and the other Sacred Writings of Moses perhaps also books of other men to which he alluded and yet there was no writing before the Law Concerning the book Numb 21.14 suppose the word runne in the present tense Dicitur It is said in the book of the Warres of the Lord yet it is expounded by the Chaldee as of a thing past What God did in the Red Sea and in the brooks of Arnon which latter clause necessarily implyeth that the book was written after the Law for The battle of Arnon was the fourtieth yeare after their Exodus saith a Jew by Vatablus his commendation very eminent Or say it be read as Robert Stephen in his Annotations on the Pentateuch gathered from the Kings Professours at Paris hath it Sicut fecitin Mari Rubro sic faciet in torrentibus Arnon which sense Cornelius à Lapide embraceth yet those words evince that the book was written since their going out of Egypt which was but fourty dayes before the giving of the Law saith Helvicus But indeed first the word Sepher doth not alwayes signifie a book but sometimes a Narrative of things past whereupon Tremellius readeth it Idcirco dici solet IN RECENSIONE BELLORUM JEHOVAE And so others have held saith Vatablus plainly denying that there was ever any such especiall book of warres Others read it in the future It shall be read and thereupon some of the Jews think it is the Book of Judges which handleth the Warre with Amalek or another book which recounted the miracles of God in the Red Sea and by the river Arnon which book perhaps is now perished as divers others of the holy Scriptures and amongst them a book made by Samuel 1 Samuel 10.25 Which I wondred that neither Drusius nor any who handled the controversies whom I could yet meet with ever observed before me And indeed Jeamar is the future tense It shall be said or it shall be written So Vatablus the Interlineary Eugubinus and the Genevians So the words are rather propheticall then historicall and so no particular book of the warres of the Lord was written before the two Tables Lastly that I may leave no objection unanswered adde this to the answer of S. Augustine That Christ speaking of a prophesie in Paradise concerning himself doth not say It was written before Moses but It is written by Moses of me John 5.46 Moreover if we can read the Hebrew now without vowels much easier and better could they whose daily speech it was The necessity of pronouncing the consonaÌ„ts by the vowels evinceth not the writing of consonaÌ„ts the necessity of writing the Hebrew tongue by consonants evinceth not the necessity of writingvowels they may be of a later invention Secondly saith he * Quum duae linguae Syriaca Arabica quae ab Hebraea ortae sunt vocales habeant ut ex libris manuscriptis impressis apparet Matrem uempe Hebraeam illis carere verisimile non est Seeing that the two tongues the Syriack and the Arabick which came from the Hebrew have vowels as it appeares out of manuscripts and printed books it is not likely that the Mother-tongue to wit the Hebrew wants them I answer it followeth not Because the Syriack Arabick have now points therefore they had ever so when they were written and if they had ever points it is likely they invented them and added them to their consonants the rather because the Hebrew wanted them Thirdly * Quâ Linguâ Deus Sacra sua oracula promulgavit banc certam miniméque ambiguant esse necessariò statuendum est We must needs hold that tongue to be certain and no way ambiguous or doubtfull in which God hath published his sacred Oracles I answer Then God should have writ in any other language for the Hebrew of all other is most dubious and ambiguous And whereas he addeth That the Hebrew without vowels hath no certain signification but from the antecedent and consequent and admitteth three foure or five significations according to the diversity of vowels I answer the antecedents and consequents are guides sufficient and God did it purposely to exercise our wits and to make us know that though in things necessary to salvation the Scripture is easy yet in some matters there are depths not to be sounded in others The lips of the Priest should keep knowledge and they should seek the law at his mouth Malach. 2.7 which the unlearned scorn now adayes to do though there be much ambiguitie but how bold-daring self-willed would they be if there were no difficulties I return from the words to the matter and say That as the strong births of the wombe are a blessing of God whether in women or in beasts Deuter. 30.9 So an abortion is a curse and abortives I mean that had life and reasonable souls by the ordinary rules of Genes 17.14 when Circumcision was in force and of John 3.3 whilest Baptisme is in force is a fearfull estate Howsoever God may dispense with his own Law and shew mercy extraordinarily yet David when he wished his enemies to be like abortives wished them no good but evill yea if he did not curse them but foretold what they should be like and that they were not the words of imprecation but prediction yet he did not fore-divine or fore-prophesie any good estate to them whom he likeneth to abortives Let this suffice concerning abortives incapable of sinne or punishment and abortives whose estate of soul is dangerous being measured by the rules of precepts Which I say against Anabaptists and the contemners or causelesse delayers of that gracious Sacrament 5 It is now supposed and shall if it please God hereafter be demonstrated That humane souls are not traducted nor causally brought out of the flesh yet are they occasionally that I may touch at the manner God having resolved and decreed after generation and fit organization of the Embryo to create and infuse a reasonable soul which soul because it is united to a masse corrupted in such a manner as a spiritlesse masse may be corrupted or rather to a masse inclining or inducing to corruption in the very unition it contracteth originall sinne Hugo Eterianus thus descanteth on this point * Cum anima languore afficitur non voluntate non necessitate sed solâ societate peroellitur si voluntate corrumperetur anima non originale sed actuale peccatum censeretur si necessitate câ—deret von ultrà esset imputandum illud vitium Hugo Eter de Animarum regressu ab Inferis cap. 4. When the soul languisheth it is neither cast down by the will nor by necessity but onely by fellowship if the soul were corrupted by the will it should not be counted originall sinne but actuall if it should fall by necessitie that vice were no further to be imputed Concerning the latter part I answer if in his necessity he imply coaction he saith true otherwise by this concurrence of our condescending will in Adam or by
good or God saw that it was good as he did at all and every of the other five dayes creation Was it therefore not good Yes verily for Gen. 1.31 God saw every thing that he had made and behold it was very good John 14.16 c. The Comforter shall abide with you for ever even the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive because it seeth him not neither knoweth him but ye know him for he dwelleth with you and shall be in you And verse 26. The Comforter shall teach you all things Therefore he shall teach them to write truely the Spirit of truth will not suffer them to write falsly whilest he dwelleth with them and in them as he did when they wrote Inspiration was ordained as a cause and as a means of right conceiving conceiving or apprehension was appointed as a cause and a means of right expression expression was either by word or writing Many words were prophetically and most divinely spoken which were not written not so many were written as were first spoken The vocall expression was more transient and transitorie perhaps concerning some few and those onely of those times the expression permanent and by writing was and is directorie to mankinde to the end of the world Inspiration apprehension and much expression by voice were all as means to this main end that there might be a Scripture Shall the means be certain unerring and inerrable and shall the end be dubious crooked and erring The perfect use of the right means leads on infallibly to an undeceiving and exact end If the Divine Pen-men could not erre or be misled in the former which someâ—imes vanished leaving no footsteps behinde them it is not possible that they should erre in writing which is the master-piece of that divine work lasting for ever the absolute square and judge and canon of all mens thoughts words and deeds unlesse you say God had lesse care to preserve from corruption divine records filed up on eviternitie and necessarie at all times for all persons in all places as the Scriptures now are then he had of inspirations which ended onely in the apprehension if they were not expressed or turned into aire and vanished almost with the breath if they were onely spoken Nor let any man say that writing is further removed from the divine operation then inspiration was and so more subject to errour for it shall appeare ere long that the same Spirit which began by inspiration sat still moving on the waters not leaving his own work till there was a perfect production till the end was accomplished and the will of God was written in words and letters of truth so that not one Iota or tittle had any errour Yea let me go one step further and say that when the Apostles did dictate to their scribes actuaries or secretaries not onely not themselves but not their notaries could erre And yet I have read of two mad stories crosse to my opinion the one in Sixtus Senensis Bibliothecae sanctae 2. pag. 120. on the name Tertius who recordeth out of Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus that this Tertius being no excellent speaker nor writer made the obscure Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes to be more obscure whilest he laboured to expresse S. Pauls thoughts and sense by more confused and unabsolute sentences and transposed explications As if S. Paul could not write sufficiently himself though he said in humblenesse Rudis sermone sum I am rude in speech 2. Cor. 11.6 yet was he powerfull in writing 2. Cor. 10.10 As if he had not divers most sufficient scribes by him As if he would permit the writing of so divine super-divine an Epistle to an Ignaro a silly fellow As if Tertius himself wrote not this Epistle in the Lord that is by divine authoritie or as Cajetan thinketh these words In the Lord are added to shew that he did not write it as an hireling which sense is made good by some authorities according to the diversitie of punctation As if the Spirit who inspired Paul dictating ruled not the hand of Tertius writing As if S. Paul would make so block-headed a disciple as Tertius is feigned to be to be his scribe and that in his most majesticall and obscurest Epistle Or if Tertius were so that he should be thought worthy to be Iconii Episcopus and have that extraordinarie grace to be crowned with Martyrdome as Ecclesiasticall historie recordeth of him As if S. Peter whom Paul withstood for a smaller matter to the face Gal. 2.11 when he said that there were in all S. Pauls Epistles some things hard to be understood would have commended his fellow-Apostles wisdome as he did 2. Pet. 3.15 and not rather have found fault with his follie and the manner of his writing if not with the matter also if Tertius had been so absurd as Diodorus imagined especially seeing S. Peter saith that the unlearned and unstable wrest some of those writings unto their own destruction which in all likelihood should justly rather swallow up S. Paul for his carelesnesse of inditing and Tertius for his supinenesse or rather blasphemous forgerie of divine truths by mis-writing them if any fault could have been truely imputed to either of them But of this we shall speak by Gods help more at large in the next section save one The second mad storie followeth Because some were wont to forge Epistles in S. Pauls name as is apparent 2. Thess 2.2 where he beseecheth them Not to be shaken in minde or to be troubled neither by spirit nor by word nor by letter as from us therefore he alway subscribed his own name to all his Epistles f Vbicunque sciebat falsos adesse doctores Wheresoever he knew that there were false teachers saith Hierom on Gal. 6.11 On which place he also relateth that a very learned man of those times said S. Paul being an Hebrew knew not Greek letters and because necessitie required that he should subscribe with his own hand to the Epistle t Contra consuetudinem curvos tramites literarum vix magnis apicibus exprimebat He wrote though in ill-shaped unhandsome very great letters shewing this testimonie of a kinde affection that he would endeavour to do for the Galatians what indeed he could not do Whereby he concludeth that S. Paul could not write Greek at least not in a legible good hand S. Hierom wondered at the ridiculousnesse of his exposition as well he might because the Apostle used to subscribe to divers of his Epistles and here he wrote this whole Epistle with his own hand and yet S. Hieroms exposition is almost as forced as the former u Grandibus Paulus literis scripsit quia sensus erat grandis in literis Spiritu Dei vivi non atrameuto calamo fuerat exaratus S. Paul saith he wrote in large long characters or letters because the sense was great in the words and was written by the Spirit of
Israel Exod. 17.8 though they were presently punished by being vanquished in battell yet God said vers 14. Write this for a memoriall in a book I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek under heaven And the Lord did swear he would have warre with Amalek from generation to generation Exod. 7.16 And above foure generations after about 400 yeares Saul destroyed them A Quaere indeed may be made Whether God can justly punish the fathers for the childrens actuall delinquencies And this resolution is easie That he may do it if the father hath doted on the children not duely corrected them for so did God to * 1. Sam. 2.29 Eli or if wicked children do tenderly love their parents which though it be not usuall yet it hath been so and in this case the punishment of the father is indeed a punishment also of the childe But if an holy father do his duty and hate his sonnes courses and thereupon the childe loveth not his father if God can punish the father with temporall punishments for the notorious faults of his sonne yet he will not punish him eternally Nay I will go yet further and truely avouch that the sinnes of predecessours which are not of consanguinitie with us but are fathers onely by our imitation fully may be punished on their children First the word father is taken two wayes in Scripture for either there are fathers by imitation or fathers by nature from whose loyns we lineally descend The Jews though they came not of Cain whose posterity ended at the floud yet may be said to be his sonnes by imitation yea they are called the sonnes of Satan Joh. 8.44 because they followed his steps and did the work of their father vers 41. which is one degree more remote Those who thus take a pattern for themselves out of example of wicked ancestours God justly punisheth Satan having been a murderer from the beginning John 8.44 Cain being as it were the head of murderers among men and the Jews treading in their steps to an inch they may justly be cast into the same fire prepared for the devil and his angels Matth. 25.41 And the Apostle S. Jude justly pronounceth vers 11. Wo to them that have gone in the way of Cain Yea our blessed Saviour himself foretelleth the Jews that for their bloudy proceedings Vpon them shall come all the righteous bloud shed upon the earth from the bloud of the righteous Abel unto the bloud of Zacharias whom they slew c. Mat. 23.35 Where first the distinct deaths of severall martyrs or just ones as the Syriack hath it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one just bloud secondly they are said to slay Zacharias whom others slew thirdly the bloud is not said in the preterperfect tense to have been shed but in the present tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is shed or is now a shedding as Jerusalem is called vers 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae occidisti occîdis occisura es as Erasmus well expounds it All these circumstances concurre to make as it were one continued act of murder from the beginning of the world till the destruction of Jerusalem repayed with one and the same punishment upon the father and all the sonnes of imitation Now as the punishment of the fathers by imitation may in an extended sense be communicated to posterity so their sinnes cannot be said to be communicated For how can the sinne of Cain be communicated unto him who last of all killed his brother and unto the Jews who descended not from him but from the younger brother Or can we think that God will inflict damnation upon men for others personall transgressions Temporall chastisements he may justly inflict for the ungracious perpetrations of parents x Non est tibi Israel ultio in qua non sit uncia de iniquitate vituli There is no vengeance taken on thee Israel wherein there is not an ounce of the iniquitie of the calf saith Rabbi Moses Ben Nachman whom they call Ramban or Gerundensis See an excellent place for both points together Jerem. 32.18 19. And eternall torment can he rightly adjudge the soules and bodies of men unto for original sinne which is our second proposition 5. God may and justly doth punish some children eternally and all temporally for originall sinne whether they be like their parents in actuall aversion and back-sliding yea or no. For the most righteous sonnes of Adam endure pain labour sicknesse death which are the orts and effects of the primogeneall offence and the death both of soul and body was inflicted in Morte moriemini and this shall hereafter be fully proved 6. God justly inflicteth eternall punishment on wicked children if they resemble their wicked parents y Malorum imitatio facit ut non solùm sua sed etiam eorum quos imitati sunt merita sortiantur August in priori Enarrat Psal 108. The imitating of wicked men makes a man to be punished not onely for his own sinnes but for theirs also whom he imitates This is a truth so apparent that it needeth no further proof 7. God oftentimes punisheth one sinne with an other And in my opinion this manner of punishing if it continue all a mans life is worse then the torment of hell-fire which were better to be speedily undergone then to be deferred with the increase of sinne Psal 69.27 Adde punishment of iniquitie or Adde iniquitie unto their iniquitie Thus God gave the Gentiles over to a reprobate minde Rom. 1.28 and then such offenders do but treasure up wrath against the day of wrath Rom. 2.5 But this happeneth not for the foregoing offences of our progenitours but for our own transgressions 8. The personall holinesse of the parent never conveied grace or salvation to the sonne Abraham the father of the faithfull prayed for his sonne Gen. 17.18 Oh that Ishmael might live in thy sight yet was he a cast-away Temporall blessings indeed he had for Abrahams sake vers 20. Isaac had an Esau David an Absalom and often the like 9. God never punished eternally the reall iniquities of fathers upon their children if the children were holy Let an instance be given to the contrarie Indeed it is said Psal 109.14 Let the iniquitie of his fathers be remembred with the Lord and let not the sinne of his mother be done away But he speaketh first of a very wicked man equalling if not exceeding his parents in sinne And the New Testament applieth it to Judas Act. 1.20 to Judas the monster of men Secondly the remembrance mentioned hath reference rather to penalties consequent then onely to sinnes precedent z Memoratur quantum ad poenam quoniam puncti sunt filii pro iniquitate patrum qui occiderunt Christum It is remembred in regard of the punishment because the children were pricked for the iniquitie of their fathers who slew Christ saith Cajetan on the place And this is not our question Thirdly why may there not
Gods commandment will worship honour keep govern thee somewhat according as in our marriages the husband promiseth to worship comfort honour and keep his wife save onely that the Jew did promise to govern his wife which we leave out which is also consonant to the authentick Hebrew Daniel 4.26 Dominantes Coeli or Coeli dominentur The Heavens do rule as it is in our late Translation that is God in the Heavens doth rule But also because the Jews in reverence and fear avoiding the naming of Jehova and calling him among many other attributes Coelum our Saviour representing in this historicall parable the person of a young penitent Jew speaketh as the Jew would and placeth the word Heaven in the singular number for GOD. Luke 15.18 Father I have sinned against Heaven Likewise Matth. 21.25 The baptisme of John whence was it from Heaven or of men it is not from Heaven or from Earth but from Heaven or of men not a place but persons are to be understood and in Heaven rather God then Angels and if likelihood lead us to expound it of Angels as it doth not yet those Angels represented God and were so called in his stead And thus we will passe from this point 6. The second thing fit to be premised is this If Heinsius mean onely that there are divers words phrases and sentences in the Greek Testament which never were coyned stamped or allowed in Athens as free-denizons of Greece but are borrowed and translated from the Hebrew Chaldee and Syriack no man will oppose him and the exemplifying of it were easie and delightfull if I had not made too large excursions before in a matter not much differing from this But when he saith They who were Jews by birth or generation and withall did both know and speak Greek may be called Hellenists and that these Hellenists writing in Greek much differed in language from the Heathen Grecians As I deny it not in the generall so some Jews there were who being wonderously well versed in the Greek wrote in Greek most politely whence Philo judaeus was said to Platonize and Josephus is styled by Baronius The Greek Livius Thirdly if Heinsius had onely said that S. John saw the Hellenists that S. John might have seen the paraphrase of Onkelos that the Chaldee Metaphrase Sanctissimo Joanni plurimis in locis placuit that S. John ad Chaldaicam saepe allusit interpretationem quâ Judaei Asiatici ut olim ità nunc utuntur all which he saith pag. 61. I would onely have wished to see his proofs Fourthly if Heinsius mean that the Hellenists onely who were not inspired from God conceived in one tongue what they did write and wrote in another what they conceived I will subscribe and adde that whatsoever they did speak in Greek they first had the notions of it in Syriack and thence did as it were translate their speech or writings even perhaps Philo and Josephus and such as trafficked much with Greece and Greeks unlesse among the Jews there might be such a case as was of Lord Michael de Mountaigne who as himself relateth in his Essaies 1.25 being born a French man yet never heard French till he was above six yeares old nor understood any word of his mother-tongue no more then he did Arabick because he was brought up where he heard no other language spoken then Latine onely and therefore long after when he usually spake nothing but his Perigordin or French yet upon great sudden exigents his conceits were first shaped in Latine and his words brake forth ere he was aware in Latine and not in French as himself recordeth So say I if a Jew were thus brought up in the Greek or in any other languages his conceits might be the apprehensions of his childish language and not of that tongue which he used after Fifthly and lastly if because Heinsius himself is a daintie Critick he will reduce the judgement of all Divinitie to Scriptures of all Scriptures to Criticisme I will not contradict it if we confine this judiciarie Censorship and Criticisme to men skilfull and eminent in all arts sciences and languages for who can so well interpret Scripture as such men It was a passionate conceit of hood winkt men as is recorded in the historie of the councel of Trent lib. 2. pag. 122. t Potestate unicuique factâ in Scripturae verstonem inquirendi utrùm proba sit nêcue vel cum aliis interpretibus eam comparando vel contextu Hebraeo consulto tum novos hosce Grammaticastros omnia interturbaturos sibi solis judicium arbitrium in rebus fidei arrogaturos When each man hath power to inguire into the translation of the Scripture whether it be good or no either comparing it with other interpreters or consulting with the Hebrew Text then these new-sprung pettie-Grammarians would make a confusion of all things and arrogate to themselves alone the judgement and resolutions in matters of faith And pag. 125. Almost all allowed the vulgat Edition u In praesulum animos vehementi indè impressione factâ quòd dicebatur Grammaticos Episcoporum ac Theologorum instituendorum potestatem sibi arrogaturos This made a powerfull impression upon the mindes of the Prelates because it was said Grammarians would assume to themselves authoritie to direct and instruct Bishops and Divines Wisely wisely as if Divines and Bishops ought not to have been perfect Grammarians before they were Divines As if both could not consist together As if famous and deep Divines had not been admirable yea the best and soundest of all Linguists and Criticks whom they scornfully term pettie Grammarians As if they envied any men these passages of learning which they kenned not and would put out the candle which other men lighted delighting rather in darknesse then suffering some places used by Popes and School-men to be questioned and cleared and it was a just indignation of the Friars against the Fathers in the councel of Trent because they were so prompt to define Articles and pronounce Anathemaes when they did not well understand and were loth to be taught the things themselves as it is in the Historie of the councel of Trent lib. 6. pag. 481. But since he saith of the Evangelist S. John x Perpetuò ad Targumistas respexit He alwaies had an eye to the Targumists pag. 289. and y Ad Targumistas semper respieâ—t He still respecteth the Targumists pag. 250. and z Totum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod voces sermonem spectat peregrinum est All the words and speech soundeth strange pag. 230. as if there were not in S. Joh. one line or phrase of pure good heathen Greek Since he maketh the Hellenisticall Greek the other Greek divers languages pag. 373. though they differ not so much as some Dialects besides his jerk at Nonnus for his Grecanick rather then Greek adding to this effect Prolegom pag. 93. Many have known superficially the
verses Behold I will send you Elijah the Prophet c. The Bishop pag. 255. from Chrysostom well observeth that most Greek and Latine copies misreade it thus Ecce mitto ad vos Eliam Thesbitem Behold I send unto you Elias the Tishbite and so because the Baptist was not Elias the Tishbite we might expect the Tishbite after John Indeed the Septuagint turned by Hierom and in Theodoret on Malachi 4.5 have it Eliam Thesbitem And Codex Vaticanus so hath it saith Christopher Castrus on the place and all the Greek Fathers and Tertullian and Augustine de civit 20.29 But in the Hebrew it is not Elias the Tishbite but Elias the Prophet and so it is in the fair great Bibles of our Adversaries of Vatablus and others Ribera the Jesuit is bold as other Jesuits were before to finde fault with the Bibles of Arias Montanus a Malè atque vitiosè in Bibliis Regiis scriptum est in Translatione 70 Ecce ego mittam vobis Eliam Prophetam In the King of Spains Bibles it is vitiously and erroneously written in the translation of the Septuagint BEHOLD I WILL SEND UNTO YOU ELIAS THE PROPHET as if there had not been diversitie of copies and as if those copies which are most agreeable to the Originall were not to be preferred or were ill and erroneous as if we were to bring and bend the Originall to the Septuagint as Carafa professeth to reduce the 70 to the Vulgat There is an errour also saith Bishop Andrews b Cùm Graeci utrobique legant ascendisse Eliam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non In coelum quod expresseÌ„ tamen habetur in Hebraeo sed Quasi in coelum When the Grecians in both places reade that Elias ascended AS INTO HEAVEN not INTO HEAVEN which is expressely in the Hebrew but AS IT WERE INTO HEAVEN I doubt not but the Bishop had good ground to write so But the Septuagint of Vatablus on 2. King 2.11 hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Even into heaven so also it is read by him on 1. Maccab. 2.58 with whom agreeth the 70 of Montanus on the Maccab. so also Drusius both reades it and expounds it ASSUMPTUS EST IN COELUM USQUE He was taken up even into heaven confirming it also in his notes on the place So these reade it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Quasi but Vsque which reading affordeth no patrocinie to them but helpeth our sides Bishop Andrews further proceedeth to this effect That concerning the words of Malachi Christ both of his own accord Matth. 11.10 and being questioned Matt. 17.10 and Mark 9.12 affirmed That that prophesie was compleat That John did do what Malachi said Elias was to do And because John came in the vertue and power of Elias Christ expounding Malachi saith Elias is come Mark 9.13 Brugensis a Papist on Malachi 4 saith What is spoken of Elijah by the Prophet seems properly to be expounded of John the Baptist And Vatablus ibid. saith The place is to be expounded of Christs first coming So Arias saith from the wise interpretation of the ancient Scribes That The terrible day hath not reference to the last day of judgement but to the coming of the Messias Christ both approving and proving it The same Arias interprets The smiting of the earth with a curse Mal. 4.6 by laying it waste and desolate as Judea hath been from the time of Titus The reverend Bishop thus recollecteth Elias was to be sent before the coming of Christ Malachi 4.5 Before the first coming none was sent in the spirit of Elias but John The first coming is to be understood and not the second by the confession of our learned adversaries Elias was called the messenger or Angel Malac. 3.1 so is John called Matth. 11.10 Mark 1.2 Luke 7.27 Elias was to come Matth. 17.11 but This is Elias which was for to come Matth. 11.14 and Elias is now come Matth. 17.12 Elias shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children Mal. 4.6 John the Baptist shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children Luk. 1.17 Let me adde these things That Elias is called the Prophet Mal. 4.5 and He shall prepare the way before the Lord Mal. 3.1 So John the Baptist parallell-wise Luk. 1.76 is called the Prophet which shall go before the face of the Lord to prepare his wayes Yea More then a Prophet Matth. 11.9 S. Hierom on Matth. 11. draweth out the parallels to more length John came in the vertue and power of Elias c Et eandem Spiritus sancâ—â— vel gratiam habuit vel mensuram sed vitae austeritas vigâ—rque mentis Heliae Joannis pares sunt c. Elias and John had both the same grace and measure of the holy Ghost and were equall in austeritie of life and vigour of minde Each lived in the wildernesse each was girded with a leathern girdle Elias was forced to flee because he reproved Ahab and Jezabel John was beheaded for finding fault with Herod and Herodias And yet to speak truth the same S. Hierom is not constant to himself but crossing what he said on Malachi and otherwhere he on Matth. 17.11 thus expounds these words d Elias quidem venturus est Ipse qui venturus est in secundo Salvatoris adventu juxta corporis fidem nunc per Joannem venit in virtute Spiritu EIIAS INDEED IS TO COME He who is bodily to come in the second coming of our Saviour is now come by John Baptist in Power and in Spirit Which I much wonder that the two great scholars of the world either did not see or would not ingeniously confesse but towing at the rope of contention each of them would have S. Hierom to be wholly on his side when in this point he is on both sides Again the first coming of Christ is necessarily to be understood by Malachi For the messenger and the covenant whom ye delight in are coupled together Mal. 3.1 but no covenant that we delight in cometh at the second coming of Christ but did come at the first approach of the Messias even the covenant of peace Moreover what offerings of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasant to the Lord as in the dayes of old and as in former yeares Malach. 3.4 shall such offerings be after Christs second coming And if such were yet after all this he saith Mal. 3.5 Christ will come neare to you to judgement Shall we have an other judgement after the second which the Spirit of God calleth the Eternall judgement Heb. 6.2 and is the last judgement by an universall agreement Besides as the last day may be called and truely is a terrible day yet the righteous are then to hold up their heads Luk. 21.28 and it shall be a day of joy and rejoycing to them though it be dismall to the wicked So the day of Christs
supposall should have a certain accomplishment but that this and all other controverted points of moment concerning Enoch or Elias may be the better cleared let us examine these questions 1. Whether Enoch in his life-time was ever any great sinner 2. Whether Enoch did ever die 3. Whether Enoch and Elias now live in and with their bodies in Paradise 4. Whether ever they shall die or do live with glorified bodies in the highest heavens Concerning the first Whether Enoch in his life-time was ever any grievous sinner First I answer and say I speak not of the first Enoch the sonne of Cain the grand-childe of Adam and Eve in honour and memoriall of whom Cain built a citie and called the name of the citie after the name of his sonne Enoch Genes 4.17 but of the second and younger Enoch the sonne of Jared Genes 5.18 of the posteritie of Seth. Secondly I question not but that this latter best Enoch was a sinner and in his own estimate a great sinner and he might have said and doubtlesse did say in effect as David did and as Adam and all his of-spring except Christ Have mercie upon me O God Psal 51.1 and Create in me a clean heart O God Psal 51.10 O Lord pardon mine iniquitie for it is great Psal 25.11 And in the ballance of God setting aside mercie he might have been weighed found light and accounted for a main delinquent But this is the Quaere Whether comparatively and in respect of other men even of such whose lives ends also pleased God he was so notorious a sinner that he alone was the fittest example of repentance to succeeding generations My answer is negatively for I am sure Adam and as I think Noah and Lot and divers other holy Patriarchs might as well yea rather be an example of repentance to future times then Enoch especially if we measure sinnes by the records of Scripture for the holy Writ hath more amply insisted upon their sinnes then upon Enochs and no part of the Canonicall Scripture toucheth at any thing that was extraordinarily offensive in Enoch but magnifieth his goodnesse Gen. 5.22 and his faith Heb. 11.5 Yet because the divine Writ might omit the offences of Enoch and because I cannot think that Ecclesiasticus wrote without some ground let us search what other Authours have conceited or written for or against Enoch Some think that Enoch all the course of his conversation amongst men in this world lived unblameably and walked with God Some Jews held that Enoch was an incarnate Angel e Vixit dum vixit laudabiliter Whilest he lived he lived worthy of praise saith Drusius Others write that in his youth he was very wicked but after repented and turned heartily to God redeeming the time Drusius proveth that Enoch was a good man still by these arguments Josephus Antiq. 1.5 at the end saith Seth was a vertuous man and left f Nepotes sui simileâ— issue like himself and they were all good men therefore Enoch was so The posteritie of Seth according to the best Interpreters are called Filii Dei the sonnes of God Genes 5.2 g Filii Dei sunt judicio Augustini qui secunditm Deum vivunt Augustine accounteth that they were called the sonnes of God who pleased God Hischuni also an Authour cited by Drusius saith Because Enoch was just the Scripture h Honoris cauâ—â to dignifie him used a new phrase concerning him saying HE WAS NOT. And It is a probable reason that Enoch was not any time so ill as some imagine because he lived with Adam 308 yeares and ministred so long unto him as it is in libro JOH ASIN saith Drusius On the other side i Sunt qui insimulan eum levitatis inconstantiae nam aiunt modò justum modò improbum fuisse Id relatum in Genesi magno Some say he was light and inconstant sometimes just sometimes wicked as is recorded in the great Genesis a book called in Hebrew BERESITH RABBA made by one Ibbo so relateth Drusius in his book called Henoch chap. 5. If Ibbo had said Henochum fuisse modò improbum modò justum That Enoch was now and then wicked now and then just I should farre rather have consented for every just man except Christ was sometime wicked But that Enoch after he was once just turned to be extraordinarily wicked I can never beleeve For the Spirit would never have given him this testimonie that he pleased God and walked with him if he had after returned as the dog to his vomit or as the sow to her wallowing in the mire Rabbi Levi the sonne of Gersom thus k Enoch ambulavit in viis Domini postquam genuit Methusalem annos 300. Enoch walked with God after he begat Methusalem 300 yeares whereby he intimateth that he walked l Non in viis domini sed in viis seculi sui Not in the narrow paths of the Lord but in the high wayes of the world and by that account he might be wicked sixtie fiye yeares of his age or thereabouts The arguments of either side are but weak and may be easily answered Seths posteritie might do some notable wicked acts and most heartily repent and be both holy and accounted the sonnes of God The phrase used concerning his being taken out of this world evinceth not that all the former passages of his life were just Thirdly he might live in Adams time yet not neare him and he might live with him and yet not minister unto him and he might minister unto him and yet be wicked before he ministred yea even for a time whilest he ministred unto Adam Many godly parents have lived to see wicked ones of their of-spring and it may be that Adam converted him not till after some time that he ministred unto Adam and had seen evident signes of Adams own great repentance and holinesse On the other side Ibbo writeth like a fabler and his words were before rejected as improbable Rabbi Levi alledging nothing but conjecture wanteth weight for an argument Now as there is nothing certain either pro or contra so if my opinion be asked I shall manifest my self to think that Enoch was sometimes a grievous sinner and after a most contrite repentant and a most holy man My reason is Because I ascribe more to the books called Apocryphall then to any humane Authour for they alone are and have been many hundreds of yeares joyned with the Canonicall Scripture and read in all Churches except the Jewish at set times as well as the Canonicall as no other writings of any other are And if no part of them were divinely inspired yet were the men that wrote them both holy and learned and the Churches of God have dignified them above all other writings Now though the undoubted Canon mentioneth not any evill act or acts of Enoch as millions of millions of matters are omitted both in the Old and New Testament yet some passages of