countrey if upon imposed crimes by an appellant the defendant shall yeeld or be overcome in battell b Vâ—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 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 c Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ Ordinatione quod Presbyter non facitâ— 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 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 d 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 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
glorie of the Creatour If I be bold with Bishop Bilson he is as bold with S. Augustine and sleighteth his reasons and crosseth the very argument which Aquinas magnifieth and which we have now in hand concerning David All the Reverend Bishops words are too large to be transcribed you may reade them pag. 217. and 218. I will onely single out such passages as shew him to be singular or dubious in that point That David is not ascended into heaven doth not hinder saith he but David might be translated into Paradise with the rest of the Saints that rose from the dead when Christ did but it is a just probation that Davids bodie was not then ascended when Christ sat in his humane nature at the right hand of God Again he saith Augustine hath some hold to prove that David did not ascend in body when Christ did or at least not into heaven whither Christ ascended because in plain words Peter saith * Acts 2.34 DAVID IS NOT ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN But saith he either the bodies of the Saints slept again when they had given testimonie to Christs resurrection or they were placed in Paradise and there expect the number of their brethren which shall be raised out of the dust or lastly David was none of these that were raised to bear witnesse of Christs resurrection but onely such were chosen as were known to the persons then living in Jerusalem So farre Bishop Bilson Before I come to presse the argument let me desire the Reader to observe these things in the forecited words and to censure accordingly That the Saints may be in Paradise with their bodies but not in Heaven Is there any paradise but in heaven and when S. Paul was in paradise was he not in the third heaven Shall the Saints that rose upon Christs resurrection and if they ascended at all ascended upon his ascension Shall they I say be taken up from the earth and not be glorified or being glorified not be with Christ Shall they be kept at distance from the blessed spirits of Angels and men that attend upon the Lambe and hang between the earth and that heaven where their Redeemer reigneth Secondly against his former determination and against the reasons which he brought to confirm it he saith Either the bodies of the Saints slept again But doth it not impeach the power of Christs resurrection or will it not seem an apparition rather then a true resurrection as you before reasoned or they were placed in Paradise or David was none of those who were raised to bear witnesse of Christs resurrection You see now his resolution is come down but S. Augustines argument is sound that David was not excluded from that priviledge which other ancient Fathers and Patriarchs enjoyed if they enjoyed them Bishop Bilson himself confesseth that David ascended not when Christ ascended but Christ sat in his humane nature at the right hand of God when Davids bodie was not ascended If not then when did he or they ascend or how were they witnesses of his ascension Lastly that the Fathers before Christ were in blisse is out of doubt that they were in some mansion of heaven is probable that they were comforted and made happier by Christs exaltation may be beleeved But that either the souls of the Patriarchs and David are not with the other blessed Angels and spirits of men now where Christ is or that the Apostles and Evangelists and other most holy disciples of Christ do not follow the Lambe wheresoever he now is but are in a paradise out of heaven seems strange divinitie somewhat touching on the errour of the Chiliasts But I leave Bishop Bilson in this point unlike himself he being a chief of our worthies famous above thousands for a most learned Prelate 4. And if from the ground of S. Augustine and the words of S. Peter I do not demonstrate that David rose not to an eternall resurrection I am much deceived The confessed ground of S. Augustine is That it is hard and harsh to exclude David from being one that arose if any arose to eternall life so that if David arose not none may be thought of them so to arise as to ascend in their immortall bodies to heaven since he had greater gifts or priviledges then some of them and as great as almost any of them But say I David was none of those that arose or if he did he ascended not into heaven And this I will undertake to prove by S. Peter For first S. Augustine in the same Epistle saith The intent of S. Peter was to prove that these words Psal 16.10 Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption were spoken of Christ onely and not of David and the Apostle evinceth it by this reason Because David did die and was buried and his sepulchre is with us that is his bones and his bodie and his ashes are yet with us whereas if David had bodily ascended they would have fitted David as well as Christ who died and was buried and his sepulchre remained but his bodie was not incinerated neither was his flesh corrupted as Davids was but ascended And so the Apostles argument had been impertinent Secondly it is said most remarkably Act. 2.34 David is not ascended into the heavens But Christ is by Davids confession Note first the force of the Antithesis Secondly observe that S. Peter spake this after Christs ascension into heaven whereas if any arose to incorruptible glorie they arose or ascended with Christ and so by just consequent before this time when S. Peter spake these words yet the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is not yet ascended or He hath not ascended into the heavens Again though David were in heaven in his soul long before that time as we say or if he went up out of Limbus Patrum as some Papists say yet certainly someway he was not ascended when S. Peter thus preached If any way he ascended not it must needs be in bodie or soul They dare not say He ascended not in soul and therefore we may boldly say He ascended not in bodie unlesse they will shew us some third nature in David that might ascend which thwarteth both Philosophie and Divinitie 5. Moreover the Turks now inhabiting Jerusalem keep the sepulchre of David forbidding entrance to all Christians into it as every traveller into those parts knoweth and they questionlesse respect the sepulchre as containing the bodie bones or ashes of David there present and unremoved Lastly if David ascended not when Christ did or a little after which is evidenced from the words of S. Peter our enemies themselves will not say that he ascended long after or of late Therefore David is not ascended bodily as yet howsoever Pineda fancieth O Most mercifull Saviour the sonne of David the Lord of David who hast supereminently the Key of David and openest and no man shutteth and shuttest and no man openeth
me qui fecit coelum terram fluctuans converto me ad Christum quia ipsum quaero hîc invenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra I am in a doubt I am afraid to adore earth lest he damn me who made both heaven and earth In this hesitancie or pendulousnesse I turn my self to Christ and here I seek and finde how without impietie earth may be worshipped As if no earthly thing should be adored but his bodie onely I would not say or think that any relique or reliques have in themselves or from themselves power to expell devils or to work wonders for a spirituall power as Thyraeus well observeth though it wound himself is not within a thing corporeall and a bodily power cannot drive away devils or work miracles say I. The great works of healing c. which have been done at the tombes of Martyrs reade S. Augustine de civitat Dei 22.8 might in those dayes extraordinarily be done by the Martyrs or by the Angels l Suscipientes personam Martyrum in assumed bodies like to the Martyrs as Augustine phraseth it in lib. de cura pro mortuis gerenda cap. 16. The reliques have no vertue in themselves to effectuate or actuate such miracles yea the very Angels or Martyrs themselves were but the agents instruments and the right hand of the Almighty who onely worketh great wonders by his power independent I would put no trust no confidence in the relique of any Saint or Martyr whosoever or whatsoever for help either of soul or bodie For this also is a wrong offered unto him in whose name our help standeth Our help cometh from the Lord which made heaven and earth Psal 121.2 And my God shall supply all our need according to his riches in glorie by Christ Jesus Philip. 4.19 9. What would I then do or how would I behave my self toward a true unquestioned choice relique I would which is the positive part by me promised with Chrysostom Hom. 5. in Job tom 1. honourably esteem of it kisse it and reverently both touch it and behold it and think of it and charily lay it up I would shew it to others not mercenarily but with joyfull and comfortable remembrance of him whose relique it was I would esteem of it above silver gold or precious stones I would make it my remembrancer of things past as a motive stirring me up to the imitation of that Saints vertues and actions which is their best relique I would use it as a bridle to curb evil in me and as a spur to goodnesse If any instrument of Satan should debase it and say that it is vilissimus pulvis I would scorn his scorn and esteem it as a most especiall instrument of the most High and would say to the caviller or rather to his master Lucifer the Father of lies and detraction m Saepe hoc vilissimo tortus es pulvere Even this which thou callest most vile dust hath often tormented thee as S. Hierom said of old Lastly till of it self it decayed and by its imperfection or rottennesse called for interment I would not bury it but commend it to be kept even in Churches and other holy places except idolatrie were committed with it or people in their profane religion adored it And then would I also burie it 10. Much more might be said but I must take manum de tabula or make a quick end and returning to Pineda say That if Ananias Azarias and Misael have no relique now remaining which Lorinus reports from report if they did arise or intend to arise with Christ they having a farre longer journey from the place of their captivitie to the sepulchre of Christ then Jacob had to the land of Goshen would or should have had as great a care as Jacob of translating their bones if Jacob translated his in hope to arise with Christ as Pineda intimateth O Gracious God who art to be loved by me for thine own self onely Grant I beseech thee that no worldly thought may nestle and breed in me nor that I may fasten any respect on any creature which may be derogatorie to the devotion due to thee my Creatour for Jesus Christ his sake in whom onely thou art well pleased Amen CHAP. XIII 1. Pineda saith Jonas arose then and Noah His reasons very shallow 2. Daniel arose saith Pineda from Nicetas If Daniel arose he arose but with one leg the other leg is yet shewed at Vercellis 3. Job arose now saith Pineda His proof lame Jobs Epitaph poeticall His sepulchrall pyramis made of imagination 4. Job shall arise at the generall judgement Pineda wrincheth the Scripture 5. The end of Jobs book according to some Greek copies a double exposition of the words 6. Jobs bodie supposed to be translated to Constantinople 7. Bartholomaeus Sibylla saith S. Hierom is expresse that the holy mother of our Lord and John the Evangelist are bodily ascended The like cited from Aquinas And Holcot saith That the glorious virgins bodie was not to be incinerated Her supposed day of Assumption most honoured among the Papists and yet there is monstrous disagreeing among them who favour her Assumption The last instances concern not our question 8. Pineda presumed too farre upon uncertainties Lorinus dareth not name any particularly that were raised It cannot be known certainly NOw also arose Jonah saith Pineda That Jonas was a lively type of Christs resurrection appeareth Matth. 27.40 But if every lively type of Christ arose then Samson Samuel Joshuah Gedeon Melchizedech Aaron Solomon then hundreds of others arose whom Pineda mentioneth not a Tandem resurrexit Noah At last Noah arose saith Pineda Why AT LAST since he was living before other and great in Gods favour who was saved and delivered from the common destruction of all mortall men This last reason as well holdeth That every one that was in the Ark arose also For they were delivered as well as Noah from the inundation of waters and especially Sem who was an holy man and was great in Gods favour 2. And Daniel arose who was brought out of the lions den saith Pineda and he proves it by Nicetas But neither he nor Nicetas proves it by any reason He might as well argue that Jeremie arose with Christ Because he being cast into the dungeon where he sunk in the mire was afterwards drawn out of the dungeon Jerem. 38.6 and 13. And if Daniel arose he arose but with one leg for b Crus Danielis asservatur Vercellis c. A leg of Daniel is kept at Vercellis a citie of Liguria saith Lorinus on Act. 2.29 Daniel died in Babylon saith Sixtus Senensis concerning him Of reliques he makes no mention nor of his rising again with Christ but alledgeth the last of Daniel the last verse Which words may prove that he arose not with Christ or if he did that he died again For the Spirit saith to him Go thou thy way till the end be for thou
THE SAINTS ENTRED INTO THE HOLY CITIE we must take THE HOLY CITIE to be Jerusalem b Ad distinctionem omnium civitatum quae tunc idolis serviebant to distinguish that citie from other cities all which did then give themselves to idolatrie applying it to the materiall Jerusalem which saith he from the time of Vespasian and Titus was no more called THE HOLY CITIE Moreover Paula and Eustochium or rather Hierom in their names ad Marcellam Tom. 1. fol. 59. citing the place of Many Saints c. adde remarkably c Nec statim Hiercsolyma coelestis sicut plerique ridiculè interpretantur in hoc loco intelligitur cùm signum nullum essè potuerit apud homines si corpora Sanctorum in coelesti Jerusalem visa sunt You must not presently understand the celestiall Jerusalem as most have ridiculously interpreted this place when it could be no signe nor token among men on earth if the bodies of the Saints were seen in the heavenly Jerusalem May I annex to this That if the whole land of Jurie be to this day called The holy Land nor will have other estimate of divers Nations in some regards till the worlds end then certainly the Metropoliticall citie thereof the famous and eminent Jerusalem might in those dayes be dignified with the title of The holy citie for many just regardable causes Again when it is said Act. 6.13 This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place they that said so were not in the Temple but in their Councel-house in the citie and the words have a true reference to the citie as well as to the Temple yea more because the Temple was within the citie and not è contrá Now their Councel-house was distant a good way from any part of the Temple and was built close by one wall of the citie and was called GASITH in Hebrew wherein seventie Senatours or ordinarie Judges called SANHEDRIM determined weighty causes and here they examined the Apostles Acts 4.7 and S. Stephen Act. 6.13 and 7.1 The citie which before was called Solyma was by Melchizedech named Hierosolyma that is The holy Solyma saith Josephus de bello Judaico 7.18 Let Josephus justifie upon what grounds he mongrelleth the name for neither did Melchizedech speak Greek nor doth the Hebrew incline to that sense yet is even that hotch-potch better to be digested then the impious and sottish fable of other Jews That Melchizedech having named the citie Salem and Abraham having called the mount Moriah in or about Jerusalem JEHOVA JIREH The Lord will see or provide Genes 22.14 God himself being unwilling to suffer a debate between the holy Melchizedech and Abraham the father of the faithfull umpired the businesse and of both their attributes or appellations compounded one word or name and calleth it thereafter Hierusalem Perhaps S. Hierom can hardly prove what he saith in his epistle to Dardanus de Terra promissionis Tom. 3.24 that the citie was first called Jebus and thencefrom Jerusalem rather then Jebusalem Euphoniae gratiâ that it might have a fair sound and good pronunication For there is mention of Jerusalem Judg. 1.8 yea before that Josh 10.3 long before David expelled the Jebusites and in the dayes of Melchizedech it was called Salem for Melchizedech was King of Salem Hebr. 7.1 Now that the Jebusites inhabited Jerusalem before the time of Melchizedech or that he should be King of the Jebusites inhabiting that place or that he should expell the Jebusites there commorant before him or how they repossessed it till Davids time or indeed that the name was given as S. Hierom opineth are matters onely of conjecture as not being backt with proofs sufficient Lastly if we be led with reason as I said before What should be the end of these Saints ascending to heaven Christ had no need of bodily service and we may not think that they were to bear witnesse in heaven of Christs resurrection for the triumphant Saints need no such proof or witnesses their beatificall vision and fruition exempteth them from doubting The living had more need to know by these Many the resurrection of Christ but by them the living knew nothing at all so farre as can be proved if this going into the holy citie be to be interpreted of the supernall Jerusalem But that the words are to be expounded of Jerusalem below the passage immediately following demonstrateth They went into the holy citie and appeared unto many Certainly if they had gone into heaven they must have appeared unto all there for as d Coelum est singulis â—otum omnibus unum No corner of heaven is hid from any so there all things present are seen face to face their matutine knowledge infinitely surpasseth our vespertine all and every one see all and every one present 3. Yet even from these very words They appeared unto many Maldonat gathereth that they did not appeare commonly or indifferently or generally to all from whence he inferreth If they arose to die again they would have appeared not to many as the Evangelist said they did but vulgò omnibus promiscuously to all I answer They appeared to all viz. All that met them saw them and saw them as men and as other men but not as newly raised men for so onely they appeared to Many as Christ himself did appeare Testibus praeordinatis à Deo Vnto witnesses chosen before of God Act. 10.41 so did they to such onely as God had appointed To evince this distinction let it be considered whether every one who saw Lazarus after his resurrection saw him as a raised man or as an ordinary man But if Lazarus might appeare commonly to all men and yet appeare unto Many onely as a man raised lately from the dead these Saints also might be seen and were seen of all that passed by and looked on them apparuerunt vulgò omnibus they appeared ordinarily to all and yet they might be seen not by all but onely appeare to Many as persons raised of purpose for holy ends And this opinion I hold to be more probable then that of Franciscus Lucas Brugensis on the place That onely unto some the raised did aliquando apparere aliquando disparere sicut Jesus Sometime appeare to some and sometimes vanish as our Saviour did I answer he had said somewhat if the resurrection had been of the same nature with Jesus his resurrection And as I dislike him not if by disparere he meaneth that they did not alwayes converse with the same men but changed company so if by it he understandeth a sudden vanishing from the sight of men and implyeth that the Many raised had a power to be visible and invisible at their pleasure till he bring proof to evince it he shall give me leave to parallell it to the fiction of Gyges and his ring whose broad beazil or insealing part if he turned to the palm of his hand he was forthwith invisible yet himself saw all
one hundred yeares he is taken with a seeming incurable disease and is as it were in an ecstasie then growing better redit redivivus returneth young lively and lusty to the state of thirty yeares After Christs death he was baptized by Ananias who baptized S. Paul and was called Joseph he is reputed to be a man of a most austere and continent life humble and patient and liveth in both the Armeniaes among Clergy men Thus farre Matthew Paris who was a Monk of Saint Albans at that time And in the like words the storie is reported by Thomas of Rudbourn a Monk of Winchester in his Chronicle which is a manuscript as the great searcher of antiquities Mr Selden my very worthy friend assured me If this Joseph redit redivivus he hath not died twice onely but very often I have recounted these narrations for their pleasant varieties perhaps I may say rarities But as S. Augustine branded the former storie and the beleevers of it saying e Multùm mihi mira est hae◠opinantium tanta praesumptio The great presumption of these opinionists makes me much marvell So I will not be afraid to tax the latter of imposture both because of the varietie of Names by which he is called as you may finde in the learned Mr Seldens illustrations on Polyolbion pag. 15. where he also citeth the incredible fable of Ruan which is cousin-german to the relation of the Eastern Cartaphilus and because the Armenians as well as the Romans have their holy frauds as was seen by our men laught at by the Turks and beleeved by the silly Laicks of Armenia whilest their Priests would strive to fetch false fire from Christs sepulchre on Easter even See Mr Sands in his third book pag. 173. Lastly if this storie of the Armenian could be an undoubted truth the Greek Church would ere this have produced him to justifie the practise and opinions of the Eastern Church against the Western wherein they dissented But no such thing was ever attempted And therefore let this be cast into the number of fables Soli DEO gloria FINIS MISCELLANIES OF DIVINITIE THE THIRD BOOK CHAP. I. 1. Many Papists are very peremptorie that all and every one must die Melchior Canus is more moderate The words are onely indefinite not universall 2. Objections brought to prove that universally all shall die Their answers Generall rules have exception Even many learned Papists have acknowledged so much The point handled especially against Bellarmine 3. Indefinites have not the force of universals Even universals are restrained 4. Salmeron bringeth many objections to prove an absolute necessitie that every one shall die All his objections answered Mans living in miserie is a kinde of death THe third question is Whether Adam and his children all and every one of them without priviledge or exception must and shall die It ariseth also from the same fountain from which the two former questions did proceed It is appointed unto men to die The answer consisteth of three parts That there may be an exception of some That some have been excepted That others shall be excepted And so the answer is returned with the negative thus All and every one shall not die For though it be appointed for men to die yet the appointment may be hath been and shall be reversed Neither fear I the saying of Aquinas part 3. quaest 78. artic 1. a Est communior securior sententia Theologorum Vnumquemque moriturum It is the more common and more safe opinion of the Divines That every one must die And this opinion is maintained with stiffe and peremptory obstinacie by our adversaries the Papists Bosquier in his Terror orbis Salmeron upon the 1. Thessal 4. Gregory de Valent. with others are resolute That none can be dispensed withall but all mankinde and every childe of Adam must die But Melchior Canus is more moderate b Locorum Theologic 7.2 Num. 3. Though it be appointed for all men to die saith he yet that one or two out of that generall law by priviledge be exempted is not so against Scriptures that it may not be questioned And Locor Theol. 7.3 Numer 9. he proveth that it is no way against Scripture That the thrice-blessed mother of our Lord may by singular priviledge be exempted he had erred if he had said Is priviledged from the universall law of all being born in sinne and further confirmeth it by this instance Because the Scriptures say in generall Exod. 33.20 NO MAN SHALL SEE ME AND LIVE and John 1.18 NO MAN HATH SEEN GOD AT ANY TIME yet Moses and Paul saw God And though ordinarily there is no return from death to life and the Saints come not back again from heaven to dwell on earth yet Augustine saith in lib. de Cura pro mortuis Cap. 15. c Mitti quoque ad vivos aliquos ex mortuis ut Mosem ad Christum sicut è contrario Paulus ex vivis in Paradisum rapius est Divina Scriptura testatur The Scripture witnesseth that some from the dead have been sent to the living as Moses to Christ and on the other side Paul being living was carried into Paradise Again I say the words of the Apostle are onely indefinite not generall it is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is appointed to all men but It is appointed unto men whether all or onely some is not here determined Now because this place wants its strength and nerves to prove that point and neither in the Greek nor Vulgat nor Syriack is the universall expressed the Jesuits have amassed up together many places of Scripture to confirm their opinion 2. What man is he that liveth and shall not see death Psal 89.48 In Adam all die 1. Corinth 15.22 Death is the house appointed for all living Job 30.23 Death passed upon all men Rom. 5.12 He shall be brought to the grave and remain in the tombe The clods of the valley shall be sweet unto him and every man shall draw after him as there are innumerable before him Job 21.32 MORTE MORIERIS Thou shalt die the death Gen. 2.17 was threatned to Adam and all his and therefore God who cannot lie will see it accomplished To the last place I answer first It is well rendred and expounded Mortalis eris Obnoxius eris morti Thou shalt be mortall and subject to death as Lyra and Vatablus have it Beda on Genes 2. Morti deputatus eris Thou shalt be condemned to death Chrysostom on John Homil. 27. d Adam mortuus est si non Re tamen Sententiâ Adam died by guilt and judgement though execution was suspended And to say truth In the midst of life we are in death Man is dying till he be dead Infirmities and sicknesse pursue men till they perish Deuteronomie 28.22 The wicked shall finde no ease nor rest but shall have trembling hearts fayling of eyes and sorrow of minde verse 65. Thy life shall hang in
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 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. Adams perfection in Innocencie Our imperfection after his fall contrarie to his both in understanding and will and in the parts concupiscible and irascible 2. Adam had other laws given him but one above all and one onely concerning posteritie 3. What this Law was Adam knew the danger to himself and his of spring The first sinne was against this Law 4. Eve sinned before How she sinned the same and not the same sinne with Adam 5. Zeno the Stoicks and Jovinian confuted Sinnes are not equally sinfull 6 Adam sinned farre more and worse then Eve 7 This sinne of Adam was not uxoriousnesse as Scotus maintained but disobedience or pride The branches of Adams sinne 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 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
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 * 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 THOV 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 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
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 quà m 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 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 iâ—animis a trunco differt Whitak De Origin Peccato 3.1 That the flesh covets nothing 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
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 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 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 olive-tree 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
unlesse he kept still a Jewish heart within him which certainly he did if Balthasar Bambach saith truly of him t 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 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 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 u 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 x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 y 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 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
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 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 b 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 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 c 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 d Non laetiorem sed potentiorem gratiam Aug. de Correp Gratia cap. 11. Augustine and we shall have non posse peccare non posse
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. t 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 u 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 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 x Perpetuò ad Targumistas respexit He alwaies had an eye to the Targumists pag. 289. and y Ad Targumistas semper respieâ—t He still respecteth the Targumists pag. 250. and z 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
Vpon 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 a 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 b Falsum est Dâ—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 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 c Quicquid Christus de suis factis dictis noâ— legere voluit hoc scribendum Evangelisâ—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 d Lequitur de imperio interno quod suggestio quaedam inspiratio potiùs quà m praeceptum propriè dictum existimari debet He speaketh of the inward command which is rather a
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 f 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 g 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 Est Deus in nobis agitante calescimus illo When God on us doth blow By him our heat doth grow 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 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 h 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 Vnwillingly or in an unwilling manner i 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 k 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 l 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 Vrget nos Vrgeth 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 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
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. p Ego dico non Dominus Nunquid Dominus non loquebatur per eumâ—Vtique Sed ideo dixit se dicere non Dominum quia hoc praeceptum non continetur in Evangelio dictuÌ„ 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 q 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 r Satìs autem insinuat hic sermo Praecipio non ego sed Dominus Apostolos eorum successores posse quaedaÌ„ 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 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 f 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 t 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
Titus Bostrenus died saith Bellarmine Thirdly both Titus and Theophylact say That Christ resumed the circumcised part at his resurrection If they had but one authour of that antiquitie that Christ left it on earth as a relique of his how would they triumph After this Innocentius the third somewhat above 400 yeares since enquiring whether Christ did arise with his foreskin saith Some beleeve it to be kept at S. Johns of Laterans others say Charles the great translated it to Aquisgrane and afterwards it was left at Carosium and determineth nothing but this b Melius est totum Deo committere quà m aliquid temerè definire It is better to referre all unto God then rashly to determine any thing Yet in the sixth book of the revelation of S. Briget cap. 112. it is said That the glorious mother of our Lord kept it about her wheresoever she went I yet do question if it were so Who kept it till Brigets dayes and Which is the true prepuce that at Rome or that which Charles the great received from an Angel and left in Germanie not at Rome But these books of revelations may want credit with us when the learned Francis Collius de sanguine Christi lib. 5. disput 8. cap. 5. saith thus of a revelation in the very chapter c Etsi ea sit maximi ponderis tamen non tanti támque efficacis censenda est ut ab ea discedere impium irreligiosum fuerit Though it be of most especiall moment yet it is not to be so thought of as that it is impious or irreligious to differ from it If it be maximi ponderis of chiefest account and of greatest weight it is impious and irreligious to depart from it But since he departs from one Legend we may from the other After this the prepuce of Christ was stoln buried lost found torn in two pieces and is now in high esteem if Cardinall Tolet on Luk. 2. may be beleeved The summe of his narration is this That 1527 when Rome was sackt by the souldiers of the Duke of Burbon one of them stole away among other reliques the prepuce of Christ and buried it in a cellar and as he was dying revealed what he had done Pope Clement the seventh caused it to be searched for yet it was not found Thirty yeares after a Priest findes it carrieth it to the land-ladie of the place she thrice trieth to untie the things wherewith it was covered and thrice by a miracle is inhibited Clarix a young virgin her daughter untieth all and puts the prepuce first in a silver bason then in a silver casket Thus it is placed in the Church of Calcata then removed into the Chancel Miracles are wrought The Pope sends Commissioners to search the truth One of the Priests ere he was aware tore the prepuce in two pieces Is it still eadem numero membrana the same numericall skinne O learned Collius the Commissioners certifie it was the true relique of Christ and it is kept at this day at Calcata in the temple of S. Cornelius and Cyrian where God daily works miracles In the yeare 1584 at a womans request Sixtus quintus granted plenarie indulgence for ten yeares in the same Church of Calcata upon the day of our Lords Circumcision Thus farre Tolet. You may observe that from 1527 when it was stolne by the souldier to 1584 or perhaps so long as the indulgences lasted the prepuce of Christ was not in S. John of Laterans and so besides the prepuce at Caresium there are two other fore-skinnes of Christ on the earth One at Calcata 20 miles from Rome kept to this day saith Tolet commenting on Luke And the book was printed 1611. Of the other Collius the Millanoise de sanguine Christi lib. 5. disput 7. cap. 2. saith It is now kept at S. John of Laterans in that place of the Church which is called THE HOLY OF HOLIES as Innocent the third and the Cardinal S. Petri ad vincula and Carthagena and all and every of the writers of this age who have handled this point do say Collius might have excepted Tolet whose preceding narrative checketh him The same Collius ibid. thinks it very credible d Salvatoris prâ—putium non resurrexisse idem numero quod in circumcisione ceciderat sed divinâ virtute aliud suisse comproductum That Christ rose not with that self same fore-skinne which was cut off at his circumcision but by a divine vertue another new one was comproduced Christ being in heaven uncircumcised but yet he upholdeth the gainfull vanitie of Impostours who deserve to be branded yea to be burnt to ashes for feigning two or three fore-skinnes on earth of our Saviour I cannot forget their vaunts That they have intimam vestem the smock or at least the peticoat of the most gracefull Virgin and her milk honoured almost as Christ his consecrated bodie The breeches of Joseph The combe of S. Anne and her very head saith Sleidan Comment 15. fol. 170. And so many pieces of the crosse as would almost lade a ship of burthen saith Erasmus on Matth. 23.5 Calvin de inventor reliquiarum proveth some of the Romish Saints to have three heads some three bodies shewn in severall places The Rhemists on Matth. 14. annot 2. say Honour is now done to the Baptists head at Amiens in France Fulk addeth The same part that is at Amiens is at S. Angely the rest of his head from his fore-head to his neck is at Malta yet the hinder part of his skull is at Nemours his brain at Novium Rastroviense another part of his head is at Jean-Morien his jaw-bone at Vesalium at the Church of S. John the greater another part at Paris a piece of his eare at S. Floride his fore-head and hairs in Spain at S. Salvadores another piece of his head at Naion another at Luke in Italie and yet for all these pieces his whole head is at S. Sylvesters Abbey at Rome to be seen and worshipped Half of S. Peters bodie is at S. Peters at Rome half at S. Pauls yet he hath an head at S. John Laterans and his nether-jaw with the beard upon it is in France at Poyters at Triers are many of his bones at Geneva was part of his brain saith Fulk in Rom. 16. annot 1. See Sleidan Comment 15. pag. 169. summing up a book of Calvins to the same purpose I could make you laugh in disdain at what a chief printer at Paris hath written in his preface to the defence of Herodotus touching these horrible impostures and the sudden quick-cousening wits of the Friars as how a strange feather was promised to be shewn for a holy relique as being one of an Arch-angels feathers and when a cunning hand had stoln it away and placed a coal in the room of it the nimble jugling Friar perswaded his besotted auditorie that they were unworthy to see so great a relique as an Arch-angels feather but
of Macedonia c. Now cleare it is this was not a Macedonian indeed but an Angel bearing his person in the shape of man calling him with the call of God and what is said in truth of storie Joh. 20.12 Marie seeth two Angels in white sitting the one at the head and the other at the feet where the bodie of Jesus had layen is said by representation Luk. 24.4 Two men stood by them in shining garments they took on them the shapes of two men and stood in their places 2. If Angels represent the person of God and do things or say things as from him and as for himself they are called Gods and the very name of JEHOV A is attributed to them as the Angel appearing in the fierie bush to Moses and other Angels saith a De lociâ— infestis part 1. cap 23. Thyraeus and b Sentent 2. Distinct 8. Paragr 8. Estius In the New Testament another Angel is called Alpha and Omega Revel 22.13 which were blasphemie for any Angel to say or usurp if the Representer might not be styled according to the dignitie of the Represented Which note I have the rather insisted upon to lash the rash censure of such who under pretence to keep the Canonicall Scripture at a great distance from the Apocryphall pick unnecessarie faults in the Apocryphall such faults and so small as a man not prepossessed could not see and a naturall rationall Philosopher would esteem but little in comparison of greater doubts in semblance arising from our undoubted Canonicall S. Hierom was the first that styled them Apocrypha who never left any thing objected against him unanswered yet being therefore taxed by Ruffinus that therein he had robbed the holy Ghost of his treasure he made no reply Thus some have been hurt with kissing and the tendernesse of the ape killeth those young ones whom she loveth best And whilest they play the Criticks in censuring the Apocrypha they breed irreverence and irreligion toward the Canonicall by how much the doubts seem more or greater seem but are not 3. The most painfull and learned John Drusius in his epistle to Joseph Scaliger before his Commentarie on the first book of the Maccabees intimateth his fear of want even of things necessarie and in the very end of his castigations on Ecclesiasticus prayeth to God to stirre up the hearts of the Great ones and illustrious Lords to help him may heaven and earth take notice how miserable the estate of the learned is when tithes the fixed honourary of the Priesthood by Divine right are usurped by the Laicks and reward is measured not by true worth or by the measure of the Sanctuarie which was full running over and double to the common and profane measures but by the ignorant estimate of niggardly mechanicks their under agents yet he brake through all difficulties and hath bestowed great pains in his notes on both these books Scaliger de emendat tempor lib. 5. saith The first book of the Maccabees is c Opus eximium An excellent work Again d Tu praestantiam loujus libri jamdudum scis You knew long since full well the great worth of this book saith he in his epistle to Drusius And Albericus Gentilis most exquisitely disputeth in defence of the first book of Maccabees so little regarded in these times and answereth every objection which is brought against it I could say more in defence of other books Apocryphall but I recall my self to handle that particular which caused this diversion How many wide mouths have been made how many scandalls taken how many aspersions of horrible untruth and lying have been fastened on that blessed Angel who guided Tobias the younger in his long and dangerous journey because he said though he gave old Tobit a nick for that he would enquire his name immediately after Tob. 5.12 I am Azarias the sonne of Ananias the Great and of thy brethren whereas you may expound the words by this rule That he who sustains anothers person may call himself or be called according as the person himself As the Angel who appeared to S. John Rev. 22.9 saying I am thy fellow servant and of thy brethren the Prophets and perhaps took one of their shapes at that time Likewise in the undoubted Canonicall the Angel Gabriel is called The man Gabriel Dan. 9.21 because he appeared in the similitude of a man Thus may the place of Tobit be expounded and without such favourable interpretations Familiaris quotidianus sermo non cohaerebit saith Cicero Pro A. Caecinna Secondly you may expound the words thus I AM AZARIAS that is the help of God THE SONNE OF ANANIAS THE GREAT NOW ANANIAS signifieth the grace or the gift of God And this is verified by the actions of the Angel who helped indeed both the Tobiahs by the especiall grace of God Adde to this that the Angels true name was Raphael Tob. 12.15 which is by signification the medicine or physick of God as indeed he did make whole young Tobie his wife and healed also old Tobie Tob. 12.3 All which being laid together remove all inconvenience from the words if we say The Angel by those names of men Azarias and Ananias did signifie that the help which was to come from him to them came to him from God For even this way draweth nigh unto that Lexicall exposition as d Bibliothecae sanct 3. Sixtus Senensis phraseth it which I will not wholly exclude Secondly I answer If these were no Angels but very men and these some of those Many who arose out of their sepulchres yet cleare it is they ascended not with Christ nor ascended they at all for ought that can be gathered but upon the performance of this their last errand their bodies might again embrace the dust 4. Lastly this may have a place of a probable argument As Elias when he was rapt into heaven in a fiery chariot by a whirlwinde being even therein a type of the resurrection let fall his mantle from him 2. King 2.13 perchance as a token that he needed it no more so Christ when he raised himself left his grave-linen in the grave the linen clothes by themselves the napkin that was about his head wrapped together in a place by it self John 20.7 out of doubt to shew that death should have no more dominion over him In which regard also he arose the tombe being shut and the tombe-stone sealed and observed narrowly with a watch for the removing of the tombe-stone by the Angel was not to help Christ to arise who entred in to his disciples januis clausis the doores being shut and came forth of the grave sepulchro signato the monument being sealed but that the women might go in and see that Christ was before raised Mark 16.3 c. and the stone was not rolled away propter Christum sed propter mulieres for Christ but for the women saith Hierom ad Hedibiam whereas contrarily when Lazarus was
answered by the prodigious Legend of Christina who died twice No hurt is to man if God will send his soul from an heavenly place to live a while on earth again 5. No harm to die twice The difference between death compleat and incompleat 6. God can dispense with his own Laws THus having beaten down the opposite authorities if they were fully on that side with weight and number the third and last point which I propounded to handle was the answering of all their reasons and arguments Some are so weak that I need not to answer For Suarez himself who alledgeth them confesseth their weaknesse and answereth them These three proofs following he alledgeth but answereth not First It was decent and behovefull DECUIT saith Suarez that Christ who had both bodie and soul should have companions of his glory in their bodies as well as in their souls For his delight is to be with the children of men Proverb 8.31 Which Suarez it may be took as an hint from Cajetan for he on Aquin. parte primâ quaest 53. art 3. hath it thus a Rationale videtur quòd sucrexerint perfectè ad vitam penitus immortalem ut beatitudo corporis in Christo haberet socios minus enim corporalis felicitas aliquid habere videretur it desit corporalis societas est enim homo secundùm vitam corporcam animal sociale c. It standeth with reason that they arose perfectly to a life fully immortall that the bodily blessednesse of Christ might have some fellows For the bodily happinesse seems not perfect and compleat if bodily societie and company be wanting for man is according to the corporeall life a sociable creature or good fellow not onely for want of necessaries unto life as happeneth in this world but for naturall delight consisting in bodily conversation saith Cajetan dissenting in this from the great Summist his master I answer that Cajetans argument is ridiculous for it holdeth chiefly in children or babies in fools and in striplings who love play-mates or in worldly factours whom businesse forceth into societie and commerce But that the Saints in heaven yea Christ himself the all blessed Saviour of the world both God and Man should not have the full of delight or have too little of bodily felicity if other humane bodies be not present savoureth rather of the Turkish Coran and the Arabian school then of the sacred Text and that Christ in heaven is animal sociale naturally delighting in bodily conversation for so much the application of that Axiom importeth or els he saith nothing to the purpose doth imply his brutish conceit of our most holy Redeemer The sweet singer of Israel saith Psal 16.11 In thy presence is fulnesse of joy at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore If this befall other holy Saints much more it belongeth to Christ from whose fulnesse all the whole bodie of his Church receiveth comfortable influences But grant we that such bodily companie might be desired by Christ yet he needed not these Many but he might have had Enoch and Elias or Moses and Elias with whom he conferred at his transfiguration Secondly unto Suarez his words Barradas his fellow-Jesuite answereth Christ needeth not men indued with bodies now in heaven As for the place of the Proverbs the precedent words give light unto them I rejoyced in the habitable parts of the earth saith the Text So his delights were with the sonnes of men in and upon the earth but of his delight in them with their humane bodies in heaven Before the last resurrection there is no inkling or intimation given Suarez argueth thus secondly b Animae gloriosae connaturale est c. It is very naturall for a glorified soul to be united unto an immortall and glorious bodie But their souls were glorious Therefore their bodies also And the glorie of a blessed soul of its own nature redounds upon the bodie I answer It doth so naturally if it be not hindered But the blessed souls of these Many Saints were in bodies not immortall not blessed not glorious for a few dayes or houres and that by miracle saith Barradius Besides whilest Christ lived on earth unlesse at his Transfiguration or some such especiall occasion the glorie of his most happie soul which was then beatified as much as any of the souls of the Saints are now and more did not impart visible glorie to his bodie but it was passible and mortall for it died Then why may not these Saints have the glorious light of their souls eclipsed from their bodies Again the assumed bodies of blessed Angels ever did resolve into their first principles when the ends why they assumed them were fulfilled the like might be in the Saints whose souls were hindered from communicating incorruptible and glorious qualities to their bodies and so they were partakers not of the perfection of the last eternall resurrection but of the imperfections incident to the temporarie and mortall resurrection Thirdly saith Suarez Corah Dathan and Abiram are in hell with their bodies therefore some to shew Gods mercie must now be in heaven with their bodies and therefore these Many I answer that both the sequences are lame though we should grant the ground or antecedent of the Argument For first was not Gods mercie seen in heaven from the houre of Corah and his companies descent into hell till these Many ascended Then why may it not still be seen though these ascended not especially since that Christ is there in a most blessed incorruptible bodie as they are in hell in cursed bodies which would take corruption for a favour Lastly why must these Many Saints be the counter-pattern in heaven rather then Enoch or Elias or Moses being the Magistrate against whom Corah and his complices combined themselves 2. Others there are who object It is said THEY ENTRED INTO THE HOLY CITIE But the holy citie is the new Jerusalem Jerusalem above Revel 21.2 Therefore they died not but went into heaven I answer Jerusalem below the materiall Jerusalem the seat of the kings of Judah because of Gods worship there especially to be performed in that glorious Temple was also called the holy citie GLORIOUS THINGS ARE SPOKEN OF THEE THOU CITIE OF GOD Psal 87.3 Amongst others thou art styled holy Rev. 11.2 The holy citie shall the Gentiles tread under foot but the Gentiles shall never trample on the new Jerusalem above On the one side of a shekel of the Sanctuarie which once I saw was stamped in Hebrew characters Holy Jerusalem Again Tobit 13.9 O Jerusalem the holy citie he will scourge thee but he will never scourge Jerusalem above which is the Mother of us all therefore Jerusalem below must needs be this holy Citie Bellarmine himself de Pontifice Romano 3.13 accordeth with us and interpreteth the strife of the two Witnesses against Antichrist in Jerusalem below And before him Hierom in his answer to the eighth question of Hedibia Tom. 3. fol. 50. saith Of these words
doubt before thee and thou shalt fear day and night and shalt have no assurance of thy life vers 66. To all the other alledged places of Scripture one answer fitly serveth viz. That the holy Writ speaketh of the ordinary course of Nature and hath no intent to limit Gods power or to binde the Lawmaker but he may exempt from death whomsoever he pleaseth For generall rules are not without exceptions It is most true what Aristotle de Histor Animal 7.10 generally avoucheth d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No childe crieth in the mothers wombe and yet extraordinarily it may be true what Libavius in lib. de vagitu uterino and Albertus Magnus lib. 10. de Animalibus and Solinus in his third chapter report to wit Quosdam embriones plorâsse in utero That some Embrioes have wept and cried out in their mothers wombe As on the contrary what Livie lib. 24. recordeth namely Infantem in utero matris IO TRIUMPHALE clamâsse That an infant in the mothers wombe sang the Outcrie used in triumphs And what Appian of Alexandr de bellis civilibus Roman lib. 4. almost in the beginning relateth That a childe spake so soon as it was born which was a prognostick of sorrow against the erection of the TRIUMVIRI Petrus Pomponatius in lib. de incantationibus cap. 10. goeth one step further and though it be a little out of my way yet suffer me to follow him e Haly Aben-Ragel scientiâ syderum scivit praedicere puerum natum statim prophetaturum sicut refert Conciliator Haly Aben-Ragel saith he by Astrologie knew and foretold that a new born childe should presently prophesie as Conciliator relateth So the universall law of all mens dying may stand in full force and vertue and yet be abridged by some extraordinary exceptions through the unlimited command of the most free Lawmaker My proofs that universall propositions do not alwaies exclude some particular contraries shall be of such generall rules as are limited by the Papists themselves because the controversie now in agitation is onely against them The great master of Controversies Bellarmine himself de Purgatorâ—o 1.12 speaking of the taking up of the good thief into Paradise saith f Privilegia paucorum legem uon faciunt A few mens priviledges establish not a law Gerson that learned Chancellour of Paris in his Sermon on the birth of the thrice blessed Virgin the third part thus settleth g Constat Deum misericordiam salvationis suae non ità legibus communibus traditionis Christianae non ità Sacramentis ipsis alligâsse quin absque praejudicio legis ejusdem possit pueroâ— nondum natos intus sanctificare Gratiae suae baptismos vel virtute Spiritus sancti It is apparent that God hath not tied his mercifull salvation to the common laws of Christian veritie no not so to the Sacraments themselves but without prejudice of that law he may sanctifie children in the wombe with the baptisme of his grace or power of the holy Spirit Matthias Felizius pag. 184. acknowledgeth that extraordinarily the souls of good and bad men do sometimes come out of heaven and hell yet are there generall statutes and the ordinary course opposite and contrarie By an argument drawn from speciall priviledge Petrus Thyraeus de locis infestis part 1. cap. 9. maintaineth That humane souls may return out of Purgatorie yea out of Hell h Bonum publicum Legislatori semper propositum est hoc si lege praeteritâ obtineri potest legis ratio magna non habetur The Law-maker saith he hath an eye still aiming at a generall good which generall good if it take place and succeed without the law it is no great detriment or wrong to the law Cardinal Tolet on John 1.3 i Aliquando solemus generatim loqui ad mulâ—itudinem significandam quamvìs non omnes partes multitudinis comprehendantur Sometimes we speak generally to signifie a numerous multitude though we do not mean to comprise all and every parcell of that multitude 1. Cor. 9.25 Every man that striveth for the masterie is temperate in all things But neither do all abstain nor do they who abstain abstain from all things Which truth in the mouth of Tolet might be confirmed at large by the Fathers Let S. Hierom onely give in his verdict Hierom Tom. 3. Epist ad Damasum de Prodigo thus k Canon Scripturarum est Omnia non ad totum referenda sed ad maximam partem It is even a rule in Scripture that the word ALL hath not reference to the whole comprehending every singular particular but to the greatest part And as OMNIS All so likewise NVLLVS None is restrained 1. Kings 18.10 where the words No nation or kingdome extend not through the whole world but are to be reduced and confined to those Nations or Kingdomes which were Achabs subjects or tributaries to whom he might and could administer an oath which he did not could not do in the dominions of other absolute free Princes I must yet come up closer to Bellarmine Gen. 7.18 Repleverunt aquae Omnia in superficie terrae as it is in their Vulgat though it be not so either in the Hebrew or Greek And All the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered vers 19. Yet Bellarmine in lib. de Gratia primi hominis cap. 4. excepteth Paradise which being on earth was not overflown Genes 7.21 All flesh died and every man and vers 22. All in whose nostrills was the breath of life died and vers 23. Every living substance both man and cattell c. Yet for all these generalities Bellarmine in the place cited excepteth Enoch who then lived upon earth in Paradise as he imagined Rom. 5.12 Death passed upon all for that all have sinned But l Praeventa fuit Maria singulari gratiâ privilegio Dei ut simul esse justa esse inciperet The Virgin Mary was prevented by Gods speciall grace so that she was free from sinne so soon as she had any being saith Bellarmine Tom. 3. de amissione grat statu peccat 4.16 He exempteth her by speciall priviledge from sinne Why may not we by the force of his reason exempt an other from death Moreover Enoch and Elias at what time S. Paul wrote these words were not dead though the Apostle speaketh of things past nor are dead yet as the Papists hold Gorran on the place answereth appositely Death went over all REATV non ACTV by way of guiltinesse not actually 1. Corinth 15.51 c. We shall all be changed at the last trump Yet Bellarmine de Romano Pontifice 3.6 saith that Enoch and Elias shall die and rise again before the generall resurrection till which time the last trump bloweth not And Christ was risen before though the words be large and not Christ alone but if Holcot be not deceived on Wisd 2.5 m De Matre Christi benedicta piè credit Ecclesia quòd sit in
first coming though it was accompanied with good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people Luke 2.10 yet was it also a dreadfull day to the wicked and disobedient men worse then if he had never come and it was dolefull also to the evil spirits whom he then vanquished cast out and tormented before their time Matth. 8.29 triumphing over them in his own person and trampling them down and breaking them in pieces with his rod of iron in their own kingdome and therefore may justly be called in respect of them a terrible day The Prophets testimonie reacheth home for confirmation hereof Isa 61.2 He hath sent me to preach the acceptable yeare of the Lord and the day of vengeance of our God to comfort all that mourn Which Prophesie Christ himself Luke 4.18 c. applieth to his first coming and addeth remarkably vers 21 This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your eares The day of vengeance you see is threatned in Christs first coming And is not the day of vengeance unto such to whom vengeance passively belongeth a terrible day Which truth is also confirmed by that admirable similitude fore-prophesied in the law of Moses and applied to Christ in the law of Grace concerning Christs being not onely a chief corner-stone 1. Pet. 2.6 and the head of the corner Psal 118.22 Elect and precious saith S. Peter a tried stone a sure foundation Isa 28.16 and for a sanctuarie Isa 8.14 and whosoever beleeveth on him shall not be ashamed Rom. 9.33 But also Christ is compared to a stumbling stone and a rock to make men fall Rom. 9.32 33 or as Isaiah hath it a stumbling stone and as a rock to fall upon and as a snare and as a net And many shall stumble and fall and be broken and snared and taken Isa 8.14 c. Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken but on whomsoever it shall fall it shall grinde him to powder Matth. 21.44 And is not such a stone terrible to such as fall on it or on whom it falleth and is not that time terrible when it falleth This is prophesied of Christs first coming and so his first coming is truely said to be a terrible day unto some Lastly it is insinuated that Christ when he cometh may smite the earth with a curse which must be understood of his first coming for after his second coming after the day of judgement the earth is not to be cursed but rather blessed For there shall be a new heaven and a new earth â—no sorrow nor crying nor pain Revel 21.1 4. Upon which reasons and others I have wondred that the divine Drusius should be so caught with the Jewish fable as to doubt whether Elias be come or no. Drusius in his castigations or notes on Ecclesiasticus 48.11 thus a Hodie multorum â—pinio est credentiuÌ„ istud Malachiae vaticinium ex parte tantùm in Joanne completum fuisseâ— Hi tenent venturum abhuc Eliam in propria persona sub adventum Domini quem vocant alterum sive secundum hoc est ante extremum judicium Quae vera an falsa sint non decerno Hâ—c tantùm Judaeos etiamnum cum suo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expectare Eliam de quo hî◠sermo est unde dicunt Cùm venerit Elias ipse docebit nos omnia To this day many think and beleeve that this prophesie of Malachi was onely by the Baptist in part fulfilled and they hold that Eliah shall personally and bodily appeare toward the second coming of our Lord before the last judgement Whether these things be true or false I determine not This onely I will say The Jews do as yet and to this houre look for Eliah to come with their Messiah and of him they have this saying WHEN ELIAH COMETH HE SHALL TEACH VS ALL THINGS I reply What part what syllable in Malachi concerning Elias was not fulfilled by John the Baptist If many do now beleeve otherwise they are such as are Jews who neither beleeve the words of our Saviour who said Elias was come and therefore think Elias shall come because they think their Messias is not come at all or at least they do Judäize in this point whosoever they be that expect the personall coming of the Tishbite Christopher Castrus the Jesuit on Malach. 4.8 concludeth That the true Elias shall yet come because it was the voice of the Jews and the expectation of the Scribes and Pharisees who said in the same places that Elias should come b Ante Christum gloriosum ut super Matthaeum assâ—rit Hâ—eronymus before Christs glorious appearing as S. Hierom writeth on Matthew First I answer that the Jews did expect the coming of their Messias to be glorious in all worldly pomp Secondly I call not now to minde that the Scribes Pharisees or Jews ever expected a second coming of their Messias Thirdly whereas our Saviour saith Matth. 17.11 Elias truely shall first come and restore all things though these words were spoken after John the Baptist was beheaded yet Christ meaneth not that Elias shall come corporally but in answering his disciples he propoundeth the objection of the Jews which they before alledged more briefly and speaketh according to their opinion Elias indeed shall come and then in the verse following Christ saith unto his disciples thus in effect by way of correction Whatsoever the Scribes say or affirm concerning Elias his bodily coming is not literally to be understood BVT I SAY VNTO YOV THAT ELIAS IS COME ALREADY And what he saith to his disciples here he saith to the people Matth. 11.14 If ye will receive it This is Elias which was for to come He fore-knew that some would not beleeve him and therefore he said If ye will receive it This is Elias This John who then did live this John is Elias not which shall come this is the exposition of the Jews but this John is that Elias which was to come and now is come and the prophesie fulfilled He that hath eares to heare let him heare The last words as Hierom well observeth do evince that the former to wit If ye will receive it This is Elias are mysticall and hard to be understood no plain sense or manifest sentence Whence I inferre that plain and easie it would have been to the Jews if he would have said as they did think That Elias should come bodily although the Baptist did resemble him in vertue and power and was equall unto him But here is the mysterie That Malachi never intended that Elias should live on earth corporally against Christs second coming but that the Baptist was prefigured in Elias and whatsoever was prophesied by Malachi of Elias was accomplished by the Baptist and no other Elias to come but the Baptist in vertue and power of Elias and not according to the outward letter Here is a mysterie here is depth which the c Judaei Judaizantes haeretici Jews and Jewishly addicted hereticks
is living or that he is dead The reason why some thought S. John liveth was because Christ said to Peter John 21.22 If I will that he tarrie till I come what is that to thee Neither doth it satisfie them that John himself saith ver 23. Jesus said not He shall not die for they expound that exposition John shall not die namely till that time that Christ doth come Dorotheus speaking of S. John hath it thus John lived 120 yeares which being expired he living as yet the Lord would so have it buried himself The storie is enlarged by S. Augustine Tract 124. in Joannem thus Some report that in certain Scriptures though Apocryphall it is found that S. John being in health caused a grave to be made and laid himself in it as in a bed and presently died or as some think lay down as dead but not dead and being thought to be dead was buried sleeping and that he sheweth his being alive a Scaturigine pulveris by the ebullition of the dust of his grave b Qui pulvis creditur ut ab imo ad superficiem tumuli ascendat flatu quiesoentis impelli which dust is beleeved to arise and to be forced from the bottome of the tombe to the top by his breath And truly saith Augustine We heard not this of light credulous men Whereupon he adviseth c Viderint qui hunc locum sciunt utrùm hoc ibi faciat terra vel patiatur quod dicitur Let them who know the place consider whether the earth spring up there so as is reported If it be so saith he if the earth or sand bubble up like water and that being taken away other ariseth and boyleth up in the room it doth so either to commend the precious death of that Saint or for some other reason which we know not So farre Augustine Some such thing in another case is recorded by S. Hierom Heare his own words Tom. 3. de locis Hebraicis out of the Acts of the Apostles d Cùm Ecclesia in cujus medio sunt vestigia rotundo schemate pulcherrimo opere conderetur summum tamen cacumen ut perhibent propter Dominici corporis meatum nuilo modo contegi concamerari potuit sed transitus ejus à terra ad coelum usque patet apertum Mount Olivet is situated on the East of Jerusalem parted by the stream of Cedron where the last footsteps which Christ set upon this earth are imprinted on the ground and even to this day are to be seen and shewed And whereas the same earth is taken away daily by the beleeving Christians neverthelesse the same holy footsteps presently and immediately recover their old form and fashion Who also in the same place addeth another strange thing e Mons Oliveti ad Orientem Hierosolymae situs est torrente Cedron interfluente ubi ultima vestigia Domini humo impressa bodiéque monstrantur Cúmque terra eadem quotidie à credentibus hauriatur nihilominus tamen eadem sancta vestigia pristinum statum continuò recipiunt Whereas the Church in the midst whereof these footsteps are was built of a round form with most exquisite workmanship yet the very top of that Church as people report could by no means ever be covered or vaulted over by reason of our Saviours bodily ascent into heaven but Christs passage and way by which he mounted from earth even to heaven lieth open and is visible But our late traveller M. Sands relateth That the footstep is on a firm naturall rock and the passage open at the summitie or top of the temple of the Ascension is to receive light into that sacred place For that is covered as the sepulchre or rather as the temple of the sepulchre whose round is covered with a CVPVLO sustained with rafters of Cedar all of one piece open in the midst like the Pantheon at Rome whereat it receiveth the light that it hath and that as much as sufficeth Just in the midst and in view of heaven standeth the glorified sepulchre So farre M. George Sands M. Fines Morison saith On the top of mount Olivet the highest of all the mountains that compasse Jerusalem in a Chappel they shew in stone the print of Christs feet when he ascended into heaven It did a little amaze me that these our two countreymen both being learned and both being there eye-witnesses do differ so much the first mentioning a footstep in the singular number the other feet in the plurall Antiquitie saith On the Earth late Writers On a Rock which maketh me rather bear with the good S. Hierom who relateth from others that the top could by no means be covered Open perhaps the top was left and open purposely by some exquisite workmen whose skill some credulous ignorants could not discern and they might report that what was done could not be done otherwise But of this in either of our countreymen there is not one word I return to the old matter Sixtus Senensis Bibliothecae sanctae lib. 6. Annotat. 93. saith Many most grave and worthy Authours have written that S. John the Evangelist yet liveth But Chrysostom Hom. 66. in Matt. reporteth f Illum violentâ morte obtruncatum obtisse That he was put to a violent death and he bringeth in Christ speaking these words to the two sonnes of Zebedee of whom S. John the Evangelist was one Mark 10.35 g Calicem meum bibetis Matth. 20.23 id est Martyrii coronâ potiemini violentâ morte sicut ego à vita discedetis YE SHAL DRINK OF MY CVP shall be put to a violent death and be crowned with martyrdome like unto me Euthymius also testifieth that Chrysostom in two other places saith that S. John the Evangelist was slain in Asia which makes me wonder that George Trapezuntius if he be truely alledged by Sixtus Senensis ibid. should interpret Chrysostoms words of the martyrdome and violent death which John forsooth should suffer with Enoch and Elias under the last persecution of Antichrist especially since Chrysostom so punctually designeth out the time past and telleth what was done to John and where Hippolytus Portuensis Episcopus in his short Tractate de mundi consummatione saith As Christs first coming had John the Baptist his forerunner so the second shall have Enoch and Elias and John the Evangelist This comparison is very lame and halteth for it may be applied as well to any as to John the Evangelist Others use not so foolish a similitude but yet embrace a wilder opinion for they say that S. John died and rose from the dead and was assumed into heaven Nicephorus 2.42 addeth DECEBAT It was fit convenient decent and requisite that he who kept Christs mother and was so beloved of Christ should be so assumed as Christs mother was O man how proud art thou to judge what is convenient or inconvenient for God to do Baronius Tom. 2. Anno Christi 101. numero
a tempestuous winde did he make him to ascend including an intimation that in a whirlwinde they were both rapted If the Scripture had used the very words in describing the nature of Elias I should the sooner have liked the conceit but the Rabbinicall speculations conclude not therefore I will Lastly it is improbable but divers of the Disciples or Apostles who saw Christs ascending might and would have sought and looked for him but that they were in a sort dehorted by two Angels who told them That Christ was taken from them into heaven Act. 1.11 and therefore it was vain to seek him any longer on the earth And most certain it is that when the sonnes of the Prophets saw Elijah snatcht up and Elishah parting Jordan with Elijahs mantle they said unto Elishah There be with thy servants fiftie sonnes of strength let them go we pray thee and seek thy master 2. Kings 2.16 and accordingly they sent fiftie men and they sought three dayes but found him not vers 17. Semblably we may well imagine that some also did seek for Enoch after he was translated yea it approacheth nearer to belief then to imagination upon this fair resultance He was not found say the Septuagint He was not found saith the Apostle therefore he was sought after therefore he was searched for TV NON INVENTA REPERTAES I have found thee whom I could not finde when I sought thee saith the old Poet but it is harsh to say TV NON QVAESITA REPERTA ES Thou art found and wast never lookt after Finding implieth precedent search or going after most ordinarily but Not being found necessarily implieth a former inquirie Elias was not found by Ahab therefore Ahab sought for him Enoch was not found therefore they made enquirie after him So much be spoken in defence of my Comment upon the words Et non ipse which I have supplied from the Septuagint and most especially from the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he was not found And with it is also ended and terminated the second Quaere by me propounded Whether Enoch did ever die with its Answer That Enoch died not either a sweet death or a sowre an easie death or a painfull 5. The third Question followeth Whether Enoch and Elias now live in and with their bodies in Paradise Bellarmine is for the affirmative That Paradise is now extant and Enoch and Elias live in it More particularly concerning Elias Rabbi David in his Comment on 2. Kings 2. reports it as the common opinion of the Jews That Elias went with his bodie into Paradise and there liveth in the same estate that our Parents did before the fall Others have taken upon them to describe and circumscribe exactly the place of Paradise in an Island now called Eden not farre from Babylon as certain Nestorians of the Greek Church have fabled I say fabled because millions of learned men both Heathen Jews and Christians have seen Babylon and lived in it and round about it who never had such a thought or belief or tradition so farre as may be gathered by any ancient extant records Of which Paradise whosoever desireth to see more at large let him have recourse to my learned friend M. John Salkeld in his Treatise of Paradise I will onely adde somewhat which he omitteth Salianus the great Annalist from the creation of the first Adam to the death of the second Adam or rather to his resurrection and ascension Ad annum mundi 987 saith Cyprian Ambrose Hierom Tertullian Gregorie Epiphanius and Hippolytus acknowledging the translation of Enoch and Elias are silent concerning the place of their being Augustine leaves it as doubtfull and disputable Chrysostom and Theodoret like not the enquirie Rupert saith The Scripture is silent neither are the words of Paradise or Eden in the place of Ecclesiasticus 44.16 in the Greek text but onely in the Vulgat So farre Salianus But indeed first me thinks that the old Translatour should have been constant to himself and adding somewhat to the words of Ecclesiasticus 44.16 should not have added In Paradisum as he doth without any shadow of ground from any other place but In coelum because it is so written 1. Macc. 2.58 Elias was taken up into heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In coelum receptus est as the Vulgat it self hath it Secondly the Jesuit Salianus is somewhat too favourable in that point for S. Ambrose in lib. de Paradiso cap. 13. saith expressesly Enoch was r Raptus in coelum caught up into heaven and S. Hierom on Amos 9. saith Enoch and Elias were carried into heaven Bellarmine and other Papists distinguishing COELVM into AERIVM COELESTE ET SVPERCOELESTE Aëriall heavenly and supercelestiall say Enoch was carried into the aëriall heaven I must confesse that the region of the aire that Expansum the aëriall orb is sometimes called Heaven The Lord thundred from heaven 2. Sam. 22.14 God gave us rain from heaven Act. 14.17 and birds are called the fowls of the heaven Psal 104.12 The Lord cast down great hailstones from heaven Josh 10.11 and they were more which died with hailstones then they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword These hailstones came from the middle region of the aire I confesse also that Enoch was carried up into the aëriall heaven but with this distinction He was taken into it as his way not as the end of his journey not as his habitation or resting place The case of Enoch and Elias is so like so one in this puncto that you are not to marvell if sometimes I use the name of one sometimes of the other what is said of one is meant of both f Qui unum rectè nôrit ambos noverit Who knoweth one is not ignorant of the other Chrysostom in his oration of Elias is expresse that he resteth not in the aire and bringeth in Satan as wondring at Elias his riding through and above the clouds neither is his reason to be contemned Elias is not there where the devil is Prince and what should he do among lightning and thunder hail snow storm and tempest This is the portion of the wicked to drink If you flee to the miraculous omnipotent hand of God why may not I say the like concerning Gods extraordinary clothing him with immortalitie and that by dispensation unusuall in the act of translating him God did not let him continue on the earth or in the aire but assuming him into the highest heaven did glorifie his bodie For concerning coelum coeleste Bellarmine will not say that he resteth there nor did ever any afford patrocinie to that conceit Indeed Seneca De consolatione sheweth that the Stoicks thought that the souls of men departed hovered about their bodies and in the end were carried up t Ad ipsos orbes astrâ—s ornatos to the starry heaven And Cicero De somno Scipionis placeth that heroïcal soul among the starres Besides that the conceit is heathenish it
flcut sua eisque propter seipsos hoc velit quod sibi They say that an happy life is a sociable life which loveth the welfarre of friends as it doth its own good and wisheth as well to others as to it self Ludovicus Vives on the place saith They were the Stoicks who said so but I rather guesse they were the Peripateticks and Aristotle their cheif Chaunter Which blessed life the heathen meaned not of eternall blessednes after the resurrection but of a blessed naturall life in this world and on this earth such an one cannot Enoch and Elias have though they were in Paradise because they have no more companie of their kinde Enoch more especially had lesse happines by this argument if he be supposed to be in the earthly Paradise because he was long by himself ere Elias came to him by the space I say of above two thousand yeares To the further illustration of the former point I may truly say If Adam and Eve had lived in Paradise by themselves alone without any other companie at any other time I should not much have envied or wished that felicitie yea though he had not fallen whereby he became Radix Apostatica in the phrase of Augustine Yea such a blessednes there is in communication of happines that the all-blessed onely-blessed ever-blessed Deitie of the Vnitie would not be without the conjoyned happines of the Trinitie The singlenes of Nature would not be without the pluralitie of Persons Thirdly do they see those men and women and their actions who now live in the bounds of old Eden whilest themselves in their bodies are invisible Fourthly here is a multiplying of miracles daily that Angels shall keep them yet so that they cannot be seen From Enochs assumption which is now above 4000 yeares since have Angels kept him that he hath not been once seen Besides no one place of Scripture Canonicall saith they are in Paradise and it is so farre from a favour as it is rather a durance and captivitie if they be kept from all other parts of the world within the bounds of old Paradise since many places are now more delightfull then the place or places whereabouts Salianus himself now holdeth Paradise to be situated Moreover Elijah was taken up into heaven Suppose that to gratifie Bellarmine we grant Coelum aerium is there meant yet must he needs be taken up from the earth and so not abide on earth in the circuit of old Paradise as Salianus foolishly conceiveth Likewise Ecclesiasticus 49.14 Enoch was taken from the earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Vatablus hath it and rendreth it De terra sublimis assumptus est He was taken up on high from the earth the Vulgat hath it Receptus est à terraâ— Eâ—terra had been more pithie When the Apostle saith He was translated Heb. 11.5 was he left on the same earth on which he was before Or after he was in heaven did he come again on the earth It was an excellent and true observation of our learned Whitaker That Bellarmine sometimes confuting his fellows answers confuteth farre better answers then himself bringeth And I will be bold to say of Salianus though he doth justly deride them who make Paradise in the aire as Cornelius à Lapide and Bellarmine or in the orb of the Moon as others Yet his crotchet is as foolish as any of theirs For in what part of Paradise were they kept when the floud was or was not all the earth overflown The Angels then kept them in the aire or else by an other miracle kept the water from over-flowing that place That the Angels kept people from entring into Paradise I have read that they kept any from going out of it and kept them in it I have not read k Nemiui conspicul esse possunt None can see them saith Salianus They may say I by the same divine power by which they are invisible if invisible they be Can they be seen by none How was Elias seen by our Saviour and his three Disciples at the Transfiguration Or were all they within Paradise or was Elias out of the bounds of the old Paradise when Christ was transfigured on the mount But these and greater inconveniences must these men run into who will maintain against Scripture that Enoch and Elias are in earthly or aeriall Paradise that they may uphold an other crotchet worse then this namely That Enoch and Elias shall hereafter die and be slain by Antichrist and are not l In coelo supercoelesti in the highest heaven which is the last question 6. Let us speak of them severally then joyntly Concernning Enoch the first of them who were rapti it seemeth to me that the Apostles words Heb. 11.5 not onely do reach home to that point unto which before I applyed them viz. That Enoch died not but evince also that he shall never die For it is not said Enoch was translated that he should not die for a good while but he was translated that he should not or might not see death Therefore he cannot he shall not die hereafter since the holy Ghost hath expressed and signed out the end of his translation Nè videret mortem That he should not see death Some may answer to that place of the Apostle first that he speaketh of THE DEATH OF SINNERS as if he had meant with the book of * Wisd 4.11 Wisdome to say NE MALITIA MVTARET INGENIVM EJVS LEST HE SHOVLD BE CHANGED TO THE WORSE for sinners are called DEAD MEN according to that saying l Improbi dum vivunt mortui sunt WICKED MEN EVEN WHILE THEY LIVE ARE DEAD So farre Drusius To whom let me adde that Christ saith Luke 9.60 Let the dead bury their dead And 1. Timoth. 5.6 She that liveth in pleasure is dead whilest she liveth And to the Angel of the Church of Sardis the Spirit saith Revel 3.1 Thou hast a name that thou livest and art dead In all which places wicked men are taken for the dead yet in the place of the Apostle it cannot be so for he was speaking of the true lives and deaths of Gods Saints And if the literall sense can be admitted we must not flee to the mysterie but here is no inconvenience in the letter Moreover the same God who mercifully placed him in the state of Grace could as easily have kept him so without inflicting death on him Lastly the Apostle said Hebr. 11.4 Abel is dead and then descending to Noah and Abraham at the 13. verse These all died in faith I hope no man will say the word died is here taken for sinned but it is taken literally that their souls were parted from their bodies So the words That he should not see death prove that Enochs soul was not parted from his bodie Indeed he is one of them that are mentioned between Abel and Abraham but yet singled out by expresse words That he was translated lest he should or might see
shalt rest and stand in the lot at the end of the dayes IN FINE DIERUM Which words are applied by Vatablus to the resurrection of the last judgement which was mentioned Dan. 12.2 And lest any should interpret the rising out of the dust vers 2. as Porphyrie did for their creeping out of the holes and caverns in the time of the Maccabees Lyra expressely contradicteth it and saith it is to be understood c De resurrectione vera in fine mundi of the true resurrection in the end of the world implying that Daniel shall then arise as he arose not saith Lyra at the time of the Maccabees nor at the opening of the graves before Christs resurrection d Ergò resurrexit Job sanctissimus Therefore most holy Job arose also saith Pineda equalling Noah Daniel and Job in this priviledge But the consequence is lame for Ezechiel doth not mention the equall priviledges of these three in their resurrection though perhaps this latter is figured out but onely the delivery from famine or death by famine Ezech. 14.13 c. of Noah Daniel and Job or rather of other holy men also designed out by their names and like them in their severall vertues Noah overcoming the world Daniel the flesh and Job the devil Concerning Pineda his other proof That Gregorie Nissen in his third Oration of the resurrection saith That the day of their resurrection who arose out of the graves was much more joyfull to them then the day of the generall resurrection If I should grant that he said so and that he said so truely yet it followeth not necessarily scarce probably that they went with their bodies into heaven The day of the generall resurrection is not yet come and could not be rejoyced at but in hope More especially concerning Job though Salianus ad ann mundi 1544. num 783. makes Jobs tombe-stone speak thus e Clausit viator hoc marmor aliquando mortuum emis itque gloriosum eum Principe Messia resurgentem Jobum This stone O wayfaring man kept under it dead Job and sent forth also Job in glorie arising from the dead with Messiah our Prince though Pineda his fellow-Jesuite in the end of his Commentaries on Job saith That Jobs sepulchral pyramis and kingly monument was made for him by his seven sonnes and three daughters and was framed and erected f Ad pietatis memoriam sempiternä spémque resurrectionis cum Redemptore certissimain for an eternall memoriall of pietie and most certain hope of his resurrection with our Redeemer yet none is ignorant that these are tricks of wit panegyrick Eulogies poeticall Epitaphs even a little thwarting one another rather then divine truths or historicall relations 4. And further it is evident that Job spake of the generall resurrection when he said Job 19.25 c. I know that my Redeemer liveth and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth and though after my skin worms destroy this bodie yet in my flesh shall I see God By which latter or last day we may fitly expound not the last day of judgement saith Pineda but the state of the Evangelicall Law and of Christs suffering and rising ending by his death and resurrection the former times and beginning to appoint a new for he is THE FATHER OF THE WORLD TO COME Isa 9.6 Did ever man thus delude Scripture and make it a nose of wax It is scarcely worse used by our unlearned lay-Rabbies the Doctours of Doctours Who ever dreamed that Dies novissimus should signifie so unlikely a matter and if it did how vain is his proof The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pater aeternitatis The father of eternitie as the Interlinearie Bible reads it and Vatablus with it expounding the words g Anthor vitae aeternae The authour of eternall life which hath no reference to Pineda's wilde Comment or the everlasting Father as we translate it 5. The Seventie indeed and the Book of Job thus Job died being old and full of dayes so farre also goeth the Hebrew and it is added in the Greek But it is written that he shall again be raised up with those whom the Lord shall raise These words are not in the Original nor in Aquila nor in Symmachus nor in the Seaventie used by Vatablus but Theodotion so reads it and the Vatican Edition of Sixtus so acknowledgeth it and Origen in his epistle to Africanus confirmeth it and Clemens Romanus cap. 5. lib. 6. approveth it Two wayes there are of expounding the word Rursus Again Francis Turrian the Jesuite on the place of Clement collecteth that Job shall not onely be raised up in the last day at the generall resurrection but that he should be first raised when Christ arose and afterward at the last day Nicetas saith better The word AGAIN was therefore put that his first resurrection might be understood to have been when he was delivered from his troubles Which way soever you follow we have it That Job shall be raised at the last day of the world And therefore he arose not with Christ or died again and so went not into the eternall happinesse of bodie and soul for glorified bodies shall not be raised 6. Lastly there is an opinion even to this day among the Turks grounded no doubt on some old Tradition That Jobs bodie was removed from the place of his buriall to that citie and place which is now called Constantinople as Mr. Fines Morison in the first part of his Itinerary pag. 243. witnesseth These are all that ever I read of by name that are thought by Pineda or others both to rise with Christ and to partake with him at that time of the eternall happinesse both in soul and bodie 7. Bartholomaeus Sybilla Peregrinarum quaestionum decade 1. cap. 3. quaest 7. dubio 3. citeth Henricus de Assia as Authour that Perhaps not onely Enoch and Elias are kept in Paradise to preach against Antichrist but both John the Evangelist and those that rose with Christ Observe saith Sybilla the word PERHAPS for S. Hierom saith formerly concerning S. John WE DOUBT BUT BOTH S. JOHN THE EVANGELIST AND THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARIE DO REJOYCE IN THEIR GLORIFIED FLESH VVITH CHRIST And Aquin. in 4. sentent distinct 43. artic 3. cited by Sybilla saith It is a point of faith holily to be beleeved concerning the blessed Virgin Marie and S. John the Evangelist that their resurrection is not deferred to the end of the world Also Holcot saith on Wisdome cap. 2.2 h Corpus benedictae Virginis non fuit resolvendum in cineres quia in ca fomes extiuctus extitit The bodie of the blessed Virgin was not to be turned into ashes because in her was no fountain of ill from whence her asportation into heaven may seem to be confirmed The feast-day of her assumption is greater and more festivall then any other holy-day for her saith Durandus Rational 7.24 Surely I must needs say we reade
nothing certain concerning her death nor is her bodie or her tombe-stone found on earth nor did S. John the Evangelist who out-lived her and the rest of the Apostles by all mens consents write any thing of her death much lesse of her assumption though as Christ committed her to him so he took her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his own home was a sonne unto her Joh. 19.26 27. Amongst those who assent to her assumption i Monstrosa quaedam discrepantia reperitur there is monstrous diversitie saith Baronius Anno Christi 48. num 4. Which words I wonder he would let drop from his pen or that others of their side would suffer to be printed Of the former instances I say the lesse because if all which was supposed were granted and if they had this priviledge to prevent others in their bodily glorie yet it was long after Christs ascension whereas my principall question was of those many that arose about Christs Passion Who in particular they were 8. The summe is Pineda hath taken great pains to little purpose hath presumed to name those whom the Scripture or any sound tradition hath left unnamed his proofs have been so slender as his conjectures have been bold He convinceth not exactly that any one of those whom he specializeth were raised much lesse to eternall happinesse and I have demonstrated that some of those whom he nameth did not then arise to a glorious immortalitie In the particular instancing in those who arose about Christs death his fellow-Jesuite dares not follow him k Non ausim de ullo particulatim definire I dare not say peremptorily that any such an one was raised saith Lorinus most modestly on Act. 7.29 Yet still it must be confest that many bodies which slept arose c. though the book be clasped the secret reserved and no absolute knowledge can inform us who they were O Lord who didst open the eyes of the blinde to thee do I confesse the blindenesse of my understanding open I beseech thee those eyes of my minde dispell the clouds leading me in the right way amidst by-paths and uncertainties even for thine own sake who art the onely way to the true life So be it Lord Jesus Amen Amen CHAP. XIIII 1. My conjecture that none of the Patriarchs or old Prophets were raised 2. An objection concerning Peters knowing of Moses and Elias on mount Tabor answered 3. A conjecture that the Saints who lived in Christs time and died before him were raised at his Passion Who they were in most likelihood When Joseph the reputed father of Christ did die 4. The end why they were raised To whom they appeared 5. A crotchet concerning the wives of dead men which have been raised IF still you presse the question Who those MANY were or Who were some of those MANY I answer with Lorinus that part of truth lieth hid and covered Amongst conjectures I propound this mine own as probable First negatively That none of the ancient Patriarchs Prophets or Types of Christ in the Old Testament arose for if one Who is he and why not others as well as he and if they had risen Who should have known them or how could they induce the then living to beleeve that they were the same Patriarchs or Prophets They might have been as well thought to have been incarnate spirits for the evil spirits also kept about the tombes and graves of the deceased Unlesse you will multiply miracles upon miracles and say God by miracle did reveal these to be true Patriarchs Otherwise they could not prove it to those who lived 2000 yeares after them And if there had been such miracles the Evangelists would not have slipt them 2. Yea but S. Peter knew Moses and Elias at Christs transfiguration though they were taken away from among men long before And therefore the then living might know the dead Patriarchs and holy men raised though they died long before I answer That S. Peter and the other Apostles James and John might know by the conference between Christ and Moses and Elias who they were Whereas Christ never conversed or conferred with those that were raised for ought that is recorded or probably to be maintained And it is a figment to say or imagine that there was any third person which knew both the then raised on the one side and the living which never had been dead on the other side or could give assurance that the raised were such and such Patriarchs and Fathers Nor were their testimonies to be taken one for another since the deniall or doubt concerning any one draweth in the deniall or doubt of all the rest and upon supposall of one false apparition any one and every one of the rest might be questioned Secondly S. Peter and S. John might know Moses and Elias by divine revelation which to them was not unfrequent as Christs Divinitie was revealed to Peter Matth. 16.17 and Ananias his heart Act. 5.3 c. or as Luke knew by the Spirit that Peter wept bitterly though Peter wept secretly for he went out first Luk. 22.62 and what he went out purposely to conceal shall we think that he did purposely reveal Now though the Apostles had supernall illumination guiding them into all truth yet that by divine revelation extraordinary every one of them then living at Jerusalem knew every one of them who were raised and appeared unto them is unnecessarily to multiply many miracles Now since they knew not the persons of the raised by Christ nor any other third person nor by heavenly instruction they could no way know the raised Patriarchs unlesse by their pictures or statues which of all other wayes is most unprobable as being a course not practised in those times and places The argument now hath received its answer Peter might many wayes and did some way know Moses and Elias and yet I finde not any way whereby the inhabitants of the holy citie could personally know the Patriarchs and Fathers being before buried and incinerated And therefore I probably conclude Not any one of these were raised 3. Secondly my positive probable conjecture is this which also seemeth more likely to Lucas Brugensis That many of those Saints who lived in Christs time and beleeved in him whose memorie was fresh and whose children kindred or acquaintance were yet living and who were known to adhere to Christ and to this opinion Bishop Bilson seemeth somewhat to encline Many I say of those dead Saints now arose and appeared unto many as it may be John the Baptist though the deceitfull miracle-mongers shew the false reliques of that good Saints head in divers places and Zacharie and Elisabeth his parents and those many Luk. 1.66 and those shepherds Luk. 2.8 and those wonderers to whom the shepherds told our Saviours nativitie Luk. 2.18 perhaps some would adde those wisemen who came to worship Christ Matth. 2.2 and old Simeon and Anna the Prophetesse and Joseph Christs reputed father though