque locamus:’ Men think they make Fortune a goddesse (a giddie one like the people themselves) but indeed God worketh that which we call Fortune amongst men. Augustine lib. 80. quaest. quaest. 24. divinely reasoneth in this sort, What is done by chance, is done suddenly, or rashly: what is so done, is not done provi­dently; but whilest providence administreth all things, nothing falls by chance in this world; if through it we look up to God, as to the universall cause by his providence: For nothing falls under our senses, but was commanded or permitted from the invisible and intelligible Hall of the highest Emperour, saith Au­gustine, de Trin. 3.4.

1. Kings 22.34. A certain man drew a bow at a venture (or, in his simplicitie) and smote the King of Israel between the joynts of the harnesse. What the 32 Captains of the King of Aram could not accomplish, though this were their Commission, Fight neither with small nor great, save onely with the King of Israel, vers. 13. that this roving arrow did by chance accom­plish, and slew the bloudie Ahab: yet so by chance, as the hand of the Lord did guide it, — Nec erranti Deus abfuit: — and it might have been written on the shaft, before it was drawn out of the quiver, Deus Achabo; more certainly then what was written on the arrow that stroke out the eye of Philip of Macedon, Astur Philippo.

A wealthy merchant sendeth two of his Factours, one to the East Indies, the other to the West; each of them not know­ing the others employments: after certain yeares he appoint­eth each of them to be at such a port on such a moneth and [Page 72]day, if they so can: They both meet, both wonder, both at the first hold it a strange chance; when the deep wisdome of their master providently determined all this. There is no chance where providence reigneth.

If we take casually as importing counsel meerly humane led by opportunitie onely, and excluding inspiration; as men consilium capiunt ex tempore, & pro re nata, Advise according to the fresh occurrences: or, as bonae leges ex malis moribus oriuntur, Good laws are made upon former mis-behaviour: thus the holy Prophet [...], Evangelists, and Apostles wrote not casually; for as the Prophesie came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2. Pet. 1.21. so both for the Old and New Testament, S. Paul saith, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, 2. Tim. 3.16. Is that casuall?

If we conceive the matter thus, The holy penmen wrote casu­ally, that is, Ʋpon just occasions, and newly emergent occurrences, the Spirit of God inspired them to write, who otherwise would not have written; I will say they wrote casually; for casualtie in this notion presupposeth things done upon reason; and who dareth say that God did ever any thing without good ground or reason, saith the divine S. Augustine? They wrote fortuitò, say the Papists; non fortuitò, saith Vorstius: Cleare the terms by the former distinction, and the question is ended.

No part of Jeremie is in Chaldee, but one verse onely; and upon what occasion was that? The Chaldee Paraphrast thus re­lateth it, saith Vatablus; Jeremie wrote to the Elders in the Ca­ptivitie; If the Chaldean people did say, House of Israel, worship idols; the Israelites should answer, The idols which ye worship are idols indeed, in which is no profit: they cannot draw forth rain from heaven, or fruit out of the earth; Let them and their wor­shippers perish from the earth, and be destroyed from under heaven. And to that effect speak Lyra and Rabbi Solomon: but the words of God by the Prophet are thus to be rendered, Jer. 10.11. Thus ye shall say unto them, May the gods, or, Let the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, perish from the earth, and from under these heavens; PEREANT, so the Vul­gat, Vatablus, the Interlinearie, and translated Chaldee: [...], say the Septuagint. And this doth somewhat ammuse me, why our last English Translation, with others, embrace the Future tense, reading They shall perish, when the words are a present execration of past, present, and future idols. I come to the point; If the Jews had said the effect of these words in Hebrew, the Chaldeans could not have understood it; nor had it been written in Chaldee, if the Chaldeans had had no intercourse with the Jews; and in this sense that verse was written casually.

As Ananias and Sapphira their with-holding of things con­secrated, ministred occasion to the holy Spirit, both to im­part the knowledge of their sacriledge to S. Peter, and to in­spire into him that particular prophesie, Act. 5.9. which S. Pe­ter otherwise had never spoken: So if Onesimus had not been a bad servant, and after converted, S. Paul had not writ­ten that Epistle to Philemon, at least not the greatest part of it. Chemnitius, in Examine, part. 1. declareth at large, Quâ oc­casione, propter quam causam, & in quem usum, primùm Scriptu­ra tradita sit à Deo: And he speaketh of the Old Testament.

Concerning the New Testament, neither Christ nor any of his Apostles wrote any thing for many yeares; nor did any one Evangelist or Apostle singly write, till the Church was pestered with Schismaticks, Who troubled them with words, sub­verting their souls, Act. 15.24. To remedie which discord, a Councel was gathered at Jerusalem of the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church; and they wrote Letters, or an Epi­stle to the brethren; And, Acts 15.28. Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us, was the forefront of their main decree. And this was the beginning of writing of any part of the New Testament, saith Chemnitius in his Examen of the Councel of Trent, part. 1. pag. 32. though others dis­sent from him. I will onely say, If that schisme had not been, that Councel had not been gathered, that Epistle had not been written. Briefly thus: Eusebius in the second and third book of his historie, specializeth the causes and grounds why each of the foure Evangelists did write; which is exemplified by Chemnitius in the place before cited, even to satietie; whilest he at large describeth the occasions, and inducements, or rea­sons, why all and every book of the New Testament was written. Thus the conclusion being firm, That the word of God was written casually, that is, the sacred Pen-men were inspi­red to write all of it upon just motives, and fair occurrences; and yet not casually, if we take the word, in sensu profano, & usu forensi: I proceed to the third Question, Whether they were commanded to write?

They who reade the Scripture, may think this question idle and impertinent: but who hath been conversant in the thornie paths of controversies, shall finde much opposition by our adversaries. Bellarmine, de Verbo Dei non scripto, 4.3. saith thus, Falsum est, D [...]um mandâsse Apostolis ut scriberent. Legimus mandatum ut praedica­rent; ut scriberent nun­quam legimus. Deus nec mandavit expreseè ut scriberent, nec ut non scriberent. It is false that God commanded the Apostles to write. We have read they were commanded to preach, Matth. 28.19. we have not read that they were commanded to write. God did not com­mand expressely either that they should write, or not write. To the place alledged by Bellarmine, I answer: They are not there commanded Praedicare, but his verie Vulgat hath it Docere; which may be by writing, as well as by preaching. [Page 74]The Original hath it [...], discipulate, or discipulas facite omnes gentes: where [...] is not taken neutro-passively, for discipulum esse; for that implieth that the Apostles should learn of the Gentiles, and not teach them: but actively, as if it were in the Conjugation HIPHIL; ac si dicas, DISCIPU­LARE, saith Beza. The very word [...], praedicate, preach, used Mark 16.15. doth not necessarily imply onely the Apo­stolicall preaching vivâ voce in suggesto, aloud in a pulpit; but doth signifie a publication in generall: not onely a going up into the pulpit (as idiots imagine:) for an Angel did [...], Revel. 5.2. preach; or proclaim, as it is in our last Translation: and Christ preached to the spirits in prison, 1. Pet. 3.19. and the possessed of a legion of devils, being dispossessed, [...], Mark 5.20. Began to preach, or publish, how great things Jesus had done for him. None of these (I dare say) climbed up into the pulpit. Moreover, publication may be by writing, aswell as by preaching; and more disciples have been made by Evan­gelicall and Apostolicall writings, then ever were by their preachings in their own times.

I answer again: He saith, It is false. To prove a falshood a man must have expresse truth, which he confesseth he hath not: and how lamely followeth this? Because we now reade it not, Ergò, they were not commanded. He would have laught at such a negative proof of ours. Augustine saith, Quicquid Christus de suis factis & dictis no [...] legere voluit, hoc scribendum Evangeli­s [...]is, tanquam suis ma­nibus imperavit. Whatsoever Christ would have us reade of his words and works, that did he command the Evangelists, as if they had been his own hands, to write. Bellarmine answereth: Lequitur de imperio interno, quod suggestio quaedam & inspiratio po­tiùs quàm praeceptum propriè dictum existi­mari debet. He speaketh of the in­ward command, which is rather a suggestion and inspiration then a proper command. I reply; Of precepts properly so called, some are hid and secret, others more manifest: the internall command bindes as much as the externall; divine suggestions oft times have the force of an expresse inward precept; and commands are sometimes manifested by inspirations. Praece­ptum propriè dictum, which is by word or writing, and Impe­rium internum, may be equivalent; and so long as it is Imperi­um internum, what need we care though it be not Praeceptum propriè dictum? And the command was to write, which is an outward act.

The second Objection brought by Bellarmine against him­self, is from the Revelation, where S. John is commanded divers times to write. To this he answereth most unclerk­like, That S. John was commanded to write certain hidden vi­sions; not the doctrine of the Gospel, and precepts of manners. But this is easily confuted: for Revel. 19.9. it is said, Write, Blessed are they which are called to the marriage-supper of the Lambe. Is not this the doctrine of the Gospel? what is more Evan­gelicall? He might have considered the marriage-feasts in the [Page 75]Gospels, Matth. 22.2, &c. and Luk. 14.16. And a voice from heaven said, Revel. 14.13. Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth; yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours, and their works do follow them. Are these hidden visions? Is not this the doctrine of the Gospel? The like might be amplified out of the first, second, and third chapters of the Revelation, where matters of moralitie and precepts of manners are commanded to be written, and are written: and not hidden visions, but rather the doctrine of repentance, and of the Gospel.

Christ saith to his Apostles, Act. 1.8. Ye shall be witnesses unto me. He forbeareth the word of preaching; and useth more generall words, [...], Ye shall be witnesses; and they bare witnesse by writing: Joh. 21.24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimonie is true; not onely he himself, but Peter and the rest, WE know that his testimonie is true: what testimonie but his writings? Toti operi suo fidem vult conciliare. He would have all his works or writings be­leeved, saith Luc. Brugensis, and Maldonate.

When the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write, saith S. John, and a voice from heaven saith, Write them not, Revel. 10.4. The Apostles forwardnesse or prone­nesse to write, argueth not necessarily that he was not com­manded first to write; but rather presupposeth it: and this pre­sent inhibition, Write not, may serve as an exception to a for­mer generall command that he might have to write.

Indeed there is no expresse record that all and every of the Apostles were enjoyned to write: nor is it likely they were; for then they would have obeyed; whereas not the one half of the Apostles committed any thing to pen, ink, and paper, for ought we know; But we are sure that some writers of the Old Testament were commanded to write: Exod. 17.14. And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memoriall in a book; Jerem. 36.2. Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee, &c. and S. John was com­manded eleven or twelve times to write: and thence it is more then probable, that the rest of the Apostles which wrote were commanded to write; they might be expressely appoint­ed to write, though in their writings so much be not expres­sed. To say as Bellarmine doth, It is false that God command­ed the Apostles to write, because so much is not written, is rash and ill-advised; inferring, that they were commanded nothing, except those things which are written. Is every thing false that cannot be proved? is nothing true but what can be pro­ved? To evince a thing to be false, is required a reall proof of truth positive, which Bellarmine wanteth: and the falsitie may justly be retorted home to the Cardinall himself, from [Page 76]the authoritie of a prime man of his own part. Wiser A­quinas 3. part. quaest. 42. artic. 4. & 2. thus, When the disciples of Christ had written what he shewed and spake unto them, we must in no wise say that Christ himself did not write, since his members wrote that which they knew by the dictate of him their Head. For whatsoever he would have us reade of his deeds and words, he commanded them as his own hands to write. Now let Bellarmine say, It is false, that the Apostles were commanded by God to write. And thus much shall serve for the third que­stion.

The fourth question. Whether the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles were compelled to write?

As when it is said, Luke 1.70. GOD SPAKE BY THE MOUTH OF HIS HOLY PROPHETS, per LOQUENDI ver­bum, SCRIPTIONEM quoque comprehendit: so what I propound of Propheticall, Evangelicall, and Apostolicall writing, must also be understood of their speaking, or dictating; Whether they were compelled to it?

Compulsion is of two sorts; Proper and absolute, Improper or mixt.

Proper, when a man is forced (as we say) in spight of his teeth, against his will; as some who have been drawn to pu­nishment. Thus were they not compelled.

Mixt, when a man doth that which he would not do, un­lesse he feared a greater losse; as when a Merchant or Mari­ner cast their goods into the sea to save their lives; which hath in it part of the voluntarie, and part of the involuntarie: And of this there may be some question; for Jonah fled from the presence of the Lord, Jon. 1.3. that is, was unwilling to do the message. Moses again and again refused to be Gods em­bassadour to Pharaoh, Exod. 3.11. and to the Israelites, Exod. 4.1, 10, 13. Isaiah was also backward, Isa. 6.5. One answer serves for all: They were at first fearfull rather then unwil­ling; but when they were confirmed, they readily and bold­ly did their duties. So farre were they from shadow of com­pulsion, that they offered their service. When the voice of the Lord said, Whom shall I send? and, Who will go for Ʋs? (Isa. 6.8.) the Prophet said, Here am I, send me.

Yea, but they were impulsi, rapti, agitati, acti, [...], 2. Pet. 1.21. I answer, The word rather excludeth voluntarie and ar­bitrarie will-worship, or self-will-service; then includeth com­pulsion: for all this was performed Libero motu voluntatis, With the free motion of their will: or (as others take it) Salvo pleno usu liberi arbitrii, Without any impeachment of the freedome of their will. Acti à Spiritu sancto loqunti sunt à Deo af­flati; compositos tamen intellige bos motus; non quales fuere profauorum vatum. They who were led by the holy Ghost, spake, being in­spired by God: yet know that their motions and inspirations were setled and composed; unlike to the profane heathen priests or pro­phets [Page 77](for they were wilde, senslesse, not knowing what they did or said) saith Tremellius. Rom. 8.14. Many are led by the Spirit of God, [...]. Aguntur is no more in effect then ducuntur. If it had been trahuntur, yet Herba trahit evem. Meat draweth a sheep to it, saith Augustine: and all is farre from coaction. And this may stop the mouth of Aretius, saying, on Peter 2.1. Inviti saepe rapti sunt in hunc ordinem, Moses, Elias, & alii, qui fuga potiùs hoc munus malu­issent declinare. Moses, Elias, and others, who had rather have fled from these duties, were oft unwil­lingly drawn to them.

It may be further objected: Act. 4.20. We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. Fond is the exposi­tion of the Ordinary glosse, We CANNOT, that is, We WILL NOT. By such a That is I will confound heaven with earth. But I answer, The words imply no violence; the wills of the Apostles were not inforced: if the will of man could be com­pelled, it were no longer Voluntas, A will, but rather Noluntas, No will. A thing may be said Posse, aut non posse fieri, To be, or not to be made; these wayes:

1. We cannot but speak, that is, Non possumus convenienter tacere, It is unreasonable that we should be silent. Can the chil­dren of the Bridechamber mourn? (Matth. 9.15.) is a que­stion without question; for certainly they could: but while the bridegroom was with them, they could not mourn; that is, It was no fit time for them to mourn. Likewise, the Apostles could hold their peace; but then it became them not: and therefore they say, We cannot but speak.

2. Non possumus licité, We cannot lawfully: so Lyra expounds the words. We can do nothing against the truth, saith S. Paul, 2. Cor. 13.8. that is, We cannot lawfully: unlawfully he might, and so might any other. So here, If we do lawfully, and as we ought, We cannot but speak.

3. We cannot but speak, that is, We are very prone and apt to speak. Mat. 12.34. How can ye, being evil, speak good things? and how could the Apostles, being good, but speak good things? their souls were filled with grace, which boiled forth into words; their mouth could not choose but speak what their heart thought: My heart was hot within me, while I was musing the fire burned; then spake I with my tongue, Psal. 39.3.

4. We cannot but speak; that is, We speak not of our selves, but as God teacheth us:

He moveth us, & mota faciliùs commoventur, Things fixt are not so soon moved as things in motion: so the Apostles were silent before; but when the Spirit enlightned their understanding and framed their words, could they hold their tongues? them­selves answer, We cannot but speak.

I summe it up all thus: It was inconvenient not to speak; [Page 78]It was sinfull not to speak; It proceeded from the habits of grace and goodnesse that they were so prone to speak; It pro­ceeded from the celestiall suggestion, actuating their hearts and tongues: Therefore (say they) VVe cannot but speak: And yet away with all coaction.

Others may yet alledge the 1. Cor. 9.16. Necessitie is laid upon me to preach the Gospel; and verse 17. If I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation is committed unto me. Unto the first part I answer, The ne­cessitie is not of pressure, angariation, or force; but of pre­cept: Obstrictus sum ad hoc, I am commanded and bound to this, as it is in the translated Arabick: for he was often command­ed to preach: In Damascus, Act. 22.15. in the temple of Je­rusalem, Act. 22.21. at Antioch, Act. 13.2. Si voluntatem ad­jungo necessitati praece­pti, mercedem habeo. If unto the precept I adde a willing-readie heart, I have my reward, saith Aquin. But, I will freely sacrifice unto the Lord, saith David, Psal. 54.6. and S. Paul will preach rather for love, then necessitie.

The other part of the words, against my will, evinceth not compulsion, but backwardnesse, slownesse, and ill ends. If I preach WILLINGLY; that is, for the love of Christ, of my self, of my brethrens souls, for Gods honour and glorie, and at his command, I HAVE MY REWARD: But if AGAINST MY WILL, that is, Ʋnwillingly, or in an unwilling manner: ( Si solo timore servili praedico. If for onely servile fear I preach, saith Aquinas) if for fear of wo denounced against me, if for my private ends of fame or gain; yet even to such a mercenary IS THE DISPENSATION COMMITTED. [...] is opposed to [...], the words against my will, are not so pro­perly expounded, though it runne so in our Translation. [...] is with a good will, as Coverdale well translates it: [...] signi­fieth a thing done proprio motu; therefore [...] is with an ill will, grudgingly, mercenarily: [...] is non volens, sluggishly, draw­lingly, formally, for fashions sake. I will conclude this answer with the exposition of the Arabick and Syriack Translatours: Si facio hoc ex propo­sito mentis meae, vo­luntate meâ, est mihi merces; si autem, cùm facio, ingratum est mi­hi, &c. If I do this purposely, with a full will, I have my reward: if when I do it, it is harsh, unpleasant, and sowre, &c. saith Arabs. Si voluntate meâ, si praeter voluntatem me­am. If with my will, if besides my will, saith Syrus. None of this tasteth of coaction.

There yet ariseth up another objection: The same Apo­stle saith, The love of Christ constraineth us, 2. Cor. 5.14. I answer, The words are diversly expounded: Ʋrget nos, Ʋrgeth us, saith the Vulgat; Cohibet nos, Restraineth us, saith Montanus; Conti­net nos, Containeth us, saith Oecumenius; Incendit nos amore, Setteth us on fire with love, saith Theodoret; Charitas Christi con­stringit nos in hac sententia, The love of Christ bindes us fast in this opinion, saith Arabs: such a constraint as would not be free; such a bond or knot as would not be untied; such a constraint as when a man is commanded to do that which he would do [Page 79]without command; when precept is joyned to voluntarinesse; when injunction is interposed between both precedent and subsequent willingnesse. So much for the Objections.

On the other side, for the truth these arguments stand forth.

Luke 1.3. It seemed good unto me to write unto thee, saith he. This proveth that the Evangelist was not compelled.

Gal. 6.11. Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand; by which words S. Paul seeketh to ingrati­ate himself with them for that labour. But it was neither matter of kindenesse on his part, nor thank-worthy on their part, if he were compelled.

No man dares write in a Princes name, without his com­mand: S. John was spoke to, advised, commanded twelve times to write: that he was compelled I reade not.

The second of Johns Epistle vers. 12. the Apostle had many things to write; yet would not write with paper and ink, or with ink and pen, as he phraseth it, Epist. 3. vers. 13. If he would not, how was he constrained?

S. Jude gave all diligence to write, vers. 3. so farre was he from coaction; And it was needfull for me to write, saith he in the same place: It was not absolutely necessarie; he saith not that he was compelled.

Divers followers of Solomon wrote his Proverbs; who coacted them?

S. Paul wrote according to the wisdome given unto him, 2. Pet. 3.15. Was this a power compulsive?

In the Epistle to Philemon, vers. 21. Having confidence in thy obedience, I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more then I say: which words imply, he would not have writ if he had thought Philemon would have been obstinate, or refractarie, and would have done nothing at his request: how­soever, he was free from coaction.

2. Tim. 1.5. The remembrance of the unfeigned faith in Ti­mothie, in Lois, and Eunice, was the reason of S. Pauls writing unto him. Doth reason use violence?

By Silvanus I wrote briefly, exhorting you, saith the Apostle, 1. Pet. 5.12. Was he compelled himself, who exhorted others?

Simpliciter volunta­tem cogi ad actum vo­lendi, contradictio est. It implieth a contradiction to say simply, The will was infor­ced to the act of willing, saith Scotus. The will may be com­pelled by God or by the creature, quantum ad actus impera­tos, so farre as belongeth to the commanded acts in which the body is passive. Joh. 21.18. Another shall gird thee, and carrie thee whither thou wouldest not, saith Christ to Peter. Many are compelled to go to the Gaol, and to be hanged: but the will is induced, quantum ad actus elicitos, by the emanant and distil­led acts. What the holy Penmen spake or wrote, they did free­ly and willingly, void of compulsion.

The fifth question followeth, viz. Whether the holy Pen­men understood all that they wrote?

Christopher Castrus on the smaller Prophets, lib. 3. de vera futurorum cognitione, cap. 12. handleth this point at large; and to him I ow a great part of these authorities. Montanus held that the Patriarchs and Prophets spake in an ecstasie, not knowing what they said; as Epiphanius, Haeres. 48. contra Mon­tanistas, relateth. But he was an heretick for it. The devil so moveth the tongues of the rapted or ecstaticall heathen, that they neither understand what they speak, nor have power not to speak; and their speech is low out of the dust, and their voice out of the ground, Isa. 29.4. as with the Mon­tanists their Prophetisses Prisca and Maximilla; and among the heathen the Pythonists; and divers orders of religious irreligion this day among the Turks, especially the Dervises. But our Prophets, saith the worthy Estius, did speak and write, propheticall light being infused into them, and the knowledge of the mysteries inspired, and with the free motion of their will. The Fathers run in full streams to this depth.

Origen, Homil. 6. in cap. 16. Ezekielis, Non excidebant men­te Prophetae. The Prophets were in their right mindes. And Tom. 6. in Joan. Fatendum est, quae proprio ore protulerunt Prophetae, eos intelle­xisse, inque labiis gestâs­se animi candorem. We must confesse that the Prophets understood what they spake, and carried in their lips the courteous grace of their minde. And (Periarch. 3.3.) Omnes Prophetae vel Apostoli divinis respon­sis sine ulla mentis ob­turbatione ministrabant All the Prophets and Apostles were obedient to the words divine, with­out any disturbance or distraction of minde.

Basil in Prooemio Isaiae, Sunt qui dicunt eos extra se raptos, prophe­tare, humanâ mente à Spiritis absorptâ. Verùm id abhorret à professione divinae praesentiae, [...]t amentem reddat qui à numine corripitur: cúm (que) plenus divinorum decre­torum esse coeperit, tum à Propria mente excidat. Quomodo consentaneum est, ut quis ex sapientiae Spiritu reddatur simil­limus insano? Quin po­tiùs neque lumen caeci­tatem parit, verùm vi­dendi vim à natura in­sitam expergefacit: nec Spiritus tenebras indu­cit animis. Some say that the divinely illuminated do prophesie, their humane soul being swallowed up of the Spirit. But it abhorreth from the professed truth, and goodnesse of the di­vine presence, to make him a mad man who is inspired by God: and when he shall begin to be filled with divine Oracles, that then h [...] should be out of his own wits. Is it likely or convenient that one by the Spirit of wisdome should be made most like to a mad man? Rather light stirreth up the visive facultie naturally: nor doth light breed blindenesse, nor the Spirit infuse darknesse into the mindes of men. See the same Basil on Isaiah 13, at the beginning: Chrysostom, Homil. 29. in primam Epist. ad Corinth. 12. Hierom in prooem. Isaiae, & Nahum, & Abacuc, & in 3. cap. ad Ephes. Augustine de Genes. ad literam 12.9. and Epist. 112. and contra Adamantium Manichaeum, cap. 28. Gregorie, Moral. 11.12. All aim at this mark.

That they were rapti, or in an ecstasie, none denieth: but there is a double ecstasie. The first either from outward and in­ward senses, the minde remaining more enlightened and free and perfect: Thus were they sometimes in an ecstasie. Se­condly, there is an ecstasie from the minde it self, when it understandeth not: Thus they were never in an ecstasie. So Philo Judaeus in his book, Quis rerum divinarum haeres?

Cyril, lib. 8. in Joannem, cap. 3. Non ad Prophetae ra­tionem id semper exigi­t [...]r & necessarium est, ut quae sutura denuntiat intelligat: habuit Daui­el complures visiones quas primum non in­tellexit; sed ab Angelo postea est edoctus, & no­men Prophetae non per­didit. It is not alwayes necessarie that a Prophet should understand whatsoever he foretelleth. Dani­el had many visions which at the first he understood not, but was after taught by an Angel; and yet he forfeited not the name of a Prophet.

I answer with Hierom on Daniel 10. They did know what the things signified, though they were not presently inlightened; Ʋt per moram occa­sio daretur, anepliùs De­um deprecandi, & lacry­mis & je junio invocandi Deum, ut mitteret Au­gelum suum qui docere [...] Danielem. that upon the delay occasion might be ministred unto them to pray oftner and more unto God, and with tears and fasting call upon him, that God would send his Angel to instruct Daniel. So that every Prophet knew what words he spake, and knew the li­terall meaning of every word: but the spirituall meaning they understood not at the first, or presently, but afterwards. So Zacharie saw many things and knew them not, but asked the Angel: Zach. 6.4. What are these, my Lord? And 1.9. O my Lord, what are these? And 4.5, 6. Knowest thou not what these things be? And I said, No my Lord. Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is, &c. See the like in the 13 and 14 verses.

Pharaoh, Nabuchodonosor, and Caiaphas did apprehend, but not understand things divine: Prophets understood almost alwayes, saith Castrus: Alwayes, say I, within a short while; so that they were ne­ver left wholly nescient of what they prophesied.

Aquinas, 2 ^a, 2 ^ae, quaest. 173. artic. 4. cometh home to me in the question propounded and in the close, though he hold­eth somewhat aloof in the bodie of the Article. His Quaere is, Ʋtrùm Prophetae semper cognoscant ea quae prophetant? VVhe­ther the Prophets alwayes understand all things which they pro­phesie? and at first he resolveth, Non oportet Prophe­tas quaeeun (que) praedicun [...] cognoscere. It is not necessarie that they should know whatsoever they foretell. I confesse there is no ab­solute necessitie of it; and the Non oportet makes another di­stinct question: But against my position detur [...], give me one instance. He proves it by Caiaphas, who knew not what he prophesied. It is answered before; He was no Prophet, though he spake a propheticall sentence, no more then Ba­laams asse was a man, because he once discoursed more wise­ly then his master. Aquinas addeth, and that truely, That the Spirit moved the mindes of the souldiers to part Christs garments; but they knew not what it signified. But this is farre from our question: for neither were they Prophets, nor spake any pro­pheticall sentence; but onely fulfilled one. Three Arguments he bringeth unanswerable for my opinion.

1. Augustinus super Genes. ad literam 12.9. toward the be­ginning: Quibus signa per ali­quas rerum corporalium similitudinet demon­strabantur i [...] Spiritu, nisi accessisset mentis officium, ut etiam intel­ligerentur, uondum erat prophetia. Sed ea quae intelliguntur, non pos­sunt esse incognita: Ergò Propheta non ignorat ea quae prophetat. VVho saw by the Spirit heavenly visions in and by the glasse of bodily resemblances, unlesse there were added also the use, employment, and offices of the minde, whereby those things may be understood, he deserveth not the name of a Prophet: But those things that are understood are not unknown: Therefore the Pro­phet is not ignorant of what he prophesieth.

2. Majus est lumen pro­phetiae, quàm lumen na­turalis rationis: Sed qui­cunque lumine natura­li habet scientiam, non ignorat ea quae scit: [...]rgò quicunque lumine pro­phetico aliqua enuntiat, non petest ea ignorare. Greater and brighter is the divine light of prophesie, then the light of naturall reason: But by naturall reason we are not igno­rant of those things which we know: Therefore whosoever is in­spired with the spirit of prophesie, cannot be ignorant of such things as he prophesieth of.

3. Pr [...]phe [...]ia ordinatur ad homanum illumina­tionem: Ʋnde dicitur, 7. Pet. 1.19. HABEMUS PROPHETICUM SERMO­NEM, CUI BENEF ACI­TIS ATTENDENTES, QUASI LUCERNAE LU­GENTI IN GALIOINO­SO LOCO. Sed nihil po­test alios illuminare, ni­si in se sit illuminatum: Ergò videtur quòd Pro­pheta prius illuminetur, ad cognoscendum ea quae aliis enuntiat. Prophesie is ordained as a means to instruct and inlighten mens understandings: whereupon it is said, 2. Pet. 1.19. WE HAVE A MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHESIE, WHERE­UNTO YE DO WELL THAT YE TAKE HEED, AS UNTO A LIGHT THAT SHINETH IN A DARK PLACE: But no­thing can irradiate or give light unto others, that is not illumina­ted in it self: Therefore it seems that a Prophet is first inlightened himself, to know those things which he fore-divineth to others. His onely answer to the objections is, that the three reasons speak of true Prophets, whose minde is from heaven perfect­ly inlightened: Which is wholly my conclusion, except he differ from me in this, That the mindes of the true Prophets are not perfectly inlightened in the things which they do prophesie: which his words may insinuate, and my opinion contradicteth. It is true, that Faith is of those things that are not seen; Hope is of those things that are not had or enjoy­ed; Prophesie is of those things that are not, but are to come: and things to come are as easily known lumine prophe­tico, by the light of prophesie, as present colours are discerned lumine naturali, by the light of nature: But that prophesie is of things hidden from the true Prophet, evinceth that a Prophet and a Seer are not all one; and what I say concerning whatso­ever the Prophets spake or writ, I say also of all other Pen­men of holy Scripture; They knew what they spake, they knew what they wrote; even S. Paul that heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawfull for a man to utter, 2. Cor. 12.4. out of doubt understood whatsoever was said unto him: He saith not, he heard words that he could not understand; but words unspeakable.

Three Objections follow: two brought by Castrus, but not answered; the third is drawn from divers passages of the Apostles.

Object. 1. Augustine, de Civit. 7.33. saith, Prophetae quaedam intelligebant, quaedam non intelligebant. The Prophets did understand some things, and not understand other things.

It is true, No one of them knew all things, but some things were revealed to one, some to another, in severall times, places, manners, and degrees: but Augustine will not say, that the holy Prophets were ignorant of what they prophesied themselves, and were to teach others. Elisha knew not the cause of the womans coming to him, 2. King. 4.27. and till the minstrell played, the hand of the Lord came not on him, 2. King. 3.15. but the same Elisha knew, not onely things to [Page 83]come, but also things contingent, and which did never come to passe: Whereas Joas smote but thrice upon the ground, Elisha knew by the spirit of prophesie, that if Joas had smit­ten five or six times, then had he smitten Syria till he had consumed it, 2. Kings 13.19. Now let any one think the Pro­phets to be parcell-ignorant in their own prophesies, I will not.

Object. 2. Ambrose, de Abraham, 1.8. saith, Abraham pro­phesied he knew not what, when he spake to his young men, Gen. 22.5. Abide you here with the asse, and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

Melchior Canus, de locis Theologicis, 2.4. in initio, saith, Sunt alii quibus ego vehementer assentior, qui admittunt Abraham men­titum fuisse; Others admit that Abraham told a lie, to whom I strong­ly adhere. I answer in generall, Canus had done better if he had followed them, Qui piè gravitérque contendunt, Abraham non esse mentitum. Who religiously and gravely contend (as himself speaketh) that Abraham lied not. I answer more particularly, The plurall might be used for the singular; or he might think reservedly, If God will, If we both live. Ei­ther of these wayes is better then that of Canus. But the truth is, The father of the faithfull knew, that though him­self did kill Isaac, yet God who is able to stones to raise up children unto Abraham, Matth. 3.9. was able to raise up Isaac even from the dead, Heb. 11.19. and in hope or full assurance thereof might say, I and the lad will return; and yet intend faithfully to sacrifice his sonne. And who knoweth but he might be divinely and extraordinarily assured, that his childe should return with him?

The third Objection consisteth of these parcels: 1. Pet. 5.12. By Silvanus a faithfull brother unto you, as I suppose. 2. Cor. 11.5. I suppose I was not a whit behinde the very chiefest Apo­stles. In both places is used the word [...], computo, suppu­to: Existimo, saith the Vulgat, I suppose. 1. Cor. 7.40. [...], I think I have the Spirit of God. Joh. 21.25. There are many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written, I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the books that should be written: [...], arbitror, I opine, think, or suppose. From which or the like places the objection thus ari­seth; Opinion is conversant about those things which are changeable; and is onely of all the powers of the soul busied about contingents; and is a trembling, pendulous, shaking and uncertain habit, circa complexa: upon probable reasons incli­ning to one side; yet fearing or doubting the contradictorie: for opinion is framed on likelihood, as knowledge is upon truth. Where opinion or supposall is, there is not certain knowledge: But our Apostles did think or suppose: Therefore they had not immediate divine revelation or certaintie in the points supposed, and therefore wrote somewhat which they knew not.

I answer to each of these Apostles in particular: and first to S. Peter, who seemeth to be in doubt and uncertainty what was to be thought concerning Silvanus.

Divers say, he speaketh modestly of him, as the Apostoli­call men were wont to do of themselves. S. Augustine, Tract. 37. in Joan. averreth, that under those words is couched an asseveration: As if one should say to a stubborn servant, Thou dost contemn me: Consider; I suppose I am thy master: where the seeming supposall makes him neither to be, nor seem to be ever a whit the lesse his master. But I answer, That the holy Ghost having not revealed unto S. Peter fully what the heart of Sil­vanus was, or was like to be, left him to suppose; and accor­ding to the supposall of his soul, did dictate unto S. Peter (what the blessed Spirit knew better then S. Peter) these words. The supposall of the Apostle inferreth not a supposall of the Spirit; The Spirit was most certain when the Apostle might be dubious: The holy Ghost spake (if I may so say) representing Peter, and in Peters person; which might be sub­ject to a supposall, and yet divinely inspired to know certain­ly what he wrote, namely to know this, that he did suppose. And that upon good motives.

Whereas S. Paul saith, 2. Cor. 11.5. I suppose I was not a whit behinde the very chiefest Apostles: and 1. Cor. 7.40. I think I have the Spirit of God; he speaketh not so much doubtingly as humbly. To use diminuent and sparing phrases concerning ones self is lawfull: 2. Cor. 11.23. I speak as a fool, saith S. Paul; yet there was as great a dissimilitude between a fool and him, as between any (I think) then breathing. Ephes. 3.8. [...], Ʋnto me who am lesse then the least of all Saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the un­searchable riches of Christ. No man had the like priviledge in every degree, as he had in this. S. Peter was Doctor Judaeo­rum, the Doctour of the Jews; S. Paul Doctor Gentium, the Do­ctour of the Gentiles: yet no man can speak more modestly then S. Paul doth of himself: Lesse then the least of the Apostles, had been much; but lesse then the least of all Saints, is the depth, the heart, the soul of humilitie: which yet is further evidenced, in that he saith not, this grace was given when he was a persecuter, and so indeed worse then any Saint, yea al­most worse then any man; but to me even now when I am called, now when I am turned; to me now lesse then the least of all Saints, is this grace given. Lesse then the least is contrary to the rules of Grammar, which admit not a compara­tive above a superlative; contrary to common sense; contra­ry to the literall truth of the things themselves: for he was a chosen vessell, a chief Apostle; few (if any) more chief: though he should boast more of his authoritie, he should not be ashamed, [Page 85]2. Cor. 10.8. No whit inferiour [...], to the very chiefest Apostles, 2. Cor. 12.11. A Minister of Christ more then others, 2. Cor. 11.23: Now though S. Paul used terminis dimi­nuentibus, and spake sparingly and modestly in some places concerning himself; yet otherwhere he revealeth the whole truth; he knew the certaintie of things, to wit, that he was not lesse then the least, that he was not as a fool: and when he said, I suppose, or I think, he did know. Dum minus dicit, majus innuit: Whilest he speaketh the lesse, he intimateth the more: he was never a trumpeter of his own worth, but when he was urged unto it by opposition.

Concerning the place of S. John thus I answer: The Apo­stle was governed by the holy Ghost, to use an Hyperbole, or [...], according to the Orientall Idiotisme; and perchance aimed at the words, Gen. 13.6. The land was not able to bear Abraham and Lot, that they might dwell together: Or at the place of Amos 7.10. The land is not able to bear all his words; as is well observed by the curious Heinsius. He also here is guided by the same Spirit, to write, I suppose, or I think, that even the world could not contain the books: as for other reasons to us un­known, so perhaps because both the Spirit would qualifie the Hyperbole, and speak within truth which is allowed, rather then beyond truth which is disallowable: I suppose, rather then I know.

Secondly, I answer more punctually; If the holy Spirit did leave S. Paul nescient, whether he were rapt in bodie, yea or no; and Paul did know his own nesciencie, 2. Cor. 12.2. why might not the same Spirit leave S. Paul, S. Peter, S. John in supposals? and yet no inconvenience ariseth thencefrom, since they perfectly knew that they did suppose. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimonie is true, John 21.24. as S. John saith of him­self.

To conclude this point; No man ever said, that whatsoe­ver the holy Penmen mentioned or treated of, they under­stood perfectly, invested with all their circumstances: for they spake and writ of the day of judgement, and other se­cret visions, whose depths were never sounded by meer man; but sealed and reserved, perchance from Angels, till the gene­rall judgement: yet whatsoever matter, sentences, and words they wrote, they knew as they were writers thereof, and were in no doubt of them, nor could they mistake them. As they were not omniscient on the one side; so were they not ignorant on the other side: but whatsoever they spake or wrote they knew, and knew much more then ever they spake or wrote.

The sixth question followeth, viz. Whether the holy Pen­men did reade profane authours?

Upon the premisall of six points, the answer will be most expedite.

The first is this, That diverse Prophets and Penmen of the Old Testament, were Noble-men, Rulers, or Kings, cannot be denied by him, who thinketh of Isaiahs birth of royall linage, saith Hierom in the Prologue on him; and Lyranus from the Rabbins; or on David, Solomon, and others.

Secondly, That diverse also were learned before their cal­ling to publick place, is most apparent. Thus Moses was learn­ed in all the wisdome of the Egyptians, and was mightie in words and deeds, Act. 7.22. and this before he was called to his pub­lick charge. Thus was Job skilled in Astronomie, as his words declare; and Solomon the best Philosopher (as I think) that ever was, except Christ and Adam; though Solomons great learning was rather infused then acquired.

The third puncto is, That no Penmen of the New Testa­ment were Noble: And perchance even therefore our Bles­sed Saviour would write nothing by himself in person, be­cause he was of the bloud-royall. S. Hierom in his Epistle to Principia the Virgin, saith, S. John was Noble, and for his No­bilitie known to the high Priest. I answer, that he was very neare of kindred to our Blessed Saviour, and therefore Noble; but that ever he was nobly bred or brought up according to the usance of the world, or that he was by his nobilitie made known to the high Priest, I see not proved. S. Paul saith, 1. Cor. 1.26. Ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mightie, not many noble are called: and vers. 28. God hath chosen the base things of the world, and things which are despised. If any one object, Though there were not many noble called, yet S. John might be one: Estius is peremptorie, that Inter duodecim Chri­sti Apostolos nullus erat secundum seculum sapiens, potens, nobilis. Not one of the twelve Apostles, according to the world, was wise, powerfull, or noble. Ambrose, lib. 5. in Luc. ad illud Capitis sexti, 13. ELEGIT EX IPSIS, thus, Adverte coeleste con­silium: non sapientes aliquos, non divites, non nobiles, sed piscatores & Publicanos, quos diri­geret, elegit; nè tradu­xisse prudentiâ, nè po­demisse divitiis, nè po­tentiae nobilitatisque authoritate traxisse ali­quos ad suam gratiam videretur. Observe the providence of God: He chose not any wise, nor rich, nor noble, but he elected fishers and Publicanes: and them he instructed, lest he might seem to have drawn men unto him by worldly wisdome, or to have redeemed them by wealth, or to have allured them to his side and to the participation of his grace, by the reconciling au­thoritie of power and nobilitie.

The 1. Cor. 4.11. the Apostle speaketh in the person of all his fellows, thus, Even to this present houre we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffetted, and have no certain dwel­ling place; and labour, working with our own hands, &c. which things the Noble of this world will neither do nor suffer: Therefore they were not Noble.

The fourth thing premisable is this, None of the twelve Apo­stles were learned before their calling. S. Paul indeed was brought [Page 87]up at the feet of Gamaliel, Act. 22.3. and S. Luke, as being a Phy­sician, might be learned ere he was a Christian: the like might be surmised of S. Mark; and the rather, because we reade not that the gift of tongues was given to these two. Concerning S. Matthew, though there may be some probabilitie that he was learned before his vocation, because he sat at the receit of custome, Matth. 9.9. for few unlearned men were gatherers of Cesars customes or tributes: and though Publicanes were vilely esteemed of among the Jews, yet divers passages of Cicero do shew, that they were of good account among the Romanes: and though more particularly it is observed, Luk. 5.29. that Levi (or Matthew) made Christ a great feast in his own house; and there was a great companie of Publicanes and of others that sat down with them; whence may be inferred, that S. Matthew was a rich man; yet notwithstanding all this, he might be un­learned; and a poore man might make a great feast for joy of his extraordinarie calling. See what the young, perhaps, poore plough-man Elisha did, 1. King. 19.21.

Joh. 7.15. the Jews say of Christ, How knoweth this man let­ters, having never learned? The Priests, Scribes, and Pharisees knew Christ frequented not their schools, no not those at Je­rusalem (for Franciscus Lucas Brugensis calleth them Schools) pointed at, Luk. 2.46. which were in the Temple, and at the outwardest Eastern gate of it; I say, Christ frequented them not to learn; but he at twelve yeares of age went and heard the Doctours, and asked them questions; and belike, when they could not answer, he did; or els, perhaps, he did answer to o­ther questions propounded by them: for all that heard, him (even they with whom he disputed) were astonished at his un­derstanding and answers, Luk. 2.47. John 7.27. VVe know this man whence he is, say the Jews. As if one be eminent among us, we usually enquire of his parents, of his breeding, and whole course of life: so in likelihood they did of Christ: They knew his breeding in the citie of Nazareth; VVhere from his childhood he used a mechanicall trade with his supposed father, saith Pererius: They saw him not poring on books, nor tum­bling them over, nor for studies sake resorting to any places where religion was taught; yet they heard him, Legis testimo­nia proferentem, Alledge the words of the Law. They did not ad­mire his doctrine (say Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophy­lact) nor beleeved they it; but they were astonished at his eloquence and learning, acknowledging them rather inspired then acquired. From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdome is this which is given unto him? say they, Mark 6.2. As Christ never went to any Schools, no more (in all likelihood) did any of his twelve Apostles; who being poore tradesmen, may well be thought unlettered: Matth. 4.21. even John, and his brother [Page 88]James, with their father Zebedee, were mending their nets; where­by their povertie and mean calling was described. Their igno­rance is taxed by the Jews, John 7.49. This people, who knoweth not the Law, are cursed: where his disciples are held as illite­rate ignorants. And for this cause, I think, Christ chose not either Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea, or the Lawyer which offered to follow him, or Scribe, Priest, or Pharisee, to be any one of his Apostles; that Apostolicall learning might be rather Divine, then Humane: in which regard also, perhaps, he chose none of the Doctours with whom he argued: sure I am, S. Augustine saith, for this very cause Nathanael was not numbred among the twelve Apostles, Quia doctus erat in lege, Because he was a learned Lawyer; though otherwise Nathanael was a most accomplished men. Act. 4.13. it is said, That the high Priests, Rulers, and Elders perceived that Peter and John were unlearned and ignorant men: Unlearned in the knowledge of things themselves; ignorant in skilfull speaking: simple men both for matter and manner. And this the Jews perceived, that is, by disquisition found out, saith Lorinus.

Augustine, de Verb. Domini, Serm. 59. Tom. 10. Magna artificis mi­sericordia: sciebat enim, quòd si eligeret Senato­rem, diceret Senator, Dignitas mea electa est: si Oratorem, Eloquentia mea: si Philosophum, Sa­pientia mea electa est. Da mihi istum piscato­rem: veni tu pauper; ni­hil habes, nihil nôsti; se­quere me. Tam largo fonti vas inane admo­vendum est. Leguntur modò verba piscatorum, & subduntur colla Ora­torum. Great was the mercie of Christ: He knew if he had chosen a Senatour, the Sena­tour would have said, I was chosen for my place and dignitie: If an Oratour, he would have pleaded, My eloquence hath made me regarded: If a Philosopher, My wisdome caused me to be chosen. Give me the Fisherman: Come thou poore man; thou hast nothing, knowest nothing; follow me. Put me an empty vessel where is so great a spring. The words of Fishermen are read onely, and the necks of Oratours are subject unto them. Or (as Athanasius, de Incarnat. & Sacrament. cap. 9. hath it) Verba Philosophorum excludit simplex veri­tas piscatorum. The plain down-right truth of Fish­ermen, hath thrust out of doores the oratorie of Philosophers.

Lorinus, on Act. 1.26. relateth the opinion of Antoninus, thus, That Christ whilest he lived chose rude and illiterate men, lest the con­version of the world should be attributed to humane industry and wis­dome: yet the Apostles chose the learned Matthias, to insinuate unto the succeeding Churches, That not idiots, but skilfull men were to be cho­sen Governours of souls; Yea, even Christ himself from heaven, vocal­ly called the learned S. Paul. And so I shake hands with this point.

The fifth followeth, viz. That it was lawfull for them, and is for others, to reade, or seek profane Authours.

The arts are as handmaids to Divinitie. Clemens Alexandri­nus, primo Stromat. saith, Non minùs literas illas Gentilibus ad Chri­stum paedagogi vice, quàm legem Judaeis esse The arts are as a Schoolmaster to bring the Gentiles to Christ, as the Law was to the Jews. Though the Apostle saith, Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophie, (Col. 2.8.) yet it is that Philosophie which is joyned with vain deceit. True Philosophie is a branch plucked from the eter­nal Veritie (saith Clemens in the same place) and is the childe of rectified reason. But Recta ratio est lex summi Jovis. even Jupiter is ruled by good reason, [Page 89]saith Cicero: and Tertullian, more African-like, Res D [...]i Ratio. God and rea­son are at one. When any Fathers tax Philosophie, it is be­cause it cometh too nigh the Mountain, and intermingleth with Divinitie: otherwise, it is lawfull to use it, or any other profane authoritie. See it proved by Nicephorus, 10.26. Gre­gorie Nazianzen defendeth S. Basil for his learning in Ethnicks, and censureth those that condemn it, saying; The aire, the earth, are not to be contemned, because some have abused them. Fire, meat, iron, & other things, Per se sunt neque utilia neque noxia. of themselves are neither profitable nor harmfull, but as they are used. As we make Theriacall medica­ments of creeping things: so let us choose the good things out of them, and contemn the bad; Sanctificantes pro­fana & facientes occle­stastica. making the profane things to be san­ctified and ecclesiasticall, saith Origen, Homil. 31. in Luc. Hierom well observeth in the beginning of his Commentaries on Da­niel, and in his Preface on Job, That, if you look over all the books of Philosophie, you must needs finde in them Aliquam partem va­sorum Dei. some part of the chosen truths of God. In Plato, God to be the Ar­chitect of the world: in the Stoicall Zeno, Hell, and the im­mortalitie of souls. We are to vindicate their good things from them, as from unjust possessours, and to transfer the spoils of Egypt to our selves, as Augustine sweetly alludeth, de doctr. Christ. 2.40. When Ruffinus accused Hierom for using in his letters humane learning, Hierom Epist. 8. answereth, That that is to kill Goliah with his own sword, 1. Sam. 17.51. Let Philosophie submit her self, as Agar to Sara, saith Clemens ibid. Let the captive womans head be shaved, and her nails pared, Deut. 21.12. If the handmaid be obstinate, Cast out this bondwoman and her sonne, Gen. 21.10. Quomodo repudia­mus secularia studia, si­ne quibus divina esse non possunt? Why do we refuse secular learning, without which we cannot comprehend things divine? saith Tertullian, de Idololat. And Aquinas most divinely in his disputed questi­ons de side, Art. 10. Rationi naturali ve­rae nunquam contrari­atur Theologia; sed eam excedit saepe, & sic vi­detur repugnare. Divinitie is never contrarie to true natu­rall reason, but often excelleth it; and so going beyond it, doth seem to thwart it. And so this fifth point, That it was and is lawfull to reade profane Authours, is the rather concluded, because it shall be confirmed by the sixth,

The holy Penmen did cite Poets or profane Authours.

Titus 1.12. One of themselves, even a Prophet of their own, said,

Epimenides the Cretian in his book [...], de Oracu­lis, hath the whole Hexameter: Callimachus came after him, and from him took the Hemistich: But the whole verse was not taken by S. Paul from Callimachus, because the whole verse was not intire in Callimachus: Besides, Callimachus was of Cyrene, not of Creet. The learned Estius is my authour.

The same S. Paul cites this (as it is Act. 17.28, 29.) In him [Page 90]we live, move, and have our being, as certain also of your own Poets have said: For we are also his off-spring. In which dis­course S. Paul insists in the writings of diverse of their Pro­phets. First, vers. 24. God made the world, and all things there­in; which almost all Heathen acknowledged, and many have published: vers. 26. He hath made of one bloud all nations of men: Orpheus comprised both of them before in few words, ‘Ʋnus perfectus per se; ex uno omnia facta:’ He is one and perfect of himself; and by or of that one were all things made. Vers. 28. seemeth to be taken from Xenophanes Colophonius, who cometh home to that point, as he is cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. 5. or els from Orpheus, who acknowledgeth that in God

Concerning those words, vers. 29. We are his off-spring; they are the very words of Aratus in the beginning almost of his [...], Ipsius enim genus sumus, We are his off-spring. Clemens Strom. 5. and Vasques, Tom. 1. part. 1. dispu­tat. 28. num. 17. expound it, as if we were his Genus Creatione, By creation. That is true, but not enough: for Genus may be taken for Soboles, an off-spring; and men may be said to be [...], Jovis proles, Born of God, The issue of God; or, as another hath it to an other purpose,

Another place in S. Paul, is 1. Cor. 15.33,

Tertullian, ad uxorem, 1.7. saith, This versicle was sanctified by the Apostle. Hierom, ad Demetriad. virg. Epist. 8. cap. 10. saith, S. Paul assuming this secular verse, made it Ecclesiasticall. So­crates, 3.40. and out of him Nicephorus 10.26. say, It is bor­rowed from Euripides. Hierom, Peter Martyr, and many mo report it to be Senarius Menandri, an Hexameter of Menander. I reconcile them thus, That it is in both of the Poets. Justi­nian the Jesuite relateth, that Photius, apud Oecumenium, saith, Some such thing is in the Prophet Isaiah; But I could never finde it, saith the Jesuite. Perhaps he mistook Photius; for if Photius had any relation to the precedent words, vers. 32. Let us eat and drink, for to morrow we die; the Jesuite might finde the same Isa. 22.13. And so Athanasius, on the place of the Apostle (or rather Theophylact, if we beleeve Bellarmine, de Scripto­ribus Ecclesiasticis, ad annum 340. in Athanasio) saith, Those words were taken from Isaiah.

Acts 20.28. Take heed unto your selves, and to all the flock; [Page 91]Attendite vobis, &c. That Thales Milesius was the first that said, Non sine oculo Domini (.i. attentione) equum; non sine vesti­gio Domini, (id est, attentione) agrum pinguescere, was a good observation of Bishop Andrews in his Concio ad Clerum, in Sy­nodo Provinciali, pag. 29: but that grave Prelates intimation (for indeed at the utmost it is no more) that Paul alluded to that saying of Thales, is a conjecture farre enough fetched. Eodémque in loco, Paulus (jam Milesius) Nec, sine attentione, bene esse Ecclesiae dicit. So he. Much more may be said to the point concerning the Apostles citing Apocryphall, or not Ca­nonicall writings.

S. Paul knew the names of Pharaoh his Magicians, 2. Tim. 3.8. Jannes and Jambres, as we reade it according to the Greek and Syriack; which is also followed by Numenius apud Eu­seb. de praeparat. Evangel. 9.3. though the Vulgat hath Mam­bres in stead of Jambres, and the Hebrew Talmud, and Rabbi Nathan, as Genebrard cites them in the first book of his Chronologie. Apostolus è Tal­mud habet nomina prin­cipum Magorum Pha­raonis, ut communis opi­nio est. It is commonly thought that the Apostle took from the Talmud the names of Pharaohs chief Magicians, saith Drusius, in Henoch, pag. 25. and in the margin, Credibilius est, ipsum sumpsisse ex libro Apo­crypho, qui Jannes & Mambres vocatur; nam Talmud indè habuit. It is more cre­dible the Apostle took it out of an Apocryphall book, called JANNES AND MAMBRES: for from thence the Talmud fetched it, saith Drusius. I for my part will not define whether S. Paul was onely immediately from heaven assured, that these were the names of the Magicians; or whether he had read their names also in some Apocryphall book now perished, or in the Tal­mud.

Every good gift, and every perfect gift is from above: Which words I have both heard and read alledged for the lawfull use of humane literature; though I, for my part, cannot guesse whence the Apostle took them.

That S. Jude had the historie of the strife between Micha­el and the devil, about the bodie of Moses (the 9 of Jude) in part from Deuteronomie, and in part from an Apocry­phall book, Aretius maintaineth: The title of the book was Assumptio Mosis, The assumption of Moses (as some say;) or, Ascensio Mosis, The ascent of Moses, as others say. That S. Jude might also have read the book of Henoch and his prophesie, I will not denie: for he citeth some words of it, vers. 14. So think Hierom in Catalogo, and in his Commentarie on Titus 1. Augustine de Civitat. 15.23. & ibid. 18.38. and Beda on the place. But the book of Henoch is Apocryphall.

That S. John read the Targumists, in many places, the learned Heinsius proveth or laboureth to prove by many passages. Thus much clearly must be confest, that the gifts both of reading, and of writing, and understanding of strange tongues [Page 92]was conferred on all the Apostles; not one was an illiterate man, after the cloven tongues like as of fire sat upon each of them, Act. 2.3. and I make no question but they also read the Old Testament, after that time, and might reade other books, Talmudists, Targumists, Hellenists, Apocryphall books, yea Heathen writings; and perhaps did so.

But in all these or the like places, which the Apostles ci­ted or pointed at, this is now my last resolution, as a Corol­larie to the Question before briefly answered,

Either the sacred Penmen never read those things them­selves, but the all-knowing Spirit did tender and dictate both matter and words to them: Or if they did reade profane au­thours, and were conversant in them; yet they used the words, not as their own reading, not as humane learning, not as drawn out of the treasurie of their own memories, not as if they had the choice to insert those sentences above others; but the ho­ly Ghosts inspiration guided them wholly, and reached forth words unto them, both in things which they knew, and in things unknown unto them before.

Yea, I beleeve, that if Plato, or Aristotle, Tullie, or Varro had lived after Christs dayes, and been called to write any part of Scripture, they should not, would not have conceived one thought, or written one word of humane literature, as from themselves, or any part of their own great knowledge; but would have quitted themselves, and been wholly led by the holy Ghost.

The seventh Question. Whether they studied the things before-hand?

That both Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, were filled with holy thoughts, and heavenly meditations, we certainly beleeve and know. Psal. 45.1. My heart is enditing of a good matter; or (as it is in our margin) boyleth, or bubbleth up a good matter: Eructavit cor meum verbum bonum, saith the Vulgat; Verily good thoughts were in my heart: The like I say of all, and every of them. Psal. 39.2. I was dumbe with silence, I held my peace even from good, and my sorrow was stirred: and vers. 3. My heart was hot within me, while I was musing the fire burned; then spake I with my tongue: and vers. 4. Lord, make me to know mine end. From whence appeareth, that David was premedi­tating, as other people do: and at the last, as other mens, his thoughts brake forth. The similitude is taken from sorrow and grief, which being for a while suppressed, groweth great­er; or from fire, which being smothered, or half quenched with water, upon recovery of its strength, groweth farre more violent. The answer is, that David relateth what course he took when he could not exonerate and alleviate his soul by conference with men, whose wayes he liked not: He poured [Page 93]out his complaints and prayers unto God: So Musculus. And this no doubt did the Spirit of God stirre him up to do. It pleased the holy Ghost to make those thoughts of David, which be­fore were pure and divine, yet private, now to be divine, pub­lick, and canonicall.

Again, That they might conceive and understand by the Spirit, a great deal more then the holy Ghost would have to be written, I denie not: and on such things they might muse.

Yet I conjecture, that what they wrote in holy Scripture, they studied not before-hand (the Spirit hath no need of mans studie or learning) and I do remove from every part of it, all humane premeditation; and maintain, that the Spirit did frame both matter and words (as by Gods grace shall anon appeare) pro re nata, as occasion offered it self.

One chief reason may be this, That nature, which is the right hand of God, hath greatest care of greatest matters, and lesse of least, and equall care of things equall. If the Apo­stolicall and Evangelicall writings are not (consideratis consi­derandis, weighing one thing with an other) of more esteem then their words were; yet let them go as equivalent: Then Christ will have as much care of their writings as of their speaking: But their speeches were without premeditation, and were com­manded so to be: Therefore all their writings. Matth. 10.19. Take no thought how, or what ye shall speak: you see both the matter and manner is not to be from them. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you, vers. 20. Not they, there is the negative; but the Spirit, there is the positive. Likewise, Mark 13.11. Take no thought before-hand, —neither do ye premeditate: An absolute inhibition; and it had been a great sinne to transgresse it, and a distrust of the holy Ghost. The like I say concerning all their writings.

They might have indeed in their meditation before-hand di­vers of those things which afterwards they wrote: but when they thought on them, they knew not they should write them; and when they did write, they wrote them not as copies or extracts of former conceits out of the wombe of their own memories; but as freshly and newly inspired, apprehended, in­dited, and dictated unto them.

There is one kinde of knowledge proceeding from princi­ples known by the naturall light of the intellect: as Arith­metick, Geometrie, &c. Others proceed out of principles known by light of an higher knowledge: as Perspective, from the principles evinced by Geometrie; and Musick, from prin­ciples known by Arithmetick: So is the Scripture beleeved by an higher light, even by the revelation of God, saith Aquin. part. 1. quaest. 1. art. 2. and not beleeved onely; but the matter, and manner, and words proceeded from a diviner understanding, [Page 94]then humane conceit could reach unto; and were written by an higher and better hand then the hand of man. All was the holy Spirits doing, even the leading of their hands whilest they wrote, that they could not erre.

Cornelius Cornelii à Lapide, on 2. Tim. 3.16. thus, The Spi­rit did not dictate all Scripture after one manner. The Law and the Prophesies are revealed and dictated to a word; the Histories and Morall exercitations, which before by sight, hearing, reading, or meditation the holy Writers had learned, there was no necessitie to be inspired, or dictated from the Spirit; since they knew them al­readie: So John 19.35. He that saw it, bare record: and Luk. 1.3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order: Then doth he mince, modifie, and qualifie his former saying, in this manner; But the holy Spirit may be said to have dictated even the latter also: First, because Astitit scribentibus nè vel in puncto à veri­tate aberrarent. he was present whilest they wrote, that they could not go one jot from the truth: Secondly, because it stir­red them up, and suggested that they should write this rather then that: Conceptum ergò, & memoriam corum quae sciebant, non iis ingessit Spiritus Sanctus. Therefore the conceptions and remembrance of such things as they knew, the Spirit did not inspire into them. Thirdly, saith he, The Spirit did order, direct, and methodize all their conceits, that they might put this in the first, that in the second, another in the third place. In which words of his three things deserve censure, even the strict censure of the Inquisition.

First, That the Spirit did not dictate all Scripture after one manner.

I answer, Then all is not of a like dignitie: that which is after the divinest manner, is to be held best: that wherein there is a medly of divine and humane knowledge and wisdome, is of an inferiour sort. But this may not be granted; for, All Scripture is of divine inspiration. Excellently saith Doctour Estius on 2. Tim. 3.16. Rightly and most truely from hence do we conclude, that all the sacred Canonicall Scripture was written by the dictate of the holy Spirit; (not in that manner, say I, that he left the Penmen to their own memories and knowledge, which as humane were weak and imperfect) but Ità nimirum, ut non solùm sententiae, sed & verba singula, & verbo­rum ordo, ac tota dispo­sitio sit à Deo, tanquam per semetipsum loquen­te aut scribente. so, that not onely the sentences, but every word, and the order, placing, and the whole disposing of the words was from God, as speaking or writing by himself. But God (I dare say) hath no need of their memo­ries; nor his writing or speech, of their hearing, reading, sight, or premeditation.

Secondly, he is to be taxed for saying, there was no ne­cessitie that things Morall and Historicall should be inspired.

I say, there was a necessitie that histories and moralities should be inspired, if they are to be parts of the sacred Writ: otherwise, this knowledge and writing are onely parcels of hu­mane learning. Though S. John bare record to what he saw, [Page 95]his bearing record without the Spirit, had been but an ordi­nary testimonie. Not his saying, but the inspiration makes the record divine: and his testimonie from the Spirit, That he saw, is of more force then his testimonie could be to the Spirit, What he saw. It seemeth good unto me, saith S. Luke; but it was made to seem good unto him by the Spirit: yea, first it seemed good unto the holy Ghost; as the Apostles in the like case said, Act. 15.28. It seemed good unto the holy Ghost, and to us. The words do not notifie the pleasing of his own fancie, without the dictate of the holy Ghost, say I. And the understanding that he had of things from the first, was not by sight; for he was not then called: nor by humane relati­on; for that may be mistaken, increased, or decreased, or sub­ject to errour. But the knowledge issued out from the light divine; and therefore is there tearmed perfect understanding; like Gods gifts, James 1.17. All other guides are somewhat imperfect.

Thirdly, the Jesuite is justly blameable for saying, The Spi­rit need not tell them what they knew before.

I say, they might have forgotten or mistaken some things, as they were men; and by the Spirit they might know more certainly, what they knew before more doubtingly; and by the same Spirit they might know some circumstances more then before they knew: what they knew humanely, they now know divinely.

I will not discusse the question at large, Whether the Law written by the hand and finger of God immediately, were to be regarded above other things divinely inspired into holy men, and written by them. This I will say, That if I were ascertained that I saw the very tables, the latter tables of stone which God himself wrote; or if I had seen any thing which Christ himself had written (for I will not say he wrote nothing; and I know he could write) I should pre­fer them somewhat above whatsoever should be transcribed or written by any other whosoever: and this is my reason; Though Moses his writings were inspired and dictated from God; yet he placed them in the side of the Ark, Deut. 31.26. a place not altogether so noble: (see Cajetan on Heb. 9.) but the tables, and onely the tables written by Gods own finger, were laid up in the Ark it self; as appeareth, 1. Kings 8.9. and 2. Chron. 5.10. howsoever afterward it seemeth there was a change, Hebr. 9.4.

At length I am come to the five Conclusions, which beat directly upon the learned Heinsius: whereof the first is this, ‘ There was no difference between the Penmen of the divine Writ of the Old and New Testament in the point of conceiving and writing in different languages.’ Which in this manner I do explain;

If I demand of the worthy Heinsius, in what tongue the Old Testament was conceived: his answer is peremptorie, Prolegom. pag. 26. Hebraeâ ac Chaldaeâ conceptum est linguâ. It was conceived in the Hebrew and Chaldee language. It had been clearer if he had used some disjun­ctive, rather then a copulative Preposition. For none will imagine that the skilfull Heinsius did ever mean, that all of the Old Testament was conceived both in Hebrew and in Chaldee, to which his words seem to incline: but either in Hebrew or in Chaldee was it conceived; and they who wrote in Hebrew conceived in Hebrew; and they who wrote in Chaldee conceived in Chaldee. I do not think but he would thus have expressed himself, and explained his own meaning, if he had been put unto it. Whereupon I discourse in this man­ner: Jeremie wrote somewhat in Chaldee, and Daniel wrote some chapters: If they being Hebrews or Jews by generati­on and birth, and perfect in their mother-tongue, readie Scribes in the law of Moses, as well as Ezra, Ezra 7.6. did yet con­ceive in the Chaldee, that Chaldee which they wrote (which the ingenuous Heinsius will not denie: for what was concei­ved in Chaldee, if that which was written in Chaldee was not so conceived?) why did not the Writers of the New Testa­ment, though they were born and bred in the use of the Sy­riack, conceive in Greek what they wrote in Greek? What reason have we to discriminate them: so that the Penmen of the Old, shall conceive and write in one and the same lan­guage, the Chaldee in Chaldee, and Hebrew in Hebrew; and not the Penmen of the New Testament? but they (forsooth) must conceive in Syriack, and write or dictate in Greek? especially since all of them conceived and wrote by the in­spiration and dictate of one and the same Spirit? Either let him make the forenamed passages of the Chaldee language in the Old Testament to be conceived in Hebrew, though writ in Chaldee; and so none at all to be conceived in Chal­dee: or let him equall the Penmen of the New Law to those of the Old in this point, That they wrote in the self-same tongue in which they conceived.

Besides, it will be hard to prove, that Jeremie ever knew any part of the Chaldean language, till that very verse was inspired into him: and so with it, both the knowledge, and the words, and the power both of pronuntiation and of wri­ting. So that Jeremie could not possibly conceive and utter also the Chaldee in the Hebrew; but conceived that verse in Chaldee, and in Chaldee pronounced or wrote it.

A second errour in the learned Heinsius, Pag. 49. Prolegom. is this, Quare ad allusiones, non quae extant, sed quas animo conceperat Joan­nes, eundum est. Wherefore we must rest not on the allusions which now are, but which S. John conceived in his minde.

Against which I set down the second Conclusion; viz.

We must have recourse to the allusions which are. S. John was Sol Evangelii, The light, the sunshine, the very Sunne of the Gospel, as Dionysius termed him: This Sunne is in eclipse, and we have not, cannot have his true and perfect light, if we must not look to his rayes and shine, which are his words; but to his thoughts, that is, the light which is in himself; to his in­ternall and substantiall light, and not to the externall.

The certainest rule is most to be trusted unto: therefore let us not go from the words and extant allusions which we know, to the thoughts of S. John which we know not. For, Who knoweth the thoughts of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? 1. Cor. 2.11. And if the finite thought of every man be unknown, can the thoughts of him, who is inspired by the infinite Spirit, be so soon and so easily known? Moreover, the same words written in Greek may be conceived two or three wayes in the Syriack: for variations are in that language, and different expressions of the same things; And which of those shall we think was the conceit of S. John? And when we have lighted on divers, and all of them good expressions of Syriack; yet the Spirit might guide S. John to an other, which we never thought upon: And so we are for ever uncertain what allusion S. John conceived in his thoughts. For he con­ceived more by the boundlesse power of the divine inspira­tion, then we can possibly reach unto: and there was never place of Scripture so, since the Apostles dayes, expounded, (if before) that I dare say, The Spirit aimed at nothing else, and all is known. All known good expositions may be said to be of the Spirit, but the Spirit hath many depths which never yet were searched. Therefore our anchor-hold must be on the words; or else we shall flote in the wide vast sea of ima­gination and phansie, without sail, oar, or rudder, without card or compasse; by having recourse to the Non entes, or Non ex­tantes allusiones, Ʋnextant allusions, which were in the thoughts of our blessed Apostle. It is no rule or canon which is not extant. Non Ens is an ill guide to Ens.

Besides, the Syriack now much differeth from that in the Apostles dayes: how then can we finde out, what the Apo­stle conceived? For the Syriack and Arabick now in use (ex­cept perhaps the Gospel of S. Matthew, and the Epistle to the Hebrews) were translated out of the Greek, and not the Greek out of these. Had we exactly the identicall [...], first originall manuscripts, in which S. Matthew wrote his Go­spel, and S. Paul his Epistle to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew or Syriack; had we the true self-same paper or parchment, in which the Evangelists and Apostles or their amanuenses wrote the divine dictates; we might better guesse at their thoughts and the allusions to which they bended themselves. But now [Page 98]Heinsius would have us to shoot at rovers; or rather to no steadie mark at all, at the then thoughts of our Apostle.

Lastly, the worthy Heinsius doth a little interfere, when he counselleth us to go to the allusions which were in the thoughts of the Apostles, and not to the allusions which are extant: For suppose I grant that he hath found whatsoever the Apostle alluded to in his minde; is not this now extant? Or can a thing be found which is not extant?

The third conclusion trenching upon Heinsius is this, ‘They had no libertie left unto them to put in their own conceits, or in writing to adde or blot out what they had done.’

This point concerneth the matter which is written.

Peter Moulin in his third Epistle to Bishop Andrews, as it is in the 182 page of the said Bishops Opuscula, wrote thus; Quae ad salutem & fidem pertinent, ab A­postolis statuta sunt af­flatu divino; in caeteris, saepe usi sunt suâ pru­dentiâ, ut innuit Pau­ius. What things soever concern faith or salvation, they were deter­mined by the Apostles under the guidance of divine inspirations. In other things they often used their own discretion and prudence, as S. Paul intimateth, 1. Cor. 7.25. The grave and profound Oracle thus answereth him, pag. 193. Parciùs ista, de A­postolis, prudentiâ suâ ufis: periculose enim vel dicitur, vel scribitur, Apostolos in Quibusdam asslatu di­vino, in reliquis suâ prudentiâ saepe usos; id (que) in iis quae scripta reperi­untur. Atqui vel illium ipsum locum, ubi [...], cis ità concludi, [...] ità ut vel illius [...], à Spiritu Dei dictamen suum habu­erit. I pray you speak more sparingly of this point, viz. That the Apostles used their own wis­dome or prudence: for it is dangerous to say or write, that the Apo­stles were in some things inspired from heaven; in the rest often used their own counsel and prudence, and that in matters which are found written in the Scripture. But you know it is concluded imme­diately after these words, ACCORDING TO MY OPINION, or judgement; AND I THINK ALSO THAT I HAVE THE SPI­RIT OF GOD, 1. Cor. 7.40. So that his very opinion or judge­ment, had its dictate from the Spirit of God. Again, If the place cited were not inspired, but written in humane prudence; we must note it as Apocryphal. Then let us make an expurgatorie index of the New Testament. For we must separate that which is precious from that which is vile. Things of humane wisdome will never stand mixed with things divinely inspired. So farre he. Enough indeed for an Epistle; but I could have wished that the most learned walking-librarie had more fully answered all the ob­jections which do most forcibly arietate the truth; especially such as are couched in the same chapter, which is cited by Peter Moulin. If I come upon the stage after Roscius, I look not for praise, but pardon. Let us muster up all their forces together: and since that famous Bishop hath withstood the utmost of their strength in the first brunt; the rest will (like the French furie in warre) be the easier answered.

The first objection is, 1. Cor. 7.6. I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

The second objection is, vers. 10. Ʋnto the married I com­mand, yet not I, but the Lord: as if he had said, A common man may speak, and both deceive, and be deceived; but I say these things being taught of God.

The third objection is, vers. 12. To the rest speak I, not the Lord.

The fourth objection, vers. 25. Concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgement, as one that hath obtained mercie of the Lord to be faithfull.

The fifth objection, vers. 40. She is happier, if she so abide, after my judgement: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

To the first I thus answer, The Apostle meaneth not, that he was permitted onely to write or speak some things, and commanded to write other things: nor touched it any part of his thought, to permit a little sinne, that a greater might be avoided, as some hence maintain; Dum tribuit veni­am, denotat culpam. Whilest he forgiveth them, he granteth they were faultie, saith Augustine concerning these words, in lib. de peccat. Orig. cap. 38. Again, de bono Conjugali, cap. 10. Quis ambigat, absur­dissimè dici, non eos pec­câsse, quibus venia da­tur? It is most absurd to say, They sinned not whom pardon ab­solveth. Again, in Ench [...]r. cap. 78. Quis esse peccatum neget, cùm dari veniam facientibus Apostoliea authoritas fateatur? Who can denie there is a fault, where the Apostle confesseth that the doers thereof were forgiven? I answer, Erasmus saith, some Copies have it [...], and not [...], secundum indulgentiam, as Augustine and o­thers reade: and then the sense is, I tell you my opinion, or This is my advice; I leave you to your selves, I do not command it; God maketh not it a matter of precept, but thus I advise or counsel: and then it soundeth all one with that in the 25. verse, where the Apostle saith, [...], sontentiam do; and verse 40. [...]. Liberum interim fa­ciens hac in re suum cuique judicium. Leaving every man to his own libertie in this point, saith Erasmus.

Secondly, I wonder that that holy Father could think S. Paul would permit the least sinne, when Rom. 3.8. he counteth them slanderous reporters that affirmed he said, Let us do evil that good may come; adding, their damnation was just.

Again, if it be read [...], our English well translateth it, By permission: and the Arabick expounds it by [...], By my concession: Non dico ut in de­creto decisivo. Nor speak I it as a sinall sentence or binding decision, as Beza hath it. The Arabick of Junius hath it, [...], With mutuall consent: and thus enlargeth it; Quod dico ex con­sensu posse alterum ab altero discedere ad tem­pus propter jejunium & orationem, non jubeo sed consulo. Nam nè 'Deus quidem ipse hoc ordinarium aut perpe­tuum esse mandavit su­is, sed exemplum prae­buit cum hoc consilio me [...] [...], &c. Whereas I say, One may depart from another by consent for a time, that they may fast the more, and pray the better; I command not this, but advise it. For even God himself never gave charge unto any of his, that this should be done commonly, and kept perpetually, but he hath given us an example agreeable to my counsel, that it may be done sometimes for a while upon extraordinary occasion. Exod. 19.15. Come not at your wives. The translated words of the Ara­bick by Junius are these, Dico hoc, juris (ut dici solet) consiliunt, non ut mandatum. This is the advice, not the decree of the Law. Beza makes the sense of the words to be, as if S. Paul did not command expressely, that all should be mar­ried, as some might collect from his words, vers. 2. Junius [Page 100]applieth them to his leaving it indifferent for man and wife to forsake the companie of each other for a time. Nomen VENIAE perperam torquetur ab Augustino. Augustines PARDON is farre fetcht and forced too much, saith Beza: for [...] is a candid interpretation upon good reason; and doth not alwaies imply such a pardon as connoteth a fault. Ari­stotle saith, [...]. Eth. l. 6. c. 11 It is an upright sentence, inclining not to rigour, but to moderation. Peter Martyr saith, Versatur circa aequii, & summum jus remit­tit, quod alioqum est summa injuria. It is exercised about that which is equall, and qualifieth the rigour of the law, which other­wise is extream injurie.—Even in the same sort could I deal with one whom I saw to fast, or to studie too much; that he might sometime refresh himself. Which I would not say imperiously, but by way of counsel grounded on equitie. Neither doth it therefore follow, that to studie hard, or to fast holily is a sinne. So farre Peter Martyr; who might as well have insisted in S. Pauls ad­vice to his scholar, 1. Tim. 5.23. Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomacks sake, and thine often infirmities. The Syriack in Junius hath it answerable to the Arabick; Hoc dico ego, tanquā infirmis, non ex man­dato. This I say, as to the weak, not by commandment. Ex concessione, non ex imperio. By grant, not precept, as Tremellius turneth it. Non praecipio, sed permitto. I charge not, but permit, saith Hay­mo: for how could S. Paul command when Christ left it free? When Christ said, It is not given to all: or, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it, Matth. 19.12. if the words have reference to the second verse: or, when God himself left it indifferent, if it hath dependance upon the temporarie ab­stemiousnesse, upon just occasion touched at in the fifth verse?

Concerning the second objection, vers. 10. Ʋnto the marri­ed I command, yet not I, but the Lord. I answer, First, that those forms of speech are not simply exclusive, much lesse contradictorie; and denote not so much a simple negation as a kinde of comparison sometime: I, yet not I. And we have o­ther places of Scripture to be ranked in the same parallell: John 7.16. My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. As therefore it was most true, that Christs doctrine, even as he is God and Man, is not his in one sense, that is, originally; (for as he had not the divine essence of himself, or from himself, but from God the Father; so from the Father had he the divine doctrine) and yet in another sense is truely Christs doctrine; as conceived and preached by him who is God, the Foun­tain of truth, yea Truth it self. And as the doctrine which he had as he was Man, was partly not his, (for the infused doctrine into the soul of Christ, comprehending all scientifi­call habits, by which Christ naturally knew, and that most perfectly, whatsoever was to be known, was not his as Man, but was infused of God) and partly his, namely such as he, like a Viator or another Man, experimentally might gather. And the true meaning of the words may be, The doctrine which I preach is not the invention of mine own brain, but his rather [Page 101]who sent me, to teach you what he taught me: and so is both mine, and not mine: To which effect Pererius. So in the place of the Apostle where it is written, I command, yet not I, but the Lord; since S. Paul might be considered either as an ordinarie man, or as an Apostle inspired from God: he first saith, I command; and then by distinguishing explaineth his meaning, Yet not I, as a common man, but rather the Lord, by me his Apostle. And all this proveth not that S. Paul could write any thing as he was an Apostle, of his own head; or yet put in any of his own conceits: but was wholly guided by the Spirit. For, whatsoever is so properly mans work, that it is not also Gods, that is not good; since the Authour of goodnesse is excluded.

Secondly I answer, The place doth rather expressely say, that whatsoever S. Paul wrote or spake as an Apostle, they were not his words or writings, but the words of God (for his commands were not his, but the Lords) then any way imply that he could write any thing as an Apostle, without the Spirit, or by the dictate of his own naturall prudence onely.

Thirdly, Praecipio non ego ex mea sententia, sed Do­minus in Evangelio, &c. I command not according to mine opinion, but the Lord in the Gospel doth, That a man may not depart from his wife except for fornication, saith Haymo. Where our Saviour speaks not of a short departure with consent, for the improvement of religious duties (for then S. Paul might have had a command for it in the objection precedent:) but our Saviour speaketh of a totall or finall departure of man and wife by bill of di­vorcement or separation: for of this Christ spake expressely, Mat. 19.9. Mark 10.11. Luk. 16.18. Therefore S. Paul com­manded not, but the Lord; namely Christ in those places of the Gospel to which he aimed.

The third objection is out of the 1. Cor. 7.12. To the rest speak I, not the Lord. These words compared with the former may seem to carrie it cleare against me. For what can be of more force? I command, yet not I, but the Lord; and, To the rest speak I, not the Lord: as if S. Paul spake and wrote something by humane wisdome, which the Lord bid him not. First, I answer with Peter Martyr, S. Paul saith thus, because before he had reference to Christs speech in the Gospel, of not ea­sily dissolving matrimonie: but now he sets down somewhat, of which Christ in the Gospel is not found to have said any thing. So now he speaks, not the Lord: namely, not Christ in the Gospel, not Christ by word of mouth as he was man: and yet on the contrarie side, we may as truely say even in this place, and to S. Pauls proper sense, with the words inverted, The Lord speaks, not I: Not I, of my self; not I, as a man: but God from heaven, or the holy Spirit speaketh.

The conclusion is, S. Paul speaketh or writeth nothing as an Apostle from himself, without the Lord, without divine imme­diate revelation from the holy Ghost: but he might relate something which Christ spake not whilest Christ lived on earth; something that is not registred in the Gospel: And thus S. Paul did speak, and not the Lord: And thus may an other speak or write, and not the Lord. Ego dico, non Do­minus: Nunquid Do­minus non loquebatur per eum [...] Ʋtique. Sed ideo dixit se dicere, & non Dominum; quia hoc praeceptum non contine­tur in Evangelio dictū à 'Domino sicut illud superius. I speak, not the Lord: Did not the Lord speak by him? Yes. But therefore he said that him­self spake and not the Lord, because this precept is not contained in any of the Gospels, as the other was, saith Haymo before Pe­ter Martyr. And indeed, I remember not that Christ so much as toucheth at this point; Whether a beleeving man should put away, or dwell from an unbeleeving woman, yea or no?

To the fourth objection, 1. Cor. 7.25. I have no command­ment from the Lord, yet I give my judgement, I answer, It was matter of counsel, not of precept; it was left indifferent; the doing, or not doing had not been sinne. Noluit Deus de vir­ginitate & coelibatu praecipere, quia visus fuisset damnare nuptias Christ would give no command concerning single life or virginitie, lest he should seem to condemn marriage. So Augustine, in libello de sanct. virginit. So Hierom against Jovinian: So Ambrose, saith Peter Martyr. Yet the Consilium do, I counsel, is the advice of such an one, as had obtained mercie of the Lord to be faithfull: and a faithfull steward will not distribute more or lesse then his Lord ap­pointeth.

The unjust steward made them write lesse then was due: the usurer makes them write more: the good and faithfull man followeth his masters will [...], foot by foot. So this place proveth not that the Apostle as an Apostle wrote or spake by humane wisdome any thing, but what was appointed of God.

The Rhemists on verse 12 say, By this we learn, that there were many matters over and above the things that Christ taught or prescribed, left to the Apostles order and interpretation: where­in they might, as the case required, either command or counsel; and we bound to obey accordingly. Doctour Estius goeth further: Satìs autem insinu­at hic sermo, Praecipio non ego, sed Domi­nus, Apostolos & eorum successores posse quaedā praecipere quae Christus ipse per se non praecepit. This speech, I COMMAND, YET NOT I, BUT THE LORD, doth sufficiently evidence, that the Apostles and their successours can com­mand something which Christ himself by himself commanded not. Both of them runne awry in one extream. Doctour Fulk an­swereth to that place of the Rhemists; The Apostles had not particular precepts for every case; but they had generall rules in Christs doctrine, which they were bound to follow in their precepts and counsels. I think he approacheth too nigh unto them; un­lesse he mean that both their precepts and counsels had the di­vine dictate to guide them; especially in things which they wrote. And whereas he saith, They had not particular precepts [Page 103]for every case, I say, they had for all cases necessarie: especially concerning the whole Church. And their generall rules might rather be for guiding matters of order and discipline, then of doctrine. For he that promised to lead them into all truth, would not leave them in the framing of particulars; as he doth us and other men, who out of generals do deduce these and these specials. For there is a great distance and traverse to be pla­ced between those sacred Penmen, and other succeeding Ex­positours of holy Writ. And S. Paul doth imply, that even his judgement or counsel was according to the Spirit of God; as Bishop Andrews well observed, and now cometh to be handled.

The fifth objection is verse 40: in the same verse where he saith, [...], According to my judgement, he addeth, [...], I think also that I have the Spirit of God. Minus dicit, plus volens intelligi, He speaketh sparingly, but would be understood more largely, say I. So verse 26, I suppose: and 1. Cor. 4.9. I think that God hath set forth us the Apostles last. Puto autem. Sobriè loquitur, minúsque dicit & majus significat; ut sit sensus, Certò scio. I THINK. He speaketh soberly, signifying more then he spake; and it is all one as if he had said, I KNOW CERTAINLY, saith Dionysius Carthus. with whom accordeth Primasius, Do not think that I speak what I do of my self; the Spirit of God speak­eth in me: Futo non dubieta­tem significat. The word I THINK is not wrapped about with doubt­fulnesse. Peter Martyr thinks it is an Ironie against the false Apostles, who traduced S. Paul as unworthy to be an Apo­stle. And then the Ironie hath as full force, as if he had pe­remptorily avouched, The Spirit of the Lord is in me, and by it I write what I write.

Other objections may be made, as the 2. Cor. 11.17. I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly in this confidence of boasting. Therefore not onely humane wisdome, but humane infirmitie may seem to challenge part both in his words and writings. It is answered in a few words of Dionysius Car­thusianus, Non loquor, id est, Loqui non videor: that is, It seems not so to some, though my self know the contrarie.

Others may object, 1. Cor. 9.8. Say I these things as a man? or saith not the Law the same also? I answer, that he might speak or write some things like an other man, some things un­expressed in their Law; but now he speaketh or writeth (for they are both one sense in this notion) as an Apostle; who therefore was equally to be regarded (as a Penman of the Law of Grace) with Moses, a Penman of the Law Leviticall.

It may yet be objected what S. John saith, 2. Epist. vers. 12. Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with pa­per and ink: and 3. Epist. John ver. 13. I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee. From whence a power seemeth to be wholly left in him, both whether he [Page 104]would write or no, and what he would write. I answer to both places; If he had said he had writ any thing without or beyond the Spirit, or what he was bid not to write; he had spoken home to the purpose: but these words do not imply that he had either power or will to write any thing of his own head, or by the wisdome or learning of man; but they fully evidence, that the holy Ghost had suggested many things unto him, which the same blessed Spirit would not have him to write; as being fitter perhaps to be delivered face to face, and not concerning posteritie.

If I knew any more opposite arguments, I would endeavour their answer. The positive proofs I referre to the last point of all; it being the very main hinge of the controversie. One­ly consider this one thing, The Scripture hath a priviledge above all other writings. Aquinas on 2. Timoth. 3.15. giveth this rea­son, Quia aliae traditae sunt per rationem bu­manam; sacra autem Scriptura est divina. Because other writings savour of humane reason; but the Scripture is divine: Where he excludeth the prudence of man from composing any Scripture. If any earthly wisdome wrote any part of it, it is no more to be accounted our Scripture. Let this suffice for the third conclusion, concerning the matter of Scripture: wherein the holy Penmen had no libertie left them to put in their own conceits; or in writing to adde or blot out what they had done: whereby all humane literature and wisdome is removed from sharing part in the holy Writ.

The fourth conclusion followeth, concerning the manner of writing: viz. They had no libertie to clothe their inward apprehensions with words of their own. Either all the Pen­men had the libertie, or none: (The disjunction stands upon a Da tertium, Give me a reason why some should, and not others. Who were these some? and why those?) But all had not li­bertie: (for the very words were dictated unto some of them) Ergò &c.

Either every Penman did apparrell his understanding with words of his own throughout all and every of his own wri­tings, or it was practised in some places onely. If so, then again I enquire what places they were; and why those had an especiall priviledge above others.

S. John indeed was bid to write the things which he had seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter, Revel. 1.19. I answer, This generall command evinceth not, that the holy Ghost did not administer as well the words as the matter.

If it be objected, that the Evangelicall Prophet Isaiah, and the Psalmograph, and some others, are most eloquent in the Old; and in the New Testament, the beloved disciple S. John is compared to an Eagle for his loftie flight; and S. Paul may seem to have brought some of the third heaven down with [Page 105]him; so heavenly is he: but Amos, and some others writ more plainly, in an homely style. I answer, If all this were true, yet it proveth not that any of them were left to expresse as they would their own dreams, visions, or illuminations; nei­ther did they frame and fit their styles to the Spirit, or their words to the matter; nor indeed could they. For what pro­portion is there between finite and infinite? and how can the shallow capacitie of man comprehend the depth of God? God forbad the linsie-woolsie; and to the divine truths would he suffer them to adapt humane expressions? How often in the Old Testament, is both the matter put into their hearts, and the manner with the words into their mouthes? And is the Law of Grace of lesse worth then the Law of Moses? God forbid. But whosoever readeth the Prophet Amos, and the rest that are undervalued, shall finde more in Amos, then Amos; more in him then in one among the herd-men of Tekoa, Amos 1.1. and shall heare the piercing language of the Spirit in others: sometimes perhaps attempering it self to the partie writing, and making both words and matter easie; but at other times it rapteth him above himself, and maketh him (as it were) to prink it in loftie and almost undiscernable towring; by infusing things, phrasing sentences, and dictating words above what was agreeable to the meannesse of his former calling.

That the holy Ghost can and hath suggested the very words very often, I think none will denie. That ever he permitted them a libertie of many sentences, of many phrases, of many variations of words, to choose what they liked, and to refuse the rest; I think few ancient Divines ever said before, but to that effect saith Heinsius. Els what can his meaning be, when he saith, S. John saw the Chaldee Paraphrase, and Hellenists, and had often reference to them; and that divers things were taken from the Targummim? Ad Targumistas semper respicit Evan­gelista. The Evangelist alwayes hath an eye to the Targumists, saith he, pag. 550. If the noble Hein­sius had said in any one place (which he did not, so farre as my remembrance now beareth) that the holy Spirit had guided S. John to those Authours and authorities of the Tar­gumists, Hellenists, and Chaldee Paraphrast; I should have subscribed, and sat down at his feet. But when he so often appealeth from the Greek to the Syriack, and saith, S. John was so conversant with the forenamed Authours; he deroga­teth (in mine opinion) from the majestie of the holy Writ; whilest he would seem to have ought of it taken from humane reading or wisdome, though of an Apostle; unlesse it were ad­ded, That the holy Spirit guided the Apostle unto it, and did dictate it unto him, not as it was known before to the Apostle, but as the holy Ghost thought fit to make use of it, and to sanctifie that part of humane literature: to dictate, I [Page 106]say, the words and syllables, yea every letter and iota; and in the writing to guide their hands aright; as a good master of wri­ting over-spreadeth and over-ruleth the hand of his scholar, and writeth what copie he pleaseth, without reference or re­gard to the scholars former knowledge, but rather to his fu­ture instruction.

This is that which against Heinsius may be averred, That though many things which are in S. John and other holy Penmen, were before in the Targum, Talmud, Hellenists, Chaldee Paraphrase, or any heathen Authours; yet it doth not necessarily evince, that the holy Actuaries or Notaries did oversee, reade, heare, or transcribe those things out of their knowledge from the said Authours: but both the names of those Authours, and the things themselves were presented to them by that blessed Spirit which knew all things; and this among the rest, That these words, phrases, and sentences, were fit to be inserted into the holy Writ, which now are in it.

All Scripture is of divine inspiration: But the very words are part of Scripture: Therefore even they were inspired.

Revel. 19.9. The Angel said, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage-supper of the Lambe. Did not the An­gel speak the words? Did not he give the Apostle both mat­ter and words?

When the Apostle was commanded, Revel. 14.13. by a voice from heaven, to write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, &c. was he commanded to write his conceits and thoughts apprehended in Syriack, and translate them into Hellenisticall Greek? or did the heavenly voice suggest one­ly an holy inspiration into him, and left him to coyn words, as Heinsius would have it? or rather did not the voice teach the very words which should be written, viz. Blessed are the dead, &c.? Now let us passe to the fifth and last Conclusion, in which we must dissent from the worthy Heinsius, and dis­arm him of his often-inculcated, but not once proved Te­net,

The [...], or Writers of holy Scripture, conceived in one language, and writ in an other. Upon which ground he hath raised a strange structure: but his very ground-work is sandie, slipperie, and false: And this I hope to evince by Scripture, Authoritie, and Reason. All which shall be squared to that Corner-stone, which more then once before I hewed upon more roughly, and now (by Gods grace) intend to polish; namely, That the very words and letters were dictated unto the holy Scribes: and therefore they had no power to change or transchange, to adde or diminish; or to expresse by their own words their internall irradiation: but in the language [Page 107]which they conceived, they also wrote their heavenly dictates.

2. Pet. 1.21. The Prophesie came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost. Therefore their very speech being according to the motion of the holy Ghost, their words were not of their own choice, but from above; and not onely divine thoughts, but sacred words were also given them.

1. Cor. 2.13. S. Paul spake in words which the holy Ghost taught. Did the holy Ghost inspire thoughts into them in one lan­guage, and teach them words to speak in an other language? Cui bono? To what end and purpose? and why not all done in the language which they conceived?

2. Tim. 3.16. Scriptura per Spiritum scripta est, The Scripture was writ by the Spirit, saith the Syriack; not onely inspired, as it is from the Greek, but written; and as it was inspired, written.

Revel. 19.9. The Angel saith concerning very words which he commanded to be wrote, These are the true sayings of God. Not inspirations onely of God, and the words of Men; but the sayings of God.

Exod. 34.27. Write thou these words: for after the tenour of these words I have made a covenant. God was not tied to the words, Moses was to the writing of the very words.

Jerem. 30.2. Write thee all the words which I have spoken un­to thee in a book. He gave him no power to put in words of his own.

Twelve times in the Revelation was S. John commanded to write: and knew he not the words?

Hos. 8.12. I have written to Ephraim the great things of my Law; Even all what my Prophets have done, I challenge as mine own writing.

I Give thee thanks, most gracious God, that thou hast freed me of the gout, and eased me of the stone: that I have been able, though in great weaknes, to swim through this sea, to go through this wildernesse, in paths untrodden: Lord, I beseech thee, by thine infinite mercies, be mercifull to my soul; prepare me throughly for my departure; and in the houre of death and judgement, good Christ deliver me. Amen. Amen.