some think that Joseph lived after Christs resurrection and yet others say he died the twelfth yeare of Christs age to whom Baronius rather inclineth a Ad annum Christi 12. Joseph being very aged about 80 yeares old when he was espoused to the holiest Virgin as Epiphanius and others do guesse For my part I embrace the mean and tread in the middle path Neither thinking that Joseph died the 12 yeare for when Christ was twelve yeares old Joseph went up to Jerusalem Luk 2.42 and after Christs descent to Nazareth Christ was obedient to Joseph and the all-garacious Virgin vers 51. therefore Joseph could not be dead in the twelfth yeare of Christ which the learned Baronius did supinely and sluggishly passe over and not observe Nor yet do I imagine on the other side that he lived beyond Christs resurrection or till his death since there is frequent mention of Christs Apostles of his holy mother and of his cousins and friends men and women yea of strangers and no mention nor intimation at all See Salianus in his Annals in annum mundi 4065 at large on this point that Joseph lived till Christ began publickly to preach and do miracles much lesse after his death So upon my supposall that he died between the thirteenth yeare of Christ and the twentie ninth Joseph might very well be one of those who were raised at that time and with him perhaps divers whom Christ had healed or to whom he had preached if they died before and many others with whom Christ conversed till he was thirty yeares old 4. And all these did prove and confirm unto the incredulous or wavering Saints their friends or kindred yea and to the very beleevers also the truth of Christs doctrine of his death of his resurrection appearing not promiscuously to Grecians or to Romans not to all no not to all the Jews but to many but to fit persons saith the Interlinearie Glosse whether Jews Grecians or Romans then residing at Jerusalem to such as knew them in their lives and at their deaths This conjecture may passe the more plausibly if we consider that Christ himself appeared not to all indifferently but onely to some and to some oftner times then to others yet no where is said to have shewed himself to any but onely to his followers and Disciples And as the Apostles were confirmed by Christs holy conference so might many other then living beleeve or the rather beleeve the Gospel of Christ upon proof made by the new raised in many particulars strengthning their faith They arose b Vt Dominum ostenderent resurgentem To shew that Christ was raised saith S. Hierom on Matth. 27. c Cum eo debebant resurgere ut ipsum ostenderent resurrexisse They ought to rise with Christ that they might shew he was risen saith Ludolphus the Carthusian That d Debebant they ought savoureth of presumption Dionysius the Carthusian hath more moderate terms he on the place saith They did testifie that Jesus was the Christ that he was truely risen and had destroyed hell Hierom Tom. 3. fol. 50. in his answer to the eighth question of Hedibia thus e Non omnibus apparuerunt sed multis qui resurgentem Dominum susceperunt They appeared not to all but to many who received our Lord risen from the dead And yet let me superadde by his leave If they had appeared to the Disciples and Apostles of Christ who received Christ I cannot think they would have concealed it 5. Among my other diversions and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or winde-abouts let this be one occasionally arising from the odde position which Estius hath in 1. Cor. 7.39 f Rectè ex Apostoli verbis inferunt Aquinas carthusianus Non teneri mulierem ad recipiendum virum de morte resuscitatum Aquin and Carthusian conclude rightly saith he from the Apostle that a woman is not bound to receive her husband newly raised nor may she enjoy him without a new contract What if I answer That a woman is tied to her husband as long as he liveth but he liveth afterward though he had been dead and when the Apostle speaketh of death he speaketh of a compleat death not susceptible in this world of another life For he opposeth the dead man to the living as if one could not be dead and then living but first living and then dead for ever till the generall resurrection Suppose we Lazarus was married had not his wife been his lawfull wife bound to him by their first agreement even after his resurrection I doubt it not Yet this might be the case of some of the many who were raised especially if they died but a while before But I confesse the case differeth and is more perplexed if the partie were dead and the dayes of mourning past and the woman married to another Yet even here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Father most gracious O Saviour most mercifull O holy Spirit most comfortable I humbly begge thy grace mercie and comfort to be shed forth upon me in this life that I may please thee in my vocation and do thy will and fulfill the businesse which thou hast appointed for me And leave not off I beseech thee to guide me by thine enabling counsel here till thou art readie to crown me with thy glorie in the life to come Amen Lord Jesu Amen CHAP. XV. 1. The raised Saints ascended not into heaven with Christ as is proved by Scripture and Reason Suarez his shallow answer Epiphanius strengthening my former positive conjectures 2. If the raised ascended bodily into heaven the Patriarchs should not be left behinde 3. The ascending bodily of the Saints into heaven not necessarie or behooffull 4. Onely Christs bodie was seen ascending 5. In likelihood Christ would have shewed the Patriarchs unto some of his Apostles THat these raised Saints who bare witnesse of Christ setling many pendulous and doubting souls strengthening many followers and Disciples of our Saviour and perhaps converting some unbeleevers by teaching them that their expected Messiah was now come that he did live among them and had died for their sinnes and risen again for their justification That they I say after this office performed again deposited their bodies in the earth and ascended not corporally into heaven you may behold proved by this first reason drawn from Scripture For Christ is compared to the high Priest who alone entred the SANCTUM SANCTORUM Hebr. 9.7 It is true indeed that we enter into the Holiest by the bloud of Jesus Heb. 10.19 but he onely * Hebr. 10.10 by a new and living way through the vail that is to say his flesh * Hebr. 9.12 entred in once into the holy place His entring differing from others entring and differing in this That with his bodie he entred others ascended not into heaven with him bodily Secondly if they had ascended into heaven following Christ their bodies must have been
seen as well as Christs But their bodies were not seen ascending for the Evangelists would not have omitted a matter of such moment Suarez denieth this because the Evangelists do describe such things as may be seen with bodily eyes in which regard neither the Angels nor the souls of Saints are reported to have accompanied him which yet divers beleeve to have kept wing and way with him to heaven I answer Though Angels and the spirits of men be not specified as not being seen as not being to be seen without bodies yet such Saints as arose with their bodies and went into heaven with their bodies as Suarez and others think all they who arose out of their graves did might in likelihood be seen ascending with Christ as well as Christs bodie And their bodies were as subject to be seen with bodily eyes as Christs was yea more visible by how much Christs bodie was more glorified then any of the Saints if claritie impassibilitie agilitie and subtilitie do make glorified bodies to be lesse visible all which Christ had in an eminent degree above any other An unglorified eye can see naturally a glorified bodie though a glorified bodie can be seen or not seen according as it pleaseth See the Supplement of Aquin part 3. quest 85. artic 2.3 Therefore my conclusion is firm as his objection is impertinent Thirdly from Epiphanius in Ancorato I gathered what before I onely conjectured That such onely were raised as died a while before who rising were known to such as then lived that their testimonie might by their former familiaritie the rather be beleeved and be void of exception whereas if such were raised as died long before they must first use arguments to prove that themselues had sometimes lived and that they once died that they were newly raised and that they were the same persons whom they reported themselves to be 2. Now that these should go into eternall happinesse both of souls and bodies and leave the Patriarchs bodies in the dust is in judgement improbable Therefore if it were to be proved that those who arose out of their graves after or upon Christs Passion did ascend into the most glorious happinesse in heaven both of bodie and soul as above other men I should think and maintain that Adam Seth Noah Abraham Isaac and all the rest before mentioned and others unmentioned holy Prophets and others were they that did arise and were they who were partakers with Christ of perfect immortalitie and had more favours and priviledges then other men So since Epiphanius concludeth That others of later times were raised I will be bold to inferre that others ascended not into heaven before those holy Patriarchs but laid their bodies in the graves again 3. Again if the end of their resurrection mho now arose was to testifie that Christ was risen this dutie they might fulfill though they ascended not into heaven with him If to testifie that Jesus was the Christ that he was just that he was the Sonne of God which was the collection of the Centurion when he saw the graves open and that many bodies arose Matth. 27.54 their ascension into heaven was not necessary to that certificate If they say They arose to be witnesses of his ascension into heaven I answer He had other witnesses of it Act. 1.9 who would have been witnesses of their ascension also if they had ascended with him If you say they arose to be companions of his ascension I reply that you do but beg the question and hold a groundlesse conclusion 4. Moreover Christ was seen of the Apostles fourtie dayes and spake of things pertaining to the Kingdome of God Act. 1.3 and He shewed himself alive after his Passion by many infallible proofs as is said immediately before and they saw when he ascended into heaven vers 9. But that Christ ever conversed with any of those that were raised or was seen with them or they with him or they with the Apostles or Disciples or that any ascended into heaven is no direct mention as perhaps there would if Adam and the rest of the holy Patriarchs and Prophets had been raised and had gone into heaven 5. Neither would Christ who vouchsafed Peter James and John to see him conferre with Moses and Elias at the Transfiguration have now denied Peter James and John to see him conferre with the same Moses and other Patriarchs after his resurrection if they had arose and conferred with him as out of doubt during the time of fourtie dayes that he conversed on earth since their and his resurrection if they arose he often discoursed with them for he did but about twelve times appeare to the Apostles and that most on the Sabbath-dayes and then stayed not very long with them and so I may probably think that he did imploy some part of the rest of the time from his resurrection to his ascension in conference with Moses and the Patriarchs raised especially if they were to ascend bodily into heaven with him But none of these things are once pointed at Therefore there is no likelihood that they were raised much lesse that they ascended with Christ into heaven O Glorious Saviour of mankinde who didst ascend bodily into heaven to prepare a place for us amongst those many mansions filled with blisse Open the gate to me who do knock bid me enter into my masters joy that I may praise thy name and wait on thee my onely stay my delight and the life of my soul my Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ So be it CHAP. XVI 1. Angels taken for men Angels representing men are called men 2. The name JEHOVAH ascribed to an Angel representing JEHOVAH say Estius and Thyraeus Picking of faults in the Apocryphall Scriptures to be abhorred 3. Drusius his povertie The Apocrypha is too little esteemed The Angel who guided young Tobie defended 4. The great difference between Christs manner of rising and Lazarus his INdeed it is said Act. 1.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Behold two men stood by them in white apparel whiles the Apostles were looking stedfastly into heaven after Christ and they told them of his coming to the last judgement in the same manner as he ascended Which two certainly might be men and were men saith the Text yea say some Expositors were some of those Many who arose out of their graves after Christs resurrection These were amicti vestibus albis saith Erasmus In albo vestitu saith Beza Now the Saints are arayed in white robes Revel 7.13 and whitenesse of garments is a token of joy Ecclesiastes 9.7 8. and these had cause to joy I first answer with most of the Ancients with the modern Beza Sa Montanus and Sanctius That these two men so called were Angels For the Angels representing mens persons are called according to their names or titles whom they represent As in the vision which S. Paul saw by night Act. 16.9 it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There stood a man
Which words Christ spake after his resurrection from the dead unto Mary Magdalen Yea further let me expatiate in shewing the correspondence between Enoch in the law of Nature and Elias in the law of Moses and our all-glorious Saviour in the law of Grace Even as Elishah saw the carrying up of Eliah 2. Kings 2.12 yea and fifty men of the sonnes of the Prophets beheld the same as it is likely 2. Kings 2.7 15 and 16 verses so it may very well be that God was pleased to give bodily sight and evidence of Enoch at his translation to those unto whom he gave testimonie before his translation that he pleased God And even this fraction the substance of our Saviours ascension doth strengthen and enlighten For He was seen not onely after his resurrection of Cephas then of the twelve after that he was seen of above 500 brethren at once 1. Corinth 15.5 c. but in the act of his ascension Act. 1.9 While they beheld he was taken up and a cloud received him out of their sight And they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up vers 10. They stood gazing up into heaven and they did see him go into heaven vers 11. If any one be so curious to enquire in what posture Christ was seen ascending I think it is pointed at Luk. 24. ver 50 c. He lift up his hands and blessed them And it came to passe while he blessed them he was parted from them and carried up into heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f Dum benedictionem nondum absolvisset Before he had finished his blessing saith Lucas Brugensis on the words The blessing which he began upon them and with them with words and gesture he continued ascending that is with his hands lifted up not so much upright to heaven whither perhaps his heart hands and eyes were sent in prayer to God a little before for prayer is a prime part of all spirituall blessing but with his hands lifted up over the Apostles g Non habitu precantis Deum sed habitu quasi impartientis infundentis benedictionis gratiam Not in a posture as if he were praying to God but as if he were dispersing his grace and pouring out a blessing So * Levit. 9.22 Aaron lift up his hands toward the people and blessed them So Simon the sonne of Onias used a most solemn form of holy service and benediction Ecclus. 50.20 where it is said He lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the children of Israel to give the blessing of the Lord with his lips And his lips conveyed it by his hands towards them into their hearts by a Ministeriall Sacerdotall exhibition Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h Sustollebatur vel ferebatur non volantis more aut gradientis at ità ac si aliorâ—m manibus gâ—status panlatim suâ—sum portatus fuisset Christ was taken not as birds flie or as men go but so as if he had been carried in mens hands and by little and little lifted upward saith Brugensis i Corporiâ— statu recto paulatim in coeles ten dens With an upright posture of bodie leasurely ascending into heaven saith Barradius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 k Ferchatur nâ—n alieno adminiculo sed propriâ virtute He was mounted not by any other outward help but his own power saith Cajetan l Vel per potentiam divinam vel per agilitatem dotem humanit atis Either as he was God or else by the agilitie which is proper to gloâ—ified humane bodies saith Barradius Yet Aquin well observes that as Christ is said to rise by his own power and yet he was raised by the Father because their powers are one so may he be said to ascend by his own power and yet be elevated or assumed by the Father m Elevatus est in coelum non scandendâ— grâ—diens sed totus simul elevatus est He moved not saith Cajetan leg after leg nor seemed to climbe or goâ— but all parts alike and he wholly together was lifted up And for the greater Majestie a cloud received him Descending even to his feet in the form of a Throne on which he sat saith Abulensis As the royall Chariot declareth the King so saith Chrysostom on Acts 1. there was sent to Christ REGALE VEHICVLVM which cloud was rather carried up by Christ then he by it When Aquinas saith part 3. quaest 57. artic 4. n Nubes non praebult adminiculum Christo per modum vebiculâ— Christ used not the cloud as men use a coach or chariot to help them in their want I understand him of ADMINICVLVM NECESSARIVM A necessary support or stay for Christ had no need of such an one yet it might be ADMINICVLVM SOLENNE A ceremonious aid and solemne free assistance he might assume it as a token of his Majestie o Apparuit signum Divinitatis There was seen the signe or seal of his Divinitie saith Aquin himself Nor is it against the glorie of Christs Divinitie to make use of a cloud or clouds He shall come with clouds Revel 1.7 With the clouds of heaven Dan. 7.13 In the clouds of heaven Matth. 24.30 This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven saith the Angel Act. 1.11 This one cloud might be so great as many lesser clouds when he ascended as all the clouds shall be in which he shall descend at his second coming or else more clouds were about him but one more eminent on which he sat and with which he ascended And the extraordinarinesse of this cloud might testifie his Divinitie in which regard to discriminate him from his forerunners the Apostles worshipped him Luk. 24.52 which was not in any likelihood performed to Enoch or Elias for they were not carried up in a cloud or clouds But there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire and Elijah went up by a whirlwinde into heaven 2. King 2.11 To which is added the fiery nature of the whirlwinde it self Ecclus 48.9 He was taken up in a whirlwinde of fire The manner of Enochs assumption I confesse is uncertain Aquila his Alphabet saith p Deus subduxit Enoch in turbine sicut Eliam God took up Enoch in a whirlwinde as he did Elias So saith Rabbi Menachem and the Zoar on the fifth of Genes Drusius in his Henoch cap. 13. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tulit eum Deus God took him which are the exact words of Scripture concerning Gods taking away of Enoch Genes 5.24 both in the fair Hebrew Bibles of Stephanus in octavo and in the Interlinearie and in Vatablus though Drusius a little varie the middle word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q Sanê in Gematria valet by a Jewish gamboll is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r Cum vento tempestatis ascendere fecit eum In
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 ibid. 8. Pineda presumed too farre upon uncertainties Lorinus dareth not name any particularly that were raised It cannot be known certainly 136 CHAP. XIIII 1. MY conjecture that none of the Patriarchs or old Prophets were raised 137 2. An objection concerning Peters knowing of Moses and Elias on mount Tabor answered ibid. 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 138 4. The end why they were raised To whom they appeared 139 5. A crotchet concerning the wives of dead men which have been raised 140 CHAP. XV. 1. THe raised Saints ascended not into heaven with Christ as is proved by Scripture and reason Suarez his shallow answer Epiphanius strengthening my former positive conjectures 141 2. If the raised ascended bodily into heaven the Patriarchs should not be left behinde 142 3. The ascending bodily of the Saints into heaven not necessarie or behooffull ibid. 4. Onely Christs bodie was seen ascending 143 5. In likelihood Christ would have shewed the Patriarchs unto some of his Apostles ibid. CHAP. XVI 1. ANgels taken for men Angels representing men are called men 144 2. The name JEHOVAH ascribed to an Angel representing JEHOVAH say Estius and Thyraeus Picking of faults in the Apocryphall Scriptures to be abhorred ibid. 3. Drusius his povertie The Apocrypha is too little esteemed The Angel who guided young Tobie defended 145 4. The great difference between Christs manner of rising and Lazarus his 146 CHAP. XVII 1. THe place of Matth. 27.53 is diversly pointed and according to the pointing is the diversitie of meaning The first implieth that the Saints arose with Christ though their graves were opened before This interpretation is not so likely though received generally 148 2. The second inferreth that they arose before Christ though they went not into the citie till after his resurrection This is favoured by the Syriack and is more agreeable to reason ibid. 3. That the raised Saints died again proved by reasons and Heb. 11.40 149 4. Christ the first-fruits of the dead and of the raised Angelicall assumed bodies were seen and heard much rather should mens bodies ascending with Christ 150 5. S. Augustine Aquinas Hierom Chrysostom Theophylact Euthymius Prosper Soto Salmeron Barradius Pererius Valentian affirm that the raised Saints died again Franciscus Lucas Brugensis holds it likely 151 CHAP. XVIII 1. THe arguments of the contrarie opinion answered Suarez and especially Cajetan censured 152 2. That by the holy Citie Jerusalem below was meant proved at large Josephus and the Jews erring about the name of Jerusalem Hierom uncertain 154 3. How the raised appeared A difference between appearing as men And appearing as newly raised men Franciscus Lucas Brugensis rejected 156 4. An argument of Maldonat 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 157 5. No harm to die twice The difference between death compleat and incompleat 159 6. God can dispense with his own laws 160 CHAP. XIX 1. STrange conceits concerning Nero from Suetonius Tacitus Hierom Augustine Nero supposed to be Antichrist 161 2. Another incredible relation of the Armenian who is said to have lived at Christs passion The Armenians have their holy frauds ibid. The Contents of the third book CHAPTER I. Sect. 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 165 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 166 3. Indefinites have not the force of universals Even universals are restrained 169 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 ibid. CHAP. II. 1. THe third question resumed Whether every one must die The second part of the answer unto it That some have been excepted as Enoch and Elias The controversie hath been exquisitely handled by King James and Bishop Andrews 173 2. Bellarmines third demonstration that Antichrist is not yet come propounded The place of Malachi 4.5 expounded by Bishop Andrews and enlarged by my additions The Papists objection answered 174 3. The place of Ecclesiasticus 48.10 concerning Elias examined 178 4. Another place of Ecclesiasticus 44.16 concerning Enoch handled at large against Bellarmine Enoch was never any notorious sinner in some mens opinions Others otherwise Their arguments for both opinions are onely probable and answered My opinion and it confirmed Some think Enoch died Strange and various opinions concerning S. John the Evangelist his living death and miraculous grave More miracles or else mistakings in the Temples of Christs Sepulchre and his Assumption about Jerusalem S. John did die Enoch did not die but is living Mine own opinion of the place Genes 5.24 Et non ipse and it confirmed A comparison between Enochs Elijahs and Christs ascension The posture and circumstances of Christs ascending 180 5. Bellarmine and others say Paradise is now extant In the earth or in the aire saith Lapide the Jesuit The old translation censured The heaven into which Enoch and Elias were carried was not Aërium nor Coeleste but Supercoeleste The earthly Paradise is not extant as it was Salianus with others say truely The materiall remaineth not the formall Superest quoad Essentiam non quoad Ornatum The Place is not removed but the Pleasure and Amenitie Salianus his grosse errour That Enoch and Elias are kept by Angels within the bounds of old Paradise on earth 194 6. Enoch shall never die as is proved from Hebr. 11.5 Three evasions in answer to that place confuted Melchizedech and strange things of him The East-Indian language hath great affinitie with the Hebrew An errour of moment in Guilielmus Postellus Barentonius Elias was not burnt by that fire which rapted him Soul and bodie concur to make a man saith Augustine from the great Marcus Varro Vives taxed Moses at the transfiguration appeared in his own bodie An idle conceit of Bellarmine concerning Moses his face and good observations of Origen upon that point It is probable that Elias was changed at his rapture and had then a glorified bodie An humane soul may possibly be in a mortall bodie in the third heaven Corah Dathan and Abiram are in their bodies in hell properly so called and alive in the hell of the damned Ribera and Viegas confuted Our Doctour Raynolds was not in the right in this matter Some kinde of proofs That Enoch and Elias are in glorified bodies
to the bodie Thirdly what say you to pride of heart and secret Atheisme Is the proud mans and Atheists bodie and bloud infected with these prodigies Again If such people be wholly forgiven and their sinnes by repentance blotted out are they now in their bodie seed and bloud which are wiped out of their soul and suppose he beget a sonne between the Atheisme and repentance shall his childe be damned while the repentant Atheist is saved should not he rather communicate his later repentance then his former Atheisme But let us weigh the words a little nearer f Peccatorum quae aliquis parens committit labes ceu contagium redundat in ejus corpus sanguinem per ejus sanguinem semen in filios The blot and as it were contagion of sinnes which the father commits redounds upon his bodie and bloud and by his bloud and seed to the sonnes What bloud is corrupted all or onely that which was made seed and of seed what seed all seed or onely that which is fruitfull Suppose a father begets a sonne with the seed which was in his bodie yer his sinne was committed how doth his sinne viciate his bloud or his bloud the preformed seed If seed and bloud be properly vicious then any ejaculation of seed or letting of bloud should emptie people of their sinnes or stains in them inherent and sinne should no longer be a privation but a positive thing Moreover when they say That by the fathers bloud and seed the blot and as it were contagion is transfused into the sonnes they speak without reason or sense For the blot and as it were contagion are transfused if transfused at all into the wombe of their mother which hath a preexistence and not into the children themselves who have no preexistence The vessell is before any thing can be poured into it how then can sinne be yoted by the fathers bloud seed into the childe that had no being The last passage is this The childrens bodies are first infected by these stains or actuall sinnes their souls after defiled by their bodies If by the word infected they mean really truly properly and actually infected I remit them to the place where I have proved that the Embryo without a reasonable soul is not cannot be sinfull If they would be expounded of a pronitude to evil or inclinations tending that way when the soul is united they have made much ado about nothing a meer logomachy retaining the old sense and using noveltie of terms Again if I should yeeld That the seed of one man is proner to one vice then an other according to the vivid strength and able disposition of the parents as they say bastards are more healthie and more salacious then other people as retaining part of that spiritfull vigour in which they were begotten yet is originall sinne the same in every one alike in all parts and every way and the likenesse to the parents in wickednes is most remotely ascribed to the seed but properly to originall sinne as to the inward cause and to the parents ill breeding them or to bad companie or custome or to the remembrance of their parents sinne which is a powerfull president in corrupt nature as to the outward cause For a wicked childe is as like a thousand other wicked men if not more like in behaviour then to his father yet this proceedeth not from their seed but from originall sinne But to the more distinct handling of this point this seventh and last Proposition First I will prove That the personall sinnes of all our forefathers are not derived to us Secondly That not the sinnes from the third and fourth generation are propagated Thirdly That the personall sinnes of our immediate parents are not transfused And so it will arise of it self that no personall sinnes are communicated In the second place I shall bring to light the authorities on our side But before I begin either let me briefly remove an objection Bucer and Martyr teach saith Zanchius that by this doctrine the transfusion of originall sinne is more confirmed I answer That Gods truth hath no need of mans lie to uphold it Cicero said well g Perspicuitas argumentatione elevatur Perspicuitie is lessened by argumentation For what is more beleeved more known to Christians then that originall sinne is traduced Weak arguments do often prejudice a good cause and while Bucer and Martyr would seem to confirm that truth which neither Jew Turk nor Christian doubt of let them take heed lest when they say actuall sinnes are traduced they give occasion to the world to think that humane souls are not created but traducted so by consequent bring in the mortalitie of the soul For it hath been confidently averred by learned men That if the souls be traducted they are mortall But of this hereafter Concerning the first branch these arguments confirm it If the actuall sinnes of all our forefathers be communicated to their posteritie then they that are the more ancient are still the better and the last people of this world shall absolutely by nature be worst But it is not so for Pagans and Infidels now should be many thousand times worse then the first infidels which is not so as is seen by experience Secondly then we might truely say O happy Cain happier by nature then Abel the righteous since Adam and Eve did manifoldly sinne between Cains and Abels generations yea happier then Abraham and the Patriarchs just Job and the Prophets the Apostles and Evangelists since thou hast fewer sinnes to answer for then any in the world Happier is all the drowned world in this regard then the dayes since Christ But to say so is new Divinity Therefore all sinnes of actually transgressing parents are not communicated Secondly God dealeth not so rigourously with mankinde as he did with the devils Verily he took not on him the nature of Angels but took on him the seed of Abraham Heb. 2.16 whereby he magnifieth Gods mercy to man above that to the rebellious spirits but he should or did deal worse with mankinde at least with the damned then with them if all the personall sinnes of our progenitours be communicated to all us For each of them bare onely but their own sinnes and none did beare one anothers sinne further then they actually partaked with it And this can not be otherwise for both their sinne was pride and their nature uncapable of propagation or communication of sinne unlesse it be by reall and present consenting or partaking Lastly They all fell together the second or third instant of their creation saith the School Suddenly the devil of Lucifer became Coluber of Oriens Occidens of Hesperus Vesper He abode not in the truth Joh. 8.44 Satan fell from heaven like lightning where lightning is not said to fall from heaven but he saw 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 10.18 Satan falling as suddenly from heaven as
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
by the Evangelist Matth. 27.52 and 53 verses The graves were opened and many bodies of Saints which slept arose and came out of the graves after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared unto many So farre the text Of the various pointing of which words see more hereafter opening two windows for two expositions On which words divers worthy men both modern and ancient conclude That those Saints died not again k Sed apparuerunt multis etiam cum Christo nunquam ultrà morituri abierunt in coelum But appeared to many and with Christ never after were to die but went into heaven saith Jacobus Faber Stapulensis And Mr. Beza on this place opineth that they did not rise that again they might live among men and die as Lazarus and others did but that they might accompany Christ by whose power they rose into eternall life The late Writers saith Maldonate think that they went into heaven with Christ and with them doth himself agree So Pineda on Job 19.25 So Suarez a third Jesuit So Anselm So Aquinas on the place and on the Sentences So if Suarez cite them truely Origen in the first book to the Romanes about those words of the first chapter By the resurrection of Jesus our Lord and Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. 6. and Justinus Quaest 85. Ambrose in his Enarration on the first Psalme and Eusebius Demonst 4.12 and of modern Authours and of our Church Bishop Bilson in the effect of his Sermons touching the full redemption of mankinde by the death and bloud of Jesus Christ pag. 217. So Baronius ad annum Christi 48. num 24. concerning those Saints whom Christ piercing the heavens carried with himself on high leading captivitie captive Ephes 4.8 More reserved and moderate is Mr. Montague that indefatigable Student sometime my chamber-fellow and President in the Kings Colledge in Cambridge now the Reverend Lord Bishop of Chichester who in his answer to the Gag of the Protestants pag. 209. saith of these Saints They were Saints indeed deceased but restored to life and peradventure unto eternall life in bodies as well as souls MOst cleare Fountain of Wisdome inexhaustible wash I beseech thee the spots of my soul and in the midst of many puddles of errour cleanse my understanding that I may know and embrace the truth through Jesus Christ Amen CHAP. V. 1. Who were supposed to be the Saints which were raised by such as maintain that they accompanied Christ into heaven 2. A strange storie out of the Gospel of the Nazarens 3. Adams soul was saved Adams bodie was raised about Christs Passion saith Pineda out of diverse Fathers Thus farre Pineda hath truth by him That the sepulchre of Adam was on mount Calvarie so say Athanasius Origen Cyprian Ambrose Basil Epiphanius Chrysostom Augustine Euthymius Anastasius Sinaita Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople 4. It was applauded in the Church in Hieromes time 5. Theophylact thought Adam buried in Calvarie Drusius unadvisedly taxeth the Fathers Tertullian consenteth with other Fathers and Nonnus who is defended against Heinsius 6. At Jerusalem they now shew the place where Adam his head was found Moses Barcepha saith that Sem after the floud buried the head of Adam 7. The Romane storie of Tolus and Capitolium much resembling the storie of Adam 1. TO the clearing of this cloud and that we may carry the truth visibly before us I think it fit to enquire First Who these Saints were which thus miraculously arose and then secondly to determine Whether their bodies were again deposited in the earth till the resurrection or Whether in their bodies with Christ they ascended into heaven 2. For the first Hugo Cardinalis on Matth. 27.53 hath an old storie It is said saith he in the Evangelisme of the Nazarens that two good and holy men who were dead before about fourty yeares came into the Temple and saying nothing made signes to have pen ink and parchment and wrote That those who were in Limbus rejoyced upon Christs descent and that the devils sorrowed Though the rest be fabulous yet herein the Gospel of the Nazarens agreeth with our Gospel That the names of the raised are not mentioned Others have been bold to set down both the names and the order of them who arose 3. Augustine Epist 99. ad Euodium thus a De illo quidem primo homine patre generis humani quòd eum ibidem Christus ad inserna descendens solverit Ecclesia ferè tota conseutit Almost the whole Church agreeth That Christ descending into hell freed the first Adam thence That the Church beleeved this non inaniter not vainly but upon some good ground we are to beleeve from whence soever the tradition came though there be no expresse Scripture If this be true of Adams soul yet is it nothing to our question of his bodily resuscitation Proceed we therefore to those that think his very bodie was raised Adam then arose saith Athanasius in his Sermon of the Passion and the Crosse saith Origen in his 35 Tractate on Matthew saith Augustine 161 quest on Genesis and others also if Pineda on the fore-cited place wrong them not And he giveth this congruentiall reason That Adam who heard the sentence of death should presently also be partaker of the resurrection by Christ and with him who had expiated his sinne by death To which may be added That as S. Hierom reports the Jews have a tradition that the ramme was slain on mount Calvarie in stead of Isaac as also Augustine Serm. 71. de Tempore ratifieth And to this day they say they have there the altar of Melchisedech So Athanasius reports from the Jewish Doctours that in Golgotha was the sepulchre of Adam This is true but it is not certain that Adam was raised and not true that he ascended bodily into heaven Mr. Broughton in his observations of the first ten Fathers saith thus Rambam recordeth that which no reason can deny how the Jews ever held by Tradition that Adam Abel and Cain offered where Abraham offered Isaac where both Temples were built on which mountain Christ taught and died And as the place was called Calvaria because the head or skull of a man was there found and found bare without hair and depilated saith Basil so divers Fathers have concluded that Adam was there buried and that it was his head See Origen tractat 35. on Matth. Cyprian in his sermon on the resurrection Ambrose in his tenth book of his commentaries on Luk. 23. Basil on the fifth of Esay Epiphanius contra Haeres lib. 1. Chrysostome Homil. 84. in Joannem Augustine Serm. 71. de Tempore and de Civitat 16.32 Euthymius on Matth. So Athanasius Sinaita lib. 6. in Hexam in Tom. 1. Bibliothecae Patrum and Sanctus Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople in Theoria rerum Ecclesiast as you may see in Tom. 6. Biblioth Patrum besides abundance of new writers with whose names I delight not to load my page 4 Hierom on
and finde fault with him 2. Esdr 7.48 O thou Adam what hast thou done for though it was thou that sinned thou art not fallen alone but we all that come of thee And a little before namely verse 46. This is my first and last saying that it had been better not to have given the earth unto Adam or else when it was given him to have restrained him from sinning Mark also the Antithesis used Ecclesiasticus 49.16 Sem and Seth were in great honour among men and so was Adam above every living thing in the creation where he remarkably extolleth Sem and Seth but praiseth Adams excellencie onely at the creation And so Vatablus expounds it Howsoever after his fall he was not so highly esteemed as others were No more did the multitude shew any extraordinary estimate of Noah though as Adam was the fruitfull root the protoplast so Noah was the restorer of mankinde under God For these were the founders as well of Gentiles as Jews But Abraham and the Patriarchs and the Prophets since them they reverenced above measure for the extraordinary blessings vouchsafed by God unto the Jews above the Gentiles for their sakes and in them and by them Now to such indeed their posteritie builded tombes Matth. 23.30 though their fathers had killed some of them To the second part of the objection Why they did suffer malefactours to be there punished I answer that it is a doubt undecided whether the ordinary delinquents were put to death on mount Calvarie before the Romanes overcame the Jews If not then patience perforce they could not remedie it if the other appointed it If so yet the Jews might be ignorant of Adams sepulchre and how could they grace and beautifie his tombe when they knew not where he lay Again what if I say That like as Gods eternall decree and determinate counsel being that Christ should die for our sinnes the Jews and Gentiles Priests Scribes and Pharisees yea the devils themselves were for a while and a time blinded that they knew not or would not know Christ to be the Messiah though they had more evident miraculous proofs of his working then could be of a buriall-place so long fore-passed as Adams was but put him to death Act. 2.23 and chap. 3.17 So Gods eternall decree that Christ should be crucified in the execution-place of malefactours and in the place of Adams sepulchre being perhaps to this end to manifest that Christs bloud did wash and purge sinne originall sinne actuall Adam and notorious offenders with all and all manner of persons and all and all kinde of sinnes the people were also blinded that either they did not know or not respect the place of Adams buriall especially since God often casts in their teeth Adams disobedience and compared their sinnes to his They like Adam have transgressed the covenant Hos 6.7 Where Drusius preferreth this reading with us with Hierom with Pagnine and with Rabbi Solomon the ordinarie Interpreter of the Hebrews before the reading of Junius and Tremellius and the Genevans And Jerem. 32.19 Gods eyes were open to all the wayes of the sonnes of Adam Which is also confirmed Isa 43.27 2. Esdr 7.11 Thus much in love of truth against all opposites with Pineda for the common opinion of the Fathers that Adam was buried on Golgotha I adde that if any of the Patriarchs arose bodily Adam was one For upon other reasons hereafter to be shewen I dare not be so assertive as the Liturgies of divers Churches and as divers Fathers who are expresse that Adam was raised from his grave See them cited by the learned James Usher Bishop of Meath in his answer to a challenge made by a Jesuit pag. 324. which is the next point to be handled O Light inaccessible O Ancient of dayes O Fulnesse of knowledge govern me walking in the paths of darknes in things of old in ambiguities and uncertainties of opinion and keep me from singularitie of self-presuming that I may keep the unitie of truth in the bond of peace through him who is both our Truth and our Peace even Jesus Christ the Righteous Amen CHAP. VII 1. Though Adam was buried on Calvarie as Pineda saith yet his proofs are weak that Adam was raised with Christ and went bodily into heaven with him The cited place of Athanasius proveth onely Adams buriall there Origen in the place cited is against Pineda Augustine is palpably falsified 2. Adams skull shewed lately at Jerusalem 3. Dionysius Carthusianus saith Eve then arose His opinion is without proof 4. Nor Abraham then arose 5. Nor Isaac then arose whatsoever Pineda affirmeth 1. BUt the second part of Pineda his opinion on Job the 19.25 I cannot like though he laboureth to prove it partly by authoritie partly by reason That those many who arose about the time of Christs Passion ascended bodily into heaven with him As Authours he citeth Athanasius in his Sermon on the Passion and the Crosse Origen c. That Adam was buried on Golgotha Athanasius saith but that Adam arose not long after Christs resurrection I cannot finde in him or cited by any other out of him As for Origen his second Authour in the same Tractate cited by Pineda he maketh directly against him for he maintaineth from Tradition that the first Adam was buried where Christ was crucified that as in Adam all die so in Christ all should be made alive that in the place of a skull the head of mankinde namely Adam Resurrectionem inveniat cum populo universo Should partake of the generall resurrection by the resurrection of our Lord and Saviour who there suffered and rose again But the last and best Authour the divine S. Augustine is palpably and apparently falsified for he hath no such word in the quoted place Lastly the reason that Pineda alledgeth is shallow That Adam who heard the sentence of death should presently be partaker of the resurrection by him and with him who had satisfied for the sinne What likelihood is there of inference or coherence I dare say not one of the Fathers cited at large by Baronius Salianus and Maldonate to prove that Adam was buried in Golgotha do give the least touch at this reason of Pineda but many other ends of Adams being there buried do they muster up 2. And the Jesuite Pineda either knew it not or forgot it or sleeked it over as little imagining we should have notice that the cheating priests who kept the sepulchre and the Church built over it at Jerusalem did shew to the devout Christians a skull which they said was the skull of Adam of which they said also the mountain was called Golgotha as saith the eye and eare-witnesse Mr. Fines Morison in his first part 3. book 2. chap. pag. 230. and pag. 233. Thus according to them Adam either arose not hitherto or arose without a head at least without his skull or with an other mans head which three latter wayes destroy the truth of the resurrection
Therefore he arose not at all as yet Lastly should we grant that Adam did bodily arise with Christ yet hath Pineda neither Authour nor reason that Adam ascended with Christ into heaven as I said before which is the main point now in question Thus much if not too much touching Adam 3. Eve also arose saith Dionysius Carthusianus on Matth. 27. but voucheth no authoritie nor produceth any reason or probabilitie and therefore I passe it over the more slightly adding onely this that in the Original it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be understood either no women arose or more then one or two though Pineda mentioneth not one woman and Carthusian but onely and soly Eve But why Eve should rather arise then Sarah or the mother of Moses who were singled out for famous Heroinae Hebr. 11. or other Prophetisses in the Old and New Testament as old Anna and the like I see no reason or that Eve in her raised bodie should be translated into heaven and not Adam her husband nor Abraham nor David is both foolish and fabulous This have I said as supposing the words to be understood of women alone as indeed they are not nor probably can they be applied to women mixt with men so far as any likelihood could present it self to the great conjecturer Pineda who would have balked none of them 4. Abraham arose saith Pineda on Job 19. and annexeth this colour because Abraham rejoyced to see Christs day and saw it and was glad John 8.56 I answer Whatsoever is meant by these words of the Text My day either Christs Godhead which Abraham saw a Quia mysterium Trinitatis agnovit Because he acknowledged the mysterie of the Trinitie saith S. Augustine Or the day of Christs nativitie which Abraham might have notice of in his life time by supernaturall inspirations and then did remember being dead and desired that day for separated souls have both remembrance and appetite intellectuall as I shall evidence hereafter Or it may be Abraham being in blisse might first know it by divine illumination so soon as the day came and thereupon rejoyced as the Angel did and the heavenly host Luke 2.13 of which host Abraham might be one for even the souls of men are also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revel 19.14 saith Gregory Moral 31.12 In the foresaid place of Luke mention is made of an Angel and the heavenly host whereas if onely Angels were the heavenly host it might have been onely said The Angels or onely The heavenly host but The Angel and the heavenly host may give us cause to think that there were some of the heavenly host which were not Angels though Angels onely be mentioned If so humane souls were part of that quire and then Abraham in likelihood was one of them Now as the chief Angel like a chaunter began the Evangelisme of Christs birth so might it be answered by the heavenly host viz. as is probable partly by the Angels singing Glory to God in the highest partly by Abraham and the souls of men concluding the Anthem On earth peace good will toward men I say Whatsoever is meant by the words My day they cannot be expounded of Christs resurrection Some there are who interpret My day of the time of Christs passion whom Maldonate justly misliketh because saith he it is added ABRAHAM SAW IT AND REJOYCED but then when Christ said these words Abraham could not see Christs passion because it was not yet come I may say the same or more against Pineda who will have it expounded of the day of Christs resurrection for Christ speaketh of the day that was past he did see it he was glad and rejoyced so that day was ended when Christ said this but Christs resurrection was not accomplished when he uttered these words therefore they cannot be understood of Christs resurrection And if they were so to be interpreted yet it is not written Abraham arose or Abraham was partaker with Christ or Abraham ascended bodily into heaven this being the issue which we joyned in this controversie but Abraham rejoyced he saw it and was glad which words differ farre from Pineda his ridiculous interpretation 5. An other which rose at the same time was Isaac saith Pineda ibid. for he was a parable of the resurrection and this was done to recompense the fear which possessed Isaac of being slain when he represented Christ To this puncto I answer Pineda himself will not say that every one who was a parable or pledge of the resurrection or who figured it was raised as Samson from his sleep arising in strength and carrying away the gates of Azzah in type of Christ who brought away the gates both of death and hell or those who were raised by the Prophets or by Christ himself or the like for he mentioneth none of these Secondly what proof what consequence what shadow of truth is there that Isaac his fear which was past he being dead one thousand seven hundred yeares before should just now be recompensed and recompensed by being raised to a temporall life which was a poore reward if he ascended not into heaven which Pineda proveth not nor can prove Lastly though it be truth it self that Jacob sware by the fear of his father Isaac Genes 31.53 yet it is not meant as Pineda fancieth the fear that Isaac was in when he was to be offered For I suppose he knew by Abraham that it was Gods especiall appointment and that he also willingly offered himself and might think as Abraham did that God was able to raise him up even from the dead Hebr. 11.19 that in his voluntarie condescent and free-will-offering he might be a type of Christ who layed down his life John 10.17 But the fear of Isaac was either the filial fear by which Isaac reverenced worshipped God as Aben Ezra and Cajetan say or the pious and humane fear wherewith Jacob revered his father Isaac or rathest of all Fear is here taken for the object of fear Metonymically for God himself as it is also taken Esa 8.13 Let God be your fear let God be your dread as Cornelius Cornelii à lapide hath observed after Augustine and divers others for not Isaac his fright or Jacob his pietie is to be sworn by but God Deuter. 6.13 O God the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of the living and not of the dead I beseech thee make me to die to my self and live to thee through him whom the Fathers looked for and whose day Abraham rejoyced to see even Jesus Christ thy onely Sonne my alone Saviour Amen CHAP. VIII 1. Pineda his fancie that Jacob then was raised 2. The reason why the Patriarchs desired the Translation of their bones was not to rise with Christ as Pineda opineth but upon other grounds and to other ends 3. Where Joseph was first buried where secondly 4. The great difficultie
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
you expound this of the Fathers of the Old Testament and of the stola animae the robe of honour for the minde yet you shall finde Revel 6.11 that in regard even of stola corporis the glorious garment of the bodie the Saints themselves are commanded to rest yet for a little season untill their fellow-servants also and their brethren either then alive or perchance not then born that should be killed as they were should be fulfilled Now against this generall rule you must not make a particular exception without expresse warrant from the word of God But there is no testimony at all from the word of God either direct or inferentiall that any of those Many who arose arose to glorie or immortalitie or ascended into heaven Therefore we may boldly conclude They died again This argument is of such force that Suarez leaveth it unanswered and untouched Lastly if the bodies of these Saints ascended into heaven either they ascended after Christ or before him or with him If after him When and how long after and why after him They ascended not presently after him for the Apostles who looked stedfastly toward heaven even after he was taken out of their sight might have then perceived their bodily ascent If you say So soon as the Apostles left their serious viewing and hearkened unto the Angels then they ascended I answer I would say so also if I saw any proof or if I could think that God sent the Angels just at that moment to hinder the Apostles from seeing the Saints mount up to heaven which would have been so joyous a sight Briefly there is no reason to say they ascended long after Christ ascended and certainly lesse reason is there to think they ascended before him 4. Moreover Christ as man shall be Judge at the last day and God hath given assurance of it to all men in that he hath raised him from the dead Act. 17.31 If any other were raised up in the same manner before him or with him to an eternall resurrection what assurance doth God give by this place of S. Paul that Christ shall be the Judge rather then others But indeed the raising of Christ was more then ordinary was more then temporarie Let him have the preeminence in all things Christ is the first-fruits of them that slept 1. Cor. 15.20 The first-fruits of them that are raised vers 23. He is Primitiae mortuorum Revel 1.5 resurgentium Act. 26.23 Christ is the first who shall arise from the dead viz. to an eternall resurrection his bodie opening as it were the gates of heaven for our bodies which if Enoch and Elias did by priviledge especiall anticipate though these were not properly raised but rather taken up yet if more if so many should before him arise to an everlasting resurrection it destroyeth the nature of a generall rule b Gratia quae omnibus datur non est gratia sed natura privilegium gaudet paucitate Grace given alike to all is no longer grace but nature and a priviledge is properly confined to a few That they ascended not with Christ I proved before and for a Corollarie do repeat this That if assumed and Angelicall bodies were to be seen and were seen and heard at Christs ascension out of doubt the bodies of Saints had been visible yea seen if they had then ascended 5. If any desire to see more reasons let him reade S. Augustine Epist 99. ad Euodium de Mirabilibus Sacrae Scripturae whose reasons c In tertia parte Summae quaest 53. artic 3. Aquinas preferreth and subscribeth unto You may now perceive that I am gently fallen upon the second head in vertue of which I undertook to prove That the Saints who miraculously arose and here arose did not ascend into heaven but died again for the second head was Authoritie Among Authours you have alreadie two of the chiefest for depth of learning Augustine and Aquinas Hierom is of their minde on Matth. 27. Chrysostom Hom. 89. on Matth. compareth those Saints resurrection unto Lazarus his rising to a mortall life though Beza directly contradicteth it The same Hierom Epist 150. ad Hedibiam again confirms it To the same purpose Theophylact on the place and Euthymius chap. 67. on Matth. so Prosper in his book de promissionibus praedictionibus Dei. In the middle school you have Soto in 4. lib. Sentent Distinct 43. quaest 2. artic 1. Yea even among Jesuites Salmeron and Barradius are on this side and Pererius on the 6 chapter of the Revelation Disput 24. and Gregorie Valentian Tom. 4. Disput 2. Quaest 5. where he sleighteth Cajetans arguments and saith that our is the more probable opinion and that Aquin from Augustine doth most excellently confirm it In the last place cometh that learned Franciscus Lucas Brugensis who having set down the ends why these Many were raised to wit To be praecones criers or trumpetters of Christs resurrection which was experimentally evidenced by their own and that Jesus was that Saviour and that he ought thus to suffer and thus to enter into his glorie closeth in these words d Hoc officio quando isti defuncti fuerant verisimile est cos iterum dormivisse in sepulchris suit quievisse quemadmodum Aloses When they had performed this duty it is likely that they slept again and rested in their sepulchres like Moses Yea say I much rather did they sleep in their graves then Moses for though he was buried yet being raised he appeared in glorie Luk. 9.31 which apparition being in bodie principally for his soul was not seen we may not imagine that a glorified bodie is so subject to corruption or a second dying which Brugensis himself will not say of these raised Many for he hath an odde crotchet and singular conceit That those Many were raised neither to an immortall nor to a mortall life but to a middle and mean betwixt both not to a perpetuall one nor yet to a terrene life but heavenly without the use of meats or drinks without fear or pain of death O Fountain of mercie inexhaustible sweet Jesu who being the Sonne of God didst become Man that we the sonnes of Men might be the sonnes of God who didst die that we might live suffering for our sinnes and rising again for our justification Have mercie O have mercie upon me passe by my transgressions I beseech thee and present me blamelesse to the Throne of Grace for thine own merit sake to which I ascribe all power and from which I expect all my glorie So be it CHAP. XVIII 1. The arguments of the contrary opinion answered Suarez and especially Cajetan censured 2. That by the holy Citie Jerusalem below was meant proved at large Josephus and the Jews erring about the name of Jerusalem Hierom uncertain 3. How the raised appeared A difference between appearing as men and appearing as newly raised men Franciscus Lucas Brugensis rejected 4. An argument of Maldonat
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
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
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
and shall be certainly the estate of the righteous who shall be alive at that great and dreadfull day I would be loth also to say That nothing else is noted by the words but that Whereas others die first and then are buried these men were buried alive or as live men that I may passe by his amphibolous phrase i Non inficior quin eorum animae si sint mortui pertinaces in seelecata sua obstinatione adjudicatae sint inferis cum Divite I denie not but their souls if they died obstinate in their wicked rebellion were sentenced to hell with Dives Why doth he not specialize where those inferi are and in what place Dives is or did they go to a parabolicall hell for he could not be ignorant that many hold that historie of Dives to be but a parable The truth and summe of all is this By divine power extraordinarie the houses or tents the beasts and the goods of Korah and his complices were separated and secluded from the use of men were swallowed up and covered in the earth and came to that end and destruction which they were capable of No word of God saith expressely no inference or reason evinceth no probabilitie induceth us to think that their tents houshold-stuffe or utensils were alive or that they yea or the beasts of these conspiratours went into the graves of them if graves they had any much lesse did such trash descend into hell that place of torment that Tophet prepared for wicked men that Deep excruciating and affrighting both the Devil and his Angels That tents goods and faculties should go thither to what purpose were it but God doth nothing unlesse it be to some great end or purpose therefore to the lowest hell their goods descended not But as concerning the men themselves it is plainly said That both the earth did open its mouth and swallowed them up even as it did their tents or beasts or goods and after that most distinctly that they went down alive into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but their souls could not go into the graves and there reside and their bodies might go into hell and there reside therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needes there be expounded not of the grave nor of locus corporum as Doctour Raynolds phraseth it but of the hell of the damned of the locus animarum which place also must be the receptacle for all humane bodies of the wicked after the day of doom and retribution and may be the prison of those reprobate both souls and bodies whom God miraculously thither adjudgeth as he did this rebellious rout Though Lyra cited by Doctour Raynolds thinks the grave is meant because it is appointed for all men to die and after that cometh judgement yet I have many wayes proved that by especiall dispensation and by extraordinarie priviledge some may receive favour beyond the common rule or course of nature and contrarily I doubt not but upon so great a commotion and furious rebellion God could and did by way of exemplarie punishment punish these men bodily before the usuall time and sent their bodies to hell before the generall judgement If Cajetan and Hieronymus ab Oleastro cited by that Reverend Doctour expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the grave yet they want both weight and age to put down Epiphanius before recited and many other Ancients who place their bodies in hell I accept then of Suarez his confession before mentioned and agree with him That Korah Dathan and Abiram are now both in souls and bodies in hell And upon this ground I thus work If they be there they are there to be punished and are punished if they burn in hell-fire they have no longer mortall bodies But as at the last day the bodies of the wicked that are alive then shall put on immortalitie so the bodies of Korah Dathan and Abiram were not properly separated from their souls but were changed and fitted for such places of punishments in the instant of their descent and so they descended alive into the pit of hell Then why may not Enoch and Elias be in immortall and glorified bodies since they were assumed up into heaven especially since Suarez himself again ingenuously confesseth k Animae gloriosae connaturale est uniri corpori immortali glorioso It is convenient yea proper to nature that a glorified soul should be united to an immortall and glorified bodie And the souls of Enoch and Elias are now glorified by the like acknowledgement of our learned Adversaries Again where the souls of Enoch and Elias are there also are their bodies But their souls are in the highest heaven For our Saviour saith John 17.24 Father I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am And John 12.26 Where I am there shall also my servant be But Christ is in the highest heavens Therefore both Enoch and Elias are with their bodies in the third heaven unlesse you can say They were not given by God to Christ and were not Christs servants Now since they are there in their bodies it is very unlikely that they should be there some thousands of yeares in bodies mortall and unglorified Hierom ad Pammachium avoucheth l Fruuntur divino consortio cibo coelesti They enjoy and have the fruition of the Deitie and are fed with heavenly food which is not meat for mortall bodies Besides S. Hierom Tom. 3. Epist pag. 189. in Epistola ad Minerium Alexandrum citeth Theodorus Heracleotes instancing in Enoch and Elias as carried to heaven and as having overcome death And Apollinarius fully agreeth with the other with this addition onely that Enoch and Elias have now glorified bodies Dorotheus in Synopsi de Elia thus m Qui humi iucedebat instar spiritus cum Angelis in coelis agit Who was on the earth as other men now as a spirit liveth in heaven with the Angels therefore he hath not a mortall bodie Again in most of the generall promises that God hath made he giveth some instance or other to be as it were a taste of what shall succeed lest mens hearts should fail in expectancie of that whereof they see no kinde of proof As for example because it was promised that there shall be a resurrection it was figured not onely more obscurely in Isaac his rising up from the Altar in the drawing of Joseph out of the pit in the Whales deliverie of Jonah in Samsons breaking from the cords in Daniels escape from the lions in the waters yeelding and giving up Moses to live in the Kings house and the like but more evidently by the reall and temporarie raising up of divers dead both in the Old and New Testament Likewise the glorification of our bodies being determined by God and by him promised yea Enoch himself prophesying that God cometh with ten thousands of his Saints to execute judgement upon all Jude 14 and 15 verses which is not