contracting of sinnes and undergoing punishment for them Fourthly weigh this strong inconvenience which he toucheth at That the latter born in time is still the worse in nature worse then any that went before as followeth necessarily if the sinnes of our forefathers are communicated to us Fifthly he seemeth to conclude the unreasonablenesse That they who were never regenerated should be overburdened with eternall damnation if they should be compelled from the beginning of mankinde to contract the sinnes of all their progenitours and be punished for them And therefore he questioneth Whether it reacheth onely to the third and fourth generation I would also question Whether if the threat reach onely to the third and fourth generation upon supposall that from Adam all the predecessours of a man were wicked till the fourth generation that man shall have none of those sinnes imputed to him before his progenitours in a fourth ascent Or if an others progenitours were all good from Adam till the foure last generations and from it all and every of his parents in a lineall descent were stark-naught till we come to himself who is good Whether he shall have communicated to him the sinnes of these foure last progenitours and no goodnesse for a thousand generations of holy and repentant forefathers himself also being a holy man since God sheweth mercy unto thousands that love him that is more mercy to more good men then severitie which extendeth even towards his haters but to the third and fourth generation which number is short of thousands The last objection from the place of Exodus is this q Consequi videtur Deum permittere ut pâ—ccata parentum in filios transeant It seems to follow that God doth permit that the sinnes of parents passe unto their children and the sonnes imitate the sinnes of their fathers that God may justly punish sinnes which are not so proper to the parent as to the parent and childe I answer He doth well to mince it with It seems to follow But Quaedam videntur non sunt Some things seem to be and are not Bucer and Martyr do float too much in generalities they neither mention what sinnes all or some neither what parents good bad or all nor what they mean by passing when they say r Peccata parentum in filios transeunt The sinnes of parents passe unto the children There are also nets and ginns in these their words Å¿ Peccatorum labes cou contegium redundat in patris corpus per ejus sanguinem semen in filios The spot and as it were contagion of sinne overspreadeth the fathers body and by his bloud and seed redoundeth upon the children Before they said sinnes now the spot of sinnes though there be a great difference between them two for the sinne is past before the spot cometh and the latter is the effect of the former Again because it is easie to prove that t Macula patris non redundat in filios the stain of the father redoundeth not on the children it is added u Labes ceu contagium the spot and as it were contagion Moreover how unaptly do they bring the place of Exodus to prove the sinnes of the next parents to be communicated if by them they understand onely the immediate father and mother when in that place there is expresse mention of the third and fourth generation If they stretch the words of the next parents to the third and fourth generation onely why not to the fifth sixth and so upward Sixteen generations since Christs time are the next parents if you compare them to the thirty nine generations which in the law of Nature and of Moses preceded Christ Lastly note their wilde inference God permits the fathers sinne to passe unto the childe and the childe to imitate the father that he may punish as if God could not justly punish the sinnes of the fathers in the children unlesse they be like them in personall transgressions as if the communication of original sinne onely were not cause enough to punish children for the sinnes of their parents as if the evil of sinne were ordained to justifie the evil of punishment Away then with this fishing in troubled waters this delighting in amphibolous terms Which censure that I may the rather justifie I will endeavour to explain all things necessary to the knowledge of this point to salve all doubts to unfold all intricacies in these seven propositions 4. God justly may and doth punish with any temporall punishment any children like or unlike to their parents for their fathers personall sinnes Horat. Epod. 7. Immerentis fluxit in terram Remi Sacer nepotibus cruor And Carminum 3. Ode 6. Delicta majorum immeritus lues Romane For the children are a part of the fathers and in the childes punishment the father himself is punished For as a sonne receiveth under God life and the things of this life by the father so it is no injustice if he lose the same for him The widow of Zarephath her sonne was in her apprehension dead for her sinne 1. King 17.18 So 2. Sam. 12.15 God stroke the childe that Uriahs wife bare to David and it was sick and died Both father and childe endured a punishment of seven dayes the father in sorrow fasting a fast lying on the earth in a holy sordiditie weeping and praying the childe by sicknesse tormenting him to death Ahabs children were punished for his offence 1. King 21.21 and among the rest Jehoram his sonne who although he wrought evil in the sight of the Lord yet was not so bad as his father or mother 2. Kings 3.2 The passage is very observable Jer. 16.3 4. For thus saith the Lord concerning the sonnes and daughters that are born in this place and concerning their mothers and fathers They shall die of grievous deaths Both the great and small shall die vers 6. The punishment of Gehazi his posterity is more exemplarie for though they sinned not nor could sinne the sinne of Gehazi yet the leprosie of Naaman did cleave unto him for that his personall simonie and unto his seed for ever 2. Kings 5.27 The case of Jobs children surpasseth this for they were not stricken with death for their own sinnes or the sinnes of their father Job so much as for the triall of his patience and for the experimentall confutation of Satan yet was it not unjust that they should lose their lives for their fathers good which they had by him since he also suffered in their sufferings and might easily see Gods especiall hand against himself For the greatest winde in the world naturally cannot smite the foure corners of an house and if it should yet one corner would uphold the other but this whirlwinde did so and the house fell Job 1.19 1. Sam. 15.6 the Kenites are spared because they shewed kindenesse to the children of Israel when they came out of Egypt but because Amalek had fought with
yet his repentance could not wipe out the sinne of his posteritie because his repentance was by an act personall which could not extend it self beyond his person So farre Aquinas But let discourse give way to Scripture Jer. 31.29 30. They shall say no more The fathers have eaten a sowre grape and the childrens teeth are set on edge but every one shall die for his own iniquitie every man that eateth the sowre grape his teeth shall be set on edge They had occasion to use this proverb in reference to Adam who ate one sowre grape in whom we sinned and are punished But as I live saith the Lord God ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel Ezek. 18.3 Behold all souls are mine as the soul of the father so also the soul of the sonne is mine the soul that sinneth it shall die vers 4. And when God said Exod. 20.5 I visit the sinnes of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me I answer First the place speaketh not of the sinnes of children for the fathers personall iniquitie maketh not the sonne inique or wicked it is onely spoken of punishments Secondly even punishment eternall doth not reach from the father to the sonne unlesse the sonne communicate with the sinne of the father for if a wicked father beget a sonne that seeth all his fathers sinnes which he hath done and considereth and doth not such like he shall not die for the iniquitie of his father he shall surely live Ezek. 18.14 17. In this sort you may object A man shall not be punished at all for the sinnes of his forefathers but for his own sinnes onely I answer He may be punished temporally but not eternally for in temporall chastisements as there be many causes producing one effect so many sinnes even of diverse men may be corrected by one punishment and the father is often more grievously punished in his sonne then in himself Now having spoken what I thought convenient concerning the propagation of originall corruption unto all the posteritie of Adam I am in the last place to shew the just consequent That as he did die for that his sinne so we his offspring for having that sinne should die and in regard of this sinne It is appointed for men to die and to undergo that punishment For original sinne is in one regard a fault of transgression and the same originall sinne in a different respect is also a punishment b Aug. de baptismo parvulorum As every man was in Adam and his corrupted nature was propagated to us it is a sinne as originall sinne is considerable in every man without reflecting on the common nature it is a punishment It is so a sinne or such a sinne that it is also a punishment and we have spoken of it as a sinne let us now descend to handle it as it is a punishment MOst Prepotent Eternall and onely Wise God I a poore dejected sinner with an humble and contrite soul devoutly beg pardon at thy Mercie-seat confessing from the bottome of my heart my manifold personall and actuall sinnes from all which if thy Grace had prevented me yet my offence in Adam and with him had justly condemned me But I meekly beseech thy Divine Majestie that I may be one of those many to whom the bloud of thy deare Sonne shall do more good then the fault of Adam did hurt Grant this I beseech Thee for the Al-sufficient merit of thy onely Sonne our onely deare and gracious redeemer Jesus Christ Amen CHAP. VII 1. A review of the last point Zanchius not against it Bucer and Martyr are but faint and rather negative then positive 2. Bucer and Martyr make the state of the question to be voluble not fixt and setled Their objections answered The place of Exodus 20.5 examined 3. S. Augustine appealed unto and defended 4. God justly may and doth punish with any temporall punishment any children like or unlike unto their parents for their parents personall sinnes 5. God doth and may justly punish some children eternally and all temporally for originall sinne whether they be like their parents in actuall aversion yea or no. 6. God justly punisheth even eternally wicked children if they resemble wicked parents 7. God oftentimes punisheth one sinne with an other 8. The personall holinesse of the parent never conveyed grace or salvation to the sonne 9. God never punished eternally the reall iniquities of the fathers upon their children if the children were holy 10. No personall sinnes can be communicated The point handled at large against the errour of Bucer and Martyr 11. The arguments or authorities for my opinion The new Writers not to be overvalued Zanchius himself is against Bucer and Martyr 1. HAving thus farre proceeded and as I thought without the contradiction of any I found by the discourse of a loving learned friend that diverse late Writers were otherwise minded in the point last handled in the former chapter whereupon I betook my self to review it Zanchius in locis commun Theolog. upon the second chapter of the Ephes loc prim toward the end bringeth this objection against one part of his definition of originall sinne Some say that if therefore Adams sinne was transferred to posteritie because we were in his loyns by the same reason the other sinnes of Adam and our other parents should be likewise traducted which is absurd and cometh not alwayes to passe since of evil parents oftentimes the best children are born He answereth first The reason is not alike for the first sinne was not so proper and personall to Adam as common to humane nature his other sinnes and others after him are truely personall Which answer is excellent and he confirmeth it at large Then cometh he to a second answer which is not his own but onely barely related without his approving or open disproving of it a Deinde negant multi viri docti absurdum esse si dicatur peccata pronimorum parentum communicari liberis ità ut similes parentibus nascantur filii vitiosi vitiosis Besides many learned men denie that it is absurd to say that the sinnes of the next parents are communicated to the children so that sonnes are born like their parents vicious and perverse sonnes of vicious and perverse parents which they confirm by experience by examples of Scripture by Exod. 20.5 And Augustine truely in Enchirid. cap. 46. saith it is probable for that place of Exodus For saith he if the sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of the father but the soul that sinneth shall die and yet God visit the sinnes of the fathers upon the children it seemeth to follow that the sinnes of the parents passe over to the sonnes and the sonnes follow the sinnes of the parents that those sinnes may be justly punished in them which are not so proper to the parents as common both to parents and children And for this
the male Levites were taken for the male first-born of Israel and at the most righteous massacre of the first-born males of Egypt the Israelites escaped by the bloud of a lambe without blemish a male of the first yeare or a sonne of the first yeare Exod. 12.5 From whence you may see the grosse errour of Cornel. Cornelii à Lapide who thinketh That if a woman had had a daughter first and sonnes after her first sonne had not been her first-born but her daughter because she opened the matrix first when it is evident that if a woman had had many daughters before one sonne yet her first sonne was her first-born in the Law And God saith Exod. 12.24 Ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sonnes for ever viz. the ordinance of keeping the Passeover I recollect apply these things thus The men of Israel represented the women The first-born sonne and not the daughter was the Lords due The male Levites were in stead of the first-born sonnes All first-born males were redeemed Women received good by the mens circumcision and by mens redemption which was in one kinde or other whether they were first-born or not first-born And though the devilish superstition of the Turks now circumcise women as Joannes Leo reporteth yet by Gods appointment women were neither to be circumcised nor redeemed but as they were in men and as men represented them 4. Let me come yet nearer to the main purpose The Apostle saith 1. Corinth 12.26 Whether one member suffer all the members suffer with it or one member be honoured all the members rejoyce with it From whence I thus argue As at the committing or deed-doing in murder the murderers hand may be said to will the murder not because there is any will strictly taken belonging to the hand or because there is sinne properly in the right hand which doth but its duty in obeying the souls domineering disposition or dominium despoticum but because the hand is part of that man in whose soul the will was that commanded the murder and because the soul is principium totius individui the fountain from which all members take life and use motion and by the soul the motion was derived to all the other parts of the body So were we and every one of man-kinde willing to commit the sinne with Adam not as if we had been there actually to agree or disagree but as we were parts of him who was the fountain of humane nature which conveyed corruption unto all mankinde Semblably in the punishment though the right hand onely give the blow and actuate the murder yet upon the delinquents apprehension both hands are pineoned both feet fettered the neck is haltered and the whole body rueth it yea soul and all without repentance So though Adam onely sinned that first great sinne yet because he did it representing us Adam alone is not punished for it but we that are bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh all that are members of the first Adam are guilty of the fault and condignely are punished if we be unrepentant For as the divers members of a body are part of the person of one man so all and every man is as it were a part and member of humane nature And thus by the participation of the species more men are one and one more we Adam and Adam was we But let us go out of man himself and look to other fashions of the world in matters politicall Do not the severall men in a Township or Corporation make one body thereof and the whole Corporation is as it were but one man and what a few do is it not the act of all of which he complained who said That Mr. Maior for his own particular was an honest man and so were all the brethren who promised him fairely but because contrary to their promise they pinched upon him the Corporation was a knave Doth not the House of the Commons represent the Body of the Realm in the Parliament time though the thousand part of the subjects be not present and what they enact the absent enact what they deny the absent deny and what immunities and priviledges they obtain for succession as well as for themselves they obtain them and what services tributes subsidies or taxes they yeeld unto all the rest of the Realm must yeeld unto and pay yea by the trust reposed in them they binde or loose the whole Kingdome sometimes in such things as others would never have consented unto and yet must undergo and see performed In the fifth book of the Historie of Portugal the Universitie and Divines of Alcala among other things truely decreed and religiously guided Philip the second towards the attaining of the crown of Portugal in these words saying that When as Common-wealths do choose their first King upon condition to obey him and his successours they remain subject to him to whom they have transferred their authority no jurisdiction remaining in them either to judge the realm or the true successour seeing in the first election all true successours were chosen Every man is considered doubly First as a singular person so onely his own proper actions belong to him Secondly as a member of a society so what the Prince or the whole citie or the greater part do doth concern him For so saith the Philosopher saith Scharpius the Divine Much more did Adam represent our persons when what he willed and performed we willed and performed we being in him as many waters in a fountain all to be corrupted if he were corrupted all to be pure if he continued pure all to live by his righteousnes all to die by his iniquity Furthermore in the famous battell between the three Horatii and the three Curiatii did not they represent both the armies and both the people the Horatii of the Romanes the Curiatii of the Latines Did not their wills their strength their fortune depend on the wills strength and fortune of those combatants did not the Latines fall into subjection by the death of the Curiatii and did not the Romanes thrive and prosper by the valour of their superviving Horatius Yea in the Scripture long before this battell there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines Goliath of Gath 1. Sam. 17.4 with a proud challenge and bold defiance Am not I a Philistine and you servants of Saul Then he articleth Choose you a man for you and let him come down to me If he be able to fight with me and to kill me then we will be your servants but if I prevail and kill him then you shall be our servants and serve us It should seem the Philistines referred themselves to his successe for when David had undertaken the duel and when the Philistines saw their champion dead they fought not a stroke they fled And the men of Israel and of Judah pursued wounded and killed them vers 51 52. Yea in our own
was not altogether irrevocable but that the messengers who brought him to judgement were sharply blamed by their governours because they brought Antillus in stead of Nicandas Within a while after Nicandas died and Antillus recovered life and health And Plutarch in my opinion seemeth to insinuate that he was present at the recovery of him Of both these if each particular were true that they were dead and relived we may boldly averre that they died again Neither doth Plato Plutarch or Theodoret doubt of it As strange a storie though more remote from our subject you shall finde in Alexander ab Alexandro Genialium dierum 6.21 4 An other istance you shall finde in Bellarmine De arte bene moriendi lib. 2. cap. 1. taken out of Joannes Climachus in scala sua grad 6. who relates thus of a man that died twice In his first life saith he he lived most negligently but dying and his soul being perfectly separated from his bodie after one houre he returned again and he desired Climachus and the rest to depart Whereupon they walled up the cell and he lived as an Anchoret within the cell twelve yeares speaking to no man till he was ready to die again eating nothing but bread and drinking water sitting so he astonishedly revolved those things onely which he had seen in his separation with so earnest a thought that he never changed countenance but continuing in that amazement secretly wept bitterly When he was at deaths doore the second time they forced open the entrance into the cell and coming to him humbly desired him to speak some words of doctrine He answered nothing but this onely b Nemo qui revera mortis memoriam agnoverit peccare unquam poterit The serious remembrance of death will not consist with sinne The like storie you may finde in Venerable Bede All these if they lived again died again and rose not to life immortall And in this sense is that averred Wisd 2.1 Never was any man known to have returned from the grave viz. not to die again for otherwise some were known to have been raised From these I come more especially to speak of such whom the word of God reporteth to have been raised MOst gracious God who didst breathe into the face of man the breath of life and at thy pleasure drawest it forth again out of his nostrils grant that we make such use of this present life that we may see love and enjoy thee in the life eternall through Jesus Christ our onely Lord and Saviour Amen CHAP. II. 1. A division of such as have been raised They all died 2. The widow of Zarephath her sonne raised yet died again supposed to be Jonas the Prophet The Shunammites sonne raised not to an eternall but to a temporary resurrection A good and a better resurrection 3. Christ the first who rose not to die again 4. The man raised in the sepulchre of Elisha arose not to immortality 1. ANd because divers have been raised up of whom there is not the like doubt and answer in each kinde to be made I will therefore distribute them in regard of their times into three sorts Such as were raised 1. Before Christs death 2. After he was ascended 3. About the time of his death Which inverted method I purposely choose because I will reserve the hardest point to the last The first sort again is subdivided into such as were raised either before Christ was incarnated or by Christ himself They who were raised before Christ was born were three 1. The widow of Zarephath her sonne 1. King 17.22 2. The Shunammites sonne 2. King 4.35 3. A dead man who was cast into the grave of Elisha and when he touched the bones of Elisha he revived and stood upon his feet 2. King 13.21 All these three were raised up to live and lived to die again Neither did the intention of such as requested to have them raised or of such as raised them aim once that they should live immortally but live onely on earth again as other men did and then die again Neither did I ever reade any who held these to arise to immortall glory neither stands it with reason For that they were once dead and raised to life the Scripture saith and that they must either live to this time or be translated to immortall glorie in their bodies or die is as true as Scripture Now because there is no ground to say that they yet live or were translated bodily into heaven there is good ground to conclude that again they died 2. Concerning the first of these the Jews think he was Jonas the Prophet and S. Hierome in his Prologue on Jonas citeth their opinion and dislikes it not Tostatus also saith Dïvers others think so If Jonas were the widow of Zarephath her sonne we know that Jonas died afterward for the Prophets are dead Joh. 8.53 and he was one of the Prophets And concerning both the first and second instance it is thought by many good Authours that they are pointed at Heb. 11.35 The women received their dead raised to life again or the Prophets delivered to the women their dead as the Syriack reads it that is to converse with them as formerly being raised not to an eternall but a temporary resurrection and so to die again at their appointed times And to this truth the Text it self giveth in evidence for it is said in the same verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might obtain a better resurrection Of holy men there is a double resurrection the first and the last the good and the better The resurrection mentioned in the beginning of the verse was good and with reference to the former saith Chrysostom the latter resurrection is called the better For the former was temporary the latter eternall called also The holy resurrection in our book of Common Prayer in the Epistle on the sixth Sunday after Trinity though there is no substantiall ground for the word holy either in the Latine or Greek Rom. 6.5 Of the former Aquinas in his Comment on Hebr. 11.35 saith it was rather a resuscitation then a resurrection and again c Isti sic resuscitati sunt iterum mortui Christus autem resuegens ex mortuis jam non moritur Rom. 6.9 These being raised died again but Christ rising from the dead dieth no more Rom. 6.9 3. And therefore Christs resurrection was as Aquinas saith and as it is indeed the beginning of the future resurrection Then must they needs die again who were raised before him He was the first Guide that lead the way to the eternall resurrection He abolished death and hath brought life and immortality to light 2. Tim. 1.10 Life and immortalitie to light which were before in darknesse And I think that the Apostle may well be thus paraphrased in that place to the Hebrews The women desired that their dead children might be raised again 1. King 17.18 2. King 4.22 c. and as a gift
after death excluding judgement in this life and placing death rather before judgement then any great distance betwixt death and judgement according to the native use of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which before The second exposition is of Gregory de Valentia * Tom. 4. Disp 1. quaest 22. punct 9. who applieth the words to the particular judgement immediately upon death So doth Ludovicus de ponte Vallis Oletani * Part. 1. Meditat. medit 9. who sets it down as a veritie of faith * De particulari judicio animae quod sit proximè post mortem judicium singulorum exerceri invisibiliter statim post eujusque mortem Concerning the particular judgement of the soul which is done immediately after death every one is judged invisibly presently after his death and evinceth it by this Text. So doth Joannes * Viguer Instit pag. 692. Viguerius * Bus initio Panarii Antidotorum spiritual Busaeus the Jesuite likewise accounteth * Secundum novissimum est judicium particulare mortem proximè consequens the second last thing to be the particular judgement following death immediately the severitie whereof saith he Job the holy patient feared Job 31.14 What shall I do when God riseth up and when he visiteth what shall I answer him S. Ambrose on this place hath it thus * Post mortem judicabitur unusquisque â—uxta userita sua Every one shall be judged after death according to their own deservings Which words do point at the particular judgement saith Suarez Lastly lest I may seem too eager against the second book of Esdras let me borrow a testimony or two from thence 2 Esdr 9.11 12. They that lothed my law while they had yet libertie and place of repentance open unto them must know it after death by pain And 2. Esdr 7.56 While we lived and committed sinne we considered not that we should BEGIN to suffer for it AFTER DEATH Whence we may probably collect That the beginning of punishment is immediately after death upon the particular judgement and the increase or additament at the generall judgement 2 That some are in torments before the generall day of retribution 3 That the beginning to suffer is not after a long time GOD onely knoweth how long but after death yea presently after it All these proofs on each side make way for the third and best interpretation That the Apostle meaneth not onely either of these judgements but both of them Benedictus Justinian on these words thus * Post eujusque obitum sequitur judicium privatum in quo quisque suarum actionum reddit urus estrationem post finem mundi erit judicium omnium tum hominum tum daemonum After every ones death private judgement follows in which every one is to give an account of his actions after the end of the world shall be the judgement of all both men and devils Of both the Apostle may be understood saith he So also Salmeron and Hugo Cardinalis and Carthusianus Oecolampadius thus * Sive speciale judicium intelligas sive generale uihil refert Whether you understand the speciall judgement or the gener all it matters not Thus have I brought you back to the point where I first began That this text is fitted to my intentions affording me just liberty to write whatsoever may be conceived or expressed concerning the estate of humane souls in their animation or in death or after it in the life future because the words must be expounded of both judgements And now the text being cleared from ambiguities the termes explained the state being made firm and sure not rolling and changeable and being fixed upon its basis and foundation three questions do seem to arise from the first words of the text and each of them to crave its answer before I come to my main intendment First How and when Death came to be appointed for us Secondly Whether Adam and his children all and every one without priviledge or exception must and shall die It is appointed for men to die Thirdly Whether they that were raised up from the dead at any time did die the second time It is appointed to men once to die O Gracious LORD who orderest all things sweetly and who dost dispose whatsoever man doth purpose I humbly implore thy powerfull guidance and enlightning assistance in all this work for his sake who is Alpha and Omega the Way the Truth and the Life thy onely SONNE my blessed SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST Amen CHAP. II. 1 How GOD is immortall how angels and the souls of men how Adams body was mortall and yet immortall though compounded of contraries 2 Aristotles last words his death Holcot or the Philosophers pray for him Aristotle canonized by his followers Plato and Aristotle compared Vives taxed Adams body was not framed of â—he earth or dust of Paradise 3. Adam should not have been subject to any externall force he was Lord of the creatures inward distemper he could not have Adams bodily temperature Christs who was fairer then the children of Adam the helps for Adams body meat drink and sleep 4. Divers opinions of the tree of life If Adam had eaten of the tree of life before or after his fall he had lived for ever If he had not sinned he had not died though he had not tasted of the tree of life To what use the tree of life should have served 5. The Councel of Millan Cardinall Cajetan Richeomus the Jesuite Julianus Pomerius and S. Augustine think that Adam could not have died if he had not sinned The book of Wisedome Holcot Doctor Estius and two passages of Scripture Canonical are authorities evincing that Adam had in the state of innocency an immortall body 1. TO the full answering of the first question how or why Death was appointed for us I shall need to cleare but these two points That Adam for sinne was appointed to die That Adams sinne and punishment was propagated to us Thus sinne was the mother of death thus we were appointed to die because of sinne As a preparative to the first of these two points I hold it fit to demonstrate that Adam at first was made an immortall creature Concerning Adams soul and the spirits of all men descended from him that they are immortall I hope to prove it so soundly in an other part of this tractate that I will fear no other reproof but this that I bring too much proof for it Therefore supposing or rather borrowing that truth which by GODS grace shall be repayed with interest I now come to shew that Adams bodie was created immortall Immortall I say not as GOD is immortall who neither had beginning nor shall have end with whom is no shadow of change much lesse any reall substantiall change who hath as all other good things else so immortalitie eminently and so eminently that our Apostle in some sort excludeth all others and appropriateth it to him saying 1.
lapis Dontinus Salvator sine manibus id est absque coitu humano semine de utero virginali Hâ—eron in Dan. 2.34 Quid est Praecisus de monte sine manibus Natus de Gente Judaeorum sine opere hominum Omnes enim qui nascuntur de opere maritali nascuntur ille de Virgine natus sine manibus natus est per manus enim opus humanum significatur quò manus humanae non accesserunt ubi maritalis amplexus non fuit foetus tamen fuit Aug. in Psal 99.5 ipsi 70 secuto 98 sub finem a stone cut out without hands Daniel 2.34 without the help of man as he was if he had not been conceived by the Holy Ghost if the Blessed Virgin had not been over-shadowed by the power of God onely if Christ had been begotten by one of the sonnes of Adam with an ordinarie and naturall generation even Christ himself had had both originall and actuall sinne and had died for himself by and through Adam and had wanted a Redeemer for himself much lesse could he be our Redeemer But Christ was that STONE This Stone which the builders refused is become the head-stone of the corner Psal 118.22 A tried stone a precious corner-stone asure foundation Esai 28.26 Let me adde a little Since Adam was made without the help of man or woman and Eve came of man without woman since all the whole world of rationall people proceed from both man and woman it was convenient enough that there should be a miraculous and fourth kinde of generation different from all the rest namely that Christ should come of a woman alone without the assistance of man that he might be free from originall sinne which was first committed by Adam and his masculine brood and not without his seed and the artifex spiritus in it In which regard without derogation to the thrice-blessed Mother of our Lord that holy-aeviternally Virgin Mary now next to her Sonne the greatest Saint in heaven and placed deservedly above Angels and Archangels Cherubims and Seraphims great Divines do make this difference She who was not begotten but by man was subject to originall sinne but her sonne the Sonne of God was free even in his humane Nature from all infection originall and actuall because in his framing there was no admisture of virile and masculine cooperation For the poisoning of our nature arose from Adams sinne and not from Eves Moreover if by miracle God should preserve a man from any touch or tickling smach of lustfull sinne in the act of generation the fathers personall holines should not discharge his childe from originall mire for the traducted nature is corrupt * Bell. De Amiss gratiae Statu peccati 4.12 Bellarmine goes one step further thus If both man and woman the children of Adam by Gods singular priviledge were exempted from lust in the generation of their children yet should they transmit sinne to their ofspring For though S. Augustine saith expresly * Non generationem sed libidinem esse quae propriè peccatum traducit De peecat Merit Remis 1.9 that it is not the generation but the lust which properly transmits sinne yet S. Augustine may be interpreted to speak of generations meerly usuall and wholy naturall not priviledged or extraordinarie Cursed therefore are the Pelagians who say Sinne and death entred by Eve Sinne personall did but not originall nor death Grosse is the ignorance of the Pelagians who when the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 think to delude it with this silly shift that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth either man or woman and say it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must needs have been understood of Adam onely I answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is fully equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not and can not be understood of the feminine Secondly the Apostle maketh the Antithesis between that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ which can not be between Eve and Christ Thirdly a little after the Apostle twice expresseth Adam but never nameth or meaneth Eve Lastly it is said remarkably concerning Abraham Hebr. 11.12 There sprang even of one and him as good as dead many And more approaching to our purpose Act. 17.26 God made all mankinde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one bloud with apparent reference to Adam onely Therefore as the naturall generation is ascribed to Adam and Abraham onely though Eve and Sara in their sort concurre to the materiall part of the embryon because the Men do conferre the formall so the degenerating unto vice is justly imputed to Adam onely though Eve did minister the occasion because his consent and action onely could give form and shape to that prodigious sinne which overthrew mankinde 5. From this point more questions may yet arise First If Adam Eve had not sinned but Cain or some other of their children whether that sinne had been derived to their posteritie * Aquin. quaest 5. De Malo art 4. Aquinas is for the affirmative others for the negative Because the first man onely represented our whole nature all other mens sinnes are particular and personall can not infect others Thus farre Scharpius I make a second Question If Adam and Eve had continued in innocencie and had been confirmed in grace whether any of their children could have sinned Augustine embraceth the affirmative of this Question saying * Aug. De Civit. 14.10 As happie as Adam and Eve were so happie had been the whole companie of mankinde if they nor no stirp of them committed sinne which should receive damnation The same * De Gen. ad lit 9.3 elsewhere The children which should have been begotten of innocent Adam and Eve * Ad eundem perducerentur statum si omnes justè obedienterque vixissent had been led to the same state if they all had lived justly and obediently * Est in 2. Sent. dist 20. paragr 5. Estius seconds him alledging these reasons First Adam and Eve had not begotten children in better condition then themselves were created of God therefore they should have begot just children but not confirmed in justice Secondly Angels were not ordained to blessednes but by the merit of their free-will to good or evill and we are to think the like of men * Non priùs erantin termino constituendi quà m viae hujus curriculum quod est tempus merendi peregissent They were not to be settled in the end till they had finished the course of this way which is the time of meriting Thirdly Hugo and Lumbard say God propounded to Adam and Eve invisible goods and eternall to be sought by their merits and ordained that by merit they might come to reward Aquinas * Aquin. part 1. quaest 100. art â— determineth That children born in the state of innocencie had not been confirmed in justice yae * Non videtur possibile
the branches being saved the root also should not be saved But in his book De praescript advers Haereticos as it is cited by Bellarmine there is no mention of Tatian in Rhenanus his Edition Augustine saith of the Tatians and Encratites * Quòd contradicunt primorum hominum saluti Aug. De Haeresib cap. 25. That they gainsay the salvation of the first men Where Bellarmine used another Edition then Erasmus his or was mistaken in the collation He who will see more into this point let him consult with Bellarmine in the place above cited and Salianus ad Annum Mundi 930. where he justly taxeth Rupert for saying in this third book on Genes chap. 31. * Salvationem Adami à multit liberè negari à nullo satìs firmiter defendi That the salvation of Adam is freely denied by many and by none strongly enough defended And he bringeth many authorities and proofs to the contrary From Irenaeus he bids them blush for saying Adam was not saved and more vehemently That by saying so they make themselves Hereticks and Apostates from the truth and Advocates for the Serpent and Death God cursed not Adam and Eve but the earth and the Serpent Yea before God pronounced any punishment against Eve or Adam even in the midst of his cursing of the Serpent with the same breath he both menaced Satan and comforted Adam and Eve with the gracious promise of the Messiah Genes 3.15 Now there was never any unto whom God vouchsafed a speciall promise of Christ but they were saved Indeed the Apostle reckoneth not Adam among the faithfull ones Hebr. 11. but one reason of this omission is because he entreateth of such faithfull ones onely as were much persecuted which Adam was not so farre as is recorded If it be further objected That God is called THE GOD OF ABRAHAM ISAAC AND JACOB Exod. 3.6 Matth. 22.32 and is no where called THE GOD OF ADAM let it be answered That Adam is called THE SONNE OF GOD Luke 3.38 And I think he is too severe a judge who saith a sonne of God is damned The Targum or Chaldee Paraphrase set forth by Rivius on the Canticles chap. 1. vers 1. saith * Et veuit dies Sabbati protexit eum aperuit os suum dixit Psalmum Cantici diei Sabbati That the first song that ever was made was indited by Adam in the time when his sinne was forgiven him Damianus à Goes De Moribus Aethiopum makes this the belief of Zagazabo and the Ethiopians for whom he negotiated That Christs soul descended into Hell for Adams soul pag. 93. and that Adam was redeemed by Christ from Hell pag. 55. How glorious was it for Christ to save his first sheep and how would the Devil glorie if it were otherwise Adams fig-leaves may be thought to be sharp afflictive and penitentiall Epiphanius Haeres 46. calleth Adam Holy and saith We beleeve he is among those Fathers whom Christ reckoneth alive not dead God is not the God of the dead but of the living Irenaeus saith Adam humbly bare the punishment laid upon him Can humility be damned then may pride be saved Josephus 1.2 recordeth That Adam foretold the universall destruction of the World one by the floud the other by fire And can the first of Mankinde the first King Priest and Prophet of the World be condemned Others probably conjecture that before his death he called the chief of his children grand-children and their descendants and gave them holy and ghostly counsel as Abraham did Genes 18.19 and Jacob Genes 49.1 c. and Moses Deuteron 31.1 c. Salianus fits him a particular speech at his death and a witty Epitaph Feuardentius on Irenaeus thus relateth Nicodemus Christs Disciple in the History ascribed to him OF THE PASSION AND RESVRRECTION OF THE LORD reporteth That our Lord Jesus Christ when he descended into Hell in his soul spake thus to Adam and held his hand PEACE BE VNTO THEE VVITH ALL THY SONNES MY IVST ONES But Adam falling on his knees such spirituall knees as before his spirituall hand which Christ held while both their bodies were in the grave weeping-ripe thus prayed with a loud voice * Exaltabo te Domine quoniam suscepisti me nec delectâsti inimicos meos super me Domine Deus clamavi ad te sanâsti me eduxisti ab inferis animam meam salvâstime à descendentibus in lacum I will magnifie thee Lord because thou hast received me and hast not made glad mine enemies over me Lord God I have cried unto thee and thou hast healed me Thou hast brought up my soul from Hell thou hast saved me from those that go down to the pit Thus Salianus in his Scholia ad Annum 930. Another ancient Apocryphal book affirmeth that Adam repented Didacus Vega in his second Sermon on the fifth penitentiall Psalme pag. 443. thus Leonardus de Vtino in his Book De Legibus Sermon de Poenitentia saith That Adam repented not of his sinne but remained obstinate till the death of Abel but when he saw him lye dead at his feet wallowed in his bloud and yet pale and as in a glasse saw the deformity of death he began to repent Strabo saith He was so sorrowfull that he vowed chastity for ever and would have performed it if an Angel had not injoyned him the contrary And from the authority of Josephus he saith Adam was so sorry for Abel that he wept an whole hundred yeares But I beleeve saith Vega He rather wept for the cause which was sinne then for the very death of Abel Ludovicus Vertomannus in his sixth Book fourth Chapter of his journey to India hath recorded that a Mahumetan Merchant told him that at the top of an high mountain in the Iland of Zaylon subject to the King of Narsinga there is a den in which Adam after his fall lived and continued very penitently And though their tradition rests on an idle conjecture because there is yet seen the print of the steps of his feet almost two spannes long for how should they know they were his feet rather then some giants and because how Adam should come to this Iland and why cannot be shewed yet so farre as is probable we will joyn issue with their beleef to wit That he was penitent and so saved Thus much be spoken concerning the salvation of Adams soul Concerning Adams actuall sinne though I said truly before That as it was private and personall it was not imputed to us yet I must needs say as it was ideall and representative it was and is imputed to us He who denieth this let him also deny that Christs active and passive Merits are imputed to us Neither can the Divine providence be taxed with rigour much lesse with injustice for imputing Adams sinne unto us For first he imputeth not our own actuall and personall iniquities but forgiveth us both this sinne of Adam and all manner of
portion which had been due to him and was due to the first-born under the law Deut. 21.17 and was part of those Jura primo-geniturae and one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by the Apostle Heb. 12.16 was by Gods appointment and Jacobs just allotment bequeathed to Joseph Genes 48.5 And of him were two tribes Ephraim and Manasseh whereas no other of the children of Israel had more then one tribe For Judah prevailed above his brethren and of him came the chief ruler but the birth-right was Josephs 1. Chron. 5.2 and not Judahs For Joseph was the first-born of Rachel the first-love of Jacob the first wife in the light in right and in intention And so her eldest sonne Joseph was in right to be the first-born of Jacob and her self is prefer'd in place not onely by Jacobs affection but long after by the Spirit of God Ruth 4.11 The Lord make the woman like Rachel and Leah Shall I step one step further I may say That if the willing and witting act of Jacob preferring Ephraim the younger sonne of Joseph before his first-born Manasseh did onely signifie that Gods blessing went not alwaies hand in hand by the prioritie of birth and that God makes birth-rights according to his pleasure and not according to mans reckoning Yet three other passages reach more home to prove That Joseph was the first-born First because Jacob blessed Joseph two severall times Genes 48.16 and 49.22 which he did unto none of his other children besides and withall he gave him one portion above his brethren which he took out of the hand of the Amorite with his sword and with his bow vers 22. besides the parcell of ground in Shechem where Joseph was buried And it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph Josh 24.32 which was also a prerogative above his other brethren Secondly because Jacob blessed Josephs children before he blessed his own children Genes 48.16 c. Thirdly because Jacob blessed both Joseph in his children and his children in his blessing and blessed none of his childrens children by name separately and particularly but Josephs children onely though divers of them had little ones before Jacob went into Egypt Genes 46.5 and Joseph himself Jacob blessed with the blessings of the breasts and of the wombe Genes 49.25 Which words as they do promise a kinde of fruitfulnesse which was taken from Ephraim by barrennesse when it was said Hosea 9.14 Give them a miscarrying wombe and drie breasts so I remember not that ever the posteritie of Joseph had extraordinarie number of issue above other tribes answerable to Jacobs extraordinarie blessing but Judah and his ofspring onely had more men of warre from twentie yeares old and upward then both the tribes of Ephraim and Manassch Num. 1.26 33 35. and therefore in all likelihood had more children from twentie yeares downward Which words I say viz. The blessings of the breasts and of the wombe as they may in a second sense imply a numerous ofspring so in the first sense I conjecture they pointed at the primo-geniture of Joseph and his children Sure I am the birth-right was given to the sonnes of Joseph 1. Chron. 5.1 and the birth-right was Josephs vers 2. and perhaps even in this point Jacobs blessings prevailed above the blessings of his progenitours Genes 49.26 For Abraham prayed once that his first-born sonne by his concubine might be blessed O that Ishmael might live before thee saith he to God Gen. 17.18 and Isaac would have blessed his first-born Esau Make me savourie meat such as I love and bring it to me that I may eat that my soul may blesse thee before I die saith Isaac to Esau Genes 27.4 though before-hand Esau had sold his birth-right unto Jacob Genes 25.33 Neither Abraham nor Isaac prevailed in their wishes but Jacobs blessings prevailed above the blessings of his progenitours because whom he desired to blesse God blessed and he gave by Gods allowance the primo-geniture to Joseph whom he loved and to whom in some regard it was due before Reuben I return to the old matter and opine That when a batcheler marrieth with a widow which had had a sonne by her former husband her first man-childe by the second husband was not a first-born nor so accounted in the law And if after a woman had had seven husbands and daughters onely by each of these she had been married also unto the eighth husband and should have a sonne by him though he had had divers sonnes before by other women yet this his sonne by this woman is in the eye of the law a right first-born childe and sacred to the Lord and to be redeemed not with the generall redemption of every male half a shekel of which I spake before but with the particular redemptions of the first-born Redemptions were of two sorts the first is expressed Numb 3.45 where the Levites are taken in stead of all the first-born and the cattell of the Levites in stead of their cattell And because there were two hundred and seventy more of the first-born sonnes of the Israelites then all the male Levites came unto every one of those odde 270 paid five shekels to the Lord for their redemption which summe of five shekels was ever after during the Law the price of the redemption of the first-born sonne Numbers 18.16 which was the second kinde of redemption I cannot omit to shew the means which God used to prevent the cosenage about things consecrated They were to do no work with the first-born bullock nor to shear their first-born sheep Deuter. 15.19 It is also remarkable first that Pharaoh commanded the midwives of the Hebrews Exod. 1.16 If it be a sonne ye shall kill him and gave in charge after to all the Egyptians his subjects Every sonne that is born ye shall cast into the river and every daughter ye shall save alive vers 22. Secondly that Moses was the sonne of a Levite exposed to the danger of the water and therefore called Moses because he was drawn forth Exod. 2. and after called by God to revenge this wrong and others upon Pharaoh Among which plagues this was a great one to slay their first-born and as the just retaliation used by God in other things yea in this was not to destroy their daughters but their sonnes so in his mercy he would not destroy all their males but the first-born onely which you must not understand of their daughters though they were first-born but onely of their males For when it is said Psal 78.51 He smote all the first-born in Egypt the chief of their strength you cannot imagine that women were the chief of their strength but the men onely And God taught the people to say Exod. 13.15 The Lord slew all the first-born c. therefore I sacrifice unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix being males And as the first-born males onely were sacrificed so onely were the first-born males redeemed And accordingly all
were ancient lords of this citie and if we served not them shall we serve Abimelech Where Gaal said Who is Abimelech and who is Sychem The Septuagint have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who is the sonne of Sychem But whether there were at this present in the reigne of Abimelech one Sychem living and in high account descended from the ancient Sychem who was pointed at in these words Who is Sychem or whether any of Sychem his posteritie otherwise named are here called Shechem or whether Gaal made this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 augmentation Who is Abimelech yea Who was Shechem himself for the word will bear it in the Originall that we should serve him Which way soever it be the place proveth that Hamor was the father of Shechem for so run the words afterwards in the same verse Serve the men of Hamor the father of Shechem Again if the words may be thus translated Quis est Abimelech quae est Shechem as both the Interlinearie and Tremellius reade it the sense may be Abimelech is not so great and the citie of Shechem is not so dejected so forgetfull of its old libertie as to serve Abimelech Our old Bishops Bibles reade it What is Abimelech and what is Sychem Serve such as come of Hemor the father of Sychem and in the margin is set Genes 34.24 Moreover Junius in his Arabick translation on the Acts chap. 7. observeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sychem is neither in the Arabick nor Syriack nor some Greek copies and Beda in his Commentaries cited by Lorinus saith that for filii Sychem it is read in some copies qui fuit in Sychem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was in or of Sychem accordingly Junius in his notes on the Syriack Act. 7. saith thus What is read in the Greek viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may fitly be expounded by an Hebraism and the name of the Prince of that citie may be understood as if he had said Which he bought of the sonnes of Hemor the Prince of Sychem Beza indeed saith It may be read with the Vulgat the sonnes of Sychem because the Greek Ellipsis useth to be so supplied but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may as well be interpreted Patris Sychem The father of Sychem You have the like instance Luk. 24.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marie the mother of James as the Syriack there expresseth it Another proof of the like kinde is Mark 15.40 So I expound it here The sonnes of Hamor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the father of Sychem Thus much for the fourth couplet of Propositions and the knitting up of that seeming opposition in a reall accordance That Hemor or Hamor was the father of Sychem as above all deniall is proved from Josh 24.32 though the Greek word used by S. Stephen be amphibolous And now it is time to leave the severall answers to each particular doubt and to render the sense of the words together 5. One of these two wayes is in my opinion necessarie to be embraced First that the twelve Patriarchs the sonnes of Jacob were carried out of Egypt into Sychem and afterwards out of Sychem into the sepulchre of Abraham And then behold these three difficulties First their father of whom Abraham bought the ground must have two names Secondly it is hard and harsh to beleeve that in the removall of the Patriarchs bones the Israelites would carrie them over to Sychem and so passe by Hebron close to the Abrahemium or the cave where Abraham Isaac and Jacob with their wives were buried and afterwards remove the bones back again from Sychem unto the sepulchre which Abraham bought which is sixscore miles if not more if we measure from Hebron to Sychem and so backward from Sychem to Hebron Calvarie and the citie of Jerusalem lay almost even in the way from Goshen to Sychem and from Sychem back to Hebron And on Calvarie or there abouts certainly they would have deposed their bones if they desired the translation of them to rise with Christ Thirdly this exposition implieth since Joseph was one of the Fathers that Joseph was also buried in the sepulchre of Abraham which is disproved by Josh 24.32 And yet that we may make this Exposition passable and probable let us consider the answers The first difficultie is cleared by saying It is an usuall thing in the Scripture for the same man to have two names as Solomon is called Jedidiah 2. Sam. 12.25 and the like To the second difficultie this answer may be shaped That though we could see no reason nor could imagine any end why they should carrie and recarrie these bones yet reasons and just motives might then lead them which we now may be ignorant of But I take it as evident that the Israelites sooner and more quickly possessed the tribe of Ephraim and the citie of Sychem and therefore there might they leave their bones for a time then Hebron or Jerusalem For Joshuah in his time called a Parliament or a Diet at Sychem Josh 24.1 and the Ephraimites peaceably enjoyed their inheritance in Joshuah his dayes and the Canaanites served under tribute unto them Josh 16.10 But after Joshuah his death they wan Jerusalem and Hebron Judg. 1.8 10. and then they might recarry the bones of the Fathers to the Abrahemium by Hebron The third knot is loosed if we may say that all the Fathers were carried into Abrahams cave who had not a distinct buriall-place of their own as Joseph had who accordingly was not buried by Hebron but by Sychem 6. The second way of expounding S. Stephen according as the words lie in the Greek and Latine copies is this That the other Patriarchs the sonnes of Jacob were buried by Sychem as Joseph was and their bones brought up with his when the Israelites came out of Egypt and laid in the sepulchre which Jacob the grandchilde of Abraham bought for a summe of money of the sonnes of Hemor the father of Sychem as is expressely said Josh 24.32 Which latter way for the accordance of words and names both in the Old and New Testament I do most willingly embrace For it representeth not unto us so many or so great difficulties yea none at all since it was not so strange that the word Abraham should be a patronymick and used for Jacob especially when Rehoboam is called David and the sonne of Jesse and Abraham is said to be the father of Levi which Jacob was and the Israelites are termed Joseph Psal 81.5 though most of them descended not from him and they who ascended out of Egypt issued from Joseph after divers generations In two of which places most punctually as well as here the grandfathers names are put for the grandchildren Especially let this be throughly considered that the grandchilde himself is distinctly described in other places of the divine storie to have bought the same ground of the sonnes of Hemor about Sychem for an hundred pieces of money Gen. 33.19 and the grandfather Abraham
as Hierom styleth them will hardly beleeve 3. Bellarmine de Rom. Pontif. 3.6 draweth the second and third part of his third demonstration from two places of Ecclesiasticus The first is Chap. 48. vers 10. Who wast ordained for reproofs in their times to pacifie the wrath of the Lords judgement before it brake forth into furie and to turn the heart of the father unto the sonne and to restore or establish the tribes of Israel First I may answer Ecclesiasticus is not held Canonicall but Apocryphall even by such as for the many divine and admirable things in that book could wish if it were no sinne to wish that it were truely Canonicall And Apocryphals are not held sufficient to settle a point of controversie Secondly it may be also said that Jansenius maintaineth this place evinceth not that Elias shall come personally because Ecclesiasticus wrote according to the received opinion of those times which from the words of Malachi beleeved that Elias was to come in his own proper person Bellarmines reply upon Jansenius is shallow in this point saying d Si it à est ut Jansenius dicit sequitur Ecclesiasticum errâsse falsa scripsisse If Jansenius saith truth it followeth that Ecclesiasticus hath erred and writ some false things as if he who writeth the opinion of others may not relate an errour and write false things though he erre not himself nor beleeveth the false things S. Matthew chap. 2.6 wrote what the Jews said concerning the place of Christs birth the things were miscited and yet no errour or fault in S. Matthew The Spirit of truth hath written that The fool hath said in his heart There is no God Because the fool thought foolishly and untruly God forbid that we should turn fools also and think that the holy Ghost did erre because he truely recordeth an untrue opinion or an untrue thing true onely in the relation This have I said to defend both Jansenius and Ecclesiasticus against Bellarmine Thirdly I might answer Onely these last words have the shadow of an argument To restore or to establish the tribes of Israel which because John did not do Elias must do hereafter For indeed it is but a shadow since as John the Baptist did turn the heart of the father unto the sonne as was before proved so he may be also said to establish or restore the tribes of Israel not to any temporall kingdome which cannot be proved to be intended by Ecclesiasticus for in Malachi there is altum silentium not a word spoken concerning this point but to the true service of God from which they were fallen for he preached unto some of all sorts of the two tribes of the ten tribes yea of the Gentiles There went out unto John Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan Mat. 3.5 and Jordan divided Galilee from Judea yea Christ himself came from Galilee to John to be baptized Matth. 3.13 And he taught both Publicans and Souldiers and Herod and some of all sorts thereabouts Luk. 3.13 14. c. and thus did he restore or establish the tribes of Israel The Bishops Bible hath the controverted words thus To set up the tribes of Israel So Coverdale Vt constitueres tribus Jacob saith Tremellius according to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated also by the Interlinearie ad constituendum or as Vatablus ad constituendas tribus Jacob to establish the tribes of Israel Many are the significations of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but no where doth it signifie to restore unto a dispersed people their lost kingdome which is the hope of the Jews or the exposition of the Jewishly affected nor is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so expounded otherwhere either in the Septuagint or in the New Testament or in any classicall Authour It is rendred usually by constituere Restituere is a black swan But mine own opinion is that Ecclesiasticus prophesieth not what should be thereafter viz. after the day of his writing either concerning John or Elias but onely relateth what was past and it is an Eulogie and laudatorie of Elias his worth as appeareth by the antecedent and consequent narratives where all runnes in terms designing out times passed and gone none touching at the present tense or time much lesse at the future and so it can be no prophesie concerning Elias personally to come hereafter especially since there is never a passage in Ecclesiasticus concerning Elias which Elias did not accomplish before his assumption and more particularly he reconciled God to his children the Israelites and turned their hearts to him Thus did he restore or establish the tribes of Israel in his time for 1. King 18.21 Elias said unto all the people that were gathered out of Israel How long will ye halt between two opinions if the Lord be God follow him but if Baal then follow him And then by miracle under God he established them or restored the tribes to the right religion from which they were fallen by idolatrie the fall of all falls fowlest Even Bellarmine himself expounds Restituerunt they restored by Converterunt they converted in this very chapter thus farre truely proving that Zuinglius and Luther were not the Enoch and Elias prophesied of because Elias was to convert the Jews and indeed converted many as I proved before which neither Luther nor Zuinglius did for ought that I have read 4. The second place insisted upon by Bellarmine is Ecclesiasticus 44.16 Enoch was translated being an example of repentance to all generations The Septuagint have it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Translatus est exemplum poenitentiae generationibus He was translated being an example of repentance to following generations saith the Interlinearie Nationibus to the nations saith Vatablus Vt det Gentibus sapientiam that he may give wisdome to the Gentiles saith the Vulgat edition printed by Petrus Santandreanus 1614 and it hath in the margin Poenitentiam repentance But to leave that varietie the Vulgat is not properly translated for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gentibus to the Gentiles as opposed to the Jews but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Posteris or Generationibus to future posteritie And if it were Gentibus as Bellarmine readeth it yet it maketh the more against him who would have Enoch and especially Elias do greater things for the Jews then for the Gentiles Lastly it is not so much as intended by any word of Ecclesiasticus that Enoch shall hereafter appeare in the flesh personally and then die and be an example of repentance to the Nations for after he had so long pleased God and walked with God in this world and after he was taken by God from amongst men and no doubt much more then pleased God and walked with God if he should come again into this world here to live should he sinne again that he might be an example of repentance The conceit is vast harsh and improbable if the
corporum non animarum You shall discern by the manifest circumstances of the place that Moses meaneth some place under the earth fitted or appointed as receptacles of bodies not of souls saith Doctour Raynolds Herein I must needs dissent And first I say What is this a Locus corporum place of bodies It must be either the grave or hell or let him designe us out a third place A third place he cannot name especially for humane bodies Some held concerning infants That in regard of their innocencie they are to have eternall life but because they were not baptized they should not be with Christ in his kingdome But Augustine saith That Christ himself confuted b istam nescio quam medietatem De peccator Merit Remis 1.28 this new-invented middle or third mansion and as he said a little before more generally c Nec est ulluâ— ulli medius locus ut possit essâ— nisi cum diabolo qâ—â— non est cum Christo It is impossible for any man to be in any middle place but he must needs be with the devil who is not with Christ so do I say of this Locus corporum It is either hell or the grave Tertium locum penitus ignoramus We know no third place The Papists erre to establish a Purgatorie for the soul besides hell and heaven And Doctour Raynolds doth not well to mention so often a Locus corporum where he ought to name Where it is and What bodies go into it Secondly it is plain that their souls did sinne their souls were punished and went down to hell Doth not the Apostle S. Jude vers 11. speak of such as perished in the gainsaying of Korah to whom not the wo of a sudden death is denounced but vers 13. the blacknesse of darknesse for ever is reserved doth not the place stand fair for the damnation of Korah and his fellows Though Doctour Raynolds minceth it in this doubtfull manner d Non inflcior quin eorum auimae si sint mortui pertinaces in scelerata sua obstinatione adjudicatae sint inferis cum Divite I denie not but their souls if they died obstinate in their wicked rebellion were adjudged to the hell where Dives was Again when the Scripture saith Si creationem creaverit Dominus Numb 16.30 If the Lord shall make a new thing or a strange thing as new almost as strange to sight almost as is the creation for I take so much to be implyed in that unusuall phrase what reason hath that grave Doctour to say e Illud quod propriè notatur in verbis DescenderÃntque viventes in infernum nihil est aliud quà m horribile tremendum judicium Dei divinitus illis inflictum iri ut cùm alii priùs moriantur quà m sepeliantur ipsi quasi vivi sepeliantur That which is properly meant by the words IF THEY GO DOWN QVICK INTO HELL is nothing else but that the horrible and dreadfull judgement of God divinely shall be inflicted on them viz. in such sort that whereas others first die and then are buried these shall be buried as it were alive Why so reservedly and cautelously is it added As it were alive Again e Locus fuit corporum non animarum in quem descenderunt Corah Dathan Abiram It was the place of bodies and not of souls into which Korah Dathan and Abiram descended as if their souls were in the place appointed for bodies which he further parallelleth with the burying alive of the deflowred Vestall virgins though he ought to distinguish between the extraordinary miraculous hand of God and the ordinary justice of men in such cases And the Vestall virgins were farre longer ere they died then Korah and his companie ere they were swallowed up Let the judicious reader ponder these words of that famous Doctour Is nothing else and Shall be buried as it were alive and Korah Dathan and Abiram descended not into the place of souls though the souls of all wicked men do so and their souls by his reason should have more priviledge then other wicked mens and I dare say he will think that Doctour Raynolds might more safely have held the other opinion That their souls and bodies went alive to hell properly so called That Moses denoteth the place of bodies I denie not for even that place is in hell for all the bodies of the wicked in due time and for these mens bodies extraordinarily before the generall judgement But I am loth to say Moses meant not the place of souls I am loth to entertain a thought That the Rebels themselves did repent for if they did so they are saved I would be loth to flee from rationable probabilitÃe to possibilitie which hath a farre-stretched almightie arm and to say as he doth g Fieri potest ut quidam eorum aut offines illi culpae non fuerint aut si fuerint poenitentiam egerint It may be that some of them were not faultie or if they were repented That they repented who were swallowed up alive seems not agreeable to S. Jude who ver 11. pronounceth a fearfull wo against such as are like unto them and perished in the gainsaying of Korah In which wo not temporall bodily punishment alone but eternall torment of the soul is included Compare the words with 2. Pet. 2.12 Moreover none dares denie the possibilitie of repentance but who can think it probable That God would send such an extraordinarie punishment on such as were innocent or repented when as the children of that Luciferian Arch-rebel Korah were exempted from that destruction Numb 26.11 Notwithstanding the children of Korah died not yea were eminent and famous among the Levites Were over the work of the service keepers of the gates of the Tabernacle and their fathers were over the hoste of the Lord and the Lord was with them 1. Chron. 9.19 c. And they were either excellent Musicians or Singers or Pen-men for Divine Service as may be collected from many Psalmes intituled To the sonnes of Korah as Psal 42. Psal 44. Psal 87. And when the Scripture saith They descended alive into the pit I would be loth to varie the phrase as he doth h Si sint mortui pertinaces If they died in their obstinacie I denie not but in a large sense they may be said to die and the Scripture saith They should not die the common death of all men Numb 16.29 yet also They descended alive into the pit which cannot be better reconciled then to say The state of their bodies was changed immortalitie swallowed up their mortalitie in the act of their descending or passion rather if you will so call it There was no true separation between their souls and their bodies and therefore they died not their change notwithstanding may be reputed for a death which perhaps also shall be the case of all the wicked who shall be alive at Christs second and glorious coming
cannot be executed without the glorifying of souls and bodies of his servants we may well think it pleased God to give to the old world a pledge or two of the generall glorification of the bodies of his Saints by the particular performance of the same to the bodies of Enoch and Elias whom he assumed up into heaven by way of especiall favour To this I may adde That Enoch and Elijahs raptures being types of Christs ascension since Christ ascended in a glorified and immortall bodie the shadows must be like the substance and therefore they ascended in glorified immortall bodies Suarez is driven to a great exigent They were onely saith he n in statu merendi potuerunt in gratia crescere c. in a state in which they might merit and increase in grace till the time in which they were translated And as they were translated they were so confirmed in grace that they can commit no sinne And to their old estate of meriting shall they return when they shall live again amongst men But who ever heard of such turnings and returnings in any other men or Angels or that their estate shall be changed from o A non posse peccare ad posse peccare an estate wherein they cannot sinne to an estate in which they may sinne and so backward For supposing they shall live again and die again if they can merit they can also sinne whilest they live among men and so when they die and have their reward in heaven this shall be no small part of it p Non posse peccare To have no power to sinne But this opinion somewhat resembleth the diversified estate of devils who shall be saved after the generall judgement as Origen feigned and fabled and which the Church hath branded for erroneous And now I see I have fallen before I was aware upon the fourth and last question by me propounded Whether Enoch and Elias shall ever die or do live with glorified bodies in the highest heavens which also I have answered at large That they never shall die but do and shall live in glorified bodies Tertullian I confesse said concerning Elias at the Transfiguration q Apparuit in veritate carâ—is nondum defunctae He appeared in true flesh which had never been separated from its soul and more punctually de Anima cap. 50. r Translatus est Enoch Elias nec mors eorum reperta est dilata scilicet Morituri reservantur ut Antichristum sanguine suo extinguant Enoch and Elias were translated nor is their death recorded or known it being adjourned they are kept and preserved that they may die hereafter and by their bloud overthrow and extinguish Antichrist as Baronius cites him And the more common opinion of the Papists is That they two shall be slain and they prove it by Rev. 11.7 When the two witnesses shall have finished their testimonie the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomlesse pit shall overcome and kill them The three other places of Scripture on which Bellarmine built his third demonstration that Antichrist is not come because Enoch and Elias are not yet come are answered before This last place and passage of Scripture used by Bellarmine de Romano Pontif. 3.6 cometh now to be examined and you shall finde it thus well winnowed by Bishop Andrews in his Answer to Cardinall Bellarmines Apologie Cap. 11. That the two witnesses are the two Testaments as Beda Primasius Augustinus and Ticonius are Authours S. Hilarius rejecteth Enoch and puts Moses in his room and that very peremptorily Though many have substituted Jeremie in Enochs room saith Hilarie on Matth. Can. 20. S. Hierom the next Father cited by Bellarmine is not constant enough for Elias which I touched at before and Rupertus on Malach. 4. testifieth so much of Hierom and Bullinger in Apocal. lib. 3. v. 3. saith S. Hierom esteemeth them to be Jews and Jewish hereticks who think Elias shall come again Lactantius cited by Bellarmine in his Apologie nameth neither Enoch nor Elias And Chrysostom Theodoret Origen and Primasius say nothing of Enoch Hippolytus for the two witnesses brings in three one whereof is S. John the Divine and indeed he is more likely to be one of the witnesses then Enoch for unto him it was said Revel 10.11 Thou must prophesie again before many peoples and nations and tongues and kings but no such thing was said to Enoch Others say Elizeus shall be one of the two witnesses Hieronymus saith r Nisi quis spiritualiter intelligat hunc locum Apocalypsews Judaicis ei fabulis acquiescendum est In Epist ad Marcellum Vnlesse a man understand this place of the Revelation spiritually he must needs settle and rest on Jewish fables Maldonate on the 17 of Matthew and his learned Interpreter saith It is so cleare a matter that Moses and Elias shall come that none but a rash and impudent man can denie it Thus much Bishop Andrews in his Answer to the place of the Revelation against Bellarmines Apologie who vaunted of a cloud of Fathers which cloud is vanished almost into nothing Much more of great worth and consequence hath that Reverend Bishop in the same 11 chapter concerning Enoch and Elias living in glorified bodies to whom I referre the Reader And this shall suffice to have spoken of Enoch and of Elias against Bellarmines third demonstration as he calleth it that Antichrist is not yet come Every part and parcell of which proof is so weak and so farre from concluding apodictically that they scarce deserve a place among probable arguments And thus is the second main branch of my answers made good and manifested That some have been excepted from death viz. Enoch and Elias though it be objected that It is appointed for men to die The third part of my answer followeth That others also shall be excepted O Fountain of life and preserver of men to whom belong also the issues of death I have deserved to die the first and second death I have provoked thy long-suffering I am no more worthy to be called thy sonne Lord make me as one of thy hired servants and put me to what labour to what pain soever within me without me so long as pleaseth thee onely I beseech thee for the blessed mediation of thy dearely beloved onely Sonne Jesus Christ my Saviour give me grace not to faint under the burthens appointed and at the end of the day at my lives end vouchsafe to give me a penie among thy labourers and eternall life among thy chosen Amen CHAP. III. 1. Some others hereafter shall be excepted from death The change may be accounted in a generall large sense a kinde of death The Papists will have a reall proper death Aquinas an incineration This is disproved 1. Thessal 4.17 which place is handled at large The rapture of the godly is sine media morte without death The resurrection is of all together The righteous prevent not the
the same epistle said Some shall not die but be snatcht out of this life that with changed and glorified bodies they might be with Christ Chrysostom on the 10. to the Romanes and on 1. Thess 4. and upon this place to the Corinthians saith Some shall escape death With him agreeth Epiphanius Haeresi 64. saying k Qui rapitur nondum mortuus est Who is suddenly snatched up is not yet dead And before them Origen lib. 2. contra Celsum so opineth Theophylact on 1. Corinth 15. thus l Etiam qui non morientur ad incorruptibilitatem transferentur Even they who shall not die shall be transchanged out of this corruptible life to incorruptibilitie And again m Nonnulli nè morientur quidem Some indeed shall not die at all To that effect S. Hierom in his epistle to Marcella quaest 3. num 148. and in his epistle to Minerius and Alexander bringeth the saying of Christ Matth. 24.37 c. of the dayes of Noah when the floud swept them away as they were eating and drinking to prove that at the last judgement some shall not die Theodoret evinceth the same truth producing the passage of Matth. 24.40 of two in the field one assumed the other rejected And Chrysostom in his Sermon de Ascensione Domini instanceth in the verse following of two in a mill one refused the other accepted which proofs aim at this That all shall not die Cajetan is rich in proofs That all shall not die See him on Act. 10. upon Timoth. 4. upon 1. Corinth 15. upon 1. Thessal 4. Tertullians words must not be omitted in his book de resurrectione carnis n Hujus gratiae privilegium illos manet qui ab adventu Domini deprehendentur in carne propter duritias temporum Antichristi merebuntur compendio mortis per demutationem expunctae concurrere cum resurgentibus This gracious priviledge belongs unto those who at the coming of our Lord and Saviour to judgement shall be found alive upon earth and for the grievous afflictions and pressures of the times under Antichrist they shall have granted unto them this indulgence That they shall not die but shall be suddenly changed and so go to meet Christ together with those which shall then be raised from the dead Salmeron being peremptorie That all and every one shall die properly upon 1. Thessal 4. hath a wilde crotchet That all who shall be alive toward the end of the world shall be consumed with the fire of conflagration which shall go before Christ and so dead and raised shall be snatched up But S. Augustine de Civitat Dei 20.16 setting down the order of the last judgement saith The fire of conflagration shall be after the last judgement I will close this point with the sound and learned words of Calvin which fully accord with what I rested on in the beginning of this chapter upon 1. Corinth 15. o Cùm mutatio fieri nequeat quin aboleatur prior natura ipsa mutatio meritò censetur species mortis sed cùm non sit animae à corpore solutio non reputatur in morte ordinaria Since there cannot be a change saith he but the former nature must be abolished the very change on good grounds may justly be accounted a kinde of death but since there is not a separation of the soul from the bodie it is not to be reputed as if it were the common and ordinarie death Upon 1. Thessal 4. he wittily observeth that they p Qui dormiunt aliquo temporis spatio exuunt corporis substantiam qui innovabuntur non nisi qualitatem who are dead or do die for some space of time or other longer or shorter their souls put off the substantiall clothing of the bodie or flesh but they who shall be changed shall put off onely the qualitie not the substance The summe of all is this The third main question by me at first propounded was Whether all and every one without exception must and shall die The Papists are obstinate for the affirmative I have proved the negative That some may be some have been and some others shall be excepted and not die And so I end my third and last Chapter of my third book of Miscellanies O Most gracious Lord God who hast committed all judgement to thy onely sonne our onely Lord and Saviour I beseech thee to have pitie upon me and for Jesus Christ his sake receive me into thy especiall favour O blessed JESU accept of these my poore and weak endeavours and receive my prayers and present them with mercie to the throne of Grace hasten thy coming and thy kingdome Come sweet JESU come quickly and prepare my soul to meet thee with joy If it be thy holy will let me be one of them that shall be changed and changed to the better from pain to comfort from sicknesse sorrow and labour to rest and blessednesse eternall Amen Amen Amen VNI-TRINO DEO LAVS ET GLORIA FINIS An Alphabeticall Table of the principall things contained in these three Books of Miscellanies A ABortion is a curse Book 1. pag. 103. Two kindes of Abortives ibid. pag. 98 99. Adams body was created immortall and how ibid. p. 11. Adams body was framed of other dust then the dust of Paradise ibid. p. 16. viz. out of the red earth of ager Damascenus ibid. p. 85. Book 2. p. 23. The contrarie disposition of Elements had not caused a dissolution of Adams body had Adam stood Book 1. p. 17 to 28. The naturall temper and constitution of Adams body in state of innocencie ibid. p. 18 and 20. Whether if Adam and Eve had stood confirmed in innocencie any of their children could have sinned ibid. p. 44 to 54. The endowments of Adam in state of innocencie ib. p. 55 56. Whether Adam and Eve foreknew their fall ibid. p. 59. Whether Adam and Eves sinne were the same ibid. p. 61. Whether of their sinnes were the greater ibid. p. 62 65 to 73. where also of Adams first sinne by which he fell ibid. Adam mourned 100 yeares for the murdered Abel ibid. p. 85 87. Adam was a type of Christ therefore saved ibid. Adam was buried in Golgotha and his skull found upon mount Calvary Book 2. from p. 13 to 29. Whether Adam could naturally understand all languages ibid. p. 47 48. Amphibologie prejudiciall to truth Book 1. p. 2. Angels fell the second instant of their creation ib. p. 108 and 126. Christ merited for Angels ib. p. 189 190. Angels representing men are called men in the Scripture Book 2. chap. 16. Apocryphall books too much slighted Book 2. p. 145. They are to be preferred before any other humane Authours Book 3. p. 183. Of the diverse Appointment of things by God Book 1. p. 2 3. The Apostles represented the whole body of Christs Ministers ibid. p. 147 148. The Apostles were none of them learned before their calling Book 2. p. 87 88. Aristotle and Plato