distinction therefore God saith Exod. xxxii 8. to Moses concerning the people of Israel They have made them a molten calf and have worshipped it IT God would not own that worship and service exhibited under the representation of that calf Deut. iv 15. God biddeth the people of Israel take notice that when he spake unto them out of the midst of the fire they saw no similitude of him Take ye therefore good heed unto your selves for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire No manner of similitude as if he should have told them that he on purpose did not appear unto them under any visible form or similitude lest they should represent him by that form and under it worship him which he so much warneth them of in that place For that of Varro upon this point is very true the worshipping of the Gods by images increased the errour took away the fear of the Gods Qui primi Deorum simulacra induxerunt errorem auxerunt metum demserunt as Calvine citeth his words Thus we have in some sort given you the reason and ground of our Apostles interpretation of the Poet. Now by this though hasty and short discourse of the Gentile worship occasioned by S. Pauls expression we may in some manner calculate and decipher the difference betwixt the false worship of Rome Pagane and Rome Christian of Gentiles and of Papists which difference in a Pontifician eye is so wide and mighty All the distinction must either be in the object worshipped or the manner of worshipping Christian Rome worshippeth God So did Rome Pagane as we have heard Christian Rome by Images so Rome Pagane Pagane Rome worshipped by men though not onely by men Christian Rome by the form of an old man worship God the Father And Christian Rome worshippeth God by men-saints besides by Angels and some of those Saints happily as bad for Christians as the other were for Heathens nay such some of them were who had onely Christian names but Heathen lives The sillier of the Heathen might worship the men for true Gods the best of Rome Christian give a kind of Divine worship to Saints The sillier of the Heathen might worship the Images of their feigned Gods the sillier of the Papists distinguish not betwixt the Image of the Saint and the Saint as Parisiensis confesseth But the Heathens worshipped by other creatures but Aquinas giveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the proper Divine worship to the Wood to the Crosse and to the Bread But the Heathen worshipped by a multitude of Gods but the Papists by more Saints and Angels The Heathen had for every occasion a severall Tutelar Mediatour the Papists likewise have a severall Saint beside their particular Angel But Tertullian saith Multi Dii habuerunt Caesaremiratum what is this to our purpose and yet we can answer them Multi Caesares habuerunt Papam iratum and more then angry too they have felt his anger and his furie and his state and his cruelty But the Romane Senate as Eusebius saith made Gods of men just as the Pontifician Senate maketh Gods of Saints But the Papists sinne not yet in worshipping by Images For sinne being a transgression of the Law and where no law is there is no transgression Rom. iv 15. they have taken an order to take away the law by which they are forbidden to worship by Images namely the second Commandment for they leave out this in their Catechisme Is this thy pietie O Rome Christian Is this the difference of thy Religion from Paganisme Plutarch saith it is sacriledge to worship by Images who was an Heathen and thou blottest out the Law of God whereby it is forbidden that thou mayest do it more freely Thus to thy doing what God and Nature hath forbidden thou addest a transcendent offense in proscribing in a manner what God hath written with his own hand This unfaithfull and sacrilegious dealing with sacred Scripture hinteth me to the next particle in our text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a testimony of a faithfull quotation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Philosopher told his friends when they came into his little and mean cottage for their comfort 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Gods are even here with me So there is Divinity and a sacred use even in this little slender particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deus magnus in minimis and there is much importance in this little word It may be taken as other words either formally or materially formally and so it is significative materially so not It may be taken in this place significatively in reference unto the former words of the verse In him we live we move and have our being In him we live and move and have our being FOR because we are his offspring This sense is good as Hushai said to Absalom of Achitophels counsel it is good but not at this time Severall senses in Scripture may be true in the thesis but not proper in the hypothesis in the particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and connexion of the words so neither this Because 1. the former words in him we live and move and have our being do render the cause of the precedent verses as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth there therefore have more immediate and necessary respect unto them 2. Because our Apostle here intendeth to produce onely the authority of some Heathen to be symbolicall to what he had said before out of which testimony he would deduce his inference against Idolatry as he doth make use of this saying to that purpose in the next verse unto my text 3. Because it is very likely that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be taken in the same manner as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the text Now we cannot well conceive any use of the significativenesse of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 semblably is not significative It is significative and connexive in the Poet not in the Apostle To what end serveth it then it may be demanded Are there any redundances in Scripture Is S. Paul to please the Philosophers become Homericall in his expletives There is a painted heaven and a printed heaven an heaven painted with starres an heaven printed the sacred Scripture And as God a most intellectuall Agent intellectuall above our understanding wrought neither magnitude nor multitude without some end and reason so neither such a number of starres in the heaven above was made without good purpose so neither such a number of words in the heaven below The Jews as it is said of them numbred the verses the words the letters in the Old Testament and is it not written in the New Not an Iῶta shall perish as not an Iῶta put in If so Arius might have urged the place Whatsoever is written is written for our instruction The very unsignificativenesse of the particle is significative
for it is testimonium fidelis citationis as Sanctius a good Expositour observeth upon the place Our Apostle happily thought it to have the weight of a morall argument towards the perswading of the Heathens unto the truth of religion to exhibite to them a signe of the truth of his quotation He is so farre from concealing any thing which should make against him that he taketh in the small words also of the hemistich although they be of no use in the sentence We have hence first an occasion of an observation secondly we have hence the use of a divine example First we have an occasion of an observation That our Apostle differeth in the quoting of the Heathens from his quoting of Scripture the Old Testament The Heathens he quoteth punctually without any alteration ad verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He quoteth places of Scripture not so but sometimes with amplification sometimes with omission sometimes with alteration And so do the other Penmen of the New Testament Now the reason why S. Paul and the rest did not cite strictly the words and terms of the Old but rendred the sense of the places with some variation was because they being appointed to be Teachers of the Gospel were inspired with infallible knowledge and enabled with full authority not onely to quote and produce but also to expound and not onely to expound but also to apply the Testimonies of the Old Instrument or Covenant for the manifestation and use of the New according to their purpose as is observed 1. Cor. ii 9. our Apostle quoteth a place in Isaiah But as it is written Eye hath not seen nor eare heard neither hath it entred into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love him The place is written Isaiah lxiv. 4. For since the beginning of the world men have not heard nor perceived by the eare neither hath the eye seen O God besides thee what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him S. Paul in this one place omitteth somewhat which was written in the Prophet and varieth somewhat and addeth neither hath it entred into the heart of man and this addition is for greater amplification and emphasis of the matter Isaiah lii 7. How beautifull upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings S. Paul Rom. x. 15. maketh use of this Scripture As it is written How beautifull are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace He leaveth out upon the mountains which Isaiah hath and also the Prophet Nahum speaking of the same thing chap. i. vers 15. And S. Paul leaveth out that because the Prophets as is observed were to preach onely unto the Jews in a mountainous countrey the Apostles were to go to preach the Gospel to all the world Likewise S. Paul differeth from the text in alteration as Eph. iv 8. Wherefore he saith When he ascended up on high he led captivity captive and gave gifts to men This is said Psal lxviii 18. Thou art gone up on high thou hast led captivity captive and received gifts for men The Psalmist saith Thou hast received S. Paul saith He gave Now that he gave gifts to men explaineth the end of his receiving gifts He received that he might give With which if we compare that of S. John in the first of his Gospel at the sixteenth verse Of his fulnesse we have all received and grace for grace we may make an other manner of exposition of it then those who interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grace upon grace against the propriety of the Greek or then those who can here find any Merit on our part as if God gave us more grace for the merit of what we have or then he who expoundeth by the former grace the Old Testament by the latter the New as if Christs fulnesse of grace should not rather inferre our receiving of grace from him by the merit of his grace then that we should receive the New Testament for the Old since under ALL VVE have received are included also those faithfull that lived before Christ who indeed had received grace though not the Gospel rem Evangelii though not Evangelium not in exhibition actuall they had received it in a promise and in types and by prophecie Thus our Apostle in his quotations of Scripture addeth for illustration and amplification omitteth for pertinence altereth for explanation but he doth not in the Poet here he reciteth the very words in their order he taketh the testimony whole that the Philosophers should have nothing to except against the quotation Secondly therefore we have from hence a divine rule and example or a rule divine by example concerning an honest and faithfull and ingenuous citing of anthours S. Paul produceth the very words the very particles which yet were of no moment towards his drift of inference Whereby I believe our Apostle read the authour himself And to this end that I may cite an authour truly and certainly let me reade the authour and the originall let me reade them my self The quotations of others which they make of authours may be false and therefore will deceive The connexion the interpunction the accent the sense of the term in the writers time may turn the sense of the place and so what I reade of an authour at the second hand may seem to be the authours but peradventure it is the quoters therefore let me reade the authour or at least quote the quoter Let me reade the originall Translations may vary They may be either false or slender inexpressive obscure obscurer sometimes then the Text. As one answered being asked whether he should reade such a comment upon Aristotle answered Yes said he when Aristotle is understood then reade the comment So interpretations may be as perplexed as the text And by S. Pauls particular usage of an authour here in the text I might take a rise unto a generall treating in way of reprehension of the Abuse of authours contrary to our Apostles practice And then I might note who and how and wherein and who most and how farre they have proceeded in this most disingenuous injury unto writers deceased or living But this would be a theme for some grave Aristarchus and learned Critick not for a man of yesterday Besides I might be afraid of that of Solomon He that reproveth the wicked getteth to himself a blot Surely Solomon was herein a Prophets sonne in an extraordinary sense in the Scripture-phrase that is a young Prophet as if he had prophesied of a generation which make it as true as they are false who if one hath but chanced to rase in his writing the utmost skin and to wipe but as it were the superficies of their doctrine or manners though never so deservedly have given him a blot in their Indices Expurgatorii DELEATVR DELEATVR The Pontifician falsifications Chamier reduceth unto two heads a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
a false Interpretation of Authours and a false Printing The former they are not a little guilty in as Bellarmine and Grodecius and others but it falling not so directly under our censure from the example of our Apostle I will omit it Their falsification in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 false Printing is in three respects or wayes by Addition by Detraction or Taking-away by Alteration 1. by addition they abuse authours commanding in their Indices that whereas any Authour speaketh against them in the next edition of those authours they should be branded with this marginall addition Autor est damnatus and sometimes Autor est damnatus sed jam permissus post expurgationem and sometimes Hîc cautè legatur .2 they abuse by detraction No lesse then 800. writers are purged in one of their Indices that of Spain by the Archbishop of Toledo the generall Inquisitour Deleatur here such a passage here such a sentence in this authour this in that authour that here an whole Epistle of Hulderick there an Epistle in the first Tome of Athanasius as ye may see in the 37 page of the forenamed Index Here such a sentence of such a Father is to be left out in the next edition as appeareth in the front of that Index All kinds of authours are purged thus by them ours theirs sacred prophane all Humanity without any humanitie Thirdly they abuse by variation by alteration so in Vatablus his scholia upon the cvii. Psalme the 7. verse they command in the next Editions to be read for Imagines Idola The marginall note there is confusio iis qui adorant imagines they say Reade it IDOLA in the lxxx page of the Index Besides they abuse authours in the Indices of the authours commanding the references unto any place where they are touched any whit boldly or in their grand articles and points to be put out But they will say no Authour hath been actually falsified thus Neverthelesse they have shewed their good will or rather their ill will their malice their villany in commanding that they should be corrupted and God hath shewed his providence and approbation of the truth of the Protestant religion in that he prevented the effect by discoverie of the Indices whereby Protestant Divines were warned and admonished to keep fast their old editions of the Fathers especially which otherwise as near as they could they would have called in And yet God hath in his wisdome permitted some to be indeed falsified that we might have instances de facto for the confirmation of our belief that they had such treacherous minds unto the truth and that they repented not of that transcendent designe to silence all the world that had or should speak against them For besides the Indices expurgatorii whereof we have some with us which are sufficient witnesses of their intention Ferus one of their own yet in many points of our religion ours as appeareth by their dealing towards him in his comment upon the first epistle of S. John in fifty leaves is falsified thrice fifty times as is exactly observed In thrice fifty places doth the Romane Edition of him which came out 1577. differ in the former wayes either adding or taking away or altering from the Antwerp-edition which came out 1556. And not onely Ferus but Fulbert also Bishop of Chartres who lived in the eleventh centurie is falsified by addition He speaking upon the Eucharist hath these words NISI MANDUCAVERITIS inquit CARNEM FILII HOMINIS ET SANGUINEM BIBERITIS NON HABEEITIS VITAM IN VOBIS Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere figura ergò est praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum tantùm suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quòd pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa vulnerata est in the 168. leaf Now in the yeare 1608. there was set out an Edition of him in Paris where we have interserted after Figura ergo est DICET HAERETICUS thus Vnlesse saith Christ ye eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his bloud ye shall not have life in you He seemeth to command an impietie and great wickednesse it is therefore a figure WILL THE HERETIQUE SAY These words will the heretique say are put in by him that set out Fulbert to make what Fulbert spoke assertivè from Augustine to speak recitativè of the heretique as if the Heretique should say This is a figure c. For if Christs words be to be understood in a figure by a trope as Fulbert from Augustine then the bread and the wine in the Eucharist are not transubstantiated This testimony therefore being peremptory against them they thought to take an order with and to make to speak for them The Pope maketh Bishop Fulbert recant five hundred and more years after his death But by the bargain in their own opinion we have S. Augustine an heretique and therefore he is ours whom yet by all means they would have to be a very absolute Papist For the words which Fulbert produceth there for the expounding of our Saviour although he approveth them in the reciting are indeed no other mans then Saint Augustines in his second book De doctrina Christiana the sixteenth chapter And the publisher of Fulbert being told hereof that the words were Augustines which he had branded with heresie he put afterwards his DICET HAERETICUS amongst his Errata as ye may reade in the learned Primate of Irelands Answer unto the Jesuites Challenge in the fiftenth page O sea Apostolicall how farre art thou from imitation of our Apostle S. Paul here who dealeth truly with his Authour and reciteth strictly the words O thou sacred virgin Truth how art thou defloured by those who account it a sinne for them to marry Shall not now Adulteration of authours be one signe of the Whore Shall not falsification of writers be a signe of the false Prophet Is this the way to prove the truth of their Religion and of their Church It seemeth where Peters keyes cannot open the difficulty his sword must cut the knot This abuse of authours is one of the scandals they give the Jews who live amongst them which is so offensive to them amongst other things that they are never like to be converted to Christianity in Rome as Sandys observeth Tell me if ever the Christian world conceived such a monster of injury and inhumanity to say no worse which reached not onely to the living but to the dead to the dead Saints and made those reverend Authours and Professours of divine truth speak so flatly against their consciences in their graves We cannot leave these men better then abruptly in an indignation And so we may passe from a kind of Satans brood unto Gods offspring For we are also his offspring Having now expounded the HIS in the text to be Gods and the particles FOR and ALSO to be onely testimonies of an ingenuous quotation and so not essentiall to the sense of the proposition the
strict and clear substance of the words will be this We are Gods offspring The question now is concerning the supposition of the subject of the proposition WE how much it importeth If we consider the words without any reference unto Saint Pauls consequence out of them in the next verse this WE may signifie in a double acception reduplicativè specificativé First reduplicatively most universally comprehending all Entities all creatures whether of Being onely or Life besides Being or Sense besides both or Reason besides all or pure Reason without Sense as Angels all of him and from him from the highest Angel in heaven to the lowest in hell Bad ones as of men so of Angels as ones his Gods as bad their own It is a rationall creatures weaknesse to be able to sinne It is Gods omnipotence to create from the king to the begger from Dan to Beersheba from the greatest mountain to the slenderest atome all of all all proceed from him who proceedeth from none But this all is too much for S. Pauls drift and for the common expression WE This sense is fit for the proposition but too wide and redundant for the inference Secondly then WE specificativè or indeed specially We men So the Apostle meaneth it in the next verse Since then we are the offspring of God we are not to think that the Godhead is like to gold or silver or stone graven by art or mans devise as if man should be the image by which God should be worshipped if he would be worshipped by any In man is the image of God though defaced by that originall sinne And no better Embleme for representing the God of the whole or of all as Ignatius in his Epistles and Theodoret in his Questions calleth him then Man who is the Epitome of the whole of all the Docquet of the book of the creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a whole world in a world a little one in a great one so that Democritus in his opinion of more worlds was out but in quantity for there be many little worlds And we are Gods offspring in a threefold respect in respect of our bodies in respect of our souls in respect of both together These severall considerations for our more distinct proceeding may serve if you please in lieu of a division First of the first we are Gods offspring in respect of our body Now God is the Authour of our bodies to speak in an universalitie two wayes immediately or mediately immediately of our first Parents though in some difference of manner mediately of the rest The immediate production is also twofold Ex parte Materiae ex parte Efficientis Immediate production in respect of matter maketh a simple creation when somewhat is made out of no praeexistent subject at all So Adam was not made in respect of his body it being formed of the dust of the earth Gen. ii 7. And God formed man of the dust of the ground The second immediate production is in respect of efficient So Adam was created immediately by God no other Agent coming betwixt and helping the Divine omnipotence in raising so glorious a fabrick out of so unlikely a subject And therefore this is also called a Creation secundùm quid no created virtue being able out of such an indisposed matter to make such a work And as Adam was thus immediately produced by God in respect of his body so was his wife Eve They had a different matter but the same efficient of their being God made the woman off the rib of man Indeed Constantinus Manasses saith that Adam was to Eve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Authour spake here as a Poet as the Fathers sometimes like Rhetoricians Adam concurred not in any way of Agency towards the production of his Wife he was not maried to his daughter God took the rib from him when he was in a deep sleep and off it framed the body of Eve Matter in the beginning of time was taken from man to make a woman and matter in the fulnesse of time was taken from a woman to make a man even the man Christ Jesus So God was the Authour without any other of the bodies of Adam and Eve God by this immediate production had a sonne and a daughter as we may speak And this sonne and daughter immediate causes of our ordinary generation are the causes why to us God is not the immediate God almighty who shewed what he could do in that extraordinary production of our first parents is now pleased to bring men into the world in way of a successive traduction by them Parents we have and God will have us account them so for he giveth us a law to honour them by reverence by obedience by gratitude as it is expounded Yet not so are they the authours of our being according to the flesh not so fathers of our flesh as they are called Hebr. xii 9. as if God were excluded from being our Father also according to a common manner of expression God by a proper generation a generation naturall hath but one Sonne the second person in the Trinitie yet God in Scripture is commonly called a Father without any reference unto the second Person God saith Mal. 1. If I be a Father where is my honour And he is a Father as Creatour expressely Mal. ii 10. Have we not all one Father hath not one God created us What more usuall in the Greek then to expresse Authour by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is scarce any other word for it So Martiall for the Latine calleth his books his children So God is said to be the Father of Spirits Heb. xii so the devil the father of a lie in S. John And thus we have expounded how God is said to be our Father and how in the text we are called Gods offspring not in strict proper speech but according to the common use of expressing the producer of any thing by the Father or Parent of it So Tertullian to our purpose in his book De Anima Omne quod quoquo modo accipit esse generatur But more directly in the following words Nam factor ipse parens facti dici potest sic Plato utitur Now that God is the Authour of our bodies by our Parents that he hath a finger nay a hand nay hands in framing our bodies we have the expresse testimony of the Prophet David Psal cxix Thy hands have made me and fashioned me And again Psal cxxxix 12. For my reins are thine thou hast covered me in my mothers wombe I will give thanks unto thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mirificatus sum mirabilibus operibus tuis as Montanus rendreth it I am fearfully and wonderfully made I am moulded I am made as it were and composed altogether in wonders beyond all understanding and expression so strangely so subtilly so beyond the power of man The