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
Either of these wayes is better then that of Canus But the truth is The father of the faithfull knew that though himself did kill Isaac yet God who is able to stones to raise up children unto Abraham Matth. 3.9 was able to raise up Isaac even from the dead Heb. 11.19 and in hope or full assurance thereof might say I and the lad will return and yet intend faithfully to sacrifice his sonne And who knoweth but he might be divinely and extraordinarily assured that his childe should return with him The third Objection consisteth of these parcels 1. Pet. 5.12 By Silvanus a faithfull brother unto you as I suppose 2. Cor. 11.5 I suppose I was not a whit behinde the very chiefest Apostles In both places is used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 computo supputo Existimo saith the Vulgat I suppose 1. Cor. 7.40 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think I have the Spirit of God Joh. 21.25 There are many other things which Jesus did the which if they should be written I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the books that should be written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arbitror I opine think or suppose From which or the like places the objection thus ariseth Opinion is conversant about those things which are changeable and is onely of all the powers of the soul busied about contingents and is a trembling pendulous shaking and uncertain habit circa complexa upon probable reasons inclining to one side yet fearing or doubting the contradictorie for opinion is framed on likelihood as knowledge is upon truth Where opinion or supposall is there is not certain knowledge But our Apostles did think or suppose Therefore they had not immediate divine revelation or certaintie in the points supposed and therefore wrote somewhat which they knew not I answer to each of these Apostles in particular and first to S. Peter who seemeth to be in doubt and uncertainty what was to be thought concerning Silvanus Divers say he speaketh modestly of him as the Apostolicall men were wont to do of themselves S. Augustine Tract 37. in Joan. averreth that under those words is couched an asseveration As if one should say to a stubborn servant Thou dost contemn me Consider I suppose I am thy master where the seeming supposall makes him neither to be nor seem to be ever a whit the lesse his master But I answer That the holy Ghost having not revealed unto S. Peter fully what the heart of Silvanus was or was like to be left him to suppose and according to the supposall of his soul did dictate unto S. Peter what the blessed Spirit knew better then S. Peter these words The supposall of the Apostle inferreth not a supposall of the Spirit The Spirit was most certain when the Apostle might be dubious The holy Ghost spake if I may so say representing Peter and in Peters person which might be subject to a supposall and yet divinely inspired to know certainly what he wrote namely to know this that he did suppose And that upon good motives Whereas S. Paul saith 2. Cor. 11.5 I suppose I was not a whit behinde the very chiefest Apostles and 1. Cor. 7.40 I think I have the Spirit of God he speaketh not so much doubtingly as humbly To use diminuent and sparing phrases concerning ones self is lawfull 2. Cor. 11.23 I speak as a fool saith S. Paul yet there was as great a dissimilitude between a fool and him as between any I think then breathing Ephes 3.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnto me who am lesse then the least of all Saints is this grace given that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ No man had the like priviledge in every degree as he had in this S. Peter was Doctor Judaeorum the Doctour of the Jews S. Paul Doctor Gentium the Doctour of the Gentiles yet no man can speak more modestly then S. Paul doth of himself Lesse then the least of the Apostles had been much but lesse then the least of all Saints is the depth the heart the soul of humilitie which yet is further evidenced in that he saith not this grace was given when he was a persecuter and so indeed worse then any Saint yea almost worse then any man but to me even now when I am called now when I am turned to me now lesse then the least of all Saints is this grace given Lesse then the least is contrary to the rules of Grammar which admit not a comparative above a superlative contrary to common sense contrary to the literall truth of the things themselves for he was a chosen vessell a chief Apostle few if any more chief though he should boast more of his authoritie he should not be ashamed 2. Cor. 10.8 No whit inferiour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the very chiefest Apostles 2. Cor. 12.11 A Minister of Christ more then others 2. Cor. 11.23 Now though S. Paul used terminis diminuentibus and spake sparingly and modestly in some places concerning himself yet otherwhere he revealeth the whole truth he knew the certaintie of things to wit that he was not lesse then the least that he was not as a fool and when he said I suppose or I think he did know Dum minus dicit majus innuit Whilest he speaketh the lesse he intimateth the more he was never a trumpeter of his own worth but when he was urged unto it by opposition Concerning the place of S. John thus I answer The Apostle was governed by the holy Ghost to use an Hyperbole or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Orientall Idiotisme and perchance aimed at the words Gen. 13.6 The land was not able to bear Abraham and Lot that they might dwell together Or at the place of Amos 7.10 The land is not able to bear all his words as is well observed by the curious Heinsius He also here is guided by the same Spirit to write I suppose or I think that even the world could not contain the books as for other reasons to us unknown so perhaps because both the Spirit would qualifie the Hyperbole and speak within truth which is allowed rather then beyond truth which is disallowable I suppose rather then I know Secondly I answer more punctually If the holy Spirit did leave S. Paul nescient whether he were rapt in bodie yea or no and Paul did know his own nesciencie 2. Cor. 12.2 why might not the same Spirit leave S. Paul S. Peter S. John in supposals and yet no inconvenience ariseth thencefrom since they perfectly knew that they did suppose This is the disciple which testifieth of these things and wrote these things and we know that his testimonie is true John 21.24 as S. John saith of himself To conclude this point No man ever said that whatsoever the holy Penmen mentioned or treated of they understood perfectly invested with all their circumstances for they spake and writ of the day of judgement and other
were begotten and conceived was an unclean thing saith Bishop Bilson as Job calleth it saying Who can make a clean thing of an unclean Job 14.4 It is also corruptible that is saith he full of corruption as Peter nameth it when he saith Born again not of corruptible seed 1 Peter 1.23 of which we were born of our parents Thirdly The Apostle calleth our flesh The flesh of sinne Rom. 8.3 If by these places he takes uncleannesse corruption and sinne improperly for such ill dispositions as seed bloud and livelesse flesh is capable of the Question is ended I confesse all But he understandeth uncleannesse corruption and sinne properly The title of his pages 174. and 175. is this Mans flesh is defiled in conception before the soul is created and infused And in the body of his Discourse he enlargeth it as in his Conclusion to the Reader at the end of his Sermons pag. 252. he first propoundeth it and citeth Ambrose to assist him saying * Priùs incipit inhomine macula quà m vita Amnr. Apolog. David cap. 11. Pollution sooner beginneth in man then life Now the soul is the life of the body then if pollution cleave to the flesh before life come and consequently before the soul come whencesoever it cometh it is evident that Adams flesh defileth and so condemneth us So farre he None of these proofs reach home to cleare this That sinne true sinne proper sinne originall sinne or actuall is in the seed or bloud or flesh before the reasonable soul be united Neither did that learned Bishop consider that it can not be called our originall uncleannesse pollution or sinne till we have originem that is till our soul hath its first being in the body He erreth to say Pollution cleaveth to the flesh before life cometh and more erreth saying Adams flesh defileth and condemneth us if he make the flesh subject to condemnation before its life and union of the soul For then many thousand abortions should be damned which never had rationall soul annexed to them As for Ambrose * Whitak De Origin Peccato 1.4 Whitaker thus citeth him from the same Book and Chapter * Antequam nafcimur maculamur contagio antequam usuram lucis originis ipsiut accipimus injuriam Before we be born we are stained with contagion before we enjoy the light we receive the injurie of our verie beginning Ambrose saith not We have sinne ere we have life but We are conceived in iniquity which is true and confest if we take conception largely so Ambrose taketh macula for such inclination to evill as is in the seed potentially maculative Concerning the place of Job First Job saith not The seed is unclean but Quis dabit mundum ex immundo Which may have reference to the person or the nature of the unclean father Secondly it may be a parallell with that of Job 25.4 How can he be clean that is born of awoman yea the starres are not pure in his sight vers 5. Lastly things may be said to be unclean that have no sinne Ask the unclean beasts and they will justifie it and the trees will send forth this truth as leaves Levit. 19.23 24. The fruit of the trees planted shall be as uncircumcised or unclean unto you three yeares it shall not be eaten of but in the fourth yeare it shall be holy to praise the Lord withall yet was not the fruit sinfull it self but quoadusum The place of S. Peter is answered by the same Apostle 1 Pet. 1.18 Silver and gold are things corruptible yet these creatures as creatures are good in themselves though they are causes of most sinnes yet have no sinne many other corruptible things as heaven earth are void of all sinne As concerning the place of the Apostle S. Paul I answer it is apparent he speaketh of flesh after the soul is united which is nothing to our Question and therefore a most impertinent proof of the Bishop Lastly the Reverend Bishop bringeth this objection against himself How could David say he was conceived in sinne when at the conception he had neither soul nor body His main answer is With God nothing is more frequent then to call those things that are not as though they were Rom. 4.17 and speaketh in Scriptures of things to come as if they were past or present David and Job call that seed which was prepared to be the matter of their bodies by the names of themselves because it could not be altered what God had appointed But the void conceptions of women which miscarry before the body be framed never had either life or soul and so neither name nor kinde but perish as other superfluous burdens and repletions of the body So he I reply that I may not question the worthy Bishop about the meaning of that place Rom. 4.17 He hath made a great stirre to little purpose since he maketh many conceptions void of finne or punishment like superfluous burdens and repletions of the body which none ever said to have sinned Secondly which is the better answer to the place of the Psalmist to say as the Bishop doth Conceptions which come to nothing are not sinfull but such as may have souls are sinfull before they have souls whereby he splitteth himself on this rock That a perfect conception susceptible of a soul and aborsed casually before the unition with the soul is sinfull and liable to account or to answer with me That sinne and iniquity in the place of the Psalmist is taken for the aptitude to sinne which is in the matter or els conception is taken in its latitude for our time in the mothers wombe and so true original sinne not to be in the body without a soul Aquine saith * Quum sola creatura rationalis sit susceptiva culpae ante infusionem animae rationalis proles concepta non est peccato obnoxia Aquin. part 3. Quaest 27. art 2. in corp art Sith none but the reasonable creature is susceptible of fault the childe conceived is not subject to sinne before the infusion of a reasonable soul Whitaker saith well * Carnem nihil concupiscere sine anima nec doctus nec doctus dubitat ut loquar cum Augustino Quid enim caro iâ—animis a trunco differt Whitak De Origin Peccato 3.1 That the flesh covets nothing without the soul neither the learned nor the unlearned doubts that I may speak with Augustine For what doth the inanimate flesh differ from a stock And I hope the Bishop will not say A block or a stock hath sinne Moreover after thousands of sinnes committed in the body and by and with the body yet the body separated from the soul hath no sinne is not sinfull much lesse is sinne and shall the seed in the wombe be called sinfull or sinne as Kemnitius or Luther calleth it before it is warmed with life or enlivened with a soul Lastly in our very Creed conception is used with libertie and
countrey if upon imposed crimes by an appellant the defendant shall yeeld or be overcome in battell b Vâ—imo supplicio punietur cum poena gravi vel graviori secundum criminis qualitatem cum exhaeredatione haeredum suorum omnium bonorum amissione He shall be put to death with a grievous or more grievous pain according to the qualitie of the crime with the disinheriting of his heirs and losse of all his goods Furthermore though he were slain yet the formality of the Common-law proceeding adjudgeth him to capitall punishment that thereby his posterity may suffer the grievous concomitancy of his deserved infamy saith that most learned M. Selden my most courteous and loving friend in his Duello or Single Combat pag. 30. 5. But let us come from the sword where things are cut out with more rigour if not crucltie unto matters Ecclesiasticall and so more civil and peaceable Did not S. Peter stand in stead of all the Apostles when Christ said to him Joh. 21.15 16. Feed my lambes Feed my sheep And again Feed my sheep vers 17. Likewise when Christ said to him Matth. 16.19 I will give unto thee the keyes of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven And when this promise to Peter was promised to the rest of the Apostles also Matth. 18.18 and when both these promises were fulfilled and accomplished as they were after Christs resurrection and not before and authoritie given and by a solemne ceremony exhibited by Christ not onely to S. Peter but to all and every of the Apostles saying Joh. 20.21 c. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you And when he had said this he breathed on them and saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whose soever sinnes ye remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sinnes ye retain they are retained Did not the Apostles represent the whole body of the Ministery unlesse you will fable that in the Apostles dayes they had more need of remission of sinnes then we have now or that Christ loveth not his Church now nor affordeth the like means of pardon and reconciliation as he did in those times But by the same deceitfulnesse of cavillation you may say as well that when Christ brake bread and gave it to his Disciples and said Take eat this is my body and gave the cup to them saying Drink ye all of it none but they might eat or drink the Supper of the Lord. But it is undeniable that when Christ said to his twelve Apostles Luk. 22.19 This is my body which is given for you Do this in remembrance of me he spake it to them as representours of the whole Priesthood onely who onely have power to consecrate the body and bloud of our Lord. Indeed Hierome saith c Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ Ordinatione quod Presbyter non facitâ— Epist 85. ad Euag. What doth a Bishop except Ordination which a Priest doth not as if the Apostles represented the Bishops in that point onley and the Centuriatours acknowledge that the first Bishops after the Apostles were made Bishops by the Apostles and they say no more then is confirmed 1. Timothy 5.22 and Titus 1.5 Act. 20.28 But other Fathers extend the comparison between the Apostles and Bishops to other matters appropriating to the Bishops above the Presbyters the power of Confirmation and divers other things All which though we grant yet no man will deny but for preaching baptizing and especially for consecrating of the Eucharist and Sacerdotall Absolution or Ministeriall Remission of sinnes the Apostles represented not the people in any wise nor the Bishops onely but the universall body of Christs Ministers And do not among us the Right Reverend Arch-bishops and Bishops and the Clergy assembled in the Convocation represent the whole Church of England are not they our Nationall Councel do not their Articles of Religion binde in conscience all and every one of the Church of England as much if not more then Civill laws Nor is there the like humane authority on earth for the setling of our consciences in matters of Scripture or Scriptures controverted or to be controverted as the externall publick breathing voice of a true Oecumenical Councel of the Patriarchs Bishops and choice Divines of the Christian world The essentiall universall Church of Christ is and we must beleeve it is the house of God the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of truth 1. Tim. 3.15 It never erred it cannot erre its iudgement is infallible The Spirit leadeth this Church into all truth Joh. 16.13 Of the Church of God consisting of the faithfull in any one age or time I dare say it never did erre damnably or persisted in smaller errours obstinately but alwayes some truly maintained things necessary to salvation and unto this fluctuant militant part of the Church Christ hath promised to be with it to the end of the world Matt. 28.20 The whole visible Church at no time can fall into heresie but some seek after the truth and embrace it and professe it Subject it is to nesciency of some things and perhaps to some kinde of ignorance but it cannot erre in things necessary nor in lesse matters schismatically with obdurate pertinacy Of the representative Church of Christ in Councels this may be said truly and safely viz. Of the first six Generall Oecumenicall Councels not one de facto erred in any definition of matters of faith Of other lawfull general Councels that may hereafter be called though I will not deny but they may possibly be deceived as they are men and therefore are not free from errability but if such Councels may erre or pronounce amisse cannot coblers yet there is least likelihood of their erring Such Oecumenical Councels have the supremest publick externall definitive judgement in matters of Religion if any oppose them they may not onely silence them but censure them with great censures and reduce them into order Private spirits must sit down and rest in their determinations else do the Councels lose operam oleum What S. Ambrose Epist 32. said of one general Councell d Sequor tractatum Niceni Concilii à quo me 〈◊〉 mors nec gladius 〈◊〉 separare I follow the decision of the Nicene Councel from which neither death nor sword shall be able to separate me I say of all true and generall Councels and of the major part of them who binde the rest without which issue the gathering of Councels yea and of Parliaments also would be ridiculous For though it were a true and just complaint of Andreas Duditius Quinquecclesiensis Episcopus That in the Conventicle of Trent the voices were rather numbred then well weighed yet he doth not he cannot finde fault with that course in a just and lawfull Generall Councel but directeth his complaint against the tyrannicall power of the Pope
Therefore he arose not at all as yet Lastly should we grant that Adam did bodily arise with Christ yet hath Pineda neither Authour nor reason that Adam ascended with Christ into heaven as I said before which is the main point now in question Thus much if not too much touching Adam 3. Eve also arose saith Dionysius Carthusianus on Matth. 27. but voucheth no authoritie nor produceth any reason or probabilitie and therefore I passe it over the more slightly adding onely this that in the Original it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be understood either no women arose or more then one or two though Pineda mentioneth not one woman and Carthusian but onely and soly Eve But why Eve should rather arise then Sarah or the mother of Moses who were singled out for famous Heroinae Hebr. 11. or other Prophetisses in the Old and New Testament as old Anna and the like I see no reason or that Eve in her raised bodie should be translated into heaven and not Adam her husband nor Abraham nor David is both foolish and fabulous This have I said as supposing the words to be understood of women alone as indeed they are not nor probably can they be applied to women mixt with men so far as any likelihood could present it self to the great conjecturer Pineda who would have balked none of them 4. Abraham arose saith Pineda on Job 19. and annexeth this colour because Abraham rejoyced to see Christs day and saw it and was glad John 8.56 I answer Whatsoever is meant by these words of the Text My day either Christs Godhead which Abraham saw a Quia mysterium Trinitatis agnovit Because he acknowledged the mysterie of the Trinitie saith S. Augustine Or the day of Christs nativitie which Abraham might have notice of in his life time by supernaturall inspirations and then did remember being dead and desired that day for separated souls have both remembrance and appetite intellectuall as I shall evidence hereafter Or it may be Abraham being in blisse might first know it by divine illumination so soon as the day came and thereupon rejoyced as the Angel did and the heavenly host Luke 2.13 of which host Abraham might be one for even the souls of men are also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revel 19.14 saith Gregory Moral 31.12 In the foresaid place of Luke mention is made of an Angel and the heavenly host whereas if onely Angels were the heavenly host it might have been onely said The Angels or onely The heavenly host but The Angel and the heavenly host may give us cause to think that there were some of the heavenly host which were not Angels though Angels onely be mentioned If so humane souls were part of that quire and then Abraham in likelihood was one of them Now as the chief Angel like a chaunter began the Evangelisme of Christs birth so might it be answered by the heavenly host viz. as is probable partly by the Angels singing Glory to God in the highest partly by Abraham and the souls of men concluding the Anthem On earth peace good will toward men I say Whatsoever is meant by the words My day they cannot be expounded of Christs resurrection Some there are who interpret My day of the time of Christs passion whom Maldonate justly misliketh because saith he it is added ABRAHAM SAW IT AND REJOYCED but then when Christ said these words Abraham could not see Christs passion because it was not yet come I may say the same or more against Pineda who will have it expounded of the day of Christs resurrection for Christ speaketh of the day that was past he did see it he was glad and rejoyced so that day was ended when Christ said this but Christs resurrection was not accomplished when he uttered these words therefore they cannot be understood of Christs resurrection And if they were so to be interpreted yet it is not written Abraham arose or Abraham was partaker with Christ or Abraham ascended bodily into heaven this being the issue which we joyned in this controversie but Abraham rejoyced he saw it and was glad which words differ farre from Pineda his ridiculous interpretation 5. An other which rose at the same time was Isaac saith Pineda ibid. for he was a parable of the resurrection and this was done to recompense the fear which possessed Isaac of being slain when he represented Christ To this puncto I answer Pineda himself will not say that every one who was a parable or pledge of the resurrection or who figured it was raised as Samson from his sleep arising in strength and carrying away the gates of Azzah in type of Christ who brought away the gates both of death and hell or those who were raised by the Prophets or by Christ himself or the like for he mentioneth none of these Secondly what proof what consequence what shadow of truth is there that Isaac his fear which was past he being dead one thousand seven hundred yeares before should just now be recompensed and recompensed by being raised to a temporall life which was a poore reward if he ascended not into heaven which Pineda proveth not nor can prove Lastly though it be truth it self that Jacob sware by the fear of his father Isaac Genes 31.53 yet it is not meant as Pineda fancieth the fear that Isaac was in when he was to be offered For I suppose he knew by Abraham that it was Gods especiall appointment and that he also willingly offered himself and might think as Abraham did that God was able to raise him up even from the dead Hebr. 11.19 that in his voluntarie condescent and free-will-offering he might be a type of Christ who layed down his life John 10.17 But the fear of Isaac was either the filial fear by which Isaac reverenced worshipped God as Aben Ezra and Cajetan say or the pious and humane fear wherewith Jacob revered his father Isaac or rathest of all Fear is here taken for the object of fear Metonymically for God himself as it is also taken Esa 8.13 Let God be your fear let God be your dread as Cornelius Cornelii à lapide hath observed after Augustine and divers others for not Isaac his fright or Jacob his pietie is to be sworn by but God Deuter. 6.13 O God the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of the living and not of the dead I beseech thee make me to die to my self and live to thee through him whom the Fathers looked for and whose day Abraham rejoyced to see even Jesus Christ thy onely Sonne my alone Saviour Amen CHAP. VIII 1. Pineda his fancie that Jacob then was raised 2. The reason why the Patriarchs desired the Translation of their bones was not to rise with Christ as Pineda opineth but upon other grounds and to other ends 3. Where Joseph was first buried where secondly 4. The great difficultie
to the first place of Matth. 13.35 and say Who ever denyed but that some Copies have been corrupted and in some of them some words foisted in but all Greek all Latine Copies with the Arabick and Syriack translations reade Abraham and not Jacob Whereas some Copies were alwayes perfect in that place of Matthew Now if you grant corruption in any point or title in all the Greek and all the Latine Copies how will you prove any part or word of the New Testament to be uncorrupt Which razeth up the very Corner-stone of our Faith Mr Beza again objecteth that the name of Jeremie is written for Zacharie Matth. 27.9 I answer that the Authour of the book of Maccabees giveth us to understand that Jeremie wrote other things which now we have not 2. Maccab. 2.1 and so did divers of the Prophets and why may not this be then taken from some of those works which are perished Secondly S. Hierome saith a Jew brought him an Apocryphall book of Jeremie in which he found this testimonie word for word and this book was called APOCRYPHA or OCCULTA JEREMIAE The Apocryphals or hid writings of Jeremie saith Erasmus on Matth. 27. As what S. Paul saith of Jannes and Jambres 2. Tim. 3.8 and what S. Jude saith of Michael the Archangel striving with the Devil is thought to be taken out of the books Apocryphall so might this testimonie be cited also out of Jeremies Apocryphals Thirdly Erasmus supposeth that Zacharie had two names and was called both Zacharie and Jeremie and so no inconvenience followeth Fourthly not onely the Syriack leaves out the name of Jeremie but even in Augustines time the name of Jeremie was not in many Latine Copies as Augustine himself testifieth de Consensu Evangelistarum lib. 3. cap. 7. The ordinarie glosse also saith that in some editions it is onely thus By the Prophet and the name of Jeremie is left unmentioned Fifthly Augustine in the last recited place of his resolveth that the Divine providence purposely set down Jeremie for Zacharie and what the holy Spirit did dictate S. Matthew did truely write And one reason why the Spirit of God confounded the names of Jeremie and Zacharie was this saith Augustine To insinuate that all the Prophets wrote by one Spirit and wonderfully consented in one and therefore we must beleeve that e Quacunque per eos Spâ—itus Sanctus dixit singula esse omnium omnia singulorum What the holy Ghost spake by them is not to be appropriated unto any one but to all and every of them What was said by Jeremie was as well Zacharies as Jeremies and what was said by Zacharie was as well Jeremies as Zacharies God spake not by the MOUTHS but by the MOUTH of all his holy Prophets since the world began Act. 3.21 and they had but one Spirit to guide them into all truth The Prophesie of Amos is called The book of the Prophets Acts 7.42 and the Word of God which in divers places is called in the plurall number Scriptures as John 5.39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Search the Scriptures is also oftentimes called in the singular number The Scripture as John 2.22 they beleeved the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said Beleef was to rest as well on his Word onely without Scripture as on Scripture though he had said nothing and the word Scripture is not to be restrained onely to that place of Scripture before pointed at but to the whole Word of God written which they beleeved The Scripture hath concluded all under sinne Gal. 3.22 where not one single place onely but either common places of that point or the whole bodie of the Scripture is to be understood A few words of a Psalme of David is called by Christ himself The law of the Jews It is written in their law They hated me without a cause John 15.25 which is onely so written Psal 35.19 Again he saith to the Jews John 10.34 Is it not written in your Law I have said ye are Gods but it is written so onely Psal 83.6 Yea though one and the same thing in effect be written both Isa 28.16 and Psal 118.22 as also Matth 21.42 and Acts 4.12 yet S. Peter reckoneth all but as one All but one Scripture though severally written by these foure It is contained in the Scripture saith he 1. Pet. 2.6 in the singular number he mentioneth Scripture as if what one wrote the rest wrote S. Peter saith not It is contained in the Word with reference to one Spirit inditing or inspiring though that might have also been truely spoken but contained in the Scripture with relation to the unity and consent of the Pen-men Lastly the words of the Evangelist are these Matth. 27.9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Prophet Jeremie saying And they took the thirty pieces of silver 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 effatum Jeremiae dicentis That which was spoken by Jeremie saying c. Now Jeremiae might say it speak it dictate it which is most true and is all that S. Matthew saith who by the Spirit might also know that Jeremie did teach preach prophesie and utter these words and yet for all this and after all this Zacharie by the same Spirit might write transcribe and insert those words of Jeremie into his own Prophesie which S. Matthew denieth not as Baruch wrote divers things which he had heard from Jeremie as Agur collected some Proverbs of Solomon Again there was no necessitie that all things whatsoever Jeremie as a Prophet did speak g Jerem. 36.2 he himself or Baruch should write much lesse presently since there were many yeares between Jeremie his speaking and his writing for Enoch prophesied as it is in the 14. verse of the Epist of S. Jude but he prophesied Saying c. as it is there written for writing was none till God set the Copie unto Moses by writing the Law in the Tables on the mount Again S. Paul Act. 24.35 remembreth the words of our Lord Jesus how he said It is more blessed to give then to receive yet none of the Evangelists record such words but this might the Apostles relate unto S. Paul or by divine inspiration he might know that Christ spake them or they might be part of the words which Christ himself spake unto S. Paul for there is no certaintie that they were written S. John the Evangelist was commanded to conceal and not to write the words of the seven thunders Revel 10.4 If he had wholly concealed such a thing we could not know it he spake it but wrote it not Jeremie might speak this and not write it or write it and not speak it Any of these answers is better then to incline to Beza that the Text is erroneous or patched up with a false addition or to Erasmus on Matth. 27. intimating there was lapsus memoriae in Evangelistis howsoever he qualifieth it That if there were memoriae lapsus in Nomine duntaxat he
in a long narration especially if it be sudden he hath mingled and confounded some things a In quibusdam etiam memoriâ lapsus fuerit And forgot himself in some things to wit in such things as belonged little or nothing to the purpose for he was busily musing and intent upon the main matter But saith he S. Luke writing the historie changed not one jot but writ as Steven spoke Now we need not defend Steven from all errour and fault saith he but we must quit the Evangelist For onely the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists did never labi memoriâ or erre in any matter great or small other men did His proofs are these Jephthah in Judges 11.26 pretendeth 300 yeares possession when they were not so many and the divine Pen-man or Historiographer writeth as Jephthah pretended and established not the truth of the thing it self I answer that Salianus in his Annales Anno Mundi 2849 maketh one account wherein the time of the Israelites coming out of Egypt to the instant of Jephthahs arguing is 377 yeares and from the death of Sihon king of the Amorites 337 yeares But the truth is if we will hit the exact number both Salianus and Tremellius and many others say That from the coming out of Egypt and from the giving of the Law unto this present controversie of Jephthah with the King of the Amorites there were 305 or 306 yeares expired And Tremellius well observeth that Jephthah began his narration from their coming forth of Egypt vers 16. Therefore thence beginneth the number and the reckoning Now the shortning of an account is an usuall Ellipsis both in Scripture and in other Authours The 70 Interpreters are cited for 72. Among the Romanes the Centum-viri consisted of one hundred and five men Judges 20.46 all which fell of Benjamin that day were 25000. yet there fell that day 100 more vers 35. So 2. Sam. 5.5 the account is shortened by six moneths lesse then was set down in the precedent verse it being b Synecdoche frequent ad rotunditatem numeri A frequent Synecdoche to make a round and smooth reckoning saith Tremellius If any shall yet contend that Jephthah saith expresly v. 26. Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns and in Aroer and her towns and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon 300 yeares Peter Martyr on the place answereth That the Scripture-account often followeth the greater number Now because the yeares from Sihons death were nearer 300. then 200. Jephthah reckoneth not the refract but the whole number and accounteth them 300 yeares as inclining to the greater number For Sihon was overcome and slain the last yeare of Moses his life being to the present debate 266 yeares saith Abulensis 267 saith Lyranus 270 yeares saith Peter Martyr If Peter Martyrs answer be sleighted I adde that the perfection of Scriptures stands not so strictly on exactnesse of number but that it puts a certain number for an uncertain Instances are obvious So while we plead too much for number we shall as S. Augustine saith forget or neglect both weight and measure Lastly grant that Jephthah either mistook or mispleaded the yeares in a braving fashion and say that the holy Ghost hath penned not what was truth in it self but what Jephthah alledged erroneously or covetously for his prescription for Jephthah had more then one errour yet it followeth not that S. Steven was deceived for he was full of the holy Ghost when he spake this Act. 7.55 and before he spake this he was full of faith and of the holy Ghost Act. 6.5 Full of faith and power vers 8. and they that disputed with Steven were not able to resist the wisdome and the Spirit by which he spake v. 10. Therefore he spake wisely truely and by the Spirit as well as S. Luke wrote by the Spirit and neither of them could in this passage erre though Jephthah be held a man of imperfections 2. Secondly saith Canus the Evangelist hath it Matth. 2.6 That IT IS WRITTEN BY THE PROPHET AND THOU BETHLEHEM IN THE LAND OF JUDAH ART NOT THE LEAST AMONG THE PRINCES OF JUDAH when it is not so written by the prophet who saith Micah 5.2 BUT THOU BETHLEHEM EUPHRATA THOUGH THOU BE LITTLE AMONG THE THOUSANDS OF JUDAH the sense being very different almost contrary In which place S. Matthew reports the words not as they are in Micah but as the chief Priests and Scribes recited them to Herod c Quod testimonium nec Hebraico textui nec 70 Interpretibus convenire me quoque tacente perspicuum est Which testimonie saith Hierome on Micah 5.2 agreeth neither with the Hebrew nor the Seventie as is plain though I say nothing Then followeth his opinion d Arbitror Matthaeum volentem arguere Scribarum Sacerdotum erga divinae Scripturae lectionem negligentiam sic etiam posuisse ut ab iis dictum est I think that S. Matthew being willing to reprove the negligence of the Scribes and Priests toward the reading of holy Scriptures related the words as they were cited by them So that though the Scribes and Pharisees were blinde and seeing the Prophet through a vail took one thing for an other and though the Evangelist purposely reciteth their mistaking that we might discern the fault of these ill guides and ignorant teachers yet it no way followeth that S. Steven did erre or was mistaken or that S. Luke misreported the words of S. Steven But enough of this to testifie my dislike of the second opinion and of such who excusing the Greek Text from corruption wherein I wonderfully applaud them do impute an errour and slip unto the holy powerfull gracefull truth-speaking and dying Protomartyr S. Steven which I cannot endure in them And certes both these former rejected opinions are built on a false ground and idlely do presuppose that there is no reall historicall truth in the words as they are in the Greek and in the Latine Text. But truth there is and though truth lie deep hid as in a well said he of old yet by Gods help we shall winde her up and draw her above ground that every eye may see her though we have many turnings 3. Which that I may the better accomplish I must straggle awhile after two most learned men Cardinall Cusanus and Daniel Heinsius especially Heinsius whom when I have overtaken and wrung and wonne from him some holds which are offensive to the majestie of sacred Scripture then shall I return and descend to the most difficult place of Acts 7.16 c. The learned worthie Heinsius whom I name not without honour though I dissent from him in his Exercitations upon Nonnus and in the Prolegomena beats out certain paths which never any on the earth trode upon before him pag. 27. making the Hellenisticall language to be the best interpreter of the Hebrew and Chaldee and the Hebrew and Chaldee interchangeably the best interpreters of it Before all his
death and therefore he is exempted out of the compasse of that word All by speciall dispensation and onely Abel Noah Abraham are the All there meant Secondly saith Drusius in his Preface It may be said the Apostle spake m De morte calamitatum agritudinum ut sententia sit Nè videret mortem hoc est ea incommoda quae mortâ—m comitari solent of calamities crosses and sicknesses which may be accounted as a death as if he had said Lest he might see death that is THE DISCOMMODITIES AND INCONVENIENCIES WHICH ACCOMPANY DEATH For who are continually sick are accounted as dead First I say this is a forced interpretation Enoch was translated lest he should see death that is lest he should be continually sick and that he might not feel the discommodities which accompany death Secondly that opinion leadeth Enoch to death but not the dolorous way to it which indeed rather beggeth the question then proveth any thing against me Lastly there is no circumstance inducing us to think that the Apostle by the word death aimed at the large and extended signification of it for calamities or sicknes Sure about Enoch his time there were no such notable calamities upon the Saints and the generations of the world were then strong and healthfull Thirdly saith Drusius in the same place It may be said Enoch died not because the Scripture when it mentioneth his rapture mentioneth not his death so the Jews say Jacob is not dead because the Scripture useth the word of EXPIRING not of DYING This is ridiculous for what is expiring but dying Genes 49.33 Jacob yeelded up the ghost and was gathered unto his people doth not either of these phrases do not both evince that he died Oh but the Jews say Jacob non est mortuus I am sure the Apostle Hebr. 11.21 speaking of Jacob saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he was dying he blessed his children or when he was a dying as it is in our last translation It evinceth he died within a while after And I am sure again that Christ Luke 20.37 from the testimonie of Moses proveth that Jacob died I am also sure that S. Stephen saith Act. 7.15 Jacob went down into Egypt and died Surely these crotchets of misbeleeving Jews should not have the least countenance against pregnant proofs both of the Old and New Testament Drusius yet inforceth this third answer thus The same Apostle saith of Melchisedech Heb. 7.3 HE WAS WITHOVT FATHER WITHOVT MOTHER WITHOVT DESCENT HAVING NEITHER BEGINNING OF DAYES NOR END OF LIFE Wherefore without doubt because in Scripture there is no mention of his parents and kindred of his birth or of his death I answer First If it be said of all whose progenitours issues kindreds birth and death are unrevealed in Scripture that they were without father mother descent having neither beginning of dayes nor end of life we should have many very many more Melchisedechs in those respects Demetrius the silversmith and Alexander the coppersmith and troups of the wicked Daniel Sidrach Misach and Abednego Nathanael and Joseph of Arimathea S. Mark and S. Luke and divers others For what mention is there of their parents their children their genealogies their birth-dayes or of their death-dayes in the sacred Writ Therefore these words may be said of Melchisedech without any reference at all to that reason and the words may not be said of others though the divine Scripture omitteth as much as it did of Melchisedech Secondly if we grant that it is in part the reason why he is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a father c. yet it may be said also because no other record before S. Pauls time no sacred or profane Authour no tradition no book Apocryphall historified his parents or issue so farre as yet appeareth And because S. Paul who knew the names of Jannes and Jambres some such way or by revelation immediate and by no such way knew Melchisedechs pedegree he might say as he did Thirdly Erasmus saith Melchisedech came of obscure parents not worthy to be named Before him Eustatius Antiochenus said the same and perhaps it may be a reason why David called his Nephews Joab and Abishai the sonnes of Zeruiah 2. Samuel 19.22 for Zeruiah was Davids own sister 1. Chron. 2.16 and omitted their father for his unworthinesse yea the Divine historie where David is silent often mentioneth Joab and Abishai with the addition of their mothers name but alwayes omitteth the fathers name This I cannot think to be Melchisedechs case for being a King and so glorious a Priest both in one it is most unlikely that he had obscure and poore parents yet he might descend from cursed Cham as well as Christ from Moabitish Ruth or from Rahab the harlot of Canaan Fourthly the Jews say He was a bastard But it is sooner said then proved for never bastard attained as called by God to those two highest conjoyned titles of King and Priest Many men have thought him to be Noah and more to be Sem Noahs sonne as some Jews Lyra and Abulensis when indeed he can be neither n Quidam admodum stultè opinantur Sem esse Melchisedechum Vâ—rùm id impossibile est suprà enim cùm ejus genealogiam explicaremus patuit quòd nec Tharrae tempora assequi potuit Some very foolishly think that Sem was Melchisedech saith Procopius But that is impossible for when I set down his genealogie it appeareth that he lived not to the time of Terah or Thara Genesis 11.24 So he who hitteth the truth that Melchisedech was not Sem but is out in the genealogie for both Noah and Sem lived in Abrahams time See Cornelius à Lapide on the Hebrews and the learned Helvicus Noah saith Helvicus died the 57 yeare of Abraham and Sem out-lived Abraham That neither Noah nor Sem could be Melchisedech is demonstrable from Hebr. 7.6 Melchisedechs descent or pedegree is not counted saith the Apostle Hebr. 7. from Levi or Abraham or their Progenitours who came from Arphaxad the sonne of Sem the sonne of Noah Secondly both Noah and Sem and their genealogie and generations are perfectly and exactly set down but Melchisedech is without descent or pedegree or genealogie Hebr. 7.3 as undescribed say they Thirdly we know Sems father was Noah Noahs father was Lamech but Melchisedechs father is not known Fourthly Noah died Genes 9.29 and Sem lived not 603 yeares as it is apparent Genes 11.10 c. Helvicus maketh his death fall on his six hundredth yeare but there is no end known of Melchisedechs dayes Origen in likelihood fore-seeing the inconveniences accompanying the fore-recited and commonly received opinion inventeth a new trick That Melchisedech was an Angel After him ran Didymus But no Angel was ever a temporall earthly King no Angel was ever a Priest offering up bread and wine and receiving tithes or had an order of Priesthood annexed to any of them no Angel had ever pedigree from