Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	speak_v	tongue_n	unknown_a	3,037	5	10.3259	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A04774	Miscellanies of divinitie divided into three books, wherein is explained at large the estate of the soul in her origination, separation, particular judgement, and conduct to eternall blisse or torment. By Edvvard Kellet Doctour in Divinitie, and one of the canons of the Cathedrall Church of Exon.	Kellett, Edward, 1583-1641.	1635 (1635)	STC 14904; ESTC S106557	484,643	488

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here whereas in the place of Exodus it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Also in the Septuagint the first place is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Leviticus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may well be expounded one manner of pleading their causes as there was one law This I am sure of the verb is so used Micah 7.9 I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 untill he plead my cause Why may not then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the pleading of ones cause And why may not the meaning of our Apostle be That as Adam was ostium mortis The doore of death so Christ is clavis resurrectionis The key of the resurrection as Tertullian sweetly calleth him And as by Adam all and every one was guilty of death and damnation so by Christs merit every one shall arise to free himself from it if he can and to plead wherefore he should not be condemned to defend himself and answer for himself as Paul did Acts 26.2 to apologize And herein Adam and Christ to be like That as every one was made guilty by one of condemnation so every one for Christs all-sufficient condignity shall be permitted yea enabled to speak for himself why the sentence shall not be executed But these things I leave to the Professours of the Greek tongue and suo quisque judicio abundet So much for the second exposition of the words and for the similitudes and dissimilitudes between Adam and Christ from which resulteth That Adam representing us did not so much hurt us as Christ representing us did do good unto us And therefore since we are acquitted from sinne from all sinnes originall and actuall since we are acquitted from eternall death and have grace and abundance of grace and the gift of righteousnesse and shall have life eternall and shall reigne in life by ones obedience by one onely Jesus Christ who in his life and on the altar of the crosse merited all these things for us it is no hard measure no iniquity of God if for Adams sinne and disobedience when he sustained our persons both himself and his posterity in his loyns implicitly consenting with him be appointed to die And thus much shall suffice for the first generall Question upon the words of the Text. The second followeth Drusius towards the end of his Preface before his book called Enoch thus * Haec alia quae hoc libro continentur ut in aliis omnibus à me unquam editis aut edendis subjicio libens Ecclesiae Catholicae judicio à cujus recto sensu si dissentio non er● pertinax These and other things which are contained in this book as also in all other books which have been or shall be set forth by me I willingly submit to the censure of the Catholick Church from whose right judgement if I dissent I will not be pertinacious O Deity incomprehensible and Trinity in Unity in all respects superexcellent and most admirable with all the faculties of my soul and body I humbly beg of thee to shew thy mercy upon me for Jesus Christ his sake and O blessed Redeemer accept my prayer and present it with favour to the throne of grace where thou canst not be denied If thou O gracious Jesu art not able to help me and to save my sinfull soul let me die comfortlesse and let my soul perish but since thy power is infinite I beseech thee to make me one of those whom thou bringest to more happinesse then all our enemies could bring to miserie Heare me for thy tender mercies sake and for thy glorious name O great Mediatour Jesu Christ AMEN AMEN MISCELLANIES OF DIVINITIE THE SECOND BOOK CHAP. I. Sect. 1. THe question propounded and explained 2. Armenius or rather his sonne Zoroaster dead and revived 3. Antillus dead and living again because the messenger of death mistook him in stead of Nicandas Nicandas died in his stead 4. A carelesse Christian died and recovered life lived an Anchorite twelve yeares died religiously SECT 1. THe second Question which from the words of my Text I propounded is this Whether such as have been raised from the dead did die the second time yea or no because it is said It is appointed for men once to die I speak not of those who have been thought to be dead and have been stretch't out and yet their soul hath been within them though divers for divers daies and upon severall sicknesses have had neither heat nor breathing discernable but onely of such who have suffered a true separation of their souls from their bodies Whether these have again delivered up the ghost and died I make my question 2. Before I come to mention those whom the Scripture recordeth to be truly raised I hold it not amisse to propound to your view a few stories out of other authours Theodoret lib. 10. de fine judicio hath two strange relations The first is out of Plato of one Armenius but Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat 5. relateth from Zoroaster himself that it was Zoroaster the sonne of Armenius He who onely of all the world laughed so soon as he was born saith Plin. 7.16 and was so famous a Magician One of these two either father or sonne the twelfth day after he and others fell in the battell and was to be buried ante pyram constitutus revixit and being come to himself told what he had seen apud inferos namely that his soul being divided from his bodie came with many others who died with him to an admirable and incredible place in which there were two gulfs opes or ruptures of the earth and two open places of heaven right over them In the midst of these hiatus or gulfs judges did fit who when judgement was ended bade the just souls ascend by the heavenly opennes and gaps the judges sowing on their breasts the notes of their judgement But the souls of the wicked men were commanded to go on the left hand and to be hurried to hell carrying with them on their backs the memoriall of their passed life But as for himself being now come in fight the judges bade him diligently heare and see all things and tell all those things which were done when he revived These are sayings worthy of Philosophy saith Theodoret. 3 A second storie is cited in the same place by Theodoret from Plutarch among those things which he wrote De anima Sositiles Heracleon and I saith Plutarch were present when Antillus told us this of himself The Physicians thought Antillus to be dead but he came to himself as one out of a deep sleep and neither said nor did any other thing * Quod emetae mentis signum possit censeri which might argue him to be crazy or light-headed but he told us that he was dead and that he was again revived and that his death upon that sicknesse

The Lord cometh and the words immediately following make it to have apparent and undeniable reference to the last judgement Nor were the words Maran-atha taken from Moses Deut. 33.2 though he saith The Lord came with 11000 of Saints where is a great similitude of some particulars for there is related what passed at the deliverie of the Law and neither Mara nor Maran is mentioned but rather by the semblance of words we may think Moses alluded to the prophesie of Enoch which long after this S. Jude citeth expresly as prophesying of future punishment to be inflicted for the breach of the Law And indeed Ambrose well expounds our Maran-atha of the second coming of Christ so Clemens Romanus Epist 2. in fine Augustine Epist 178 thus Anathema condemnatus Maran-atha definiunt Donec Dominus redeat Condemned till the Lord return to judgement Most true it is Maran-atha is added to exaggerate the power of the Execration and that it is a form of Execration so was it in the intent of the Donor in Mariana The Talmudists say it signifieth one delivered into the hand of the Tormentour by the judgement of the Lord himself Answerable it is in sense to the words in the 17. Chapter of the 6. Councel of Toledo l Perpetuò Anathemate damnetur May he be perpetually anathematized and Chapter 18. m Anathemate divino perculsus absque uilo remedii loco habeatur damnatus aeterno judicio Being stricken thorough with the divine curse without all hope of remedy let him be esteemed damned by the eternall judgement Therefore indeed foolish were they who thought Anathema Maran-atha to be a kinde of oath as if S. Paul adjured them by the coming of Christ yet so some held saith Peter Martyr More foolish was Cornelius a Lapide the Jesuit who on the place confessing the words to be n Verba execrantis denuntiantis aeternam damnationem imò verba condemnantis Words of imprecation of commination of the eternall damnation yea words of condemnation acknowledging also that Maran-atha is Anathema like to Hasschammata being usually contracted to Schammata which was generally known to be an excommunication of an high form adding also that o Maranus est idem quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excommunicatus ob apostasiam Maranus and a man excommunicate for apostasie are Synonymaes yet for all these things by himself avouched saith expresly * Non sunt verba excommunicantis They are not words of one that excommunicateth But indeed they are words of an excommunication taken from the minatorie prophesie of Enoch recited by S. Jude verse 14. The Lord cometh p Indè ergò nemo non videt deductam illam Anathematis rationem ex primis illius Anathematis verbis minùs aliàs ad alia aliarum sententiarum initia usitatis Anathema ipsum de more Hebraeorum appellatum fuisse From thence therefore every man seeeth that Anathema is deduced and that according to the Hebrew guise it is called Anathema from the beginning or first words of that curse which words are otherwise lesse used to the beginnings of other sentences saith the learned Bertram Maran-atha is q Extremum genus excommunicationis apud Hebraees The highest and greatest degree of excommunication among the Jews saith Drusius in his Henoch pag. 29. who addeth concerning the Apocryphall books of Henoch that the Jews say they have them yet to this day From whence it is likely both that the Jews took their form of excommunication and from the first words of the curse Maran-atha might denominate the intire Anathema Maran-atha as from the beginnings of writs or from the principall words many of our Common-law-writs are so called aswell as the decrees of Popes Nor let any object the unlikelihood that this Anathema is taken from Enochs prophesie because S. Jude hath it not like Maran-atha 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I answer that neither Hebrew nor Syriack nor our English so well endure the placing of the Verb before the Noun as the Greek doth but followeth naturally the naturall sequele of the words and not onely when Enoch spake it but when S. Jude first wrote in the Syriack if in it he wrote that was Maran-atha what after by the Spirit was changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the meaning is all one whether it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Noun must be construed before the Verb The Lord cometh Maran-atha This excommunication S. Paul briefly and in two words reciteth as an usance of the Jewish Synagogue and fit to be introduced into the Christian Temples and exercised in Ecclesiasticall discipline So much of that An other instance is in Act. 3.21 What is in the Latine and Greek full of Amphibologie diversely at divers editions rendered by Beza and others is plain radiant in the Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quem oportet quidē coelum recipere saith the vulgat The sentence is altogether doubtfull both in Greek and Latine saith Bellarmine Tom. 1. pag. 409. whether Jesus suscipiat coelum or coelum Jesum as Cajetan openeth the case Now the Syriack translated by Tremellius hath it Quem oportet coeli capiant Quem necesse est coelis ut capiant as it is varied by the skilfull Linguist Bertram Quem oportet coelum ut capiat saith the Arabick all running to the second exposition that the heavens must contain Christ Which words being firm against the Ubiquitaries they interpret Coelum not properly but figuratively for the glorie reigne and majestie of God r Alioqui enim si sermo esset de loco dictum esset Quem oportet coelo recipi For otherwise if he had meant the place of Heaven it would have been said Who must be received into Heaven So Illyricus in lib. de Ascensione Christi But Illyricus must not teach the holy Ghost how to speak nor be offended if the All-wise Divine Spirit use an Amphibolous phrase in the Greek which is cleared by the more Eastern tongues In my opinion he might rather have said that perhaps by Heaven GOD is meant both because our blessed Saviours last words were Luke 23.46 Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit which most certainly was received into the hands of his Father in heaven as also for that not onely the word Coeli in the plurall number is taken for God according to the use of the Aramaeans and also of the Jews as appeareth in the record containing the jointure and dowrie which Rabbi Moses made to Clarora the daughter of Rabbi David explained by Bertram at the end of his Aramaean and Hebrew Grammar where the Bridegroom saith among other things f Esio mihi in uxorem juxta legem Mosit Israel ego ex verbo Coelorum colam honorabo alam regam te Be thou a wife to me according to the law of Moses and Israel and I according to

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-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 respie●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

Rom. 8.14 Many are led by the Spirit of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aguntur is no more in effect then ducuntur If it had been trahuntur yet f Herba trahit evem Meat draweth a sheep to it saith Augustine and all is farre from coaction And this may stop the mouth of Aretius saying on Peter 2.1 g Inviti saepe rapti sunt in hunc ordinem Moses Elias alii qui fuga potiùs hoc munus maluissent declinare Moses Elias and others who had rather have fled from these duties were oft unwillingly drawn to them It may be further objected Act. 4.20 We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard Fond is the exposition of the Ordinary glosse We CANNOT that is We WILL NOT. By such a That is I will confound heaven with earth But I answer The words imply no violence the wills of the Apostles were not inforced if the will of man could be compelled it were no longer Voluntas A will but rather Noluntas No will A thing may be said Posse aut non posse fieri To be or not to be made these wayes 1. We cannot but speak that is Non possumus convenienter tacere It is unreasonable that we should be silent Can the children of the Bridechamber mourn Matth. 9.15 is a question without question for certainly they could but while the bridegroom was with them they could not mourn that is It was no fit time for them to mourn Likewise the Apostles could hold their peace but then it became them not and therefore they say We cannot but speak 2. Non possumus licité We cannot lawfully so Lyra expounds the words We can do nothing against the truth saith S. Paul 2. Cor. 13.8 that is We cannot lawfully unlawfully he might and so might any other So here If we do lawfully and as we ought We cannot but speak 3. We cannot but speak that is We are very prone and apt to speak Mat. 12.34 How can ye being evil speak good things and how could the Apostles being good but speak good things their souls were filled with grace which boiled forth into words their mouth could not choose but speak what their heart thought My heart was hot within me while I was musing the fire burned then spake I with my tongue Psal 39.3 4. We cannot but speak that is We speak not of our selves but as God teacheth us Est Deus in nobis agitante calescimus illo When God on us doth blow By him our heat doth grow He moveth us mota faciliùs commoventur Things fixt are not so soon moved as things in motion so the Apostles were silent before but when the Spirit enlightned their understanding and framed their words could they hold their tongues themselves answer We cannot but speak I summe it up all thus It was inconvenient not to speak It was sinfull not to speak It proceeded from the habits of grace and goodnesse that they were so prone to speak It proceeded from the celestiall suggestion actuating their hearts and tongues Therefore say they VVe cannot but speak And yet away with all coaction Others may yet alledge the 1. Cor. 9.16 Necessitie is laid upon me to preach the Gospel and verse 17. If I do this thing willingly I have a reward but if against my will a dispensation is committed unto me Unto the first part I answer The necessitie is not of pressure angariation or force but of precept Obstrictus sum ad hoc I am commanded and bound to this as it is in the translated Arabick for he was often commanded to preach In Damascus Act. 22.15 in the temple of Jerusalem Act. 22.21 at Antioch Act. 13.2 h Si voluntatem adjungo necessitati praecepti mercedem habeo If unto the precept I adde a willing-readie heart I have my reward saith Aquin. But I will freely sacrifice unto the Lord saith David Psal 54.6 and S. Paul will preach rather for love then necessitie The other part of the words against my will evinceth not compulsion but backwardnesse slownesse and ill ends If I preach WILLINGLY that is for the love of Christ of my self of my brethrens souls for Gods honour and glorie and at his command I HAVE MY REWARD But if AGAINST MY WILL that is Vnwillingly or in an unwilling manner i Si solo timore servili praedico If for onely servile fear I preach saith Aquinas if for fear of wo denounced against me if for my private ends of fame or gain yet even to such a mercenary IS THE DISPENSATION COMMITTED 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the words against my will are not so properly expounded though it runne so in our Translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with a good will as Coverdale well translates it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a thing done proprio motu therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with an ill will grudgingly mercenarily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is non volens sluggishly drawlingly formally for fashions sake I will conclude this answer with the exposition of the Arabick and Syriack Translatours k Si facio hoc ex proposito mentis meae voluntate meâ est mihi merces si autem cùm facio ingratum est mihi c. If I do this purposely with a full will I have my reward if when I do it it is harsh unpleasant and sowre c. saith Arabs l Si voluntate meâ si praeter voluntatem meam If with my will if besides my will saith Syrus None of this tasteth of coaction There yet ariseth up another objection The same Apostle saith The love of Christ constraineth us 2. Cor. 5.14 I answer The words are diversly expounded Vrget nos Vrgeth us saith the Vulgat Cohibet nos Restraineth us saith Montanus Continet nos Containeth us saith Oecumenius Incendit nos amore Setteth us on fire with love saith Theodoret Charitas Christi constringit nos in hac sententia The love of Christ bindes us fast in this opinion saith Arabs such a constraint as would not be free such a bond or knot as would not be untied such a constraint as when a man is commanded to do that which he would do without command when precept is joyned to voluntarinesse when injunction is interposed between both precedent and subsequent willingnesse So much for the Objections On the other side for the truth these arguments stand forth Luke 1.3 It seemed good unto me to write unto thee saith he This proveth that the Evangelist was not compelled Gal. 6.11 Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand by which words S. Paul seeketh to ingratiate himself with them for that labour But it was neither matter of kindenesse on his part nor thank-worthy on their part if he were compelled No man dares write in a Princes name without his command S. John was spoke to advised commanded

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

of which hereafter and yet for all this dispensation it is truely said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not It Was appointed as having reference to what onely was past but It Is appointed It is a yoke that neither our fathers did nor we shall ever shake off and not onely labour and travell is an * Ecclus 40. ● heavy yoke upon the sonnes of Adam but much more death Neither hath the worlds redeemer freed us from the stroke but from the curse of death for even hitherto * Pallida morsaequo pulsat pede pauperum tabernas Regúmque turres Horat. Carm. l. 1. O● 4. Pale death doth knock with equall power At th' poore mans doore and kingly tower The grave yet gapeth and though myriads of myriads have died before though Paracelsus promised immortality in this life and perhaps therefore was cut off in the prime of his yeares yet death is * Job 30.23 and 21.33 the house appointed for all living and every man shall draw after him as there are innumerable before him Of the longest liver hath been said in the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His life is past or as the Romanes when they were loth to say one was dead spake significantly to the sense yet mildly by this word Vixit Ecclus 14.17 He had his time he did sometimes live And it is the condition of all times THOU SHALT DIE THE DEATH 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The universall note or particle is not added It is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet sure it is included and so meant Not Christ himself the destroyer of death is exempted nor his thrice-blessed Mother nor fair Absalom nor strong Sampson nor wise Solomon nor craftie Achitophel It is appointed to all men and women no sex is freed no nation priviledged no age excepted If some few have been dispensed withall I will say with S. Augustine * Alii sunt humanarum limites rerum alia divinarum signa virtutum alià naturaliter alia miral iliter siunt Aug lib. de Cura pro mortuls gerenda cap. 16 Other are the bounds of humane things other the signes of divine power some things are done naturally and some miraculously We speak of the ordinarie course It is appointed for all men TO DIE 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Death is a name of sundry significations and it is taken diversly for there is The last death by the losse of glory The death of the soul by the losse of grace The death of the body by the losse of the soul * Aug. De Civit. Dei lib. 13. cap. 12. If it be demanded saith S. Augustine what death God meaneth to our first parents Whether the death of the body or of the soul or of the whole man or that which is called THE SECOND DEATH we must Consitle si placet ingeniosum ejus Tractatum cap. 15. ejusdem libri saith he answer He threatneth all The death of the soul began immediately upon their eating and is evidenced by their hiding themselves and shame to be seen The death of the body presently seconded it Theod. in Gen. quaest 38. it suddenly becomes mortall saith Theodoret The sentence of mortality GOD called death in Symmachus his exposition For after the divine sentence every day that I may so speak he looked for death as it is in the same Theodoret. As we now expect the resurrection and life eternall every moment so Adam every minute looked for death I am sure he deserved it Peter Martyr on 1. Cor. 13.12 Our first parents perished * Primi parentes quum transgressi sunt illico periêre quoniam mors nequaquam alia censenda quàm recessus à vita nec vitam habemus citra Deum Quare mortui sunt quia à Deo recesserunt eorum anima non fuit à corpore avulsa sed in eo quodammodo sepulta in praesentia non vitam sed mortem vivimus so soon as they transgressed because no other death is to be imagined but a departure from life and we have no life out of God Therefore they died because they departed from God and their soul was not snatcht away from their bodie but in a manner buried in it For the present our life is not a life but a death Of the bodily death onely are the words of my Text to be understood being a prime commentarie on Genes 3.19 Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return It is appointed for men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Once to die * Quod casus in diabolo id in homine mors What fall is in the devil that death is in man They fell but once we die but once We must needs die and are as water spilt on the ground which cannot be gathered up again 2. Sam. 14.14 Waters once spilt embrace the dust and are not gathered up again nor can be spilt again Christ tasted death for every man Hebr. 2.9 As Christ being once dead dieth no more death hath no more dominion over him Rom. 6.9 so is it regularly and ordinarily with all other one corporall death sufficeth It is appointed unto men ONCE to die 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But after this the judgement Let me speak of the words severally and then in a lump or masse together That these articles Post tum mox modò After then anon presently and the like are taken at large for some yeares before or after you may see it proved in * Alb. Gent. disput ad 1. lib. Maccab. cap. 3. Al bericus Gentilis The Scripture thus Genes 38.1 At that time But it was ten yeares saith Tremellius Exod. 2.11 It came to passe in those dayes and he meaneth fourty yeares Matt. 3.1 In those dayes that is twenty and five yeares after Luke 23.43 To day is taken for presently Aretius hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vpon that or presently after that And questionles that is the meaning for though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After may be interpreted long-after as the word proximus contrarilie doth not enforce necessarily a nearenes Proximus huic longo sed proximus intervallo said Virgil excellently He was next but a great distance between yet in the holy Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after that doth most times rather intimate the procedure and order of things done then intend a large intercedencie of time John 19.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After that Jesus saith I thirst you must not understand it long after not yeares moneths weeks dayes or houres after that for our Saviour hung upon the crosse not above foure houres and many things were said and done before this So in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not evidently inferre a spacious distance of time but by the words after that we may say is meant not long after but presently or thereupon judgement cometh after death Which I the more confidently do so interpret because I know no place in the divine Writ where

Tim. 6.16 GOD onely hath immortalitie Neither was the body of Adam immortall as the Angelicall spirits and souls of men which had a beginning but shall have no end Nor immortall as the counsels of GOD which had no beginning but shall have an end His bodie was not eternal but eviternal or immortall not absolutely immortall but conditionally it should never have tasted death if he had not first tasted of the forbidden fruit Immortall not as if it could not die but because it might and could have lived ever He had not non posse mori and so he was mortall he had posse non mori and so was immortall As mortall is taken for earthly animall and contra-distinct to spirituall so his bodie was mortall and terrene not spirituall or celestiall As he could not possibly die unlesse he had sinned his very bodie was immortall In the Schoole-phrase thus both mortall and immortall are taken two waies Mortall for one who must needs die thus Adam was not mortall in innocency but by sinne was made mortall who can die thus was he mortall yet onely in sensu diviso because he could sinne therefore could die Immortall for one who cannot die so Adam in innocency was not immortall save onely in sensu conjuncto * Adam in natura sua habuit mortalitatem quandam scilicet aptitudinem moriendi it à aliquam immortalitatem in natura sua habuit id est aptitudinem quâ poterat non mori he was immortall and could not die unlesse he sinned upon whom there is no necessity laid that he should die thus was he simply immortall Lumbard thus Adam had in his nature some mortalitie an aptnes to die so he had in his nature some immortality that is * Pet. Diac. de Gratia Christ lib. 1. cap. 6. Fulg. lib. 2. cap. 13. Max. Profess Fidei snae cap. 8. to wit an aptnes by which he might not die 2. Sent. dist 19. lit F. Further as some have said Adam was neither mortall nor immortall for thus wrote Petrus Diaconus and Fulgentius * Corpus Adae ante peccatum mortale secundum aliam immortale secundum aliam causam dici poterat De Genesi ad literam lib. 6. cap. 25. and Maxentius so others have written that Adam was made both mortall and ●●mortall and all and every one of these in some sense is most true Augustine saith that Adams body before sinne may be said to be mortall in one respect and immortall in another as he there proveth at large Hierome hath a different strain and an unusuall phrase in one of his * Epist ad Paulum Concordiensem epistles wherein he maketh the body to be eternall till the serpent by his sinne prevailed against Adam and ascribeth a second kinde of immortality to the body because some of the first ages lived so long a time as about or above 900 yeares Even they who say Adams body was mortall agree in sense with me They distinguish thus It is one thing to be mortall and another thing to be subject to death If they grant to us that he was not obnoxious to death and could not die without finne I will not be offended much though they say he was mortall As this our flesh which now we have is not therefore not to be wounded because there is no necessitie that it should be wounded so the flesh of Adam in paradise was not therefore not mortall because there was no necessitie that it should die De peccat Meritis Remis l. 1. c. 3. saith Augustine So that this is but a meer logomachy They who call him mortall expound themselves that he could not mori unlesse he had sinned and I mean no more when I say he was immortall that is he could not have died in the state of innocencie without a precedent transgression he could not have been subject or obnoxius to death They say though he should not have died yet he was mortall I say he was therefore onely immortall because in that blessed estate he could not die Whether of these two contraries Mortall or Immortall do best fit Adam before he sinned let the reader judge As bodies are compounded of contrarieties they are subject to dissolution to the evidencing whereof let me recount what Holcot saith on Wisedome 12.22 upon these words We should look for mercy 2 Aristotle saith Holcot spake these his last words IREIOYCE THAT I GO OUT OF THE WORLD WHICH IS COMPOUNDED OF CONTRARIES BECAUSE BACH OF THE FOURE ELEMENTS IS CONTRARY TO OTHER AND THEREFORE HOW CAN THIS BODY COMPOUNDED OF THEM LONG ENDURE Then he dyed and the Philosophers prayed for him saith Holcot And because he did scorn to be behinde the Philosophers in love to Aristotle Holcot himself secondeth their prayers thus * Ille qui suscipit auimas philosophorum suscipiat animam tuam He that receiveth the souls of Philosophers let him receive thy soul This he speaketh to Aristotle by a part of that little Rhetorick that Holcot had or was used in his dayes or otherwise it might be the prayer of the Philosophers related by Holcot for the words are doubtfull No marvell therefore if after this our Christian Peripateticks the Divines of Culleyn have made Aristotle a Saint as they did if we beleeve * Corn. Agr. De Vanit Scient Cornelius Agrippa and perhaps prayed to him as devoutly as others prayed for him * Dinis annumerant They count him among the Gods saith Agrippa in his 45 Chapter though Agrippa himself be of a contrarie opinion for he saith * Ipsis Daemouibus dignum factus sacrificium Aristotle killed himself being made a sacrifice worthy of the Devils Sure I am I have read in a book Of the life and death of Aristotle in the beginning whereof the Poët prayeth to GOD from heaven to help him to write concerning Aristotle acceptable things and to speak in his words De sapiente viro cujus cor lumine miro Lustrâsti Divae super omnes Philosophiae Quem si non fractum lethi per flebilis actum Adventus prolis Divae veri quoque Solis Post se liquisset fidei qui vi micuisset Creditur à multis doctoribus artis adultis Quòd fidei lumen illustrans mentis acumen Defensatorem vix scivisset meliorem From whence the commenting questionist examineth Whether Aristotle would have been in an high degree the great champion of the Christian faith if he had lived after Christs time And he resolveth affirmatively because Aristotle had the best intellect among all the creatures under the sunne for supernaturals saith he are given according to the disposition of naturals * Cum conatu hominum with mens endeavour grace distilling on man according as he well useth the talent of nature But at the end of that book the Expositor strikes all dead in these words * Concludendo finaliter cum veritate dico c. Concluding

finally and with truth I say that Aristotle who heartily implored the mercy of GOD praying * ENS ENTIUM MISEREREMEI O BEING OF BEINGS HAVE MERCY ON ME by an holy and bodily death is translated * Ad solium aeternae beatitudinis to the Chair of Estate the Seat-royall and Throne of everlasting blisse Yea he holds the man mad who doubts hereof because Aristotle had the knowledge of the Almighty because he loved GOD as the fountain of all goodnesse because Aristotle was as necessary before the incarnation of Christ as the giving of grace necessarily presupposeth nature Whereupon he presumeth that Aristotle was * Praecursor Christi in uaturalibus sicut Joannes Baptista fuit praecursor ad praeparandam ipsiplebem perfectam in gratuitis fuit unus ex iis in Lege Veteri qui per gratiam personalem fuerunt de Lege Nova the forerunner of Christ in naturals as John the Baptist in supernaturals and that he was one of them in the Old Law who by a personall grace were of the New Law Just as the Fathers say David was a man in the Old not of the old Testament If Aristotle had grace if he be the fore-runner of Christ if he be placed in eternall happinesse it is a question not unworthy these curious times Whether they sinned most who prayed unto him or Holcot or the Philosophers cited by Holcot who prayed for him And without just offence to Aristotles Lycaeum I hope I may say though Jofrancus Offusius that great Mathematician in his preface to Maximilian which is before his book Of the divine power of starres saith that Aristotle was the High-priest of Philosophers yea * Vir coelestis Hens Prolegom in Nonnum an heavenly man saith Heinsius others have deified him Yet there were divers Philosophers from Aristotles death till some hundreds of yeares after Christs time who were in greater estimate among all the learned of those times then ever Aristotle was and perhaps there may be a farre perfecter body of Philosophie compiled from the dispersed tenents of other ancienter Philosophers and more accordant to truth and Scriptures then ever could be gathered from Peripatericall principles Theodoret in his fift book De curandis Graecorum affectibus as some have it or De Graecarum affectionum curatione lib. 4. which some do intitle De Naturâ hath these words * Aristoteles animam corruptibilem esse impudenter asseruit aequè ac Democritus Epicurus Aristotle hath impudently affirmed that the soul was corruptible as much as Democritus and Epicurus Again Who be now the Presidents of the Stoicall sect and who are the defenders of the doctrine of Aristotle the Stagiritan c. And as for Plato who made many speeches of the immortalitie of the soul he could never perswade that assertion no not to Aristotle his own hearer Concerning Plato Augustine saith he was most eagerly studious and Vives there addeth that Justin Martyr Eusebius and Theodoret report that Plato translated many things out of Hebrew books into his own And Numenius a Philosopher said * Quiuam hodie inveniuntur Stoicae sectae praesidentes quive etiam sunt qui Aristotelis Stagiritae doctrinam corroborant c. A● Plato quidem qui complures sermones de animae immortalitate disseruit nè Aristoteli quidene auditori suo persuasit eam positionem Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 8. cap. 11. What is Plato but Moses atticizing Moses the Athenian Hierome Dialog adversus Pelagianos lib. 1. bringeth in the Orthodoxal though personated Atticus against the feigned hereticall Critobulus saying thus * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I care not what Aristotle but what Paul teacheth And on Ecclesiastes 10.15 The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them * Neque enim mihi curae est quid Aristoteles sed quid Paulus doceat Reade saith he Plato peruse the subtilties of Aristotle * Lege Platonem Aristotelis revolve versutias and That text is fulfilled upon them Though there he nibble at Plato aswell as he biteth Aristotle yet others have stiled him The divine Plato And when Plato so often in his works saith thus * Antiqui perhibent In priscis habetur Oraculis The ancients do affirm It is in the old Oracles and the like he points not at his master Socrates or the preceding Pythagoras but to those learned Sages and ancient Magi who delivered these depths to the Egyptians as they did to him Augustine thus Therefore I was willing to treat of this point with the Platonicks because their books are better known For both the Greeks whose tongue excelleth among the Gentiles have highly extolled them and also the Latines being moved hereunto either by their excellency or by their glory and renown or by their sweetnesse c. So much for the great esteem of Plato hath Augustine Ludovicus Vives on this place addeth that from the dayes of Plato and Aristotle till the reigne of Severus the Emperour Aristotle was rather named then read or understood Then arose Alexander Aphrodisaeus to expound Aristotle yet Plato was more in request * Ideo cum Platonicis placuit hanc causam agere quia eorum sunt literae uotiores Nam Graeci quorum lingua in Gentibus praeeminet eos magnâ praedicatione celebrârunt Latini permoti earum vel excellentiâ vel gloriâ vel gratiâ c. Aug. De Civit. 8.10 untill Schools were publikely erected in France and Italy that is so long as the Greek and Latine tongue flourished Then falleth an heavy censure * Crebrior in manibus hominum notior usque ad Scholas in Gallia Italia publicè constitutas id est quamdiu Graeca Latina lingua viguerunt After that sciences began to be theatricall * Postquam theatricae coeperunt esse disciplinae omnisque earum fructus existimatus est posse disputando fucum fa●ere os obturare pulverē ante oculos jacere idque imperitissim â peritiâ nominibus ad libitum confictis accommodatiores ad rem visi sunt libri Logici Physici Aristotelis and all their profit was thought to be able to deceive in disputing and throw dust before the eyes by a most ignorant dexteritie and with words coyned at pleasure the Logick and Physick books of Aristotle seemed to be more fit And now was Plato not named and though Vives confesseth he thinketh Aristotle no lesse learned then Plato yet he calleth Plato the most holy Philosopher nor can endure to have him neglected And when Scaliger saith * Mancipia paucae lectionis qui in rebus divinis an eferunt Platonem Aristoteli Jul. Scal. Exercit. 365. sect 3. They be slaves of small reading who in divine things preferre Plato before Aristotle he speaketh partially neglecting diviner words of Plato then those cited out of Aristotle and straining the words cited to a more celestiall sense then ever they were intended as if Aristotle

children confirmed in grace and yet generate which he denieth Because the supposed priviledge of the All-gracious Virgin doth not derogate from the glorie of our most blessed Redeemer I will not contradict it though it maketh her more perfect then God made Adam and Eve in their integritie Lastly why might not generating parents be confirmed in grace when in the act there should have been no turpitude no salacious motion no lascivious titillation and those members might have been used without any itch of ticklish pleasure as our hands and feet and some other parts are now Reade S. Augustine De Civit. 14.24 and 26. most fully of these things Unto Estius his second reason which is this Angels were not ordained to blessednes but by the merit of their free-will and man was not first to be placed at the goal or end but in the way I answer Every Angel was to stand or fall by his own proper actuall free-will Man was unlike to them therein Adams actuall consent for us stood exactly for the actuall consent of each Angel for no Angel fell in Lucifer as we did in Adam But to the second branch of his argument I confesse with Aquine * Anim a hominis Angelussimiliter ad bea titudin●m ordinantur The soul of man and an Angel are alike ordained to blessednes The way was necessarie before the goal the means before the end But I must adde Adam was in the way and we in the way by him and in him and as he brought us out of the way by his straying by-path so by his undeviation we had been kept in the way More might be added but the Question hath swollen above its banks already I must be brief though I be obscure What Hugo and Lombard require was performed by Adam for us Though Estius in this point maketh God like an hard task-master and man a meer journy-man yet much was given to him who deserved little even for one onely and the easiest houres work So might God have done to us for his promise unto Adams obedience for us In that estate perhaps he needed no merit challenging due reward as there shall be no new recompense for desert after we are glorified But if merit had had place it might after confirmation in grace have procured speedier translation to an unchangeable life the accidentals of beatitude might have been increased in us as they shall be in the Angels of light though long since they were confirmed in grace Scotus objecteth The children of innocent Adam should have been Viatores in the way to happines therefore they might have been sinners I answer Viator is considered according to a twofold estate First for him that walketh in a slippery and dangerous way where he may be in or out Thus was Adam Viator thus were we Viatores in Adam before his fall and thus we could have sinned yea did sinne which is more then Scotus his argument evinceth Secondly Viator is taken according to the estate of him who walketh in a good sure way where no by-path can be made Thus we being confirmed should have been Viatores and yet could not have been sinners and herein we had been like to blessed Angels yea the same man might have been Viator in one regard and Comprehensor in an other respect at the same time So was Christ so had Adam and his children been upon confirmation in goodnes not that they should have had that plenitude of comprehension which is to be enjoyed after the generall judgement but such a comprehension which had been agreeable to that present estate though susceptible of degrees and capable of more perfection where Comprehensor is synonymous with beatus onely but not beatissimus The same Scotus further reasoneth thus The grace confirmed by the Merit of Christ in Baptisme or other Sacraments confirm not the receiver Therefore much lesse should any Merit of any parent or childe have confirmed us in justice I answer The confirmation had rather been from Gods gracious promise to Adam and his seed then from any merit properly so called Secondly The graces of Christ exhibited in the Sacraments of initiation and corroboration shall draw us up to an infallible confirmation in the estate of glorie where we shall have more comfort delight and good by Christ then we had harm by Adam if he had not fallen of which hereafter To some arguments and authorities for my opinion some answers are shaped by the Schoolmen I will loose the argument from S. Gregorie because it ingendereth more questions when this is too copiously handled already Anselm speaketh home for me if ever man spake Aquinas saith He did it opining not affirming Yet he saw the reason which induced Anselm to that Assertion Scotus also slubbereth over the authoritie of Anselm winking as it seemeth when he should have read the direct words * Dion De Divinis Nominibus cap. 4. Dionysius saith Bonum est potentius malo Good hath more power and vertue then evill But say I for the sinne of the first man came a necessitie of sinning upon all his children Therefore if he had stood there should have been a necessitie of not sinning Scotus answereth in the first place as if Dionysius were to be understood of a great Evill and a little Good which plainely that Father never meant Secondly he jumpeth in sense with Aquine and both do answer That we are not so necessitated to sinning that we can not return to justice and Adams sinne was not cause of our confirmation in evill I reply we are so necessitated by our nature that of our selves and from our selves we can not return to justice We are obstinate and confirmed in evill in regard of our own disabilities though not confirmed in evill nor obstinate if we consider the powerfull mercy of God And this is enough to make the argument hold good There should have been a necessitie of not sinning of our part otherwise Evill should have been more powerfull then Good which is the contradictorie to Dionysius For we can not but sinne of our selves and are obstinate though we are not so obstinate as the damned nor should have been so confirmed by Adam as the glorified shall be Unto our argument drawn from the similitude of Angelicall reward Aquinas answereth Men and Angels are not alike I reply We were both like in some things and unlike in other but in this we had been like That as the Angels were confirmed presently upon their first obedience so had Adam been confirmed and we in him For God loved not Man worse then the Angels For Christ verily took not on him the nature of Angels but he took on him the seed of Abraham Heb. 2.16 Scotus yeeldes himself captive to the force of this reason save onely that he opineth That every one of Adams children should as well as Adam have been confirmed in grace upon their actuall overcoming of the first temptation suggested unto them whereas I

his Father and Mother and cleave to his wife and they two shall be one flesh and by the same words perhaps understand Christ and his Church and that mysterie explained by S. Paul Ephes 5.31 c. those being the words of Adam as † Epiph. Contr a Ptolemaîtas Epiphanius saith of Adam speaking unto God speaking the truth of God and in this respect as I conceive Christ saith Matth. 19.4 c. these words are the words of God of the Creator as all light is from the Sunne so all truth from God as on the contrarie all lies are from the Devill I say if Adam could foresee marriages generations cohabitations mysteries and future usances he could not be ignorant that that law was given him to keep to the blisse of all mankinde and the contempt thereof would draw on the destruction of his posteritie And I think I shall not erre if I collect from the correlative correspondencie which must be between the Type and the Antitype the shadow and the substance That the first Adam knew his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or disobedience was sufficient to bring destruction on all mankinde as the second Adam knew that his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or obedience was a sufficient redemption for the sinnes of all the World Durand foolishly presupposeth that the will of Adam sinning was ours onely concomitativè interpretativè because we lost originall justice when Adam finned beyond his thoughts or intentions * Stap. De Originali Peccato 1.9 Stapleton saith truly If Adam intended no such thing with an actuall intention yet he did it with a virtuall intention But I rather think that the word If may be cut off and we may say Adam did as Esau afterward prefer temporals before spirituals and as all the sonnes of Adam do at one time or other for he was not ignorant of the danger yet embraced it and he might say within himself Video meliora probóque Deteriora sequor * Aug. De Gen. ad lit 11.18 Augustine hath this wittie Quaere Whether Adam and Eve foreknew their fall For if he did before hand know that he should sinne and that God would revenge it whence could he be happie and so he was in Paradise yet not happie If he did not foreknow his fall then by this ignorance he was either uncertain of that blessednesse and how was he then truly blessed or certain by a false hope and not by a right knowledge and then how was he not a fool I answer They did not know that they should fall or sinne for there was no necessitie laid upon them and to know the unalterable certaintie of a thing contingent as their future estate was is to take away the nature of its contingencie and to make it unavoidable But for all this ignorance they were certain enough of blessednesse if they would themselves and their wills and persons were in Paradise blessed though changeable though not so wholy blessed as good Angels are or as the Saints shall be For if we say Nothing is blessed but what hath attained absolute certainty and the height of blessednesse the very blessed Spirits of heaven shall not be said to be blessed especially if they be compared with God who onely is blessed And so Adam and Eve were beati modo quodam inferiori non tamen nullo that I answer in Augustines words Again to the former part of this Question I answer That they knew before hand that they could sinne and that God would punish them if they did sinne and yet for all this they had the grace given to stand if they would and so to avoid both sinne and punishment and withall they knew that they had that grace But if before hand they had known or could have known that they should have sinned they could not have been happie in Paradise yet as they were in Paradise they were happie though they knew not that they should fall For if men on earth may be called Saints Saints of light Blessed as they are often and Spirituall Galat. 6.1 though they were in their bodies to passe through both temptations and tribulations and can not divers times but fall much more Adam might be termed Blessed in Paradise who though he saw he might fall yet he saw also he might have stood and so rejoyced saith Augustine himself for the reward to come that he endured no tribulation for the present Lastly to S. Augustines three-headed Dilemma I answer by distinguishing There is a threefold ignorance The first is pravae dispositionis when one is prepossessed with a false opinion excluding knowledge this may be called positive ignorance or plain errour The second is ignorantia privationis when a man knoweth not what he is bound to know neither of these can consist with blessednesse nor was in innocent Adam But there is a third viz. ignoratio simplicis nescientiae when we know not such things as we need not to know This was in Adam and is in good Angels yea Christ himself knew not some things This ignorance is not sinfull nor erronious not making either imaginarily happie or foolish This great law in Tertullians phrase is stiled * Lex primordialis generalis quasi matrix omnium praeceptorum Dei The Mother-law breeding all other laws which had been sufficient for them if they had kept it saith he * Aug. De Civit. 14.12 Augustine and * Chrys Homil. 41. in Acta Apost Chrysostom agree in this That Adams first sinne onely maketh us culpable † Chrys in Ephes 6. Chrysostom calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first sinne Augustin saith that * Prima duntaxat Adae transgressio transit in posteros quia illo primo peccato universa naturae corrupta est Cont. Julian 3.6 Onely the first transgression of Adam is passed upon the posteritie because the whole nature is corrupted by that first sinne Therefore when a childe is born he hath originall sinne and death the wages thereof annexed as due to it not because he is a creature not because he is a person not because he is a person of mankinde or humane nature not because he descended from his immediate or mediate parents not because they came from Eve not onely because he was in the loyns of Adam of sinning or sinfull Adam but because he was in Adam when he first sinned and implicitly gave his consent to the committing of that first transgression and that primarie aversion which hath led us astray ever since 4. Some have held that Eve sinned before she talked with the Serpent So * Rup lib. 3. De Operib Trinit in Gen. cap. 5. Rupertus and * Ferus in Gen. 3. Ferus But certainly she sinned before Adam being carried headlong with the Bonū apparens did little imagine to work so much mischief Had she known that her husbands yeelding should necessarily and infallibly bring forth death to him and all his posteritie and after

us prove That originall sinne is not the concupiscence of the flesh See this confuted by * Bell. De Amiss Gratiae 4.12 Bellarmine by this argument If LVST were the cause of originall sinne he should have the greater sinne who was conceived in greater LVST which is manifestly false since originall sinne is equall in all men See other arguments well used to that purpose by Bellarmine in that place yet is he amisse * De Sacramento Baptismi 1.9 elsewhere in the answer unto the tenth argument of the Anabaptists For saith he * Originale peccatum non est materia poeniten tiae nemo enim rectè poe uitentiam agit ejus peccati quod ipse non commisit quod in ejus potestate non suit Originale autem peccatum non ipsi commisimus sed trahimus ab Adam per naturalem propagationem und● di●itur de insantibus Rom. 9 11. Originall sinne is no matter of repentance for a man doth not well repent of that sinne which he hath not committed himself and which was not in his power Now we have not our selves committed originall sinne but we draw it from Adam by naturall propagation whereupon it is said Rom. 9.11 of Esau and Jacob THEY HAD DONE NEITHER GOOD NOR EVIL First I answer to the place of Scripture confessing it is spoken of Esau wicked Esau that he had done no evill and of Jacob good Jacob that he had done no good Again it is spoken of both of them before they were born But secondly it is spoken of actuall sinnes and actuall goodnes that neither did Jacob good actuall good any good in the wombe nor Esau any actuall evil For the bodily organs are not so fitted that they exercise such actions as produce good or evil The words do evince so much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 practically working no good nor evil Yet though God depended not upon their works as the Apostle there argueth for all that they might and did commit originall sinne and in it were conceived and the promise was made to Rebecca after she conceived Genes 25.23 It being then manifest that the place of the Apostle affordeth no patrociny to Bellarmine I say originall sinne is in part the matter of Repentance otherwise David in his chiefest penitentiall Psalme 51.5 would not have charged himself with that sinne nor needed not so vehemently to call for mercy Again we may be said to commit originall sinne and originall sinne to have been in our power as we were in Adam as we would have done the like and the like against Adam as Adam did against us if we had stood in Adams place as he did stand in our stead Thirdly our will was in his will what he did we did Bellarmines Philosophie here swalloweth up his Divinitie Fourthly he must not take committere strictly for a full free deliberate action of commission nor trahere strictly for a meer passion but as I shall make it appear there is some little inclination from the matter to the form of the body to the soul as also of the soul to the body and that the soul is neither as a block or stone on the one side to receive durt and be integrally passive nor yet so active as to make the originall sinne to be actuall So that it neither properly committeth nor properly contracteth draweth or receiveth originall sinne and yet in a large sense may be said both to commit and to receive Fifthly if Bellarmine be punctilious for the terms himself is faultie For he saith * Trahimus ab Adam originale peccatum We do attract originall sinne from Adam Is there any attraction on our part if there be no action Or is action or attraction without some kinde of commission Sixthly hath the whole Church of God prayed for the remission aswell of originall sinne as of actuall if it be not the matter of repentance Or needeth not one unbaptized till he come of age repent before Baptisme for his originall sinne Lastly why are children baptized but that originall sinne is matter of repentance To set all things better in order and to cleare all mists you are to know that there is wonderfull mistaking and ambiguitie whil'st originall sinne is confounded with Adams actuall sinne and one taken for another whil'st the cause is undistinguished from the effect when indeed there is a great traverse between them 2 Somewhat according to the new Masters of method the efficient cause of Adams sinne was both outward and inward Outward Remote Outward Propinque Remote Principall Satan Remote Instrumentall the Serpent Outward propinque was Eve the principall Outward propinque was The apple was the instrumentall cause The inward efficient cause was first the faculties of the soul which we may terme the principium activum and was more remote then the ill use of these faculties the misimploying of his free-will which you may stile principium actuale and was the more propinque cause But the cause efficient of originall sinne was outwardly the actuall sinne of Adam inwardly the conjunction of the soul after the propagation of nature The matter of Adams sinne subjectivè was the whole person and nature of Adam and his posteritie descending from him per viam seminalem objectivè the liking touching and eating of the forbidden fruit The matter of originall sinne subjectivè is all of our nature and every one of mankinde secundum se totum totum sui coming the ordinarie way of generation in so much that all and every of the faculties of the soul and bodie of all and every one of us is subject to all and every sinne which hath been or may ever hereafter be committed and this cometh onely from this originall sinne and the inclination wrapped up in it The matter objectivè is both carentia justitiae originalis debitae inesse and the vices contrarie unto it now filling up its room and stead Formalis ratio of Adams first sinne was aversion from God the ratio materialis was his conversion to a changeable good saith * Stapl. De Originali Peccato 1.12 Stapleton both these are knit up in one disobedience And so the formall cause of Adams sinne was disobedience the formall cause of our originall sinne is the deformitie and corruption of nature falne and propagated inclining to sinne so soon as is possible and without a divine hand of restraint as much as is possible The end of Adams sinne was in his intention primarily To know good and evill secundarily to prefer temporals before spirituals whil'st indeed he esteemed the Bonum apparens before the Bonum verum revera or reale In mankinde after him no end can be found of originall sinne since we contract it when we have nullum verum aspectum respectum intuitum vel-sinem For Finis bonum convertuntur There is no end of evill per se sed ex accidenti and so Gods Glory is the supreme end of all sinne The effects of Adams actuall

freedome and not narrowly imprisoned Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary Where conception includeth in itself formation of the bodily parts and unition of the soul So Eve conceived and bare Cain Genes 4.1 and Cain his wife conceived and bare Chanoch vers 17. Again Genes 16.11 the Angel saith to Hagar Concepisti paries filium Thou art with childe saith our late Translation and shalt bear a sonne And usually in the Scriptures there are onely made two degrees of mans nativitie First conception wrapping within its verge generation with all degrees of formation nutrition and augmentation Secondly birth or bringing forth Whereupon they often runne in couplets together Concepit Peperit where conception is extended unto our nativitie Let this suffice against Bishop Bilson and his partisans Mollerus and others That conception is taken by Divines in a full unrestrained sense 3. Let us now with Physicians say somewhat of conception as it is taken natively physically properly and formally Though I never met with any who doth exactly set down the beginning progresse and end of conception with its infallible bounds and limits of time and wholy agrees with his fellows yet out of their manifold diversitie I have gathered enough to justifie that conception is within a very short time of coition when it is impossible there should be sinne properly unles the seed in the bodies of mankinde be sinfull or the soul be traducted by the seed which Bishop Bilson justly explodeth That which we call conception Physicians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which descendeth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which reception is in a short time then followeth permistion whereupon * Non minùs vivit semen quàm quadam pars corporis materni namque per cotylas quae sunt acceptabula corpor● materni strictè sic inseritur vt arboris trunco ramus qui virescii adhuc vita tenetur The seed liveth no lesse then a part of the mothers body for by vessels which are receptacles it is as straitly ingrafted into the body of the mother as a science into the stock of a tree which doth still flourish and is full of life And Hippocrates calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for upon commistion is life and this some do call a conception Galen seems to make conception one and the same with comprehension and retention If so it be since retention is immediately upon commistion if not before or at it conception cannot be long deferred Lastly if conception be a distinct action from the receiving attraction and from the permistion of the attracted and from the retention of the mingled or permixed if conception be * Vnificatio foecundi seminis ad formandum foetum the vivification of the fruitfull seed to the shaping of the fruit and be the fourth severall action of the wombe as * Laurent Histor Anatom 8.4 Laurentius hath it I say grant all this yet since the distance of time between these actions is very short conception must needs be shortly post coitum perfectum Some say within seven houres I say almost presently but let him that doubteth have recourse to Physicians and to the excellent description of conception made by the learned * Fernel De Hominis Procreatione 7.8 Fernelius For I will passe from this point wherein you see how great a difference there is between conception as God in Holy Writ speaketh of it with Divines accordingly using the word and as man describeth it naturally and I now come to speak of abortives 4 Job maketh two kindes of abortives which the Latines also do curiously discern and distinguish by the severall words Aborsus and Abortus the lofty and learned Bolducus is my Author the former is more secret and kept close the latter exposed more to sight and knowledge and if being ripe for birth it die before is called Exterricinius by Festus The former is livelesse formlesse the latter living and formed before abortion the former aborsed within 40 dayes upon conception the latter after distinguishable organization The aborsive had no images kept in remembrance of them saith Lorinus on Ecclesiastes 6.3 as Bolducus on Job 3.16 citeth him the abortive had the aborsive had no graves properly so called but the abortive had The former indeed were allowed a buriall place though not properly a grave Fulgentius De Prisco Sermone saith The Ancients did call the places of infants buriall SUGGRUNDARIA They could not call them Busta because they had not bones which might be burnt nor could they be named Tumuli because they were so small that the place did not tumescere Therefore the Vulgat did not so aptly read it Job 10.19 Translatus ad tumulum it had been more properly ad suggrundarium Our English late Translation hath it To the grave And though the word and noun Keber there used cometh of the verb Kabar which signifieth sepelire some comparing it to its transposit and anagram Rakab which signifieth to rot or putrifie and full often denoteth the sepulchres and graves in the Holy Writ yet perhaps it would better have sorted to the ancient custome of interring untimely births if they had read it I should have been carried from the wombe to my burying place and omitted the grave as being the receptacle of greater bodies Job wisheth he had been like the first of these Job 10.18 and saith of it I should have been as though I had not been vers 19. Semblably Job 3.16 As an untimely birth I had not been and in reference to the speedy and secret removing it from out of sight Job there calleth it an hidden untimely birth To the second sort Job wisheth he had been like Job 3.11 Why died I not from the wombe as our late Translatours have it agreeable to the Hebrew word for word but the sense is hit by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Vulgat In utero To which second sort also the Preacher pointeth Ecclesiastes 6.3 saying thus If a man beget an hundred children and live many yeares and his soul be not filled with good and also that he have no buriall I say an untimely birth is better then he If any one wonder why Job desired to be like each of the untimely births and why Solomon should preferre an abortive before an unburied churl when David curseth his enemies with this curse of God Psal 58.8 Let them be like the untimely birth of a woman that may not see the sun which indeed is an heavy imprecation as may appeare by the rest of the curse unfolded in these similitudes Break out the great teeth of the young lions ô Lord vers 6. and vers 7. Let them melt away as waters which runne continually when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows let them be as cut in pieces and vers 8. As a snail which melteth let every one of them passe away you are to know that Job did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉

fail me not in S. Augustine The personall offences or holinesse of parents are not communicated to their children Again they object that they confirm this by experience These are words of winde and nothing else That wicked ones beget often children like to them who denieth That their children have their fathers personall sinnes transmitted is the begging of the question Yea but they prove it by examples of Scripture How or where By the place Exod. 20.5 I visit the sinnes of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me I answer He doth not say I transmit or communicate sinnes which is our onely question Even Illyricus himself among all his expositions of visitare hath none for communicare propagure transfundere transferre and particularly of this place of Exodus he saith f Visitans iniquitatem patrum id est puniens posteros ob majorum suorum enormia delicta Visiting the iniquitie of the fathers that is punishing the posteritie for the enormious sinnes of their ancestours Yet if to visit had been to propagate actuall sinnes it had been his best proof That the substance of the soul is corrupt by originall sinne and hath in it the image of Satan They alledge S. August who saith it is probable by that place of Exodus The words of S. August are these in the place by them cited g Parentum quoq peccatis parvulos obugari non solùm primorum hominum sedetiam suorum de quibus ipsi nati sunt non improbabiliter dicitur It is not improbably said that children are liable to the sinnes of their parents not onely of their first parents but also those of whom they are immediately born And at the end of that chapter h In illo uno quod in omnes homines pertransiit atque tam magnum est ut in ●o mutaretur converteretur in necessitatem mortis humana natura reperiuntur plura peccata alia parentum quae etsi non possunt mutare naturam reatu tamen obligant filios In that one sinne which passed over to all men and is so great that in it humane nature was changed and turned to a necessitie of death more sinnes are found and other of parents which albeit they change not our nature yet by their guilt they binde children where he makes an apparent distinction between that one sinne which changed our nature and was propagated unto us and those other personall sinnes of our fathers which change not our nature but binde us over unto punishment for that is his meaning of reatu obligant He doth no where say such sinnes are communicated unto us or that they binde us with the guilt of offence but he is to be understood of the guilt of punishment And so Bellarmine expounds him De amission grat statu peccati 4.18 Indeed he doth it somewhat timerously towards the beginning of the chapter with a i Fortasse non de contagione culpae sed de communicatione poenae locuti sunt Augustinus perchance But he is more positive and fully assertive at the latter end of the same chapter that Augustine and the Fathers spake onely of the communication of punishment which Bellarmine proveth because they instance in Exod. 20.5 which hath apparent reference to punishment and indeed so the word visit is most-wise used in Scripture viz. for to punish and sometimes in love mercy grace and goodnesse to visit but never is used for the communicating or propagating trajecting or transmitting of sinnes Nay k Greg. Mor. 15.22 Gregorie goeth further as he is cited by Bellarmine teaching that the place of Exodus is to be understood of those children who imitate the sinnes of their parents and so the Chaldee Paraphrase hath it saith Vatablus Lastly to cleare this truth that Augustine in that place meant onely the binding over unto punishment see his own words Chap. 47. which I marvel that Bellarmine passeth over l Sed de peccatis aliorum parentum quibus ab ipso Adam usque ad patrem suum progeneratoribus suis quisque succedit non immeritò disceptari potest utrùm ●mnium malis actibus multiplicatis delictis originalibus qui uascitur implìcetur ut tantò pejùs quantò posteriùs quisque nascatur A● propterea Deus in tertiam quartam generationem de peccatis c●rum posteris commin●●ur quia iram suam quantum ad progenitorum suorum culpas non extendit ulteriùs moderatione miserationis suae nè illi quibus regenerationis gratia non confertur nimiâ sarcinâ in ipsa sua aeterna damnatione premerentur si cogerentur ab initio generis humeni omniū praecedentium parentum suorum originaliter peccata contrabere poenas pro iis debitas pendere An aliud aliquid de re tanta in Scripturis san●●is diligentiùs perscrutatis tractatis vakat vel non valeat reperiri temerè non audeo affirmare But touching the sinnes of other parents by which every one from Adam himself to his own father succeeds his ancestours it may well be disputed Whether he that is born be involved in the evil acts and multiplied original sinnes of all so that how much the later any man is born so much the worse Or whether God doth therefore threaten the posterity unto the third and fourth generation for their parents sinnes because through his mercifull moderation he extends his wrath no further for the faults of progenitours lest they to whom the grace of regeneration is not given should be pressed with too great a burden in their eternall damnation if they were forced to contract the original sinnes of all their forefathers from the beginning of mankinde and to undergo the punishments due to them Or whether some thing else concerning so weighty a matter may be found in the holy Scriptures diligently searched and perused I dare not rashly affirm You have the whole chapter word for word out of S. Augustine In which observe First the adversative particle Sed distinguishing the question from the other which also Erasmus in the margin hath thus diversified comprising the meaning of the 46 chapter in these words m Pecc●●is parentum obligari filios That the children are bound by the sinnes of their parents and of the 47 chapter n Quousque majorum peccata prorogcutur non temerè desiniendum We ought not rashly to determine how farre the sinnes of ancestours be extended Secondly in the former chapter he said exactly o Non improbabiliter dicitur parentum peccatis parvulos obligari It is not improbably said that infants are bound by the sinnes of their parents He changeth the phrase in the latter p Non immeritò disceptari potest Non audeo temerè affirmare It may well be disputed and I dare not rashly affirm Thirdly his phrases in the former chapter are not so distinct as in the latter where he mentioneth both the

q Qui dissolvit pactum numquid essugiet He that breaketh his covenant shall he escape unpunished S. Hierome truely thus concludeth r Etiam inter hostes servanda fides est Even among enemies faith is to be kept adding a divine caution which compriseth our cause ſ Non considerandum cui sed per quem juraveris Multò enim fidelior est ille qui propter nomen Dei tibi credidit deceptus est te qui per occasionem divinae Majestatis hosts tuo imò jam amico es molitus insidias It is not to be considered to whom but by whom thou hast sworn For he is much more faithfull who for the name of God beleeved thee and was deceived then thou who didst circumvent thine enemie yea now thy friend by abusing Gods sacred Majestie I acknowledge that S. Hierome speaketh of oaths between Kings or such as have been enemies but the reasons reach and extend themselves even to the causes of private men Lying fraud or any collusion by mentall reservation or verball equivocation is wholly to be secluded and abhorred when an oath is taken prudent silence in diverse cases is admitted Yea but if an examinate be adjured shall he then be silent still silent I answer I would have him imitate our blessed Saviour who saying nothing at divers times insomuch that the governour marvelled greatly Matth. 27.14 yet when the high priest said * Matth. 26.63 I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the sonne of God though he knew it would cost him his life he concealed not the truth And in such an adjuration upon Religion the examinate is bound to give an account of his faith and to witnesse a good confession though to the expense of his bloud t Contra Marcionem lib. 4. pag. 286. Tertullian seems to be more scrupulous in lesser matters saying u Justa digna praescriptio est in omni quaestione ad propositum interrogationis pertinere debere sensum responsionis Aliud consulenti aliud respondere dementis est It is a just and worthy rule that in every question the answer should be applied to the same sense purpose to which the interrogation is made To answer of one thing when he is asked of another is the part of a mad man Again x Sensus responsionis non est ad aliud dirigendus quàm ad propositum interrogationis quò magìs absit à Christo quod nè homini quidem convenit The sense of the answer is not to be directed to any other thing then that which was propounded in the interrogation So farre is that from Christ which beseems not a meer man So he I answer first Tertullian speaketh of questions in Divinitie to instruct the soul and there it were sinne to delude the simple questionist Secondly he speaketh of questions extra jactum teli cùm aries murum non percusserit of questions not concerning great danger life or limme which doth somewhat vary the case Thirdly an homonymous answer of verball equivocation doth both correspond to the sense of the question which is all that Tertullian requireth and implieth also a second sense which may be understood by an intelligent hearer which in a mentall reservation is impossible to be unlocked opened and cleared except by an hand divine Fourthly Tertullian cannot be thought to condemn verball equivocation the daintie use whereof makes almost as great a difference between a wise man and an idiot as between an idiot and a beast and none but wise men can use it with comfort and delight And the wiser men be as their hearts by divers thoughts are deeper then the fools so their words are more abstruse bivious multivious What writings under heaven of finite men have or can have such multiplicity of meanings as are in Scripture comprised under the words dictated by an infinite Spirit whose whole intire exact depths the meer creature never knew fully and perfectly If I might have my desire quoth S. Augustine I had rather speak in words whose divers senses might give content to divers people of different apprehensions then in words that can have one sense onely The second thing I would commend unto this examinate is to give faire language to his Judges Let him not be bold and malapert nor use clamorous opposition Let not the ignorant Syllogize in Barbara Darii Ferio or marre his cause by ill handling yet if he be unmoveably constant let him say I cannot dispute but I can die let him not provoke the Judge by words or actions ill advised Eulalia being a girle about 12 yeares old did spit in the face of the Judge that he might the rather condemn her The answer of Hannah 1. Samuel 1.15 c. when she was in bitternesse of soul to the misjudgeing and uncharitably zealous Priest Eli was as a sweet incense in the nostrils of God and is a good lesson for all to take out when they are called before the Magistrates though hard measure were offered How long wilt thou be drunken quoth he put away thy wine from thee And she answered No my lord I am a woman of a sorrowfull spirit I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink c. Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial The manner of answering may be sinfull though the matter be good froward behaviour never benefitteth a cause but a gentle answer pacifieth wrath Proverbs 15.1 Taunting recrimination argueth a distempered spirit in the gall of bitternesse How humbly did our blessed Saviour behave himself under the hands of unjust Judges How constantly zealously and boldly because they were inspired immediately from God did the Apostles Act. 4. plead for themselves yet without malapertnesse or irreverence S. Paul his speech to the high priest exacteth a larger discourse Acts. 23.5 Paul said I knew not brethren that he was the high priest Some think that S. Paul knew Ananias to be high priest when he called him painted wall I answer if so it were this is no fit example for sawcinesse to be used in our times towards Magistrates For first if S. Paul did know him he might speak though not as a Prophet yet illuminated and inspired from God which now is not in use Secondly he might speak as a Prophet foredivining an evil end to Ananias as indeed it came to passe saith y Homil. 6. de Laudibus Pauli Chrysostom If any one of them who now revile Magistracy have the spirit prophetical denouncing contingent future things which yet end in accomplishment I will not call him a sawcy presumptuous fellow Thirdly though divers learned men think the contrary and that he spake by an Irony when he said I knew not yet I perswade my self that S. Paul in truth knew not when he spake Ananias to be the high priest for these reasons First because he seemeth to put on the spirit of mildnesse towards them that stood

by him who were also the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 standers by who had smit and buffetted him and calling them by the charitable term of brethren whom it had been fitter to reprove it argueth his plain sincerity speaking of his superiour Secondly if S. Paul had spoken by way of jest irrision or Irony when he said I knew not brethren that he was the high priest he might well have ceased there But since he bringeth in the sacred Text seriously truly and sadly to confirm his nesciency and that there is no mocking with the divine veritie with me it shall passe currant that he spake from the bottome of his heart when he said he knew him not to be the high priest The Spirit never taught any inspired to apply Scripture contrary to their knowledge nor to cite the sacred Text of truth to prove an untruth Thirdly consider the Antithests and opposition between the words In the fifth verse he said simply and directly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I knew not where his ignorance is the more seriously professed by the opposition in the sixth verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Paul knowing that the one part were Sadduces and the other Pharisees as if the Spirit had said Paul indeed was ignorant who was the high priest but he knew they were divided into factions the word But running with a singular emphasis to this point Fourthly by this exposition we shall cut off that objection which Julian the Apostata used against S. Paul as if by this double dealing he were a very time-server in his words we maintaining all to be done in solemn gravity and reality of truth Fifthly if S. Paul had spoken Ironically that he had not known the high priest when they knew one an other how easily could the high priest have confuted and confounded him and laid lying and imposture to his charge But this he did not do therefore in likelihood S. Paul knew him not Lastly the objections for the former opinion are easily answered How could he be ignorant who was the high priest when he was bred up in their law and well acquainted and familiarly in their Synedrion and had been there when S. Stephen was condemned and when he got letters from the high priest a little before his conversion especially since he appealeth to the high priest as to his witnesse Acts 22.5 To the first point I confesse he was bred up in their law and could not then in likelihood be ignorant who was the high priest or what was his name yet now he might be ignorant for S. Paul had been away from Jerusalem a good while avoiding the storm of persecution and high priests died as other men and at that time there were two high priests which was not of old and with one of them he might not be acquainted Oh but he frequented the Synedrion I confesse that not onely the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young mans feet whose name was Saul Acts 7.58 but that Saul consented to the death of S. Stephen Acts 8.1 and as certain that he as a principall agent received letters from the high priest and all the estate of the elders to search out the Christians and to bring them to be punished Acts 22.5 and so he must needs know the high priest and the elders and they him and therefore in likelihood he was conversant sometimes in their Synedrion But I say as before this might not be that high priest who sat to condemn S. Stephen or to whom S. Paul appealed as witnesse but the other high priest might sit at this time and on this day since now and then one sat now and then an other and sometimes both of them And thus S. Paul might be ignorant who was his Judge Oh but he well knew the high priest by his place and by his clothes I answer The Jews were not now sitting in their Councel-house but where the chief Captain commanded them to appeare Acts 22.30 himself sitting as the Moderatour in his own tribunall which he was not wont to do in their Synedrion neither might the high priest take the proper vestments in such a place by which he might be known from others To close up all If nothing said before do satisfie thee but thou art confident that S. Paul did know the high priest though thou wert better to adhere to the words yet have I found out an other way for the opening of this point which hath perplexed many learned men Observe therefore I pray thee these things First that not onely the high priest but all their Councel were summoned to appeare Acts 22.30 and of the Councel each man had liberty to speak at his pleasure and at such publick trialls there is a great dinne murmures and mutterings so that the speaker is not alwaies discernable whiles many may speak at once and some louder then others Secondly while S. Paul earnestly beheld not the high priest onely but the Councel Acts 23.1 casting his eyes from one to another the high priest commanded him to be smitten on the mouth These words S. Paul might heare and yet not know in such a confused noise which of those his many Judges spake them and in likelihood thought that such an unjust sentence could not proceed out of the high priests mouth but to the authour of those words whosoever he was to that unjust Judge S. Paul sharply and punctually replied God will judge thee thou painted wall But when S. Paul was informed that they were the words of the high priest himself he was sory for his quick speech and said I knew not brethren that he was the high priest So that if S. Paul had known the high priest and the high priest him if they had been well acquainted the one with the other at this time of S. Pauls triall which will never be sufficiently proved yet here is now a new way as probable as any to excuse the Apostle from dissimulation and from using the Scripture as a cloke to it viz. Though S. Paul knew the man to be the high priest yet he knew not at first that it was the high priest who pronounced so unjust and furious a sentence but divers of the seventy two Judges might be speaking one to another and S. Paul might be mistaken at first in the speaker As if he had said I knew not brethren it was the high priest that spake these words concerning me And thus I hope this difficultie is cleared I will onely adde this That divers ancient Fathers from S. Pauls example in this place prove his modesty moderation and undisturbed passions by his sudden wise setled answers And That I hold this paraphrase probable as if S. Paul had said If I had wist that it was the high priest who used those words though I would not have forborn others yet I would have forborn him since God had said THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK EVIL OF THE RULER OF THY PEOPLE But yet this man

The easie things any man may judge of in the more abstruse the voice of the Pastours is to be followed c Quam clavem habebant Legis Dectores nisi interpretationem legis What key had the Doctours of the law saith Tertullian in the same place but the interpretation of the law So the key of interpretation rests in the ministery for things which need interpretation as hard places do though the key of agnition in things unto which their knowledge can aspire is permitted yea commended unto all men and they who withhold this key of knowledge from the people are accursed by Christ Luke 11.52 To the further explaining of my opinion let us consider in a Church corrupted these two sorts of people First the Magistrates either Civil or Ecclesiasticall And we will subdivide them into the Wilfully blinde and the Purblinde Of the first were some Bishops and Nobles and Gentry in Queen Maries dayes who hunted after bloud even the bloud of innocents and strained their authority to the highest Such is now the Inquisition falsly called the holy house with all the chief officers thereof such in the dayes of Christ were divers Scribes Pharisees Sadduces and some Rulers of the people who knowing the truth to be on Christs side by his doing such miracles as no man ever did before did choke and strangle their belief made shipwrack of their consciences resisted the holy Spirit who would neither go into the kingdome of heaven nor suffer others that were entering to go in against whom Christ pronounced wo upon wo Matth. 23.13 c. For they took away the key of knowledge Luke 11.52 and purposely kept the people ignorant and blinde According to their demerits there are reserved for them intima inferni the depths of hell blacknesse of darknesse and the greatest torments thereof without repentance The next tribe or sort are the purblinde Magistracy either Secular or Clergy Such were divers in the dayes of Queen Mary who had learning enough to know that all went not right yet did not vehemently oppose the truth but did swimme with the stream made the time their stern the whole Church turning and returning three or foure times in one age These were seduced as well as seducers Such also at this day are divers in the Papacy more moderate lesse rigid and rigorous concealing some truths they know because they have given up their hearts and beliefs to trust in their Church for such things as they do not know though they have means to learn and capacitie to understand if they would and therefore are faulty Such also were divers in the Jewish Church and State Ye killed the Prince of life saith S. Peter to the people Acts 3.15 And now brethren I wot that through ignorance ye did it as did also your rulers Such were those Pharisees Matth. 15.12 who were offended with Christ of whom Christ saith vers 14. They be blinde leaders of the blinde And if the blinde lead the blinde both shall fall into the ditch d In foveam peecati inferni Into the ditch of sinne and hell saith Hugo Cardinalis on the place e Cùm pastor per abrupta graditur necesse est ut grex in praecipitium ducatur When the shepherd goes by craggie clifts the flock must needs fall headlong and break their necks saith Gregory f Duces praeceptores fovea infernus The guides are the teachers and the ditch is hell saith Faber Stapulensis on the place So much of the purblinde Magistracy Clericall or Laicall in a corrupted Church From the Magistrates in the first place we descend to the people in the second place whom we also divide into their severall ranks and files In the generall they are either learned or unlearned The learned are first such as go against their conscience and practise contrary to their knowledge and belief sailing with winde and tide and because they will be found fault withall by the fewest they will do as the most do Timorous hypocrites they are fearing persecution losse of goods liberty and life more then they fear God who is able to destroy both body and soul for whom is kept the allotment of hypocrites brimstone and fire storm and tempest ignis vermis this shall be their portion to drink without repentance An other sort of learned men professing truth there are in a corrupted Church and each of them forsooth will be a reformer of the publick these despise government are presumptuous self-willed they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities 2. Pet. 2.10 speaking evil of the things that they understand not vers 12. as out of question they understand not all things which in their carping humour they censure people-pleasers ambitious of esteem full of words running as much after their own will as after their consciences hearty enough to draw on danger obstinate enough to provoke death Of these men though they die for some truths yet because they have a mixture of many errours in their intellect perversenesse in their will and ill grounded ill bounded affections wanting those godly endowments of charity before spoken of we may pronounce as the Apostle did They shall utterly perish in their own corruption 2. Pet. 2.12 Such a fellow was he and his like of whom g Anno 1543. Mr. Fox reporteth that when Christ said This is my body interpreted the words to this effect The word of God is to be broken distributed and eaten So when Christ said This is my bloud the blessed words are missensed as if Christ had then said The Scripture must be given to the people and received by them By which forced exposition the seal of our redemption is troden under foot the thrice-blessed sacrament of the bodie and bloud of our Lord is utterly annihilated whereas indeed in the words of consecration there are included verba concionatoria praedicanda words predicatorie and serving for doctrine I will not esteem him as an holy perfect martyr who dieth with such crotchets in his brain such pride in his heart Such an one was Ravaillac who for conscience sake forsooth stabbed the Anointed of the Lord the Heros of our time his naturall Soveraigne Henry the fourth of France He followed his conscience but his conscience had ill guides When he had outfaced tortures and death it self though he thought that he died a martyr if he died unrepentant the powers of hell gat hold upon him Such manner of people were those Jews who in most desperate fashion said His bloud be on us and on our children Matt. 27.25 Do you think they all were wholly ignorant do you think they all swerved against their consciences or rather medled they not in things above their callings were they not too presumptuous Thus though they had the knowledge of some truths and perhaps would have died for them yet their zeal wanted more and better knowledge to have rectified their consciences and they should have called

unbridled Circumcellions to choose their own wayes which is the guise of Separatists and to be their own judges and judges of whatsoever their Pastours preach which is the practice of ill taught zelots in our Church and by necessary consequence judges of things of Faith of Controversies and of Scripture it self And so the supreamest Tribunall for interpretation of matters religious to be the conscience of an unlearned brain But thou O Man of God flee these extreams and O blessed God and man O Saviour of mankinde Jesu Christ keep us in the mean and bring us by holinesse to the truth and by thy truth unto thy glory So be it Lord Jesu so be it The word of God is a sea saith p Epist 44. ad Constan●num S. Ambrose having in it deep senses and height of propheticall riddles But in these dayes of Libertinisme the simplest presume they can sound these deeps and finde out the riddle though they plow not with Samsons heifer Hence are these innumerable springs of errours which Luther even in his own time seeing to overflow Germany in his first book against Zwinglius and Oecolampadius saith If the world continue it will be again necessary by reason of the divers interpretations of Scripture that now are if we will keep the unity of the faith that we receive the decrees of Councels and flee to them The place of Augustine is common and in every mans mouth q Ego Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae Catholicae authoritas commoveret I would not beleeve the Gospel unlesse the authority of the Catholick Church moved ●●e How should we know that such and such things are S●●●●ure and not such or such but by the Church as by the f●●●●●●roductary means or why should not the unlearned people as well trust their Pastours for the exposition of Scripture as they have done and do and must do for the translation For be ye not deceived O over-inspired brethren neither Moses nor the Prophets nor Christ nor the Evangelists or Apostles ever wrote or penned your English Scripture They wrote in Hebrew Chaldee Syriack and Greek but they were your Pastours who translated the word of God into our mother tongue and some translations are more imperfect then other and no one absolutely perfect And will you silly ignaroes who cannot know whether the words be true or false well or ill translated be every one of you your judges of the meaning thereof which in deep points is harder then translating and usurp the power of interpretation I may take up the complaint of Michael Piccart in his epigram before Balthasar Bambach his tractates Et tractare quidem quisnam est qui sacra veretur Imberbes pueri jam quoque sacra crepant But I am loath to adde as he doth O pecus Arcadicum linguas priùs imbibe sanctas Et sacra ex ipso fonte deinde pete Yea I have an intent to have a bout with the learned Daniel Heinsius for maintaining in the preface to his Aristarchus Sacer upon Nonnus That no man can rightly interpret the Scriptures but he that is skilled in Eastern languages Hebrew Chaldee Syriack and Greek both sacred and profane Hellenistical and the pure which is all one in effect with the Jewish-Greek and the Heathen-Greek Some of his words pag. 53. are these r Multum resert scire Hebraea Hellenistes Graecè expresserit an Syra Hebraeum item textum an interpretationes respiciat Graecorum Quae nisi omnia distinguat operam necesse est interpres ludat Nos autem ut exiguae scientiae it à nullius ut loquuntur vulgò conscientiae existimamus qui transferre Sacra audet nec de istis cogitavit It is very materiall to know whether it be Hebrew or Syriack which the Hellenist expresseth in Greek also whether he hath respect to the Hebrew Text or to the Greek translations of it All which unlesse the expositour distinctly considereth he must needs lose his labour And we think him to be a man as of little skill so of no conscience that dares translate the Scriptures without any consideration of these things Both these were eminent professours and men singular among thousands the first in High-Germany the other in the Netherlands from whence some of them brag and some of us rejoyce that we have received the reformation of religion I will onely humbly propound to your religious considerations these things First that the difficulties of the Hebrew Chaldee and Aramean languages in the Old Testament and of the Greek in the New especially where it reflecteth up to the Syriack are above common capacities even of the learned I might adde that words of divers other languages are part of the sacred Text. The Egyptian Abrech Genes 41.43 the Arabick Lehhem Job 6.7 and Totaphoth Exod. 13.16 a compound of Egyptian and African languages and the like Yea one verse and one onely was written by Jeremy in the Chaldee language viz. Jeremy 10.11 which every captive Jew was commanded to cast in the teeth of the Babylonians Moreover Daniel 5.25 Mene Mene Tekel Vpharsin was written in the Chaldee with the Samaritan letters so that the Chaldeans themselves could not reade their own language I would tell you of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 finall being placed in the middle of a word of the Text and of divers other difficulties which in part I passe over and in part thus contract in the observations following Secondly that Hebrew words without points may have foure or five significations according to the diversity of vowels affixed to them and have no certain meaning but as it is guided by antecedents and consequents And yet you shall have an ignorant mechanick or talkative woman as confident of the Genevean Translation and notes as if God himself did speak or write the same words as he did once the law on Horeb. Thirdly that in the Hebrew many words are written with fewer letters then they are pronounced Fourthly that many are written with more letters then they are pronounced Fifthly that divers words are written in the sacred Text which are not pronounced at all but others are read in their stead ſ Sunt octo voces quae s●riptae sunt in Textu sed non leguntur quas adducit Masora Ruth 3.12 There are eight words written in the Text but not read which the Masora alledgeth Ruth 3.12 Sixthly that the Jews have most severely and strictly forbidden that any Rabbin should teach Christians the true sense of the Talmuds which as they boast no labour and endeavour can attain unto without such a guide Elias Levita in Mas●oreth-Hammassoreth complaineth that the Jews were wonderfully offended with him because he instructed Christians in the Hebrew And though some tax him for singing placentia to sooth flatter his patron Aegidius and call him a turn-coat because he came forth of the Jewish synagogue to pray with us in our temples yet that odious name ought to have been spared

unlesse he kept still a Jewish heart within him which certainly he did if Balthasar Bambach saith truly of him t Praecipua mysteria reticuit nibil arcani revelavit He concealed the chief mysteries and revealed nothing of their secrets Seventhly that many Hebrew Radixes do signifie not onely things wonderfully disparat and incompatible the one with the other as Sheol signifieth the grave in some places and hell in other places which caused some to deny Christs descent in his humane soul into hell but even things clean contrary This instance as the former shall be in a word generally known Job 2.9 his wife saith unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Curse God others render it Blesse God None hitherto hath infallibly expounded it Yet my Laick can swallow camels strain at gnats that is buildeth upon the Translation made by the Ministers though the ground hath been slippery and full of ice but will forsooth be judge of the meaning when he understandeth not the words as if one unskilfull in the Dutch language should say when he heard a German speak I know his meaning by his gaping or by the sound of his words or by the gargarism of his throat-speech Though the Apostle saith 1. Thessal 5.21 Prove all things hold fast that which is good yet he speaketh of the spirits of private men or misperswasions of the false Apostles who presumed very much and knew very little These are to be tried But concerning the decrees of the Church the same Apostle doth not say Prove them examine them trie them judge them but Acts 16.4 Paul and other Ministers as they went through the cities delivered them the decrees for to keep or observe that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem And so or by this means of keeping or observation were the Churches established in the faith c. verse 5. But saith the frantick Libertine I am a man spirituall But he that is spirituall judgeth all things yet he himself is judged of no man 1. Corinth 2.15 I answer S. Paul speaketh of the Apostles who had the Spirit of God vers 12. and spake in words which the holy Ghost taught vers 13. and who might well neglect the judgement of men 1. Corinth 3.3 Prove thou thy Apostleship by such undeniable miracles and testimonies as they did and thou shalt judge and not be judged But that every idiot should claim the priviledge of an Apostle is lewd divinity or rather insufferable pride The Angel in the Church of Thyatira is censured Revel 2.20 because he suffered that woman Jezebel which called her self a Prophetesse to teach and seduce Gods servants If the profoundest Divines on earth unexperienced in worldly courses should teach the skilfullest tradesmen their trades or manufactures and meddle in their crafts as they call them would they not expose themselves to laughter and mocking is not the proverb of the world too true The greatest Clerks are not the wisest men if you take them from their books Are there more depths in trades then in the Word of God Or shall tradesmen and women judge of the depths of Divinity and the learned Divines in their own profession be not beleeved but laught at controlled and censured by the private spirit of unlearned people Are not the spirits of the Prophets subject to the Prophets Very learned men scarce trust to themselves A Physician that is very sick seeks counsel of an other who is whole and dares not trust his own judgement and shall a soul sick of sinne sick of errour sick of scruples be its own helper shall it understand without a guide be cleansed of its leprosie without a Priest Hierome in his Preface to the Cōmentary upon the epistle to the Eph. thus From my youth I never ceased to reade or to ask of learned men what I knew not I never was mine own Master or taught my self and of late I journeyed purposely to Alexandria unto Didymus that he might satisfie me in all the doubts which I had found in the Scripture Now adayes many a one is wiser then his Teachers not by supernall illumination but by infernall presumption And if they have gotten by rote the letter of Scripture and can readily cite tmemata tmematia the chapter and the verse though they have little more judgement then Cardinall Ascanius his parret which would prate the Creed all over they vilifie the opinions of the most learned and their private spirit of seduction will beare them out u Lib. 11. cap. 9. Ruffinus saith thus of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen They were both noblemen both students at Athens both colleagues for thirteen yeares together all profane learning removed studied on the holy Scriptures followed the sense not taken from their own presumption but from the writings and authority of the ancients which ancients it appeared took the rule of right understanding the Scripture from Apostolick succession S. Basil himself saith of himself and others in his Epistle to the Church of Antioch As for us we do not take our faith upon trust from other later men x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor dare we deliver to others the conceits of our own brains lest mens devices should be thought to be articles of Religion but what we have been taught of the holy Fathers that we declare to those that ask of us How often doth the divine S. Augustine confirm his interpretations by the authority of Cyprian Ambrose and other preceding Fathers How often doth he confesse his own ignorance though he was the most accōplished that ever writ since the dayes of the Apostles It was a wise observation of Scaliger That some words and passages in Plato y Plus sapiunt authore are wiser then their authour and many excellent conceits are collected from Homer and Aristotle which they never dreamed of But in the Word of God it is contrary The Spirit was and is infinite that did dictate it the finite capacity of man cannot comprehend it whatsoever good interpretation we finde may well be thought to be the meaning of the Spirit and yet the Spirit may and doth mean many things which the wit of any man could never disclose And the true literal sense is the hardest to finde I confesse I have dwelt too long on this point but it is to vindicate the authority of our Church from the singular fancies of private unskilfull unlearned and censorious men and women and to shew the madnes of those base people-pleasers or publicolae who make or esteem tradesmen and youth and ill-nurtured unlettered idiots yea though their places be eminent the competent judges of controversies whilest they flee from the chairs of the Universities and from the representative Church of our kingdome viz. the most learned Bishops and Convocation-house unto whom they ought to have recourse and in whose judgement they are by way of obedience without opposition to set up their rest For as for private

was not altogether irrevocable but that the messengers who brought him to judgement were sharply blamed by their governours because they brought Antillus in stead of Nicandas Within a while after Nicandas died and Antillus recovered life and health And Plutarch in my opinion seemeth to insinuate that he was present at the recovery of him Of both these if each particular were true that they were dead and relived we may boldly averre that they died again Neither doth Plato Plutarch or Theodoret doubt of it As strange a storie though more remote from our subject you shall finde in Alexander ab Alexandro Genialium dierum 6.21 4 An other istance you shall finde in Bellarmine De arte bene moriendi lib. 2. cap. 1. taken out of Joannes Climachus in scala sua grad 6. who relates thus of a man that died twice In his first life saith he he lived most negligently but dying and his soul being perfectly separated from his bodie after one houre he returned again and he desired Climachus and the rest to depart Whereupon they walled up the cell and he lived as an Anchoret within the cell twelve yeares speaking to no man till he was ready to die again eating nothing but bread and drinking water sitting so he astonishedly revolved those things onely which he had seen in his separation with so earnest a thought that he never changed countenance but continuing in that amazement secretly wept bitterly When he was at deaths doore the second time they forced open the entrance into the cell and coming to him humbly desired him to speak some words of doctrine He answered nothing but this onely b Nemo qui revera mortis memoriam agnoverit peccare unquam poterit The serious remembrance of death will not consist with sinne The like storie you may finde in Venerable Bede All these if they lived again died again and rose not to life immortall And in this sense is that averred Wisd 2.1 Never was any man known to have returned from the grave viz. not to die again for otherwise some were known to have been raised From these I come more especially to speak of such whom the word of God reporteth to have been raised MOst gracious God who didst breathe into the face of man the breath of life and at thy pleasure drawest it forth again out of his nostrils grant that we make such use of this present life that we may see love and enjoy thee in the life eternall through Jesus Christ our onely Lord and Saviour Amen CHAP. II. 1. A division of such as have been raised They all died 2. The widow of Zarephath her sonne raised yet died again supposed to be Jonas the Prophet The Shunammites sonne raised not to an eternall but to a temporary resurrection A good and a better resurrection 3. Christ the first who rose not to die again 4. The man raised in the sepulchre of Elisha arose not to immortality 1. ANd because divers have been raised up of whom there is not the like doubt and answer in each kinde to be made I will therefore distribute them in regard of their times into three sorts Such as were raised 1. Before Christs death 2. After he was ascended 3. About the time of his death Which inverted method I purposely choose because I will reserve the hardest point to the last The first sort again is subdivided into such as were raised either before Christ was incarnated or by Christ himself They who were raised before Christ was born were three 1. The widow of Zarephath her sonne 1. King 17.22 2. The Shunammites sonne 2. King 4.35 3. A dead man who was cast into the grave of Elisha and when he touched the bones of Elisha he revived and stood upon his feet 2. King 13.21 All these three were raised up to live and lived to die again Neither did the intention of such as requested to have them raised or of such as raised them aim once that they should live immortally but live onely on earth again as other men did and then die again Neither did I ever reade any who held these to arise to immortall glory neither stands it with reason For that they were once dead and raised to life the Scripture saith and that they must either live to this time or be translated to immortall glorie in their bodies or die is as true as Scripture Now because there is no ground to say that they yet live or were translated bodily into heaven there is good ground to conclude that again they died 2. Concerning the first of these the Jews think he was Jonas the Prophet and S. Hierome in his Prologue on Jonas citeth their opinion and dislikes it not Tostatus also saith Dïvers others think so If Jonas were the widow of Zarephath her sonne we know that Jonas died afterward for the Prophets are dead Joh. 8.53 and he was one of the Prophets And concerning both the first and second instance it is thought by many good Authours that they are pointed at Heb. 11.35 The women received their dead raised to life again or the Prophets delivered to the women their dead as the Syriack reads it that is to converse with them as formerly being raised not to an eternall but a temporary resurrection and so to die again at their appointed times And to this truth the Text it self giveth in evidence for it is said in the same verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might obtain a better resurrection Of holy men there is a double resurrection the first and the last the good and the better The resurrection mentioned in the beginning of the verse was good and with reference to the former saith Chrysostom the latter resurrection is called the better For the former was temporary the latter eternall called also The holy resurrection in our book of Common Prayer in the Epistle on the sixth Sunday after Trinity though there is no substantiall ground for the word holy either in the Latine or Greek Rom. 6.5 Of the former Aquinas in his Comment on Hebr. 11.35 saith it was rather a resuscitation then a resurrection and again c Isti sic resuscitati sunt iterum mortui Christus autem resuegens ex mortuis jam non moritur Rom. 6.9 These being raised died again but Christ rising from the dead dieth no more Rom. 6.9 3. And therefore Christs resurrection was as Aquinas saith and as it is indeed the beginning of the future resurrection Then must they needs die again who were raised before him He was the first Guide that lead the way to the eternall resurrection He abolished death and hath brought life and immortality to light 2. Tim. 1.10 Life and immortalitie to light which were before in darknesse And I think that the Apostle may well be thus paraphrased in that place to the Hebrews The women desired that their dead children might be raised again 1. King 17.18 2. King 4.22 c. and as a gift

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 Sp●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

words or my answer be recited I think fit to premise these things First If Heinsius mean onely to extoll the knowledge of the Hellenisticall language and of the Chaldee and Syriack I assent unto him nor shall any man in right ascribe more to the holy mother of them all and of all other languages the primitive Hebrew the language of God when he spake audibly and of Angels unto men then I will Yet the purest gold may be over-valued and the very shekel of the Sanctuarie thought heavier then it is And indeed I should be loath to say what the most learned Cardinall Cusanus hath written in his Compendium cap. 3. pag. 240. e Nec absurdum videtur si creditur primam dicendi artē adeò fuisse copiosam ex multis Synonymis quòd omnes postea linguae divisae in ipsa continebātur Omnes enim linguae humanae sunt ex prima illa parentis nostri Alae scilicet hommis lingua Et sicut non est lingua quam homo non intelligit ità Adam qui idē quod bomo nullam si audiret ignoraret Ipse enim vocabula legitur imposuisse ideo nullum cujusque linguae vocabulum ab alio fuit originaliter institutum Nec de Adam mirandum cùm certum sit dono Dei multos linguarum omnium peritiam subitò habuisse It is not absurd to beleeve that the first art of speaking was so copious and full of many Synonymaes that all the afterward-divided tongues were in it contained For all languages are derived from our first parent Adams language And as there is not a tongue which man understandeth not so even Adam who was no other then a man could understand any language if he heard it For he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who imposed names upon the creatures and therefore no word of any other language was originally instituted by any other Neither are we to wonder at this in Adam when it is certain that by the gift of God many have suddenly obtained and speedily were inspired with the skill and knowledge of all languages So farre Cusanus That there is no language under heaven but hath some words retaining the foot-steps of the Hebrew I beleeve and in the languages which I understand I can demonstrate but that Adam could understand all languages now spoken if he had heard them is not credible When God confounded their language Genes 11.7 c. the language of all the earth he did it to this end that they might not understand one anothers speech The confusion was not of inventing of new letters vowels and consonants for they are still the same and if there were seventie two languages as say the Ancient Hierom Augustine Prosper Epiphanius or but fiftie five as our Modern writers conjecture answerable to their families Genes 10. yea two thousand foure hundred languages more they might all be uttered by the first two and twenty letters Nor was it onely such a confusion as when the sweet singing of the nightingales is undistinguishable through the obstreperousnesse of gagling geese and chattering daws For if at the beginning of that confusion every one had spoken to another articulately and distinctly alternis vicibus they could not have understood what either said though afterward by use each familie understood themselves as we may dumbe men But the confusion consisted in this That God took away from all save the family of Heber the habituall or actuall knowledge of the Hebrew tongue emptying the treasuries of their memories both sensitive and intellective from all and every old note impression character figure or species Secondly when by an universall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or oblivion he had drowned or blotted out all former conceptions he prompted readily unto them new forms and furnished their intellectualls with new notions which the pliable obedience of the tongue at first not knowing what it said uttered in new words and languages by the transposition and trans-changing adding or diminishing of a letter or letters See Avenarius drawing almost all Greek and our Minshaw many languages from the Hebrew But if they retained the same syllable and the same word yet in one language it signified one thing and in another another thing as sus signifieth in the Hebrew an horse with the Flaunderkins silence among the Latines an hogge as Cornelius à Lapide hath observed Nor think I that Noah who lived at the confusion of Babel and was born within sevenscore yeares of Adams death could understand all their languages without much commerce studie or divine revelation Besides all this all ages have made and framed new words nor is any time to be blamed si nova rerum Nomina protulerit If it coyn new names it was lawfull and is yet dabitúrque licentia sumpta pudenter It shall be lawfull so it be done modestly without enforcement saith Horace De arte Poetica And though there were but few yeares about half a mans age between the first and second Punick warre yet the articles of peace made at the end of the first warre were hardly understood at the second as may be gathered from Polybius What speak I of words when new languages have sprung up more then ever were at the confusion of Babel If God at the overthrow of Babel coyned or stamped the Greek and if Adam could have understood it were all its dialects distinguished or no and the Hellenisticall Greek or Grecanick language that I may use some of Heinsius his words And if those were then spoken and then intelligible was the now common corrupt Greek misformed or could Adam understand that which Plato or Aristotle would sweat to expound If the Teutonick were then spoken was the Saxon English Scotish c. the derivatives from it as Verstegan and others will have it then in use If the Latine was framed in Babel was it the first old blunt Latine or the refined If the refined was the Valachian Italian Spanish French the Provinciall tongues of Rome if I may so call them at that time spoken I could be plentifull herein But I passe unto the objections of Cusanus which shall receive this satisfaction in order Object 1. The first art of humane speech was copious by many Synonymaes I answer The Hebrew had but few Synonymaes few primitive Radixes in comparison of other languages many words signifying contrary things every one divers things nor did Adam speak any but Hebrew nor needed he know any more Cicero cried out of old * O inops verborum Graecia O word-wanting Greece and much more Judea say I. Object 2. All languages came from the Hebrew which Adam spake I confesse it quoad fundamenta sermonum id est quoad literas There were no new letters stamped or added to the first but the tongues themselves came after divers descents so that many languages now in use may acknowledge other mothers though even those mothers were grand-children or daughters of the Hebrew neither of

otherwise h Impossibile est aliter nobis lucere divinum radium nisi varietate sacrorum velaminum circumvelatum It is impossible that the divine light should otherwise shine upon us then clouded and surrounded with varietie of sacred vails and coverings For humane understanding cannot conceive the very bare and naked intelligible truth her self without conversion to the Phantasmata therefore things propounded to men by God or Angels are propounded under sensible similitudes and resemblances not meerly incorporeall I say by God or Angels for howsoever Dionysius cap. 4. de divinis nominibus part 1. aliquantulum ante medium saith i Omnes divinae illuminationes perferuntur ad bomines mediantibus Angelis All divine irradiations are brought unto men by the interposition or help of Angels and Gregorie Dialog 4 5. k In hoc mundo visibili nihil nisi per creaturam invisibilem dispoui potest In this visible world nothing can be ordered but by the invisible creature yet I would be loath peremptorily to exclude Gods immediate operation or illumination but rather conclude That all intellectuall irradiation of men either by God immediately or by Angels is by known species Basil on Isa 7.3 l Arbitror Prophetas nequaquam percepisse Verbum Dei sensili auditu per conformationem aëris sed quando animae intellectu praeditae suae suppetunt aures quae à supernis unntiabantur citra ullam corporis vocem ad corum pertingebant notitiam I think that the Prophets received not the word of God by sensible hearing by the corresponding help and conformation of the aire but since the intellective soul hath its proper kinde of eares or hearing what was spoken from above and from God came to their knowledge and notice without any bodily voice See Aquin. part 1. quaest 210. art 1. In all three kindes of oracles by which God speaketh to men the Externall the Imaginarie-spirituall the Spirituall-intellectuall there are some species or other intercurrent between God inspiring and inlightning and man apprehending or conceiving Though where Fulgentius saith truly that in divine inspiration m Sine sonis sermonum elementis literarum eò dulciùs quo secretiùs veritas loquitur Without the sound of words or elements of letters the truth speaketh so much the sweeter by how much the secreter is rightly inferred that there is no outward sound yet there is an intellectuall loquitur of the Spirit to our inward man and it attempereth and mouldeth it self to the capacitie abilitie and habituall species of the part recipient that is our understanding or frameth our understanding to it Men may be taught new languages on a sudden and understand as suddenly things before unknown but to conceive without some kinde of word is above conceit God himself cannot be conceived by men but by similitudes of things corporeall and perhaps even Angels cannot conceive of him but under some shadow for a finite thing cannot comprehend an infinite essence but onely according to its model An infinite thing onely can comprehend infinitie as it is in itself When the Spirit of God immediately speaketh to the spirits of men though the irradiation be spirituall and intellectuall yet it is shaped to the habits of knowledge acquired Infused notions must be proportionable to acquired actuall to habituall all homogeneall not heterogeneall having affinitie and holding correspondent intelligence with the species received n Quiequid recipitur recipitur ad modum reciptentis Whatsoever is received is received according to the measure power or facultie of the receiver is a true ground and sound maxime as well in Divinitie as in Philosophie There is not an higher illumination then was that of S. Paul yet was there in him and in all others somewhat loco signi vocis in the room or stead of the signe voice or species 2. Cor. 12.4 I heard unspeakable words yet words spoken which it was not lawfull or possible for a man to utter yet to him they were uttered and it is not certain that he was bodily rapt into the third heaven Augustine de Genes ad liter 12.27 discoursing of Gods speaking to Moses Numb 12.8 Os ad os loquar ad illum in specie non per aenigmata I will speak to him face to face apparently and plainly not by riddles or obscurities saith This is not to be understood according to the bodily substance presented to the eyes of the flesh for so he spake to Moses face to face when Moses said Ostende mihi temetipsum Shew me thy self and addeth o Illo ergò modo in illa specie quâ Deus est longè ineffabiliter secretiùs praesentiùs loquitur locutione ineffabili But in that way and in that form as he is God he speaketh ineffably more secretly more home and close to the purpose more nearely present with words unspeakable And in the Chapter following he saith The speaking mouth to mouth was p Per speciem scilicet quâ est Deus quicquid est quantulumeunque cum meus quae non est quod ipse c. by such a species by which God is whatsoever is howsoever the minde of man which is not as God cannot conceive him without bodie or bodily similitude where still he maketh a kinde of not-speaking speech or of speaking non-speech according to the capacitie of man The second Lemma is this That the holy Actuaries or Writers of the Divine Scripture could not erre in their conceptions Augustine de Genes ad liter 12.25 proveth daintily in generall that our outward and inward senses may be deceived when onely the intellectuall vision is certain and is not deceived q Aut enim intelligit verum es● aut si non est verum non intelligit Either it understandeth and then it is true or if it be not true it understandeth not As the aire is enlightened by the resplendent rayes of the sunne so was their intellect by supernall bright unfailing irradiation which beam of divine light wrought these two effects First that they knew certainly it was God who spake unto them Secondly that they could not misconceive or take awry in an erring sense the things inspired which illumination may be called Gustus Dei The taste of God Psal 34.8 The wheels with strakes full of eyes round about them Ezek. 1.18 Cloven tongues like as of fire Act. 2.3 As it were * Sextus sensus praenoscendi a sixth sense leading to knowledge as Clemens Recognit lib. 2. termeth it A joyfull sound the light of Gods countenance Psal 89.15 In thy light we shall see light Psal 36.9 A burning and a shining light Joh. 5.35 A marvellous light 1. Pet. 2.9 Sol spiritualis An intellectuall sunne Sapor a savour or taste which Monica could not expresse by words as her sonne relateth Confess 6.13 Intimus sapor saith Gregorie Dialog 4.4 Intimus sapor experimentalis illuminatio A most inward relish and experimentall

illumination as Gerson styleth it Columna ignis A pillar of fire Exod. 13.21 Stella Magos in Oriente antecedens The starre conducting the wise men of the East Matth. 2.9 An holy undeceiving unambiguous influent coruscation The Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters Gen. 1.2 This made Abraham not unwillingly to sacrifice his sonne The quenching of this Spirit against the cleare light of his own convicted conscience made the old Prophet more inexcusable then the other officious lying Prophet who deceived him 1. Kings 13.16 c. Nor did an Angel speak unto the seducer by the word of the Lord vers 18. Samuel being but a childe might not indeed as a novice or some others for a while might not know the voice of the Lord as Peter at the present knew not the operation of God by the Angel in his miraculous deliverie But now I know saith he that God hath sent his Angel yea I know of a surety Act. 12.11 Profane ones I will not priviledge from mistaking of God as perhaps lest Satan might out-stretch his Commission from God when he gave Job into his hands God said restrainingly Onely save his life Job 2.6 And S. Augustine de cura pro mortuis gerenda cap. 12. telleth an admirable storie of two men each called Curma to wit How Curma the Countrey-man lay almost dead many dayes onely a little steam of breath coming from him they kept him from buriall though he was without motion or any feeling whatsoever they did unto him in which time he saw many visions So soon as he opened his eyes he said Let one go to the house of Curma the smith Who was found dead that moment in which Curma the Husbandman came to his senses And the surviving Curma related that he heard in the place from whence he was returned that the smith and not himself was to be brought to that place A mistaking there was by the messengers of death though it were after righted Caiaphas might not know the inspiration or instinct propheticall which he had because he was a wicked man Dispensativè illi contigit sermo He did distribute the speech to others which he knew not himself saith Basil in Prooem Isaiae He was a Prophet perchance Casu saith Origen on John Balaam his asse and Caiaphas spake they knew not what The prophesie was transitorie saith S. Augustine Wherefore I conclude as before That wicked men may be punished with mistakings in things divine But that ever any holy man was ignorant to the end that God moved when he moved him or that the righteous were ever deceived by Oraculous anfractuous perplexities or that the Notaries of heaven the writers of any part authentick of either Testament could be deceived in their conceptions is not agreeable to likelihood reason or truth The last Lemma is this The holy Penmen could not erre in writing If they could what difference is there between their Writings and other profane Authours And to what end had they infallibilitie of understanding if what they understood they could expresse erroneously A readie perfect and quick scribe writeth not falsly but My tongue is the pen of a readie writer saith the Psalmograph Psal 45.1 Holy Ezra who was the divine amanuensis of the book of Ezra is called by the same words SOPHIR MAHIR a readie swift exact scribe Ezra 7.6 no question with allusion to the words of the Psalmist John 16.13 When the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth How into all truth if there be an errour in writing Or had God care that the Apostles should not misse of the truth in their Speeches and yet misse in their Writings If the Prophets could not erre no more could the Evangelists or Apostles for if there were any superioritie in priviledge we are rather to ascribe it to these latter then to those former in regard that the Law of Christ and of Grace is farre above the Law of Moses as the Apostle doth demonstrate to the Hebrews themselves But that the Prophets could not erre is apparent because Christ himself who is Truth would not have appealed from the present more visible pretending Synagogue to them as all-sufficient Judges as he often did if they could erre A perfect rule is not to be tried by an imperfect one Prophets writ their Prophesies and fastened them to the gates of the Temple and other publick places to be read and were rather judged by their Prophesies written then by them as inspired or uttered by mouth The Gnomon of the Sunne-diall which our late Hieroglyphical Poetaster doth make to signifie the Scriptures is better to be judged by a moving clock the curious handie-work of the same great Artist I mean by the Church and Church-men with whom Christ hath promised his Spirit shall be to the end of the world then by the rude masons or rather the senselesse stones and mortar of the walls I mean the ignorant people who have plucked down not onely the Weather-cock by his interpretation the Pope but usurp to themselves a power to judge the Gnomon and to reform and amend the well wrought well ordered clock The shallow phantastick stateth not the question aright when he is so magisterially peremptorie saying That the Clergie may not so judge of the Scriptures as to conclude or teach any thing against them or to vouch unwritten verities if they be certain verities it mattereth not much whether they be written or unwritten Veritie will vouch it self in spight of lying Poets as some call them or Traditions contradictorie to the written Word Which contradictorie Traditions do much differ from unwritten Verities howsoever the Poet confusedly joyneth them For who of us ever taught that the Clergie may teach any thing against the Scriptures when we professe with him that the Church ought to subject it self to be directed by the Scriptures But that fabling rymer may say any thing who in his Sarcasmos and Frontispice is suffered thus to rave No wonder that the Clergie would be Kings whereas we the now unpriviledged Clergie do humbly pray to God to uphold our declining estates from the hands of those Atheists and turbulent Anti-episcopall Anti-monarchicall Reformists perhaps Pensioners of the forcin enemies of our State who under the pretence of Religion labour to pluck down our Church and Ecclesiastick Hierarchie and upon the ruines thereof to arise to the depluming of the Eagle to the bearding of the Lion not onely to the paring of the royall prerogative but also the removing the very scepter and crown from the Anointed of the Lord whom God alwaies mightily defend and to the bringing in of popular government for No Bishop no King said the learned wise and pious King James most truely I return to retort the Church-reforming Poets words upon himself In his Solarie he saith That the diall is the Written Word which is of it self dead and unprofitable without further illumination since none of the Philosophers nor

the living God and not with penne and ink For though the sense and words of this Epistle to the Galatians be from God and most divine yet there is no reason to imagine that S. Paul intended to include that sense under these words Videte or Videtis qualibus literis scripsi vobis manu meâ You see how large a letter I have written to you with mine own hand But if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie quantitie though S. Paul wrote in great letters and characters yet it might be a verie good and fair hand as there are few fairer writings then some where the letters are large and full drawn and I doubt not but he who gave them the extraordinary gift of tongues and languages did also as a necessarie appendant give them the power to write well those languages especially since their writings were to benefit more then their voices could reach unto We never reade that the holy Apostles Peter James or John were learned or could reade or write before their calling or learned it by degrees after their Apostleship yet they could and did write and as the Spirit guided their thoughts and words so did he their hands and they wrote both divinely for matter and as I think exquisitely for the manner yea more exquisitely then other men as being governed and actuated by the hand of God which is perfect in all his works And indeed the true sense of the place in my opinion toucheth not at the deformednesse of the characters or at the grand-greatnesse of them but at the length or prolixitie of the Epistle which is excellently rendered by our English You see how large a letter I have written as if S. Paul had spoke thus more at large I who before told you that we must not be weary of well-doing but must do good unto all men whilest we have time especially to the houshold of faith I say I my self have not been wearie in writing this Epistle though it be long and whilest I had time I have spent that time in doing you good by writing this letter by writing this long and large letter to you For though I have written longer Epistles yet I did rather subscribe to them and wrote not all of any one of them with mine own hand but you may take it as a token of my heartie love that I wrote all this Epistle my self You see how large a letter I have writ to you with mine own hand And this sense better answereth to the coherence then that of S. Hierom or of the other learned man whom S. Hierom wondered at So much for the third Lemma 8. I come now to the first Question viz. Whether it was necessarie that Scripture should be written for mens instruction That it was not absolutely necessarie must be confest for God might have used other means He is liberrimum agens the freest agent or rather ipsa libertas libertie it self not chained to fate nor bound in with nature or second causes Necessitie freedome of our will or indifferencie to either side and contingencie are the issues of his will Yea God did use other means in the law of nature for above 2450 yeares the Patriarchs were nourished with agraphall Tradition onely No word was ever written till God wrote the Law the two first Tables the work of the onely-wise Almightie The writing was the writing of God graven upon the Tables Exod. 32.16 Written with the finger of God Exod 31.18 The Jews say The book of Genesis was written by Moses before God wrote the Law For though God spake all the words of the Decalogue Exod. 20.1 c. yet he delivered not the Tables to Moses till Exod. 31.18 but Exod. 24.4 it is related that Moses wrote all the words of the Lord and vers 7. that he took the book of the Law and read it in the audience of the people Kemnitius answereth That the things are recorded per Anticipationem seu per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The last is recorded in the first place for the writing and dedication here mentioned were accomplished afterward Exod. 34.32 The pillar of stone and that other of brick which Josephus Antiq. 1.4 saith the children of Seth did write in before the floud were either fictions or antidated The prophesie of Enoch was not written by him as S. Augustine de Civit. 15.22 and Origen Hom. 28. in Num. think but Enoch prophesied Saying Jude 14. As the prophesie of Adam Genes 2.24 and of God himself Genes 3.15 both of them concerning Christ were spoken in Paradise not written and as the Apostles wrote not the Creed but delivered it onely vivâ voce by word of mouth saith Irenaeus 3.4 and Augustine de Fide Oper. cap. 9. and Ruffinus on the Creed and divers others so is it likely that Enochs prophesie was not written or rather was written long after it was spoken for writing was not so necessarie for the Patriarchs First because they were purer in minde saith Chrysostom Hom. 1. in Matth. And it is the fault of our corrupt nature and we may be rightly impleaded that ever there was any writing as may be gathered from Isidorus Peleusiota lib. 3. epist 106. Secondly the long lives of the Patriarchs supplied the room of writing for Methusalah who lived 240 yeares with Adam with the first Adam who was AETATIS ILLIUS EPISCOPUS Bishop of those times saith Kemnitius in Examine part 1. pag. 13. lived also 90 and odde yeares with Sem and Sem lived 50 yeares in Jacobs time by the calculation of Helvicus and there were not 200 yeares from Jacobs death to the writing of the Law Thirdly besides such aged venerable Prophets as were Adam Enoch Noah and Abraham who was an eminent instructer with authoritie and as it were with a Pretorian power Gen. 18.19 I know that Abraham will command his sonnes and his houshold after him that they keep the way of the Lord other Patriarchs knew the will of God by immediate revelation by dreams and visions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 At sundrie times and in divers manners Heb. 1.1 Gods speech was in stead of writing But when men grew more impure and upon the increase of sinne mans dayes were shortened God did withdraw himself and his familiar conversation was not so common but because their hearts of flesh were hardened in which was printed the law of nature by them even obliterated and they received new evil impressions in stonie hearts God himself wrote the Morall Law in two Tables of stone and Gods own handie-work being broken by the occasion of their sinne to shew that the Morall Law should continue for ever the broken Tables were removed and none knoweth what ever became of them and Moses was commanded to frame two new whole Tables of stone like the former Two extreams about the written word are here to be avoided The first is of the Papists who too much disgrace the Scripture at least comparatively

Vpon just occasions and newly emergent occurrences the Spirit of God inspired them to write who otherwise would not have written I will say they wrote casually for casualtie in this notion presupposeth things done upon reason and who dareth say that God did ever any thing without good ground or reason saith the divine S. Augustine They wrote fortuitò say the Papists non fortuitò saith Vorstius Cleare the terms by the former distinction and the question is ended No part of Jeremie is in Chaldee but one verse onely and upon what occasion was that The Chaldee Paraphrast thus relateth it saith Vatablus Jeremie wrote to the Elders in the Captivitie If the Chaldean people did say House of Israel worship idols the Israelites should answer The idols which ye worship are idols indeed in which is no profit they cannot draw forth rain from heaven or fruit out of the earth Let them and their worshippers perish from the earth and be destroyed from under heaven And to that effect speak Lyra and Rabbi Solomon but the words of God by the Prophet are thus to be rendered Jer. 10.11 Thus ye shall say unto them May the gods or Let the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth perish from the earth and from under these heavens PEREANT so the Vulgat Vatablus the Interlinearie and translated Chaldee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say the Septuagint And this doth somewhat ammuse me why our last English Translation with others embrace the Future tense reading They shall perish when the words are a present execration of past present and future idols I come to the point If the Jews had said the effect of these words in Hebrew the Chaldeans could not have understood it nor had it been written in Chaldee if the Chaldeans had had no intercourse with the Jews and in this sense that verse was written casually As Ananias and Sapphira their with-holding of things consecrated ministred occasion to the holy Spirit both to impart the knowledge of their sacriledge to S. Peter and to inspire into him that particular prophesie Act. 5.9 which S. Peter otherwise had never spoken So if Onesimus had not been a bad servant and after converted S. Paul had not written that Epistle to Philemon at least not the greatest part of it Chemnitius in Examine part 1. declareth at large Quâ occasione propter quam causam in quem usum primùm Scriptura tradita sit à Deo And he speaketh of the Old Testament Concerning the New Testament neither Christ nor any of his Apostles wrote any thing for many yeares nor did any one Evangelist or Apostle singly write till the Church was pestered with Schismaticks Who troubled them with words subverting their souls Act. 15.24 To remedie which discord a Councel was gathered at Jerusalem of the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church and they wrote Letters or an Epistle to the brethren And a Acts 15.28 Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us was the forefront of their main decree And this was the beginning of writing of any part of the New Testament saith Chemnitius in his Examen of the Councel of Trent part 1. pag. 32. though others dissent from him I will onely say If that schisme had not been that Councel had not been gathered that Epistle had not been written Briefly thus Eusebius in the second and third book of his historie specializeth the causes and grounds why each of the foure Evangelists did write which is exemplified by Chemnitius in the place before cited even to satietie whilest he at large describeth the occasions and inducements or reasons why all and every book of the New Testament was written Thus the conclusion being firm That the word of God was written casually that is the sacred Pen-men were inspired to write all of it upon just motives and fair occurrences and yet not casually if we take the word in sensu profano usu forensi I proceed to the third Question Whether they were commanded to write They who reade the Scripture may think this question idle and impertinent but who hath been conversant in the thornie paths of controversies shall finde much opposition by our adversaries Bellarmine de Verbo Dei non scripto 4.3 saith thus b Falsum est D●um mandâsse Apostolis ut scriberent Legimus mandatum ut praedicarent ut scriberent nunquam legimus Deus nec mandavit expreseè ut scriberent nec ut non scriberent It is false that God commanded the Apostles to write We have read they were commanded to preach Matth. 28.19 we have not read that they were commanded to write God did not command expressely either that they should write or not write To the place alledged by Bellarmine I answer They are not there commanded Praedicare but his verie Vulgat hath it Docere which may be by writing as well as by preaching The Original hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discipulate or discipulas facite omnes gentes where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not taken neutro-passively for discipulum esse for that implieth that the Apostles should learn of the Gentiles and not teach them but actively as if it were in the Conjugation HIPHIL ac si dicas DISCIPULARE saith Beza The very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praedicate preach used Mark 16.15 doth not necessarily imply onely the Apostolicall preaching vivâ voce in suggesto aloud in a pulpit but doth signifie a publication in generall not onely a going up into the pulpit as idiots imagine for an Angel did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revel 5.2 preach or proclaim as it is in our last Translation and Christ preached to the spirits in prison 1. Pet. 3.19 and the possessed of a legion of devils being dispossessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 5.20 Began to preach or publish how great things Jesus had done for him None of these I dare say climbed up into the pulpit Moreover publication may be by writing aswell as by preaching and more disciples have been made by Evangelicall and Apostolicall writings then ever were by their preachings in their own times I answer again He saith It is false To prove a falshood a man must have expresse truth which he confesseth he hath not and how lamely followeth this Because we now reade it not Ergò they were not commanded He would have laught at such a negative proof of ours Augustine saith c Quicquid Christus de suis factis dictis no● legere voluit hoc scribendum Evangelis●is tanquam suis manibus imperavit Whatsoever Christ would have us reade of his words and works that did he command the Evangelists as if they had been his own hands to write Bellarmine answereth d Lequitur de imperio interno quod suggestio quaedam inspiratio potiùs quàm praeceptum propriè dictum existimari debet He speaketh of the inward command which is rather a

suggestion and inspiration then a proper command I reply Of precepts properly so called some are hid and secret others more manifest the internall command bindes as much as the externall divine suggestions oft times have the force of an expresse inward precept and commands are sometimes manifested by inspirations Praeceptum propriè dictum which is by word or writing and Imperium internum may be equivalent and so long as it is Imperium internum what need we care though it be not Praeceptum propriè dictum And the command was to write which is an outward act The second Objection brought by Bellarmine against himself is from the Revelation where S. John is commanded divers times to write To this he answereth most unclerk-like That S. John was commanded to write certain hidden visions not the doctrine of the Gospel and precepts of manners But this is easily confuted for Revel 19.9 it is said Write Blessed are they which are called to the marriage-supper of the Lambe Is not this the doctrine of the Gospel what is more Evangelicall He might have considered the marriage-feasts in the Gospels Matth. 22.2 c. and Luk. 14.16 And a voice from heaven said Revel 14.13 Write Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth yea saith the Spirit that they may rest from their labours and their works do follow them Are these hidden visions Is not this the doctrine of the Gospel The like might be amplified out of the first second and third chapters of the Revelation where matters of moralitie and precepts of manners are commanded to be written and are written and not hidden visions but rather the doctrine of repentance and of the Gospel Christ saith to his Apostles Act. 1.8 Ye shall be witnesses unto me He forbeareth the word of preaching and useth more generall words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye shall be witnesses and they bare witnesse by writing Joh. 21.24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things and wrote these things and we know that his testimonie is true not onely he himself but Peter and the rest WE know that his testimonie is true what testimonie but his writings d Toti operi suo fidem vult conciliare He would have all his works or writings beleeved saith Luc. Brugensis and Maldonate When the seven thunders had uttered their voices I was about to write saith S. John and a voice from heaven saith Write them not Revel 10.4 The Apostles forwardnesse or pronenesse to write argueth not necessarily that he was not commanded first to write but rather presupposeth it and this present inhibition Write not may serve as an exception to a former generall command that he might have to write Indeed there is no expresse record that all and every of the Apostles were enjoyned to write nor is it likely they were for then they would have obeyed whereas not the one half of the Apostles committed any thing to pen ink and paper for ought we know But we are sure that some writers of the Old Testament were commanded to write Exod. 17.14 And the Lord said unto Moses Write this for a memoriall in a book Jerem. 36.2 Take thee a roll of a book and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee c. and S. John was commanded eleven or twelve times to write and thence it is more then probable that the rest of the Apostles which wrote were commanded to write they might be expressely appointed to write though in their writings so much be not expressed To say as Bellarmine doth It is false that God commanded the Apostles to write because so much is not written is rash and ill-advised inferring that they were commanded nothing except those things which are written Is every thing false that cannot be proved is nothing true but what can be proved To evince a thing to be false is required a reall proof of truth positive which Bellarmine wanteth and the falsitie may justly be retorted home to the Cardinall himself from the authoritie of a prime man of his own part Wiser Aquinas 3. part quaest 42. artic 4. 2. thus When the disciples of Christ had written what he shewed and spake unto them we must in no wise say that Christ himself did not write since his members wrote that which they knew by the dictate of him their Head For whatsoever he would have us reade of his deeds and words he commanded them as his own hands to write Now let Bellarmine say It is false that the Apostles were commanded by God to write And thus much shall serve for the third question The fourth question Whether the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles were compelled to write As when it is said Luke 1.70 GOD SPAKE BY THE MOUTH OF HIS HOLY PROPHETS per LOQUENDI verbum SCRIPTIONEM quoque comprehendit so what I propound of Propheticall Evangelicall and Apostolicall writing must also be understood of their speaking or dictating Whether they were compelled to it Compulsion is of two sorts Proper and absolute Improper or mixt Proper when a man is forced as we say in spight of his teeth against his will as some who have been drawn to punishment Thus were they not compelled Mixt when a man doth that which he would not do unlesse he feared a greater losse as when a Merchant or Mariner cast their goods into the sea to save their lives which hath in it part of the voluntarie and part of the involuntarie And of this there may be some question for Jonah fled from the presence of the Lord Jon. 1.3 that is was unwilling to do the message Moses again and again refused to be Gods embassadour to Pharaoh Exod. 3.11 and to the Israelites Exod. 4.1 10 13. Isaiah was also backward Isa 6.5 One answer serves for all They were at first fearfull rather then unwilling but when they were confirmed they readily and boldly did their duties So farre were they from shadow of compulsion that they offered their service When the voice of the Lord said Whom shall I send and Who will go for Vs Isa 6.8 the Prophet said Here am I send me Yea but they were impulsi rapti agitati acti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Pet. 1.21 I answer The word rather excludeth voluntarie and arbitrarie will-worship or self-will-service then includeth compulsion for all this was performed Libero motu voluntatis With the free motion of their will or as others take it Salvo pleno usu liberi arbitrii Without any impeachment of the freedome of their will e Acti à Spiritu sancto loqunti sunt à Deo afflati compositos tamen intellige bos motus non quales fuere profauorum vatum They who were led by the holy Ghost spake being inspired by God yet know that their motions and inspirations were setled and composed unlike to the profane heathen priests or prophets for they were wilde senslesse not knowing what they did or said saith Tremellius

twelve times to write that he was compelled I reade not The second of Johns Epistle vers 12. the Apostle had many things to write yet would not write with paper and ink or with ink and pen as he phraseth it Epist 3. vers 13. If he would not how was he constrained S. Jude gave all diligence to write vers 3. so farre was he from coaction And it was needfull for me to write saith he in the same place It was not absolutely necessarie he saith not that he was compelled Divers followers of Solomon wrote his Proverbs who coacted them S. Paul wrote according to the wisdome given unto him 2. Pet. 3.15 Was this a power compulsive In the Epistle to Philemon vers 21. Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee knowing that thou wilt also do more then I say which words imply he would not have writ if he had thought Philemon would have been obstinate or refractarie and would have done nothing at his request howsoever he was free from coaction 2. Tim. 1.5 The remembrance of the unfeigned faith in Timothie in Lois and Eunice was the reason of S. Pauls writing unto him Doth reason use violence By Silvanus I wrote briefly exhorting you saith the Apostle 1. Pet. 5.12 Was he compelled himself who exhorted others m Simpliciter voluntatem cogi ad actum volendi contradictio est It implieth a contradiction to say simply The will was inforced to the act of willing saith Scotus The will may be compelled by God or by the creature quantum ad actus imperatos so farre as belongeth to the commanded acts in which the body is passive Joh. 21.18 Another shall gird thee and carrie thee whither thou wouldest not saith Christ to Peter Many are compelled to go to the Gaol and to be hanged but the will is induced quantum ad actus elicitos by the emanant and distilled acts What the holy Penmen spake or wrote they did freely and willingly void of compulsion The fifth question followeth viz. Whether the holy Pen-men understood all that they wrote Christopher Castrus on the smaller Prophets lib. 3. de vera futurorum cognitione cap. 12. handleth this point at large and to him I ow a great part of these authorities Montanus held that the Patriarchs and Prophets spake in an ecstasie not knowing what they said as Epiphanius Haeres 48. contra Montanistas relateth But he was an heretick for it The devil so moveth the tongues of the rapted or ecstaticall heathen that they neither understand what they speak nor have power not to speak and their speech is low out of the dust and their voice out of the ground Isa 29.4 as with the Montanists their Prophetisses Prisca and Maximilla and among the heathen the Pythonists and divers orders of religious irreligion this day among the Turks especially the Dervises But our Prophets saith the worthy Estius did speak and write propheticall light being infused into them and the knowledge of the mysteries inspired and with the free motion of their will The Father 's run in full streams to this depth Origen Homil. 6. in cap. 16. Ezekielis n Non excidebant mente Prophetae The Prophets were in their right mindes And Tom. 6. in Joan. o Fatendum est quae proprio ore protulerunt Prophetae eos intellexisse inque labiis gestâsse animi candorem We must confesse that the Prophets understood what they spake and carried in their lips the courteous grace of their minde And Periarch 3.3 p Omnes Prophetae vel Apostoli divinis responsis sine ulla mentis obturbatione ministrabant All the Prophets and Apostles were obedient to the words divine without any disturbance or distraction of minde Basil in Prooemio Isaiae q Sunt qui dicunt eos extra se raptos prophetare humanâ mente à Spiritis absorptâ Verùm id abhorret à professione divinae praesentiae ●t amentem reddat qui à numine corripitur cúmque plenus divinorum decretorum esse coeperit tum à Propria mente excidat Quomodo consentaneum est ut quis ex sapientiae Spiritu reddatur simillimus insano Quin potiùs neque lumen caecitatem parit verùm videndi vim à natura insitam expergefacit nec Spiritus tenebras inducit animis Some say that the divinely illuminated do prophesie their humane soul being swallowed up of the Spirit But it abhorreth from the professed truth and goodnesse of the divine presence to make him a mad man who is inspired by God and when he shall begin to be filled with divine Oracles that then h● should be out of his own wits Is it likely or convenient that one by the Spirit of wisdome should be made most like to a mad man Rather light stirreth up the visive facultie naturally nor doth light breed blindenesse nor the Spirit infuse darknesse into the mindes of men See the same Basil on Isaiah 13 at the beginning Chrysostom Homil. 29. in primam Epist ad Corinth 12. Hierom in prooem Isaiae Nahum Abacuc in 3. cap. ad Ephes Augustine de Genes ad literam 12.9 and Epist 112. and contra Adamantium Manichaeum cap. 28. Gregorie Moral 11.12 All aim at this mark That they were rapti or in an ecstasie none denieth but there is a double ecstasie The first either from outward and inward senses the minde remaining more enlightened and free and perfect Thus were they sometimes in an ecstasie Secondly there is an ecstasie from the minde it self when it understandeth not Thus they were never in an ecstasie So Philo Judaeus in his book Quis rerum divinarum haeres Cyril lib. 8. in Joannem cap. 3. r Non ad Prophetae rationem id semper exigit●r necessarium est ut quae sutura denuntiat intelligat habuit Dauiel complures visiones quas primum non intellexit sed ab Angelo postea est edoctus nomen Prophetae non perdidit It is not alwayes necessarie that a Prophet should understand whatsoever he foretelleth Daniel had many visions which at the first he understood not but was after taught by an Angel and yet he forfeited not the name of a Prophet I answer with Hierom on Daniel 10. They did know what the things signified though they were not presently inlightened ſ Vt per moram occasio daretur anepliùs Deum deprecandi lacrymis je junio invocandi Deum ut mitteret Augelum suum qui docere● Danielem that upon the delay occasion might be ministred unto them to pray oftner and more unto God and with tears and fasting call upon him that God would send his Angel to instruct Daniel So that every Prophet knew what words he spake and knew the literall meaning of every word but the spirituall meaning they understood not at the first or presently but afterwards So Zacharie saw many things and knew them not but asked the Angel Zach. 6.4 What are these my Lord

And 1.9 O my Lord what are these And 4.5 6. Knowest thou not what these things be And I said No my Lord. Then he answered and spake unto me saying This is c. See the like in the 13 and 14 verses Pharaoh Nabuchodonosor and Caiaphas did apprehend but not understand things divine Prophets understood almost alwayes saith Castrus Alwayes say I within a short while so that they were never left wholly nescient of what they prophesied Aquinas 2ª 2 ae quaest 173. artic 4. cometh home to me in the question propounded and in the close though he holdeth somewhat aloof in the bodie of the Article His Quaere is Vtrùm Prophetae semper cognoscant ea quae prophetant VVhether the Prophets alwayes understand all things which they prophesie and at first he resolveth t Non oportet Prophetas quaeeunque praedicun● cognoscere It is not necessarie that they should know whatsoever they foretell I confesse there is no absolute necessitie of it and the Non oportet makes another distinct question But against my position detur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give me one instance He proves it by Caiaphas who knew not what he prophesied It is answered before He was no Prophet though he spake a propheticall sentence no more then Balaams asse was a man because he once discoursed more wisely then his master Aquinas addeth and that truely That the Spirit moved the mindes of the souldiers to part Christs garments but they knew not what it signified But this is farre from our question for neither were they Prophets nor spake any propheticall sentence but onely fulfilled one Three Arguments he bringeth unanswerable for my opinion 1. Augustinus super Genes ad literam 12.9 toward the beginning u Quibus signa per aliquas rerum corporalium similitudinet demonstrabantur i● Spiritu nisi accessisset mentis officium ut etiam intelligerentur uondum erat prophetia Sed ea quae intelliguntur non possunt esse incognita Ergò Propheta non ignorat ea quae prophetat VVho saw by the Spirit heavenly visions in and by the glasse of bodily resemblances unlesse there were added also the use employment and offices of the minde whereby those things may be understood he deserveth not the name of a Prophet But those things that are understood are not unknown Therefore the Prophet is not ignorant of what he prophesieth 2. x Majus est lumen prophetiae quàm lumen naturalis rationis Sed quicunque lumine naturali habet scientiam non ignorat ea quae scit ●rgò quicunque lumine prophetico aliqua enuntiat non petest ea ignorare Greater and brighter is the divine light of prophesie then the light of naturall reason But by naturall reason we are not ignorant of those things which we know Therefore whosoever is inspired with the spirit of prophesie cannot be ignorant of such things as he prophesieth of 3. y Pr●phe●ia ordinatur ad homanum illuminationem Vnde dicitur 7. Pet. 1.19 HABEMUS PROPHETICUM SERMONEM CUI BENEF ACITIS ATTENDENTES QUASI LUCERNAE LUGENTI IN GALIOINOSO LOCO Sed nihil potest alios illuminare nisi in se sit illuminatum Ergò videtur quòd Propheta prius illuminetur ad cognoscendum ea quae aliis enuntiat Prophesie is ordained as a means to instruct and inlighten mens understandings whereupon it is said 2. Pet. 1.19 WE HAVE A MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHESIE WHEREUNTO YE DO WELL THAT YE TAKE HEED AS UNTO A LIGHT THAT SHINETH IN A DARK PLACE But nothing can irradiate or give light unto others that is not illuminated in it self Therefore it seems that a Prophet is first inlightened himself to know those things which he fore-divineth to others His onely answer to the objections is that the three reasons speak of true Prophets whose minde is from heaven perfectly inlightened Which is wholly my conclusion except he differ from me in this That the mindes of the true Prophets are not perfectly inlightened in the things which they do prophesie which his words may insinuate and my opinion contradicteth It is true that Faith is of those things that are not seen Hope is of those things that are not had or enjoyed Prophesie is of those things that are not but are to come and things to come are as easily known lumine prophetico by the light of prophesie as present colours are discerned lumine naturali by the light of nature But that prophesie is of things hidden from the true Prophet evinceth that a Prophet and a Seer are not all one and what I say concerning whatsoever the Prophets spake or writ I say also of all other Pen-men of holy Scripture They knew what they spake they knew what they wrote even S. Paul that heard unspeakable words which it is not lawfull for a man to utter 2. Cor. 12.4 out of doubt understood whatsoever was said unto him He saith not he heard words that he could not understand but words unspeakable Three Objections follow two brought by Castrus but not answered the third is drawn from divers passages of the Apostles Object 1. Augustine de Civit. 7.33 saith z Prophetae quaedam intelligebant quaedam non intelligebant The Prophets did understand some things and not understand other things It is true No one of them knew all things but some things were revealed to one some to another in severall times places manners and degrees but Augustine will not say that the holy Prophets were ignorant of what they prophesied themselves and were to teach others Elisha knew not the cause of the womans coming to him 2. King 4.27 and till the minstrell played the hand of the Lord came not on him 2. King 3.15 but the same Elisha knew not onely things to come but also things contingent and which did never come to passe Whereas Joas smote but thrice upon the ground Elisha knew by the spirit of prophesie that if Joas had smitten five or six times then had he smitten Syria till he had consumed it 2. Kings 13.19 Now let any one think the Prophets to be parcell-ignorant in their own prophesies I will not Object 2. Ambrose de Abraham 1.8 saith Abraham prophesied he knew not what when he spake to his young men Gen. 22.5 Abide you here with the asse and I and the lad will go yonder and worship and come again to you Melchior Canus de locis Theologicis 2.4 in initio saith Sunt alii quibus ego vehementer assentior qui admittunt Abraham mentitum fuisse Others admit that Abraham told a lie to whom I strongly adhere I answer in generall Canus had done better if he had followed them a Qui piè gravitérque contendunt Abraham non esse mentitum Who religiously and gravely contend as himself speaketh that Abraham lied not I answer more particularly The plurall might be used for the singular or he might think reservedly If God will If we both live

perfect of himself and by or of that one were all things made Vers 28. seemeth to be taken from Xenophanes Colophonius who cometh home to that point as he is cited by Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat 5. or els from Orpheus who acknowledgeth that in God cuncta moventur Ignis aqua tellus All things are moved Fire water earth Concerning those words vers 29. We are his off-spring they are the very words of Aratus in the beginning almost of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ipsius enim genus sumus We are his off-spring Clemens Strom. 5. and Vasques Tom. 1. part 1. disputat 28. num 17. expound it as if we were his Genus Creatione By creation That is true but not enough for Genus may be taken for Soboles an off-spring and men may be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jovis proles Born of God The issue of God or as another hath it to an other purpose Semideíque homines semihominésque dei Men half gods and gods half men Another place in S. Paul is 1. Cor. 15.33 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Evil communications corrupt good manners Tertullian ad uxorem 1.7 saith This versicle was sanctified by the Apostle Hierom ad Demetriad virg Epist 8. cap. 10. saith S. Paul assuming this secular verse made it Ecclesiasticall Socrates 3.40 and out of him Nicephorus 10.26 say It is borrowed from Euripides Hierom Peter Martyr and many mo report it to be Senarius Menandri an Hexameter of Menander I reconcile them thus That it is in both of the Poets Justinian the Jesuite relateth that Photius apud Oecumenium saith Some such thing is in the Prophet Isaiah But I could never finde it saith the Jesuite Perhaps he mistook Photius for if Photius had any relation to the precedent words vers 32. Let us eat and drink for to morrow we die the Jesuite might finde the same Isa 22.13 And so Athanasius on the place of the Apostle or rather Theophylact if we beleeve Bellarmine de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis ad annum 340. in Athanasio saith Those words were taken from Isaiah Acts 20.28 Take heed unto your selves and to all the flock Attendite vobis c. That Thales Milesius was the first that said Non sine oculo Domini .i. attentione equum non sine vestigio Domini id est attentione agrum pinguescere was a good observation of Bishop Andrews in his Concio ad Clerum in Synodo Provinciali pag. 29 but that grave Prelates intimation for indeed at the utmost it is no more that Paul alluded to that saying of Thales is a conjecture farre enough fetched Eodémque in loco Paulus jam Milesius Nec sine attentione bene esse Ecclesiae dicit So he Much more may be said to the point concerning the Apostles citing Apocryphall or not Canonicall writings S. Paul knew the names of Pharaoh his Magicians 2. Tim. 3.8 Jannes and Jambres as we reade it according to the Greek and Syriack which is also followed by Numenius apud Euseb de praeparat Evangel 9.3 though the Vulgat hath Mambres in stead of Jambres and the Hebrew Talmud and Rabbi Nathan as Genebrard cites them in the first book of his Chronologie o Apostolus è Talmud habet nomina principum Magorum Pharaonis ut communis opinio est It is commonly thought that the Apostle took from the Talmud the names of Pharaohs chief Magicians saith Drusius in Henoch pag. 25. and in the margin p Credibilius est ipsum sumpsisse ex libro Apocrypho qui Jannes Mambres vocatur nam Talmud indè habuit It is more credible the Apostle took it out of an Apocryphall book called JANNES AND MAMBRES for from thence the Talmud fetched it saith Drusius I for my part will not define whether S. Paul was onely immediately from heaven assured that these were the names of the Magicians or whether he had read their names also in some Apocryphall book now perished or in the Talmud James 1.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above Which words I have both heard and read alledged for the lawfull use of humane literature though I for my part cannot guesse whence the Apostle took them That S. Jude had the historie of the strife between Michael and the devil about the bodie of Moses the 9 of Jude in part from Deuteronomie and in part from an Apocryphall book Aretius maintaineth The title of the book was Assumptio Mosis The assumption of Moses as some say or Ascensio Mosis The ascent of Moses as others say That S. Jude might also have read the book of Henoch and his prophesie I will not denie for he citeth some words of it vers 14. So think Hierom in Catalogo and in his Commentarie on Titus 1. Augustine de Civitat 15.23 ibid. 18.38 and Beda on the place But the book of Henoch is Apocryphall That S. John read the Targumists in many places the learned Heinsius proveth or laboureth to prove by many passages Thus much clearly must be confest that the gifts both of reading and of writing and understanding of strange tongues was conferred on all the Apostles not one was an illiterate man after the cloven tongues like as of fire sat upon each of them Act. 2.3 and I make no question but they also read the Old Testament after that time and might reade other books Talmudists Targumists Hellenists Apocryphall books yea Heathen writings and perhaps did so But in all these or the like places which the Apostles cited or pointed at this is now my last resolution as a Corollarie to the Question before briefly answered Either the sacred Penmen never read those things themselves but the all-knowing Spirit did tender and dictate both matter and words to them Or if they did reade profane authours and were conversant in them yet they used the words not as their own reading not as humane learning not as drawn out of the treasurie of their own memories not as if they had the choice to insert those sentences above others but the holy Ghosts inspiration guided them wholly and reached forth words unto them both in things which they knew and in things unknown unto them before Yea I beleeve that if Plato or Aristotle Tullie or Varro had lived after Christs dayes and been called to write any part of Scripture they should not would not have conceived one thought or written one word of humane literature as from themselves or any part of their own great knowledge but would have quitted themselves and been wholly led by the holy Ghost The seventh Question Whether they studied the things before-hand That both Prophets Apostles and Evangelists were filled with holy thoughts and heavenly meditations we certainly beleeve and know Psal 45.1 My heart is enditing of a good matter or as it is in our margin boyleth or bubbleth up a good matter Eructavit cor meum verbum bonum saith the Vulgat Verily good

the inspiration makes the record divine and his testimonie from the Spirit That he saw is of more force then his testimonie could be to the Spirit What he saw It seemeth good unto me saith S. Luke but it was made to seem good unto him by the Spirit yea first it seemed good unto the holy Ghost as the Apostles in the like case said Act. 15.28 It seemed good unto the holy Ghost and to us The words do not notifie the pleasing of his own fancie without the dictate of the holy Ghost say I. And the understanding that he had of things from the first was not by sight for he was not then called nor by humane relation for that may be mistaken increased or decreased or subject to errour But the knowledge issued out from the light divine and therefore is there tearmed perfect understanding like Gods gifts James 1.17 All other guides are somewhat imperfect Thirdly the Jesuite is justly blameable for saying The Spirit need not tell them what they knew before I say they might have forgotten or mistaken some things as they were men and by the Spirit they might know more certainly what they knew before more doubtingly and by the same Spirit they might know some circumstances more then before they knew what they knew humanely they now know divinely I will not discusse the question at large Whether the Law written by the hand and finger of God immediately were to be regarded above other things divinely inspired into holy men and written by them This I will say That if I were ascertained that I saw the very tables the latter tables of stone which God himself wrote or if I had seen any thing which Christ himself had written for I will not say he wrote nothing and I know he could write I should prefer them somewhat above whatsoever should be transcribed or written by any other whosoever and this is my reason Though Moses his writings were inspired and dictated from God yet he placed them in the side of the Ark Deut. 31.26 a place not altogether so noble see Cajetan on Heb. 9. but the tables and onely the tables written by Gods own finger were laid up in the Ark it self as appeareth 1. Kings 8.9 and 2. Chron. 5.10 howsoever afterward it seemeth there was a change Hebr. 9.4 At length I am come to the five Conclusions which beat directly upon the learned Heinsius whereof the first is this There was no difference between the Penmen of the divine Writ of the Old and New Testament in the point of conceiving and writing in different languages Which in this manner I do explain If I demand of the worthy Heinsius in what tongue the Old Testament was conceived his answer is peremptorie Prolegom pag. 26. f Hebraeâ ac Chaldaeâ conceptum est linguâ It was conceived in the Hebrew and Chaldee language It had been clearer if he had used some disjunctive rather then a copulative Preposition For none will imagine that the skilfull Heinsius did ever mean that all of the Old Testament was conceived both in Hebrew and in Chaldee to which his words seem to incline but either in Hebrew or in Chaldee was it conceived and they who wrote in Hebrew conceived in Hebrew and they who wrote in Chaldee conceived in Chaldee I do not think but he would thus have expressed himself and explained his own meaning if he had been put unto it Whereupon I discourse in this manner Jeremie wrote somewhat in Chaldee and Daniel wrote some chapters If they being Hebrews or Jews by generation and birth and perfect in their mother-tongue readie Scribes in the law of Moses as well as Ezra Ezra 7.6 did yet conceive in the Chaldee that Chaldee which they wrote which the ingenuous Heinsius will not denie for what was conceived in Chaldee if that which was written in Chaldee was not so conceived why did not the Writers of the New Testament though they were born and bred in the use of the Syriack conceive in Greek what they wrote in Greek What reason have we to discriminate them so that the Penmen of the Old shall conceive and write in one and the same language the Chaldee in Chaldee and Hebrew in Hebrew and not the Penmen of the New Testament but they forsooth must conceive in Syriack and write or dictate in Greek especially since all of them conceived and wrote by the inspiration and dictate of one and the same Spirit Either let him make the forenamed passages of the Chaldee language in the Old Testament to be conceived in Hebrew though writ in Chaldee and so none at all to be conceived in Chaldee or let him equall the Penmen of the New Law to those of the Old in this point That they wrote in the self-same tongue in which they conceived Besides it will be hard to prove that Jeremie ever knew any part of the Chaldean language till that very verse was inspired into him and so with it both the knowledge and the words and the power both of pronuntiation and of writing So that Jeremie could not possibly conceive and utter also the Chaldee in the Hebrew but conceived that verse in Chaldee and in Chaldee pronounced or wrote it A second errour in the learned Heinsius Pag. 49. Prolegom is this t Quare ad allusiones non quae extant sed quas animo conceperat Joannes eundum est Wherefore we must rest not on the allusions which now are but which S. John conceived in his minde Against which I set down the second Conclusion viz. We must have recourse to the allusions which are S. John was Sol Evangelii The light the sunshine the very Sunne of the Gospel as Dionysius termed him This Sunne is in eclipse and we have not cannot have his true and perfect light if we must not look to his rayes and shine which are his words but to his thoughts that is the light which is in himself to his internall and substantiall light and not to the externall The certainest rule is most to be trusted unto therefore let us not go from the words and extant allusions which we know to the thoughts of S. John which we know not For Who knoweth the thoughts of a man save the spirit of man which is in him 1. Cor. 2.11 And if the finite thought of every man be unknown can the thoughts of him who is inspired by the infinite Spirit be so soon and so easily known Moreover the same words written in Greek may be conceived two or three wayes in the Syriack for variations are in that language and different expressions of the same things And which of those shall we think was the conceit of S. John And when we have lighted on divers and all of them good expressions of Syriack yet the Spirit might guide S. John to an other which we never thought upon And so we are for ever uncertain what allusion S. John conceived in his thoughts For he

Leaving every man to his own libertie in this point saith Erasmus Secondly I wonder that that holy Father could think S. Paul would permit the least sinne when Rom. 3.8 he counteth them slanderous reporters that affirmed he said Let us do evil that good may come adding their damnation was just Again if it be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our English well translateth it By permission and the Arabick expounds it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By my concession g Non dico ut in decreto decisivo Nor speak I it as a sinall sentence or binding decision as Beza hath it The Arabick of Junius hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 With mutuall consent and thus enlargeth it h Quod dico ex consensu posse alterum ab altero discedere ad tempus propter jejunium orationem non jubeo sed consulo Nam nè ' Deus quidem ipse hoc ordinarium aut perpetuum esse mandavit suis sed exemplum praebuit cum hoc consilio me● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Whereas I say One may depart from another by consent for a time that they may fast the more and pray the better I command not this but advise it For even God himself never gave charge unto any of his that this should be done commonly and kept perpetually but he hath given us an example agreeable to my counsel that it may be done sometimes for a while upon extraordinary occasion Exod. 19.15 Come not at your wives The translated words of the Arabick by Junius are these i Dico hoc juris ut dici solet consiliunt non ut mandatum This is the advice not the decree of the Law Beza makes the sense of the words to be as if S. Paul did not command expressely that all should be married as some might collect from his words vers 2. Junius applieth them to his leaving it indifferent for man and wife to forsake the companie of each other for a time i Nomen VENIAE perperam torquetur ab Augustino Augustines PARDON is farre fetcht and forced too much saith Beza for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a candid interpretation upon good reason and doth not alwaies imply such a pardon as connoteth a fault Aristotle saith k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eth. l. 6. c. 11 It is an upright sentence inclining not to rigour but to moderation Peter Martyr saith l Versatur circa aequii summum jus remittit quod alioqum est summa injuria It is exercised about that which is equall and qualifieth the rigour of the law which otherwise is extream injurie Even in the same sort could I deal with one whom I saw to fast or to studie too much that he might sometime refresh himself Which I would not say imperiously but by way of counsel grounded on equitie Neither doth it therefore follow that to studie hard or to fast holily is a sinne So farre Peter Martyr who might as well have insisted in S. Pauls advice to his scholar 1. Tim. 5.23 Drink no longer water but use a little wine for thy stomacks sake and thine often infirmities The Syriack in Junius hath it answerable to the Arabick m Hoc dico ego tanquā infirmis non ex mandato This I say as to the weak not by commandment n Ex concessione non ex imperio By grant not precept as Tremellius turneth it o Non praecipio sed permitto I charge not but permit saith Haymo for how could S. Paul command when Christ left it free When Christ said It is not given to all or He that is able to receive it let him receive it Matth. 19.12 if the words have reference to the second verse or when God himself left it indifferent if it hath dependance upon the temporarie abstemiousnesse upon just occasion touched at in the fifth verse Concerning the second objection vers 10. Vnto the married I command yet not I but the Lord. I answer First that those forms of speech are not simply exclusive much lesse contradictorie and denote not so much a simple negation as a kinde of comparison sometime I yet not I. And we have other places of Scripture to be ranked in the same parallell John 7.16 My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me As therefore it was most true that Christs doctrine even as he is God and Man is not his in one sense that is originally for as he had not the divine essence of himself or from himself but from God the Father so from the Father had he the divine doctrine and yet in another sense is truely Christs doctrine as conceived and preached by him who is God the Fountain of truth yea Truth it self And as the doctrine which he had as he was Man was partly not his for the infused doctrine into the soul of Christ comprehending all scientificall habits by which Christ naturally knew and that most perfectly whatsoever was to be known was not his as Man but was infused of God and partly his namely such as he like a Viator or another Man experimentally might gather And the true meaning of the words may be The doctrine which I preach is not the invention of mine own brain but his rather who sent me to teach you what he taught me and so is both mine and not mine To which effect Pererius So in the place of the Apostle where it is written I command yet not I but the Lord since S. Paul might be considered either as an ordinarie man or as an Apostle inspired from God he first saith I command and then by distinguishing explaineth his meaning Yet not I as a common man but rather the Lord by me his Apostle And all this proveth not that S. Paul could write any thing as he was an Apostle of his own head or yet put in any of his own conceits but was wholly guided by the Spirit For whatsoever is so properly mans work that it is not also Gods that is not good since the Authour of goodnesse is excluded Secondly I answer The place doth rather expressely say that whatsoever S. Paul wrote or spake as an Apostle they were not his words or writings but the words of God for his commands were not his but the Lords then any way imply that he could write any thing as an Apostle without the Spirit or by the dictate of his own naturall prudence onely Thirdly o Praecipio non ego ex mea sententia sed Dominus in Evangelio c. I command not according to mine opinion but the Lord in the Gospel doth That a man may not depart from his wife except for fornication saith Haymo Where our Saviour speaks not of a short departure with consent for the improvement of religious duties for then S. Paul might have had a command for it in the objection precedent but our Saviour speaketh of a totall or finall departure of man and wife by

bill of divorcement or separation for of this Christ spake expressely Mat. 19.9 Mark 10.11 Luk. 16.18 Therefore S. Paul commanded not but the Lord namely Christ in those places of the Gospel to which he aimed The third objection is out of the 1. Cor. 7.12 To the rest speak I not the Lord. These words compared with the former may seem to carrie it cleare against me For what can be of more force I command yet not I but the Lord and To the rest speak I not the Lord as if S. Paul spake and wrote something by humane wisdome which the Lord bid him not First I answer with Peter Martyr S. Paul saith thus because before he had reference to Christs speech in the Gospel of not easily dissolving matrimonie but now he sets down somewhat of which Christ in the Gospel is not found to have said any thing So now he speaks not the Lord namely not Christ in the Gospel not Christ by word of mouth as he was man and yet on the contrarie side we may as truely say even in this place and to S. Pauls proper sense with the words inverted The Lord speaks not I Not I of my self not I as a man but God from heaven or the holy Spirit speaketh The conclusion is S. Paul speaketh or writeth nothing as an Apostle from himself without the Lord without divine immediate revelation from the holy Ghost but he might relate something which Christ spake not whilest Christ lived on earth something that is not registred in the Gospel And thus S. Paul did speak and not the Lord And thus may an other speak or write and not the Lord. p Ego dico non Dominus Nunquid Dominus non loquebatur per eum●Vtique Sed ideo dixit se dicere non Dominum quia hoc praeceptum non continetur in Evangelio dictū à ' Domino sicut illud superius I speak not the Lord Did not the Lord speak by him Yes But therefore he said that himself spake and not the Lord because this precept is not contained in any of the Gospels as the other was saith Haymo before Peter Martyr And indeed I remember not that Christ so much as toucheth at this point Whether a beleeving man should put away or dwell from an unbeleeving woman yea or no To the fourth objection 1. Cor. 7.25 I have no commandment from the Lord yet I give my judgement I answer It was matter of counsel not of precept it was left indifferent the doing or not doing had not been sinne q Noluit Deus de virginitate coelibatu praecipere quia visus fuisset damnare nuptias Christ would give no command concerning single life or virginitie lest he should seem to condemn marriage So Augustine in libello de sanct virginit So Hierom against Jovinian So Ambrose saith Peter Martyr Yet the Consilium do I counsel is the advice of such an one as had obtained mercie of the Lord to be faithfull and a faithfull steward will not distribute more or lesse then his Lord appointeth The unjust steward made them write lesse then was due the usurer makes them write more the good and faithfull man followeth his masters will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foot by foot So this place proveth not that the Apostle as an Apostle wrote or spake by humane wisdome any thing but what was appointed of God The Rhemists on verse 12 say By this we learn that there were many matters over and above the things that Christ taught or prescribed left to the Apostles order and interpretation wherein they might as the case required either command or counsel and we bound to obey accordingly Doctour Estius goeth further r Satìs autem insinuat hic sermo Praecipio non ego sed Dominus Apostolos eorum successores posse quaedā praecipere quae Christus ipse per se non praecepit This speech I COMMAND YET NOT I BUT THE LORD doth sufficiently evidence that the Apostles and their successours can command something which Christ himself by himself commanded not Both of them runne awry in one extream Doctour Fulk answereth to that place of the Rhemists The Apostles had not particular precepts for every case but they had generall rules in Christs doctrine which they were bound to follow in their precepts and counsels I think he approacheth too nigh unto them unlesse he mean that both their precepts and counsels had the divine dictate to guide them especially in things which they wrote And whereas he saith They had not particular precepts for every case I say they had for all cases necessarie especially concerning the whole Church And their generall rules might rather be for guiding matters of order and discipline then of doctrine For he that promised to lead them into all truth would not leave them in the framing of particulars as he doth us and other men who out of generals do deduce these and these specials For there is a great distance and traverse to be placed between those sacred Penmen and other succeeding Expositours of holy Writ And S. Paul doth imply that even his judgement or counsel was according to the Spirit of God as Bishop Andrews well observed and now cometh to be handled The fifth objection is verse 40 in the same verse where he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to my judgement he addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think also that I have the Spirit of God Minus dicit plus volens intelligi He speaketh sparingly but would be understood more largely say I. So verse 26 I suppose and 1. Cor. 4.9 I think that God hath set forth us the Apostles last f Puto autem Sobriè loquitur minúsque dicit majus significat ut sit sensus Certò scio I THINK He speaketh soberly signifying more then he spake and it is all one as if he had said I KNOW CERTAINLY saith Dionysius Carthus with whom accordeth Primasius Do not think that I speak what I do of my self the Spirit of God speaketh in me t Futo non dubietatem significat The word I THINK is not wrapped about with doubtfulnesse Peter Martyr thinks it is an Ironie against the false Apostles who traduced S. Paul as unworthy to be an Apostle And then the Ironie hath as full force as if he had peremptorily avouched The Spirit of the Lord is in me and by it I write what I write Other objections may be made as the 2. Cor. 11.17 I speak it not after the Lord but as it were foolishly in this confidence of boasting Therefore not onely humane wisdome but humane infirmitie may seem to challenge part both in his words and writings It is answered in a few words of Dionysius Carthusianus Non loquor id est Loqui non videor that is It seems not so to some though my self know the contrarie Others may object 1. Cor. 9.8 Say I these things as a man or saith not the Law

the same also I answer that he might speak or write some things like an other man some things unexpressed in their Law but now he speaketh or writeth for they are both one sense in this notion as an Apostle who therefore was equally to be regarded as a Penman of the Law of Grace with Moses a Penman of the Law Leviticall It may yet be objected what S. John saith 2. Epist vers 12. Having many things to write unto you I would not write with paper and ink and 3. Epist John ver 13. I had many things to write but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee From whence a power seemeth to be wholly left in him both whether he would write or no and what he would write I answer to both places If he had said he had writ any thing without or beyond the Spirit or what he was bid not to write he had spoken home to the purpose but these words do not imply that he had either power or will to write any thing of his own head or by the wisdome or learning of man but they fully evidence that the holy Ghost had suggested many things unto him which the same blessed Spirit would not have him to write as being fitter perhaps to be delivered face to face and not concerning posteritie If I knew any more opposite arguments I would endeavour their answer The positive proofs I referre to the last point of all it being the very main hinge of the controversie Onely consider this one thing The Scripture hath a priviledge above all other writings Aquinas on 2. Timoth. 3.15 giveth this reason u Quia aliae traditae sunt per rationem bumanam sacra autem Scriptura est divina Because other writings savour of humane reason but the Scripture is divine Where he excludeth the prudence of man from composing any Scripture If any earthly wisdome wrote any part of it it is no more to be accounted our Scripture Let this suffice for the third conclusion concerning the matter of Scripture wherein the holy Penmen had no libertie left them to put in their own conceits or in writing to adde or blot out what they had done whereby all humane literature and wisdome is removed from sharing part in the holy Writ The fourth conclusion followeth concerning the manner of writing viz. They had no libertie to clothe their inward apprehensions with words of their own Either all the Pen-men had the libertie or none The disjunction stands upon a Da tertium Give me a reason why some should and not others Who were these some and why those But all had not libertie for the very words were dictated unto some of them Ergò c. Either every Penman did apparrell his understanding with words of his own throughout all and every of his own writings or it was practised in some places onely If so then again I enquire what places they were and why those had an especiall priviledge above others S. John indeed was bid to write the things which he had seen and the things which are and the things which shall be hereafter Revel 1.19 I answer This generall command evinceth not that the holy Ghost did not administer as well the words as the matter If it be objected that the Evangelicall Prophet Isaiah and the Psalmograph and some others are most eloquent in the Old and in the New Testament the beloved disciple S. John is compared to an Eagle for his loftie flight and S. Paul may seem to have brought some of the third heaven down with him so heavenly is he but Amos and some others writ more plainly in an homely style I answer If all this were true yet it proveth not that any of them were left to expresse as they would their own dreams visions or illuminations neither did they frame and fit their styles to the Spirit or their words to the matter nor indeed could they For what proportion is there between finite and infinite and how can the shallow capacitie of man comprehend the depth of God God forbad the linsie-woolsie and to the divine truths would he suffer them to adapt humane expressions How often in the Old Testament is both the matter put into their hearts and the manner with the words into their mouthes And is the Law of Grace of lesse worth then the Law of Moses God forbid But whosoever readeth the Prophet Amos and the rest that are undervalued shall finde more in Amos then Amos more in him then in one among the herd-men of Tekoa Amos 1.1 and shall heare the piercing language of the Spirit in others sometimes perhaps attempering it self to the partie writing and making both words and matter easie but at other times it rapteth him above himself and maketh him as it were to prink it in loftie and almost undiscernable towring by infusing things phrasing sentences and dictating words above what was agreeable to the meannesse of his former calling That the holy Ghost can and hath suggested the very words very often I think none will denie That ever he permitted them a libertie of many sentences of many phrases of many variations of words to choose what they liked and to refuse the rest I think few ancient Divines ever said before but to that effect saith Heinsius Els what can his meaning be when he saith S. John saw the Chaldee Paraphrase and Hellenists and had often reference to them and that divers things were taken from the Targummim x Ad Targumistas semper respicit Evangelista The Evangelist alwayes hath an eye to the Targumists saith he pag. 550. If the noble Heinsius had said in any one place which he did not so farre as my remembrance now beareth that the holy Spirit had guided S. John to those Authours and authorities of the Targumists Hellenists and Chaldee Paraphrast I should have subscribed and sat down at his feet But when he so often appealeth from the Greek to the Syriack and saith S. John was so conversant with the forenamed Authours he derogateth in mine opinion from the majestie of the holy Writ whilest he would seem to have ought of it taken from humane reading or wisdome though of an Apostle unlesse it were added That the holy Spirit guided the Apostle unto it and did dictate it unto him not as it was known before to the Apostle but as the holy Ghost thought fit to make use of it and to sanctifie that part of humane literature to dictate I say the words and syllables yea every letter and iota and in the writing to guide their hands aright as a good master of writing over-spreadeth and over-ruleth the hand of his scholar and writeth what copie he pleaseth without reference or regard to the scholars former knowledge but rather to his future instruction This is that which against Heinsius may be averred That though many things which are in S. John and other holy Penmen were before in the Targum Talmud

Hellenists Chaldee Paraphrase or any heathen Authours yet it doth not necessarily evince that the holy Actuaries or Notaries did oversee reade heare or transcribe those things out of their knowledge from the said Authours but both the names of those Authours and the things themselves were presented to them by that blessed Spirit which knew all things and this among the rest That these words phrases and sentences were fit to be inserted into the holy Writ which now are in it All Scripture is of divine inspiration But the very words are part of Scripture Therefore even they were inspired Revel 19.9 The Angel said Write Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage-supper of the Lambe Did not the Angel speak the words Did not he give the Apostle both matter and words When the Apostle was commanded Revel 14.13 by a voice from heaven to write Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord c. was he commanded to write his conceits and thoughts apprehended in Syriack and translate them into Hellenisticall Greek or did the heavenly voice suggest onely an holy inspiration into him and left him to coyn words as Heinsius would have it or rather did not the voice teach the very words which should be written viz. Blessed are the dead c. Now let us passe to the fifth and last Conclusion in which we must dissent from the worthy Heinsius and disarm him of his often-inculcated but not once proved Tenet The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Writers of holy Scripture conceived in one language and writ in an other Upon which ground he hath raised a strange structure but his very ground-work is sandie slipperie and false And this I hope to evince by Scripture Authoritie and Reason All which shall be squared to that Corner-stone which more then once before I hewed upon more roughly and now by Gods grace intend to polish namely That the very words and letters were dictated unto the holy Scribes and therefore they had no power to change or transchange to adde or diminish or to expresse by their own words their internall irradiation but in the language which they conceived they also wrote their heavenly dictates 2. Pet. 1.21 The Prophesie came not in old time by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost Therefore their very speech being according to the motion of the holy Ghost their words were not of their own choice but from above and not onely divine thoughts but sacred words were also given them 1. Cor. 2.13 S. Paul spake in words which the holy Ghost taught Did the holy Ghost inspire thoughts into them in one language and teach them words to speak in an other language Cui bono To what end and purpose and why not all done in the language which they conceived 2. Tim. 3.16 Scriptura per Spiritum scripta est The Scripture was writ by the Spirit saith the Syriack not onely inspired as it is from the Greek but written and as it was inspired written Revel 19.9 The Angel saith concerning very words which he commanded to be wrote These are the true sayings of God Not inspirations onely of God and the words of Men but the sayings of God Exod. 34.27 Write thou these words for after the tenour of these words I have made a covenant God was not tied to the words Moses was to the writing of the very words Jerem. 30.2 Write thee all the words which I have spoken unto thee in a book He gave him no power to put in words of his own Twelve times in the Revelation was S. John commanded to write and knew he not the words Hos 8.12 I have written to Ephraim the great things of my Law Even all what my Prophets have done I challenge as mine own writing Authorities of men The Scriptures were written y Magisterio Spiritus in obedience to the Spirit saith Sasbout on Peter Therefore the Apostles had not the power left unto them of writing their own conceits but were fitted with words by the Spirit z Si Spiritu saucto inspirati ab eo impulsi locuti sunt Prophetae caeteri librorum sacrorum scriptores Consequens est Scripturam totam esse verbum Dei non aliter à nobis accipiendam quàm si Deus immediatè absque humano vel Angelico ministerio eam edidisset ut ità dicam digito suo scripsisset If the Prophets and other writers of holy Scripture spake by the moving and inspiration of the holy Ghost it followeth that all the Scripture is the word of God no otherwise to be esteemed of by us then if God immediately without the ministery of men or Angels had set it forth and as I may say had written it with his own finger saith the learned Estius Even Cornelius Cornelii à Lapide himself on Timothie thus a Prophetae alii scriptores 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocantur calami instrumenta Spiritus sancti quast scribae velociter scribentis inspirantis dictantis sacras literas The Prophets and other holy Penmen of Scripture are styled the pens and instruments of the holy Ghost as of that scribe who speedily writeth inspireth and dictateth the divine writ Where he confesseth the holy Spirit not to inspire onely but to dictate yea to write like a swift scribe the holy Scripture Gregorius Praefat. in Job cap. 2. b Scriptores sacri Eloquii quia repleti Spiritu sancto super se trahuntur quasi extra semetipsos fiunt sic Dei sententias quasi de labiis proferunt The writers of the heavenly word because they are filled with the holy Ghost are elevated above themselves in him and as it were out of themselves and so the sentences of God are uttered as it were by their lips Athanasius Epist ad Lib. saith c Christus vetus novum Testamentum composuit Christ made the Old and New Testament d Quid est illud o● Domini nisi Scripturae per quas loquitur Dominu● What is the mouth of the Lord but the Scriptures by which the Lord speaketh saith Rupert on Matth. lib. 4. Philo Judaeus in lib. Quis rerum divinarum haeres thus e Propheta nihil ex se proloquitur sed omnia submonente alio A Prophet prophesieth nothing out of his own brain but all things by the prompting of the holy Ghost as he wittily concludeth Therefore not so much as the words are his own Chrysostom de Lazaro Homil. 4. Though a dead man revive and an Angel come from heaven you must beleeve Scriptures above all for the Master of Angels the Lord of the living and the dead he himself framed them The same Chrysostom de expulsione ipsius sheweth the manner I reade his own handwriting c. They are done by his hand the very writing it self is his and therefore called Chyrographum Dei A writing under Gods own hand by Augustine

on Psal 144. Now follow the Reasons why they concelved and writ in the same tongue First there is little or no difference between the Apostles and other men if the Apostles did frame words to their heavenly inspirations For when it pleaseth the blessed Spirit who bloweth where he listeth to drop down into the soul of an ordinary man some thoughts divine and in the language of spirits saith unto the same soul Of these see that you make a prayer the righteous man accordingly obeyeth and of those inward apprehensions shapeth a verbal prayer and poureth it forth before God Almightie and setteth it down in writing Shall the prayer be held as Divine as Scriptures Then may Manasses his Apocryphall prayer immediately before the books of Maccabees as it is in our last translation be no longer Apocryphall but Divine as Divine as any prayer made by the selected holy Penmen To have a thing perfectly Divine is required that heavenly words may be mixed with heavenly illumination Secondly our faith will be questioned if thoughts were inspired and the Penmen should adde what words they pleased f Titutabit fides si Scripturarum vacillat authoritas Our faith will stumble if the authoritie of the Scripture be shaken never so little saith Augustine de doctr Christian 1.37 But the Scriptures authoritie shaketh if God give onely the matter and men the words Thirdly the Prophets and Apostles wrote not alwayes all their own things themselves but sometimes used the ministerie of divers others A Scribe and a Prophet were two distinct persons and offices Jer. 36.26 Jeremie had Baruch Jer. 36.4 Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the Lord so then the words of Jeremiah to Baruch were the words of the Lord to Jeremiah And when that roll was burnt Jeremiah by the word of the Lord was bid to take another roll and write in it vers 28 c. Which Jeremie did not by himself but by Baruch the scribe vers 32. The nine first chapters of the Proverbs of Solomon were written by Solomon himself The rest were writ by others who attended on Solomon and heard them and are like so many precious stones apart and severally though not made up into one jewell or chain nor hanging together in any setled method yet to be esteemed at as high a rate and value as the very writings of Solomon The same Spirit inspired all the same mouth spake all though they were penned by severall hands by the command of the same holy Spirit In the New Testament S. Paul wrote much with his own hand The whole Epistle to the Galatians Gal. 6.11 at least to these very words and to Philemon vers 19. Many saluations 2. Thessal 3.17 18. The saluation of Paul with mine own hand which is the token in every Epistle so I write The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all Amen So that we may soundly gather that whatsoever Epistle under his name hath not that in it it was not written by him There was an Epistle written in his name to the Thessalonians terrifying them as if the generall judgement had been present as may be gathered 2. Thess 2.2 But S. Paul disclaims it It had not belike the salutation with his own hand his friendly farewell and prayer which saith Anselm was in these or the like words Grace c. as all the rest of his Epistles have toward their end though with a little variation of words sometimes larger sometimes briefer even the Epistle to the Hebrews also Hebr. 13.25 Grace be with you all Amen That you may not question but also that is his Epistle whereas no other Apostles have it so fully though S. Peter cometh nearest him 1. Pet. 5.14 For all this he used the help of some others in writing All the second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written with another hand except the salutation at the end saith Estius Rom. 16.22 I Tertius who wrote this Epistle salute you in the Lord. The words will bear this sense I Tertius who wrote this Epistle in the Lord salute you or thus as the Vulgat hath it I Tertius salute you who wrote this Epistle in the Lord. He said IN THE LORD to shew that he wrote not for money saith Cajetan Questionlesse Paul dictated and Tertius wrote the Epistle saith Estius Even those words themselves are not Tertius his own inserted as a private mans or secretaries but are divine Scripture And either by the Spirit he was commanded to write so and that thought was from heaven put into his heart and those words into his mouth to be written by his hand or else which I take to be most likely S. Paul knowing the minde of Tertius perhaps in part by Tertius his own expression but rather and chiefest by Divine revelation that Tertius did salute them in the Lord he willed him so to write I hope Heinsius will not say that Tertius conceived in Syriack and wrote in Greek or when S. Paul made his narrative in the Hebrew tongue Act. 22.2 that Luke conceived in Syriack and wrote in Greek neither can he say the like of the holy secretaries to whom not first thoughts in language spirituall and then words but thoughts by words outward and expressed were revealed Yet Erasmus in his last Annotation on the Epistle to the Hebrews saith thus g Quod aff●runt hîc quidam Paulum ipsū scripsisse Hebraicè caeterùm Lucam argumentum Epistolae quam memoriâ tenebat suis explicuisse verbis quantum valeat viderint alii What some do affirm THAT S. PAUL HIMSELF VVROTE IN HEBREVV BUT S. LUKE DID EXPRESSE IN HIS OVVN VVORDS THE ARGUMENT OF THE EPISTLE VVHICH HE HAD GOTTEN BY HEART let others consider what force and power it hath What will you say nothing to this Not so great a Critick Sure this drop might have fallen from your pen That such manner of writing had savoured no more of the Spirit then any ordinary writing where a skilfull scribe doth amplifie the heads given unto him Again Erasmus on Hebr. 2. in his Answer to Fabers 57 objection relateth that Faber h Quicquid est incommodi off●ndiculi id in Interpretem rejicit sed meo judicio parùm prudenter Whatsoever seems incommodious or offensive layeth the fault thereof upon the Interpreters but not prudently enough as I think saith Erasmus and in the answer to the one and fourtieth objection i Faber flagellat Interpretem huius Epistolae qui in Psalmo non verterit ELOHIM A DEO cùm idem fecerint Septuaginta quibus magìs conveniebat hoc imputari Faber scourgeth the Interpreter of this Epistle who did not turn the word ELOHIM in the Psalm FROM GOD when the Septuagint did so to whom this might rather be imputed Again Erasmus saith ibid. of Faber k In ●us trahit Interpretem Epistolae He commenceth a suit against the Interpreter of this Epistle All this

shews Fabers opinion to be That some writers of Scripture had power to use such words as they pleased and used some amisse even such as he found fault withall O novell criticism Wilt thou set thy self no bounds till thou reachest up to heaven and tramplest on the word of God The holy Amanuenses were guided by the Spirit to write as well as the Apostles to dictate When S. Paul accounted and would have his Galatians to account it as a favour above ordinary that he wrote so large an Epistle as that to the Galatians with his own hand and since the Epistle to the Romanes was larger then it and was writ by Tertius let me probably collect that other Epistles of S. Paul as those to the Corinthians and that to the Hebrews and any other if any other be longer and larger were not written by S. Pauls own hand For then his own writing had not been so great a testimonie and argument of his love to the Galatians for the rest were longer and larger but were writ by some other hand except perhaps the close and saluation Fevardentius on 1. Pet. 5.12 and Salmeron Tom. 13. Disput 5. as they are cited by Lorinus Act. 15.23 do think that Paul and the rest of the Apostles wrote seldome with their own hands but did dictate and subscribe which they prove by S. Peter 1. Pet. 5.12 By Silvanus a faithfull brother unto you as I suppose I have written briefly Lorinus answereth That by the same reason Judas and Silas wrote the Epistle of the Councel at Hierusalem Act. 15.23 Let me reply That I see nothing to the contrary in the Text or otherwhere but Judas and Silas being chief men among the brethren might write it as well as any others and might also be joyned in Commission with others to carrie it Concerning which Penmen this is my opinion That even they were led by the holy Ghost both to conceive what the Apostles spake and to write exactly what they dictated so that they did not they could not erre in writing any one word syllable or letter of the first Originals no nor did nor could mis-accent it or mis-point any part thereof nor can it be proved nor seems it likely that ever the Apostles revised or righted what the Penmen had done but subscribed to it took it as their own or rather as the holy Ghosts and sealed it for divine Scripture Oh that the first Originals themselves of the New Testament or of some part of it could yet be found I would go a thousand miles on my bare feet to see them kisse them and in Tertullians phrase I would adore the plenitude of them They would prove an Antidote against many heresies a correctorie of more false opinions which have sprung up from the variation of Copies and the uncertaintie what reading is best By this opinion I am sure one firm anchor-hold is established That humane wisdome and skill is excluded from having part in any parcell of Scripture and the whole Scripture is by me maintained to be wholly and absolutely true certain and most divine which Heinsius and others seem not to do So end I this point I Give thee thanks most gracious God that thou hast freed me of the gout and eased me of the stone that I have been able though in great weaknes to swim through this sea to go through this wildernesse in paths untrodden Lord I beseech thee by thine infinite mercies be mercifull to my soul prepare me throughly for my departure and in the houre of death and judgement good Christ deliver me Amen Amen CHAP. X. 1. Reall truth in the Greek and Latine texts of Act. 7.16 The place expounded thus The Fathers were not Abraham Isaac and Jacob but the twelve sonnes of Jacob. 2. These twelve Fathers were not buried in Abrahemio but in Sychem 3. Abraham in this place is not taken properly but patronymicé 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by S. Stephen amphibolous and expounded 5. Two opinions concerning the place of Acts 7.16 propounded 6. The last preferred I Now return to the old matter and Text Act. 7.16 Foure propositions there are in the words of S. Stephen which are all questioned First that the Fathers are said to be carried over into Sychem Secondly that they were laid in the sepulchre of Abraham Thirdly that Abraham bought the sepulchre of the sonnes of Hemor Fourthly that this Hemor was the father of Sychem as our last Translation hath it very truely Now let us see what different or contrary propositions are maintained against these and so labour to reconcile them First that the Fathers were not carried over into Sychem Secondly that they were not laid in the sepulchre of Abraham Thirdly that Abraham bought the field of Ephron the sonne of Zohar Gen. 23.8 Fourthly that Hemor was the sonne of Sychem as the Vulgat and Genevean translations have it That the first proposition may be reconciled to his opposite let us examine what is meant by the word Fathers All the Patriarchs indeed were Fathers and so called Abraham is our Father say the Jews Joh. 8.39 and Art thou greater then our Father Jacob saith the woman to Christ Joh. 4.12 I am the God of thy Fathers the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob saith God himself or an Angel representing him Act. 7.32 Abraham was a great Father Ecclus. 44.19 These Patriarchs were Patres majorum gentium Fathers of the highest rank if I may accommodate the Romane distinction unto the Jewish Governours And whereas David is called Act. 2.29 according both to the Greek and Latine a Patriarch there by the Arabick Translatour he is termed Princeps Patrum The chief or Prince of the Fathers Yet in the sense of S. Stephen by the word Fathers those first or greatest Fathers and prime Patriarchs are not to be understood but the Patres minorum gentium Fathers of a lower degree onely Joseph and the other sonnes of Jacob the immediate Fathers and Heads of the twelve Tribes And this is apparent by the light of the words themselves where there is a wall of separation between the one and the other Act. 7.15 Jacob died he and our Fathers therefore there were some who were called Fathers after Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Jacob died he and our Fathers Not Abraham and Isaac for they died before Jacob but Jacob died and who els He and our Fathers What more He and our Fathers when they were dead were carried to Sychem But Abraham and Isaac were never carried to Sychem Again such Fathers are meant as died in Egypt for they that died in Canaan needed no carrying over to the place where they were and Jacob went down into Egypt and died there he and our Fathers But Abraham though he went down into Egypt yet died not there but he went up out of Egypt he and his wife and all that he had Genes 13.1 lest you might think that he by leaving ought behinde might be occasioned to return

not to have bought that but an other piece of ground at an other time in an other place for * Genes 23.16 c. foure hundred shekels of silver of Ephron the Hittite neare Hebron which was farre distant from Sychem Which sale of Ephron and purchase of Abraham is ratified by the witnesse of truth in the mouth of Jacob himself and dying Jacob Genes 49.29 c. Therefore though the name of Abraham be read it may be it must be a patronymick and Jacob is called by his grandfathers name and Jacob did what is ascribed to Abraham for other passages of Scripture do force us to expound it of Jacob. Thus have I digressed to satisfie the great doubt which hath tortured the wits both of old and late Writers O Lord God God of Abraham of Isaac and of Jacob God of our fathers Father of Jesus Christ our God and Saviour be pleased I beseech thee that these my poore weak labours in points obscure may receive strength from thy strength light from thy light that thy most blessed holy and all-wise Word may be a lanthorn and light not onely to my paths but to my understanding that so I may know thee love thee and alway cleaving to thee may be glorified by thee through Jesus Christ my Redeemer and Advocate Amen CHAP. XI 1. Pineda makes Moses to be one of the raised at Christs Passion if once he died Pineda censured for his assertion or rather his hypothesis 2. David then arose in Pineda his judgement 3. His Argument answered Bishop Bilson wavering and rejected as he rejecteth S. Augustine 4. A demonstration upon S. Augustine his ground and Act. 2.24 that David was not raised nor ascended bodily into heaven 5. Davids sepulchre now kept by the Turk I Return to my old task against Pineda and of him I demand Who else are said to arise about the time of Christs Passion besides Abraham Isaac and Jacob He hath alreadie answered a At fuerit quoque redivivus Moses stolim diem suum obiit Moses also lived again if long since he died once I answer Why doth he make a needlesse If The Scripture saith expressely he died Deut. 34.5 and he was an hundred and twentie yeares old when he died vers 7. and he was buried vers 6. If he died not yet then first was he partaker of celestiall blessednesse saith Pineda after Christ was risen But in Christs life say I Moses and Elias appeared in glory and spake of his decease Luk. 9.30 31. They were not onely glorified but they did appeare gloriously to Christ and his Apostles before his resurrection And if S. Ambrose hath such words as Pineda citeth we may trulier reply b Mosen nunquam in caelesti gloria legimus postquam sed antequam Christus resurrexit We never read that Moses was or was seen in heavenly glorie after Christ arose but before 2. From this his pendulousnesse concerning Moses he descendeth to others c Neque abfuerit omnino David David was one of them and was not excluded I confesse with the divine S. Augustine that if any did arise to the eternall glory both of their souls and bodies David may be thought to be one neither then will I exclude Adam Abraham Isaac and Jacob and other Patriarchs under the law of Nature but Augustine in the same 99 Epistle ad Euod cited by Pineda proveth by divers reasons that they who arose out of their graves arose not then to an eternall happinesse 3. Yea but Sophronius in his Sermon of the most blessed Virgins Assumption evinceth saith Pineda that David did then arise because S. Peter speaking of the death of David Act. 2.20 saith not His bodie was at Jerusalem but His sepulchre is with us Cajetan on Aquin. part 1. quaest 53. artic 3. addeth ascribing it to Hierom that S. Peter said d Cujus sepulchrum apud nos est quasi non ausus fuerit dicere cujus corpus apud nos est Whose SEPVLCHRE is with us as if he durst not say Whose BODIE is with us Bishop Bilson in the place afore-cited is either for us or dubious in the rere or end although he be peremptorie and adverse to us in the front and beginning for he holdeth That it would somewhat impeach the power of Christs resurrection if it were able to raise the Saints to life but not to preserve them in life I answer The question is not of what Christ could do or can do but what he did do and what was done A Posse ad Esse non valet argumentum And if he imagineth that it impeacheth the power of Christs resurrection unlesse de facto the raised Saints be now alive in their bodies which is his intent any indifferent reader will say he is amisse and ought not to square the power of Christs resurrection to his own fancie Yea but saith he The whole fact will seem rather an apparition then a true resurrection I answer If he take apparition for a phantasticall vision and meer imagination or a delusion of the senses his meaning is not to be suffered yet in a good sense and at large it may be called an apparition for they appeared unto many Matth. 27.53 A true apparition and as true a resurrection A true resurrection is of two sorts the first and the last a good and a better resurrection of which I spake before One eternall Such was Christs Christ dieth no more death hath no more dominion over him Rom. 6.9 and He hath the keyes of death Revel 1.18 yea he alone was blessed with this resurrection hereafter we shall Every man in his own order Christ the first-fruits afterward they that are Christs at his coming saith the Apostle 1. Cor. 15.23 The very time is expressed S. Paul wrote this after Christs first coming yea after his resurrection many yeares and therefore you must needs interpret it of his second coming as is most evident by the context Therefore either those Saints are not Christs or they shall arise at his last coming and therefore have not risen to an eternall resurrection The other true resurrection is temporarie Thus some were raised in the Old Testament and some in the New and though they died again I dare not say their resurrection was an apparition And as out of doubt some of them who were raised by the Prophets or by Christ in his life time died sooner then other so if any of them had died within three or foure dayes yea within an houre or two after that their resurrection yet had it not been an apparition onely but a true temporary resurrection As if a childe should die the third instant after the souls infusion there were a true union and a true death so if one should die again presently after a resurrection there must needs be both a true reunion resurrection and a second death God reuniting the soul and again separating it and disposing of the creature without its wrong to the

glorie of the Creatour If I be bold with Bishop Bilson he is as bold with S. Augustine and sleighteth his reasons and crosseth the very argument which Aquinas magnifieth and which we have now in hand concerning David All the Reverend Bishops words are too large to be transcribed you may reade them pag. 217. and 218. I will onely single out such passages as shew him to be singular or dubious in that point That David is not ascended into heaven doth not hinder saith he but David might be translated into Paradise with the rest of the Saints that rose from the dead when Christ did but it is a just probation that Davids bodie was not then ascended when Christ sat in his humane nature at the right hand of God Again he saith Augustine hath some hold to prove that David did not ascend in body when Christ did or at least not into heaven whither Christ ascended because in plain words Peter saith * Acts 2.34 DAVID IS NOT ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN But saith he either the bodies of the Saints slept again when they had given testimonie to Christs resurrection or they were placed in Paradise and there expect the number of their brethren which shall be raised out of the dust or lastly David was none of these that were raised to bear witnesse of Christs resurrection but onely such were chosen as were known to the persons then living in Jerusalem So farre Bishop Bilson Before I come to presse the argument let me desire the Reader to observe these things in the forecited words and to censure accordingly That the Saints may be in Paradise with their bodies but not in Heaven Is there any paradise but in heaven and when S. Paul was in paradise was he not in the third heaven Shall the Saints that rose upon Christs resurrection and if they ascended at all ascended upon his ascension Shall they I say be taken up from the earth and not be glorified or being glorified not be with Christ Shall they be kept at distance from the blessed spirits of Angels and men that attend upon the Lambe and hang between the earth and that heaven where their Redeemer reigneth Secondly against his former determination and against the reasons which he brought to confirm it he saith Either the bodies of the Saints slept again But doth it not impeach the power of Christs resurrection or will it not seem an apparition rather then a true resurrection as you before reasoned or they were placed in Paradise or David was none of those who were raised to bear witnesse of Christs resurrection You see now his resolution is come down but S. Augustines argument is sound that David was not excluded from that priviledge which other ancient Fathers and Patriarchs enjoyed if they enjoyed them Bishop Bilson himself confesseth that David ascended not when Christ ascended but Christ sat in his humane nature at the right hand of God when Davids bodie was not ascended If not then when did he or they ascend or how were they witnesses of his ascension Lastly that the Fathers before Christ were in blisse is out of doubt that they were in some mansion of heaven is probable that they were comforted and made happier by Christs exaltation may be beleeved But that either the souls of the Patriarchs and David are not with the other blessed Angels and spirits of men now where Christ is or that the Apostles and Evangelists and other most holy disciples of Christ do not follow the Lambe wheresoever he now is but are in a paradise out of heaven seems strange divinitie somewhat touching on the errour of the Chiliasts But I leave Bishop Bilson in this point unlike himself he being a chief of our worthies famous above thousands for a most learned Prelate 4. And if from the ground of S. Augustine and the words of S. Peter I do not demonstrate that David rose not to an eternall resurrection I am much deceived The confessed ground of S. Augustine is That it is hard and harsh to exclude David from being one that arose if any arose to eternall life so that if David arose not none may be thought of them so to arise as to ascend in their immortall bodies to heaven since he had greater gifts or priviledges then some of them and as great as almost any of them But say I David was none of those that arose or if he did he ascended not into heaven And this I will undertake to prove by S. Peter For first S. Augustine in the same Epistle saith The intent of S. Peter was to prove that these words Psal 16.10 Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption were spoken of Christ onely and not of David and the Apostle evinceth it by this reason Because David did die and was buried and his sepulchre is with us that is his bones and his bodie and his ashes are yet with us whereas if David had bodily ascended they would have fitted David as well as Christ who died and was buried and his sepulchre remained but his bodie was not incinerated neither was his flesh corrupted as Davids was but ascended And so the Apostles argument had been impertinent Secondly it is said most remarkably Act. 2.34 David is not ascended into the heavens But Christ is by Davids confession Note first the force of the Antithesis Secondly observe that S. Peter spake this after Christs ascension into heaven whereas if any arose to incorruptible glorie they arose or ascended with Christ and so by just consequent before this time when S. Peter spake these words yet the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is not yet ascended or He hath not ascended into the heavens Again though David were in heaven in his soul long before that time as we say or if he went up out of Limbus Patrum as some Papists say yet certainly someway he was not ascended when S. Peter thus preached If any way he ascended not it must needs be in bodie or soul They dare not say He ascended not in soul and therefore we may boldly say He ascended not in bodie unlesse they will shew us some third nature in David that might ascend which thwarteth both Philosophie and Divinitie 5. Moreover the Turks now inhabiting Jerusalem keep the sepulchre of David forbidding entrance to all Christians into it as every traveller into those parts knoweth and they questionlesse respect the sepulchre as containing the bodie bones or ashes of David there present and unremoved Lastly if David ascended not when Christ did or a little after which is evidenced from the words of S. Peter our enemies themselves will not say that he ascended long after or of late Therefore David is not ascended bodily as yet howsoever Pineda fancieth O Most mercifull Saviour the sonne of David the Lord of David who hast supereminently the Key of David and openest and no man shutteth and shuttest and no man openeth

raised the tombe-stone was first removed and Lazarus arose tied with the grave-clothes and his face bound with a napkin yea came forth bound hand and foot with grave-clothes Joh. 11.44 by a new miracle walking being bound and bound with grave-clothes to shew that though he did live he did live to die again In which respect also perhaps the graves were opened at Christs passion when he yeelded up the ghost and continued open till his resurrection yea till the ends of their rising were fulfilled and after his resurrection many bodies of Saints which slept arose and came out of the graves Matth. 27.52 53. O Blessed Lord God who hast commanded that we shall not adde to thy Word nor yet take from it Grant I beseech thee that I may neither think thy certain true Scriptures to be doubtfull nor the uncertain to be Canonicall but possesse me with awfull and reverent thoughts concerning thy holy writ that I adoring the fulnesse thereof may avoid all hastie supine forced and uncharitable expositions and fetch my little light and candle of knowledge from that first shine and prime rayes of thee the onely Light my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Amen CHAP. XVII 1. The place of Matth. 27.53 is diversly pointed and according to the pointing is the diversitie of meaning The first implieth that the Saints arose with Christ though their graves were opened before This interpretation is not so likely though received generally 2. The second inferreth that they arose before Christ though they went not into the citie till after his resurrection This is favoured by the Syriack and is more agreeable to reason 3. That the raised Saints died again proved by reasons and Hebr. 11.40 4. Christ the first-fruits of the dead and of the raised Angelicall assumed bodies were seen and heard much rather should mens bodies ascending with Christ 5. S. Augustine Aquinas Hierom Chrysostom Theophylact Euthymius Prosper Soto Salmeron Barradius Pererius Valentian affirm that the raised Saints died again Franciscus Lucas Brugensis holds it likely THose last cited words of Matth. 27.53 being differently pointed will bear a double and different interpretation Our late Translation hath it thus The Saints came out of the graves after his resurrection there is one pause and went into the holy citie there is another pause so is it in the Vulgat and in most Greek copies This sense in those words is involved That the Saints arose not till Christ arose and that their resurrection was a little after or almost contemporary with Christs which also is evidently foretold Isaiah 26.19 if the prophet prophesieth there of Christ or speaketh in Christs person Thy dead men shall live together with my dead bodie shall they arise c. For Christs bodie ariseth not from the earth at the generall resurrection and therefore they punctually signe out the resurrection of other Saints with Christ and with his dead bodie But if Isaiah speaketh of his own resurrection and not of Christs nor in Christs person but in his own by these words and the words following he pointeth out the generall resurrection and so Vatablus Hierom and Lyra expound the place Now if he point at the last day of the world the argument is demonstrative that either Isaiah arose not with Christ though he was the most Evangelicall Prophet and in no likelihood to be secluded from those benefits which other Prophets are said to enjoy or if he arose that he died again to rise with others at the day of judgement which they who ascended bodily into heaven did not Therefore Isaiah is not bodily ascended into heaven and if not he why others 2. The second way of pointing that place of S. Matthew is this Many bodies of the Saints arose there is one Colon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and coming out of the graves after his resurrection went into the holy citie there is the full period and no other pointing of the words And thus it is read in the edition printed at Geneva by John Vignon 1615. and illustrated with Casaubon his notes but I take it that a pause should be immediately after the word Graves and then they might arise before Christ but not enter into the holy citie till after his resurrection I am sure the Syriack translated by Tremellius thus readeth and pointeth it and Lucas Brugensis disliketh it not a Et egressi sunt post resurrectionem ejus ingressi sunt in urbem sanctam And they came forth and after his resurrection went into the holy citie In the Syriack you have these steps Obdormierant surrexerunt egressi sunt post resurrectionem ejus ingressi sunt in urbem From which second reading the resultance is That those Saints arose before Christ arose Neither is it against reason for at Christs passion the graves were opened vers 52. Shall the graves be opened and nothing be raised No for it is added immediately Many bodies of Saints were raised Shall the bodies be raised and either lie down or sit still in the graves To what end Many bodies arose of the Saints which HAD SLEPT 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is in the preterperfect tense Now were they waked now were they raised now went they forth out of their monuments and between the time of Christs passion and his resurrection perhaps the raised conferred with themselves perchance they communed with others without the citie or being rapt with divine speculations might either on mount Olivet or rather on mount Calvarie spend that time in solitary devotions expecting the triumphant return of their captain Jesus Christ from hell and the grave and after his resurrection they came into the holy citie 3. The summe is These reliving Saints arose at Christs passion and before him but none ever arose before him unto an eternall resurrection for in that regard Christ was the first fruits of them that slept 1. Corin. 15.20 and it is Christs priviledge which the Apostle toucheth at Rom. 6.9 That Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more death hath no more dominion over him of which hereafter though I have spoken of it also before Death had power over others who were raised before him Therefore they ascended not into heaven with their bodies nor were partakers of the eternall incorruption and immortalitie Let me adde That as the sepulchres were opened that they might come forth and continued open till the resurrection and perhaps after so in that they were opened to their hand and did not shut again I take it as a figure that they did as it were expect the return of their bodies and as a probable argument that they did lie down again in their old repositories or dormitories And that you may the sooner give credit unto this in the next place consider the generall law That all of us shall have glorie and immortalitie together for Hebr. 11.40 God hath prepared a better thing for us that they without us should not be made perfect If

THE SAINTS ENTRED INTO THE HOLY CITIE we must take THE HOLY CITIE to be Jerusalem b Ad distinctionem omnium civitatum quae tunc idolis serviebant to distinguish that citie from other cities all which did then give themselves to idolatrie applying it to the materiall Jerusalem which saith he from the time of Vespasian and Titus was no more called THE HOLY CITIE Moreover Paula and Eustochium or rather Hierom in their names ad Marcellam Tom. 1. fol. 59. citing the place of Many Saints c. adde remarkably c Nec statim Hiercsolyma coelestis sicut plerique ridiculè interpretantur in hoc loco intelligitur cùm signum nullum essè potuerit apud homines si corpora Sanctorum in coelesti Jerusalem visa sunt You must not presently understand the celestiall Jerusalem as most have ridiculously interpreted this place when it could be no signe nor token among men on earth if the bodies of the Saints were seen in the heavenly Jerusalem May I annex to this That if the whole land of Jurie be to this day called The holy Land nor will have other estimate of divers Nations in some regards till the worlds end then certainly the Metropoliticall citie thereof the famous and eminent Jerusalem might in those dayes be dignified with the title of The holy citie for many just regardable causes Again when it is said Act. 6.13 This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place they that said so were not in the Temple but in their Councel-house in the citie and the words have a true reference to the citie as well as to the Temple yea more because the Temple was within the citie and not è contrá Now their Councel-house was distant a good way from any part of the Temple and was built close by one wall of the citie and was called GASITH in Hebrew wherein seventie Senatours or ordinarie Judges called SANHEDRIM determined weighty causes and here they examined the Apostles Acts 4.7 and S. Stephen Act. 6.13 and 7.1 The citie which before was called Solyma was by Melchizedech named Hierosolyma that is The holy Solyma saith Josephus de bello Judaico 7.18 Let Josephus justifie upon what grounds he mongrelleth the name for neither did Melchizedech speak Greek nor doth the Hebrew incline to that sense yet is even that hotch-potch better to be digested then the impious and sottish fable of other Jews That Melchizedech having named the citie Salem and Abraham having called the mount Moriah in or about Jerusalem JEHOVA JIREH The Lord will see or provide Genes 22.14 God himself being unwilling to suffer a debate between the holy Melchizedech and Abraham the father of the faithfull umpired the businesse and of both their attributes or appellations compounded one word or name and calleth it thereafter Hierusalem Perhaps S. Hierom can hardly prove what he saith in his epistle to Dardanus de Terra promissionis Tom. 3.24 that the citie was first called Jebus and thencefrom Jerusalem rather then Jebusalem Euphoniae gratiâ that it might have a fair sound and good pronunication For there is mention of Jerusalem Judg. 1.8 yea before that Josh 10.3 long before David expelled the Jebusites and in the dayes of Melchizedech it was called Salem for Melchizedech was King of Salem Hebr. 7.1 Now that the Jebusites inhabited Jerusalem before the time of Melchizedech or that he should be King of the Jebusites inhabiting that place or that he should expell the Jebusites there commorant before him or how they repossessed it till Davids time or indeed that the name was given as S. Hierom opineth are matters onely of conjecture as not being backt with proofs sufficient Lastly if we be led with reason as I said before What should be the end of these Saints ascending to heaven Christ had no need of bodily service and we may not think that they were to bear witnesse in heaven of Christs resurrection for the triumphant Saints need no such proof or witnesses their beatificall vision and fruition exempteth them from doubting The living had more need to know by these Many the resurrection of Christ but by them the living knew nothing at all so farre as can be proved if this going into the holy citie be to be interpreted of the supernall Jerusalem But that the words are to be expounded of Jerusalem below the passage immediately following demonstrateth They went into the holy citie and appeared unto many Certainly if they had gone into heaven they must have appeared unto all there for as d Coelum est singulis ●otum omnibus unum No corner of heaven is hid from any so there all things present are seen face to face their matutine knowledge infinitely surpasseth our vespertine all and every one see all and every one present 3. Yet even from these very words They appeared unto many Maldonat gathereth that they did not appeare commonly or indifferently or generally to all from whence he inferreth If they arose to die again they would have appeared not to many as the Evangelist said they did but vulgò omnibus promiscuously to all I answer They appeared to all viz. All that met them saw them and saw them as men and as other men but not as newly raised men for so onely they appeared to Many as Christ himself did appeare Testibus praeordinatis à Deo Vnto witnesses chosen before of God Act. 10.41 so did they to such onely as God had appointed To evince this distinction let it be considered whether every one who saw Lazarus after his resurrection saw him as a raised man or as an ordinary man But if Lazarus might appeare commonly to all men and yet appeare unto Many onely as a man raised lately from the dead these Saints also might be seen and were seen of all that passed by and looked on them apparuerunt vulgò omnibus they appeared ordinarily to all and yet they might be seen not by all but onely appeare to Many as persons raised of purpose for holy ends And this opinion I hold to be more probable then that of Franciscus Lucas Brugensis on the place That onely unto some the raised did aliquando apparere aliquando disparere sicut Jesus Sometime appeare to some and sometimes vanish as our Saviour did I answer he had said somewhat if the resurrection had been of the same nature with Jesus his resurrection And as I dislike him not if by disparere he meaneth that they did not alwayes converse with the same men but changed company so if by it he understandeth a sudden vanishing from the sight of men and implyeth that the Many raised had a power to be visible and invisible at their pleasure till he bring proof to evince it he shall give me leave to parallell it to the fiction of Gyges and his ring whose broad beazil or insealing part if he turned to the palm of his hand he was forthwith invisible yet himself saw all

things but if he turned it to the back side of his hand he was as conspicuous as an other man So Cicero in the third book of his offices out of Plato 4. The same Maldonat presseth us sore with an other argument What should they do here living again in mortall bodies who had a taste of Gods glory surely they had been in worse condition then if they never had been raised out of the bosome of Abraham where they were quiet to come to a turbulent life again Because this Maldonat is an importunate snarler at our religion I give him this bone to gnaw upon and for my first answer I will call to minde the prodigious Legend which divers eminent men of their own side have recorded of one Christina called by them by way of eminency e Mirabilis Wonderfull To omit what Surius and others relate I will speak in the words of Dionysius the Carthusian f Cùm defuncta esset in pueritia ducta erat in paradisum ad Thronum Majestatis Divina Domino congraiulante ineffabiliter gavisa est Dixitque Dominus Revera hac charissima filia est Christina died young and was carried into paradise to the throne of the Divine majesty and she was ineffably glad God congratulating with her And the Lord said Truly this is my deerest daughter And then he telleth That God gave her choice either to stay with him or to return unto her bodie and by penitentiall works to satisfie for all the souls in purgatorie and to edifie those who lived and to return to God b Cum meritorum augmentis with increase of her merits She answered the Lord presently that for that cause she would return to her bodie And so she did and because sinnefull men by their stench did too much afflict her O tender-nosed virgin she did flie or the Papists did lie and sit on the top-boughes of trees pinacles or turrets since noisome smells ascend it had been her farre better course to have crept into some dennes and caverns of the earth or vaults and tombes as he said she did sometimes and when her neighbours or kindred thought her mad and kept her from meat she prayed once to God and milk came out of her breasts was not she an intemerate rare virgin and so she refreshed herself This and a great deal more hath that Carthusian holy and learned above many of their side de quatuor novissimis part 3. Artic. 16. Let censorious and maledicent Maldonat ponder these things well and it will stop his mouth for ever from barking at the belief of us whom they style Hugonets Calvinists Hereticks though none of us think or say otherwise then the good Pacianus did of old in his first epistle to Sempronius CHRISTIAN is my name and CATHOLICK is my surname The Turks indeed have some strange figments of this nature but though the Mahumetan priests have devised and feigned many superstitious miracles concerning their great Saintesse Nafissa as is confessed by Joannes Leo in his African historie lib. 8. yet the Papists have surmounted both this and other their impostures with this their mirabilarie Christina Secondly concerning these Many raised I answer unto Maldonat They continued not long in this life but as I guesse shortly after Christs ascension laid their bodies down to sleep again in the earth Thirdly what thinks Maldonat of Lazarus Was not his soul in Abrahams bosome as well as the other poore Lazarus his soul who was so tenderly beloved of Christ and his Apostles and yet he lived long after and whatsoever can be objected against these Saints holds stronger against Lazarus Fourthly I denie that they by their return into the flesh were in worse condition Lorinus on Acts 9.41 saith c Non affert molestiam ut Deo vocanti mortuus obtemperet reviviscendo It is no trouble to a man if being dead he obey Gods call and live again And Salmeron saith No reason but holy men at Gods command may put on and put off their own bodies as well and as contentedly as the Angels do their assumed bodies which I do the rather beleeve because I do say with Tostatus on the 2. King 4. Quaest 56 Though it cannot be certainly proved yet it is probable That none of those that ever were raised did perish everlastingly nor that any reprobate had the favour of an extraordinary resurrection for a separated soul that hath been partaker of these unspeakable joyes will esteem worse then dung or salt that hath lost its savour all the pleasures and profits of this life though their severall excellencies were distilled into one quintessence of perfection So that as Lorinus saith well in the place above cited Whosoever hath once escaped the perill of damnation he shall not come into the same danger again 5. The last objection that I have met withall is this That to die the second time is no favour but a punishment and a punishment iterated I answer If a righteous man should die thrice or oftner death is no punishment unto him yea to passe seven times through hell to come once and everlastingly to heaven a despairing soul would hold to be a cheap blessednesse Secondly Suarez himself saith It is no punishment to die the second time no more then it was to Moses to die twice as saith Augustine de Mirabilib Scripturae 3.10 though others dissent from Augustine Nay saith Suarez To lay down their bodies the second time is more acceptable and pleasing to God To this doth Peter Martyr agree in 1. King 4.22 If by mans hurt or losse God be glorified it is no injurie to man But in truth it is no hurt or losse to man for saith Barradius Perchance without any pains they might redeliver their carcases to the earth And if the pains be any the pains both of the latter and former death may be so tempered and diminished that they both shall not exceed the pains of one death saith Peter Martyr ibid. Which learned Peter Martyr out of S. Augustine de Mirabilib Scripturae 3. ult hath an excellent observation or two First That to every man is setled and appointed a prefixed time of death Secondly That before the last prefixed time some do die that they that raise them up to life may be more famous and God more glorified And this is proved by the very phrase which Christ used concerning Lazarus John 11.4 This sicknesse is not unto death Yet did he die and besides the time intercedent between his death and his buriall he was foure dayes buried But his sicknesse was not d Ad mortem plenam in qua Lazarus maneret to an intire death in which estate he should remain Neither is that so properly called death e Quando praeoccupat ultimum terminum when it is abortive and cometh before its time So Luke 8.52 She is not dead but sleepeth and yet verse 55. her spirit came again Therefore it was gone and she was

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 expressē 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 sanc●● vel gratiam habuit vel mensuram sed vitae austeritas vig●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

Solomo Procopius Gazaeus Sophista in his Commentarie on the place thus o Si tum demum postquam genuit Methusalem placuit Deo Enoch certè antequam gigneret ut Scriptura docet non gratus acceptus erat Deo Quòd igitur amore complexus est eum Deus poenitentiae quam egit imputari debet If then at last Enoch pleased God after he had begot Methusalem certainly before he begat him as the Scripture saith God did not like him nor accept of him Therefore it is to be ascribed to Enochs repentance which he performed that God made so much of him and loved him Though Salianus saith of this testimonie that p Nescio quomodo animus aversatur his minde was against it yet there is no impossibilitie no nor improbabilitie in it and howsoever it be not apodicticall yet it is not inepta foolish as Salianus censureth it He addeth Perhaps Philo the Jew was of that opinion for in his book de Abrahamo speaking of repentance c. he bringeth Enoch in as an example And it seemeth saith he that he followed Jesus the sonne of Sirach in the words cited viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclefiastic 44.16 And though he slubbereth over the words and matter which are to him Canonicall and saith that The minde of the Scripture in that place is that Enoch shall be an exemplarie penitent not as David and Manasses Peter or Mary Magdalene but as John Baptist yet I answer First no Ancient ever said John Baptist was an example of repentance and did repent of any enormous sinnes but was alwayes holy and most austere preventing great sinnes rather then repenting and not so much bemoaning his own offences as dehorting other men and crying out against their iniquities with a charge almost inforcing them to repentance whilest himself shewed a signe of his being sanctified and illuminated even in his mothers wombe Secondly there is as much joy over a repentant and God is as much glorified for point of mercie in a Marie Magdalene or a Peter as in a Baptist or just man that needeth no repentance if not more Procopius Gazaeus who imagined the worst of Enochs former part of life till he begot Methuselah yet speaketh very good things before of Enoch thus God rested on the seventh day when he had made the world q Et nunc ille idem Deus generatione septimâ accipit ceu symbolum consummationis seculi Enochum ut primitias rationalis creaturae c. and now the same God in the seventh generation of the world assumeth as a signe of the ending of an age I say assumed Enoch as the first fruits of the reasonable creature He was out of Gods favour for a while but when he pleased God he was extraordinarily assumed Thus in effect Procopius which the Jesuit had not much cause to finde fault withall Let this suffice for the first question Whether Enoch were at any time a very wicked man The second question is Whether Enoch did ever die Divers Rabbins maintain that he did die So Rabbi Solomon on the fifth of Genesis Aben Ezra saith His death was sweet and he felt no pain which opinion the Jesuit Cornelius à Lapide ascribeth also to Calvin whether truely or falsely I enquire not but the matter giveth me the hint of an excursion Moses said from God Genes 6.3 Mans dayes shall be an hundred and twentie yeares and Moses himself died when he was 120 yeares old Deut. 34.7 David said The dayes of our yeares are threescore yeares and ten Psal 90.10 and he himself who prayed to God to teach him to number his dayes died the same yeare being the first lesser climactericall yeare after that great one of nine times seven that dangerous threescore and third yeare for He was thirtie yeares old when he began to reigne and he reigned fourty yeares 2. Sam. 5.4 Both these were most certain Prophets of their own deaths and perhaps had more especiall reference to their own times designing those yeares out in the more generall which were more appropriate to their own persons in particular Let me adde two heathen examples by way of imperfect parallels That most exquisite work of nature her glory pride and master-piece Julius Cesar preferred a swift and sudden death in his choice before any other kinde Suetonius in vita Julii Caesaris in fine thus of him r Quondam cùm apud Xenophontem legisset Cyrum ultimâ valetudine mandâsse quaedam de funere suo aspernatus tam lentum mortis genus subitam sibi celerémque optavit mortem pridie quàm occideretur in sermone nato super coenam apud M. Lepidum Quisnam esset vitae sinis commodissimus repentinum inopinatúmque praetulerat When Julius Cesar had sometime read in Xenophon that Cyrus in his last sicknesse ordered some things concerning his funerals he hating so lingring a death wished that himself might have a sudden and quick end Again the day before he was slain as he was at supper with Marcus Lepidus a question arising Which death was most commodious and to be wished for Cesar preferred a sudden unlooked for and unthought of end And sutable to his choice and desire in that respect did a sudden and unlooked for end befall him Likewise that wonder of Fortune that darling of terrene happinesse Augustus the successour unto the Dictatour ſ Fere quoties audîsset citò nullo cruciatu defunctum quempiam sibi suis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similem precabatur Almost as often as he had heard saith Suetonius in Augusto in fine that any one had died speedily without long pain or great torment he would pray that the like easie departure might befall himself and his friends And saith he t Sortitus est exitum similem qualem semper optaverat c. He died according as he alwayes desired parting as in a complement with his most familiar friends u Et repentè in osculis Liviae defecit and gave up the ghost amidst the kisses of Livia This storie hath brought my Miscellanie home to that point which the Rabbin said of Enoch That he died without pain The New Testament also is thought to afford us such an other example x De Joanne Evangelista dicitur quòd dolorem in moriendo non sensit It is said of John the Evangelist that he died without any pain saith Holcot on Wisd 2.5 and by that instance saith concerning those who rose about Christs resurrection y Non sequitur quòd si iterum moriehantur moriebantur cum poena vel sentirent etiam poenam It followeth not that if they died again they had or felt any painfull death But because of the strange opinions which are held concerning S. John the Apostle let me enlarge my discourse a little concerning him Melchior Canus Locor Theolog. 7.2 saith We may hold or deny z Salvâ fide without prejudice to our belief either that he

is living or that he is dead The reason why some thought S. John liveth was because Christ said to Peter John 21.22 If I will that he tarrie till I come what is that to thee Neither doth it satisfie them that John himself saith ver 23. Jesus said not He shall not die for they expound that exposition John shall not die namely till that time that Christ doth come Dorotheus speaking of S. John hath it thus John lived 120 yeares which being expired he living as yet the Lord would so have it buried himself The storie is enlarged by S. Augustine Tract 124. in Joannem thus Some report that in certain Scriptures though Apocryphall it is found that S. John being in health caused a grave to be made and laid himself in it as in a bed and presently died or as some think lay down as dead but not dead and being thought to be dead was buried sleeping and that he sheweth his being alive a Scaturigine pulveris by the ebullition of the dust of his grave b Qui pulvis creditur ut ab imo ad superficiem tumuli ascendat flatu quiesoentis impelli which dust is beleeved to arise and to be forced from the bottome of the tombe to the top by his breath And truly saith Augustine We heard not this of light credulous men Whereupon he adviseth c Viderint qui hunc locum sciunt utrùm hoc ibi faciat terra vel patiatur quod dicitur Let them who know the place consider whether the earth spring up there so as is reported If it be so saith he if the earth or sand bubble up like water and that being taken away other ariseth and boyleth up in the room it doth so either to commend the precious death of that Saint or for some other reason which we know not So farre Augustine Some such thing in another case is recorded by S. Hierom Heare his own words Tom. 3. de locis Hebraicis out of the Acts of the Apostles d Cùm Ecclesia in cujus medio sunt vestigia rotundo schemate pulcherrimo opere conderetur summum tamen cacumen ut perhibent propter Dominici corporis meatum nuilo modo contegi concamerari potuit sed transitus ejus à terra ad coelum usque patet apertum Mount Olivet is situated on the East of Jerusalem parted by the stream of Cedron where the last footsteps which Christ set upon this earth are imprinted on the ground and even to this day are to be seen and shewed And whereas the same earth is taken away daily by the beleeving Christians neverthelesse the same holy footsteps presently and immediately recover their old form and fashion Who also in the same place addeth another strange thing e Mons Oliveti ad Orientem Hierosolymae situs est torrente Cedron interfluente ubi ultima vestigia Domini humo impressa bodiéque monstrantur Cúmque terra eadem quotidie à credentibus hauriatur nihilominus tamen eadem sancta vestigia pristinum statum continuò recipiunt Whereas the Church in the midst whereof these footsteps are was built of a round form with most exquisite workmanship yet the very top of that Church as people report could by no means ever be covered or vaulted over by reason of our Saviours bodily ascent into heaven but Christs passage and way by which he mounted from earth even to heaven lieth open and is visible But our late traveller M. Sands relateth That the footstep is on a firm naturall rock and the passage open at the summitie or top of the temple of the Ascension is to receive light into that sacred place For that is covered as the sepulchre or rather as the temple of the sepulchre whose round is covered with a CVPVLO sustained with rafters of Cedar all of one piece open in the midst like the Pantheon at Rome whereat it receiveth the light that it hath and that as much as sufficeth Just in the midst and in view of heaven standeth the glorified sepulchre So farre M. George Sands M. Fines Morison saith On the top of mount Olivet the highest of all the mountains that compasse Jerusalem in a Chappel they shew in stone the print of Christs feet when he ascended into heaven It did a little amaze me that these our two countreymen both being learned and both being there eye-witnesses do differ so much the first mentioning a footstep in the singular number the other feet in the plurall Antiquitie saith On the Earth late Writers On a Rock which maketh me rather bear with the good S. Hierom who relateth from others that the top could by no means be covered Open perhaps the top was left and open purposely by some exquisite workmen whose skill some credulous ignorants could not discern and they might report that what was done could not be done otherwise But of this in either of our countreymen there is not one word I return to the old matter Sixtus Senensis Bibliothecae sanctae lib. 6. Annotat. 93. saith Many most grave and worthy Authours have written that S. John the Evangelist yet liveth But Chrysostom Hom. 66. in Matt. reporteth f Illum violentâ morte obtruncatum obtisse That he was put to a violent death and he bringeth in Christ speaking these words to the two sonnes of Zebedee of whom S. John the Evangelist was one Mark 10.35 g Calicem meum bibetis Matth. 20.23 id est Martyrii coronâ potiemini violentâ morte sicut ego à vita discedetis YE SHAL DRINK OF MY CVP shall be put to a violent death and be crowned with martyrdome like unto me Euthymius also testifieth that Chrysostom in two other places saith that S. John the Evangelist was slain in Asia which makes me wonder that George Trapezuntius if he be truely alledged by Sixtus Senensis ibid. should interpret Chrysostoms words of the martyrdome and violent death which John forsooth should suffer with Enoch and Elias under the last persecution of Antichrist especially since Chrysostom so punctually designeth out the time past and telleth what was done to John and where Hippolytus Portuensis Episcopus in his short Tractate de mundi consummatione saith As Christs first coming had John the Baptist his forerunner so the second shall have Enoch and Elias and John the Evangelist This comparison is very lame and halteth for it may be applied as well to any as to John the Evangelist Others use not so foolish a similitude but yet embrace a wilder opinion for they say that S. John died and rose from the dead and was assumed into heaven Nicephorus 2.42 addeth DECEBAT It was fit convenient decent and requisite that he who kept Christs mother and was so beloved of Christ should be so assumed as Christs mother was O man how proud art thou to judge what is convenient or inconvenient for God to do Baronius Tom. 2. Anno Christi 101. numero

a tempestuous winde did he make him to ascend including an intimation that in a whirlwinde they were both rapted If the Scripture had used the very words in describing the nature of Elias I should the sooner have liked the conceit but the Rabbinicall speculations conclude not therefore I will Lastly it is improbable but divers of the Disciples or Apostles who saw Christs ascending might and would have sought and looked for him but that they were in a sort dehorted by two Angels who told them That Christ was taken from them into heaven Act. 1.11 and therefore it was vain to seek him any longer on the earth And most certain it is that when the sonnes of the Prophets saw Elijah snatcht up and Elishah parting Jordan with Elijahs mantle they said unto Elishah There be with thy servants fiftie sonnes of strength let them go we pray thee and seek thy master 2. Kings 2.16 and accordingly they sent fiftie men and they sought three dayes but found him not vers 17. Semblably we may well imagine that some also did seek for Enoch after he was translated yea it approacheth nearer to belief then to imagination upon this fair resultance He was not found say the Septuagint He was not found saith the Apostle therefore he was sought after therefore he was searched for TV NON INVENTA REPERTAES I have found thee whom I could not finde when I sought thee saith the old Poet but it is harsh to say TV NON QVAESITA REPERTA ES Thou art found and wast never lookt after Finding implieth precedent search or going after most ordinarily but Not being found necessarily implieth a former inquirie Elias was not found by Ahab therefore Ahab sought for him Enoch was not found therefore they made enquirie after him So much be spoken in defence of my Comment upon the words Et non ipse which I have supplied from the Septuagint and most especially from the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he was not found And with it is also ended and terminated the second Quaere by me propounded Whether Enoch did ever die with its Answer That Enoch died not either a sweet death or a sowre an easie death or a painfull 5. The third Question followeth Whether Enoch and Elias now live in and with their bodies in Paradise Bellarmine is for the affirmative That Paradise is now extant and Enoch and Elias live in it More particularly concerning Elias Rabbi David in his Comment on 2. Kings 2. reports it as the common opinion of the Jews That Elias went with his bodie into Paradise and there liveth in the same estate that our Parents did before the fall Others have taken upon them to describe and circumscribe exactly the place of Paradise in an Island now called Eden not farre from Babylon as certain Nestorians of the Greek Church have fabled I say fabled because millions of learned men both Heathen Jews and Christians have seen Babylon and lived in it and round about it who never had such a thought or belief or tradition so farre as may be gathered by any ancient extant records Of which Paradise whosoever desireth to see more at large let him have recourse to my learned friend M. John Salkeld in his Treatise of Paradise I will onely adde somewhat which he omitteth Salianus the great Annalist from the creation of the first Adam to the death of the second Adam or rather to his resurrection and ascension Ad annum mundi 987 saith Cyprian Ambrose Hierom Tertullian Gregorie Epiphanius and Hippolytus acknowledging the translation of Enoch and Elias are silent concerning the place of their being Augustine leaves it as doubtfull and disputable Chrysostom and Theodoret like not the enquirie Rupert saith The Scripture is silent neither are the words of Paradise or Eden in the place of Ecclesiasticus 44.16 in the Greek text but onely in the Vulgat So farre Salianus But indeed first me thinks that the old Translatour should have been constant to himself and adding somewhat to the words of Ecclesiasticus 44.16 should not have added In Paradisum as he doth without any shadow of ground from any other place but In coelum because it is so written 1. Macc. 2.58 Elias was taken up into heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In coelum receptus est as the Vulgat it self hath it Secondly the Jesuit Salianus is somewhat too favourable in that point for S. Ambrose in lib. de Paradiso cap. 13. saith expressesly Enoch was r Raptus in coelum caught up into heaven and S. Hierom on Amos 9. saith Enoch and Elias were carried into heaven Bellarmine and other Papists distinguishing COELVM into AERIVM COELESTE ET SVPERCOELESTE Aëriall heavenly and supercelestiall say Enoch was carried into the aëriall heaven I must confesse that the region of the aire that Expansum the aëriall orb is sometimes called Heaven The Lord thundred from heaven 2. Sam. 22.14 God gave us rain from heaven Act. 14.17 and birds are called the fowls of the heaven Psal 104.12 The Lord cast down great hailstones from heaven Josh 10.11 and they were more which died with hailstones then they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword These hailstones came from the middle region of the aire I confesse also that Enoch was carried up into the aëriall heaven but with this distinction He was taken into it as his way not as the end of his journey not as his habitation or resting place The case of Enoch and Elias is so like so one in this puncto that you are not to marvell if sometimes I use the name of one sometimes of the other what is said of one is meant of both f Qui unum rectè nôrit ambos noverit Who knoweth one is not ignorant of the other Chrysostom in his oration of Elias is expresse that he resteth not in the aire and bringeth in Satan as wondring at Elias his riding through and above the clouds neither is his reason to be contemned Elias is not there where the devil is Prince and what should he do among lightning and thunder hail snow storm and tempest This is the portion of the wicked to drink If you flee to the miraculous omnipotent hand of God why may not I say the like concerning Gods extraordinary clothing him with immortalitie and that by dispensation unusuall in the act of translating him God did not let him continue on the earth or in the aire but assuming him into the highest heaven did glorifie his bodie For concerning coelum coeleste Bellarmine will not say that he resteth there nor did ever any afford patrocinie to that conceit Indeed Seneca De consolatione sheweth that the Stoicks thought that the souls of men departed hovered about their bodies and in the end were carried up t Ad ipsos orbes astr●s ornatos to the starry heaven And Cicero De somno Scipionis placeth that heroïcal soul among the starres Besides that the conceit is heathenish it

flcut sua eisque propter seipsos hoc velit quod sibi They say that an happy life is a sociable life which loveth the welfarre of friends as it doth its own good and wisheth as well to others as to it self Ludovicus Vives on the place saith They were the Stoicks who said so but I rather guesse they were the Peripateticks and Aristotle their cheif Chaunter Which blessed life the heathen meaned not of eternall blessednes after the resurrection but of a blessed naturall life in this world and on this earth such an one cannot Enoch and Elias have though they were in Paradise because they have no more companie of their kinde Enoch more especially had lesse happines by this argument if he be supposed to be in the earthly Paradise because he was long by himself ere Elias came to him by the space I say of above two thousand yeares To the further illustration of the former point I may truly say If Adam and Eve had lived in Paradise by themselves alone without any other companie at any other time I should not much have envied or wished that felicitie yea though he had not fallen whereby he became Radix Apostatica in the phrase of Augustine Yea such a blessednes there is in communication of happines that the all-blessed onely-blessed ever-blessed Deitie of the Vnitie would not be without the conjoyned happines of the Trinitie The singlenes of Nature would not be without the pluralitie of Persons Thirdly do they see those men and women and their actions who now live in the bounds of old Eden whilest themselves in their bodies are invisible Fourthly here is a multiplying of miracles daily that Angels shall keep them yet so that they cannot be seen From Enochs assumption which is now above 4000 yeares since have Angels kept him that he hath not been once seen Besides no one place of Scripture Canonicall saith they are in Paradise and it is so farre from a favour as it is rather a durance and captivitie if they be kept from all other parts of the world within the bounds of old Paradise since many places are now more delightfull then the place or places whereabouts Salianus himself now holdeth Paradise to be situated Moreover Elijah was taken up into heaven Suppose that to gratifie Bellarmine we grant Coelum aerium is there meant yet must he needs be taken up from the earth and so not abide on earth in the circuit of old Paradise as Salianus foolishly conceiveth Likewise Ecclesiasticus 49.14 Enoch was taken from the earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Vatablus hath it and rendreth it De terra sublimis assumptus est He was taken up on high from the earth the Vulgat hath it Receptus est à terra● E●terra had been more pithie When the Apostle saith He was translated Heb. 11.5 was he left on the same earth on which he was before Or after he was in heaven did he come again on the earth It was an excellent and true observation of our learned Whitaker That Bellarmine sometimes confuting his fellows answers confuteth farre better answers then himself bringeth And I will be bold to say of Salianus though he doth justly deride them who make Paradise in the aire as Cornelius à Lapide and Bellarmine or in the orb of the Moon as others Yet his crotchet is as foolish as any of theirs For in what part of Paradise were they kept when the floud was or was not all the earth overflown The Angels then kept them in the aire or else by an other miracle kept the water from over-flowing that place That the Angels kept people from entring into Paradise I have read that they kept any from going out of it and kept them in it I have not read k Nemiui conspicul esse possunt None can see them saith Salianus They may say I by the same divine power by which they are invisible if invisible they be Can they be seen by none How was Elias seen by our Saviour and his three Disciples at the Transfiguration Or were all they within Paradise or was Elias out of the bounds of the old Paradise when Christ was transfigured on the mount But these and greater inconveniences must these men run into who will maintain against Scripture that Enoch and Elias are in earthly or aeriall Paradise that they may uphold an other crotchet worse then this namely That Enoch and Elias shall hereafter die and be slain by Antichrist and are not l In coelo supercoelesti in the highest heaven which is the last question 6. Let us speak of them severally then joyntly Concernning Enoch the first of them who were rapti it seemeth to me that the Apostles words Heb. 11.5 not onely do reach home to that point unto which before I applyed them viz. That Enoch died not but evince also that he shall never die For it is not said Enoch was translated that he should not die for a good while but he was translated that he should not or might not see death Therefore he cannot he shall not die hereafter since the holy Ghost hath expressed and signed out the end of his translation Nè videret mortem That he should not see death Some may answer to that place of the Apostle first that he speaketh of THE DEATH OF SINNERS as if he had meant with the book of * Wisd 4.11 Wisdome to say NE MALITIA MVTARET INGENIVM EJVS LEST HE SHOVLD BE CHANGED TO THE WORSE for sinners are called DEAD MEN according to that saying l Improbi dum vivunt mortui sunt WICKED MEN EVEN WHILE THEY LIVE ARE DEAD So farre Drusius To whom let me adde that Christ saith Luke 9.60 Let the dead bury their dead And 1. Timoth. 5.6 She that liveth in pleasure is dead whilest she liveth And to the Angel of the Church of Sardis the Spirit saith Revel 3.1 Thou hast a name that thou livest and art dead In all which places wicked men are taken for the dead yet in the place of the Apostle it cannot be so for he was speaking of the true lives and deaths of Gods Saints And if the literall sense can be admitted we must not flee to the mysterie but here is no inconvenience in the letter Moreover the same God who mercifully placed him in the state of Grace could as easily have kept him so without inflicting death on him Lastly the Apostle said Hebr. 11.4 Abel is dead and then descending to Noah and Abraham at the 13. verse These all died in faith I hope no man will say the word died is here taken for sinned but it is taken literally that their souls were parted from their bodies So the words That he should not see death prove that Enochs soul was not parted from his bodie Indeed he is one of them that are mentioned between Abel and Abraham but yet singled out by expresse words That he was translated lest he should or might see

Likewise in the two other before-recited places the same phrase is used The Septuagint have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Ignorabat Moses quòd glorificatus esset aspectus faciei ejus Moses knew not that the splendour of his face and countenance was glorified as Vatablus translateth the Seventy Which he saith more fully expresseth the Hebrew and is accordingly followed by the Apostle 2. Cor. 3.7 for the glorie of his countenance Indeed the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth properly signifie an horn from whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is splendere radiare fulgere to shine Because saith Vatablus from a learned Jew when man beholdeth earnestly and intentively the Sunne or any luminous bodie the rayes seem to be sent forth of it like horns in some sort But saith Vatablus out of the false or ill-understood version of the Vulgat they who were no linguists made the people falsly beleeve that Moses had two horns on his head which is most false So farre Vatablus though a man of their own against the brain-sick faction of the Jesuit who will maintain the people in any errour if it be old rather then suffer reformation The Caldee hath it Multiplicatus est splendor gloriae vultûs Mosis The brightnesse of Moses his face increased in glory more and more Cornelius à Lapide the Jesuit though he strive for the truth of the Vulgat yet saith Moses had no horns in his forehead d Vtì affingunt ei pictores as painters place on him Little perhaps did he think that his fellow-Jesuit Hieronymus Natalis was one of these painters yea and that in one of the costlyest editions of the storie of the Gospels that ever was set forth But the wiser and more succinct Sa hath it HORNY e Cornuta id est radios emittens Hebraicè radians that is glistering in the Hebrew resplendent And Cajetan better then he f Nihil cornutum ad literam sign●ficatur c. In the litterall signification we have nothing to do with horn though perchance there is some allusion to it by a Metaphor Concerning which Moses his face I will end with two observations The first is a very idle one out of Bellarmine De Sanctorum reliquiis 2.4 g Valde credibile est Mosis corpus licèt mortuum conservâss● adhu● splendorem vultû● decorem quem antea habebat si●ut multis Sanctorum accidit It is very credible that the dead bodie of Moses preserved the radiant comelinesse and beauty of his face which he had in life as it hath happened to many of the Saints But he nameth no Saint And if he did we should hardly beleeve him And Moses himself died privately and was buried secretly no man saw him dying or dead I acknowledge that some of the Ancients have inclined to this viz that Moses his face did shine all his life time when he spake to the people So Ambrose in Psal 118. h Quamdiu vixit Moses alloquebatur populum velamen habuit i● facie So long as Moses lived and spake to the people he had a vail before his face not after death as Bellarmine thinks probable Besides the Apostle 2. Corinth 3.7 termeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the glorie of his countenance which was to be done away Therefore it continued not after death if it did till then whensoever he spake to the people And our late translation seemeth in part to accord Exod. 34.33 Till Moses had done speaking with them he put a vail on his face Yet the word Till is not in the originall but it may be probably expounded That when Moses had done speaking he put a vail on his face for so the Hebrew Greek and Latine runne And though Moses ordinarily put off the vail when he went to speak with God and put it on when he returned yet once and at the first of all he might speak unto the people with face open for more reverence and majestie The second observation is from Origen Homil. 12. in Exod. circa medium and it is a good one In the Law saith he Moses his face was glorified though vailed but his hand put into his bosome WAS LEAPROVS AS SNOW Exod. 4.6 i In vul●u ejus sermo legis in manu opera designantur In his shining countenance was a figure of the Law by his hands are works signified Now because no man can be justified by the works of the Law his hand was leprous His face was glorified but vailed therefore his words were full of knowledge yet secret and hidden Yea in the Law Moses had onely a glorified face hands and feet were unglorified for Moses also put off his shoes that an other in after times might have the bride k Et illa vocar●t●r domus discalceati usque in hodiernum diem and she be called to this day the house of the unshod l In Evan●eliis autem Moses totus glorificatur ex integro Gaudere ●tiam mihi pro hoc videtur Moses quia ipse quodammodo nunc d●● ponit velamen conversus ad Dominum cùm evidenter quae praedixit implentur But in the Gospels all Moses is wholly glorified It seemeth also to mee that Moses rejoiceth in this point because himself in a sort now layeth aside his vail being converted to Christ when those things are plainly fulfilled which he foretold By which glorification you cannot necessarily interpret such a glorification as the Saints shall have after judgement which never shall have end where m 1. Cor. 15.53 corruptible shall put on incorruption immutable but onely of a temporarie glorification for Moses layd down his bodie again as is held most probably The authour of that book which is intituled Altercatio Synagogae Ecclesiae cap. 21. S. Paul and Gamaliel being interlocutours thus Jesus Christ after his transfiguration n Mosis corpus sepulturae commendavit buried Moses A strange honour if true that the same who was buried by God himself in the Old Testament should be thus glorified for a while and after buried by Christ himself in the New Testament Furthermore that there is no absolute necessitie that either Moses or Elias though they were seen in glorie had immortall and impassible bodies by the transfiguration appeareth by this That our blessed Saviour himself after that his transfiguration had a mortall bodie and did die especially if we consider that his glorie was greater then theirs as the Masters is above the Servants and the Lords above the Attendants Barradas on the transfiguration saith o Transfigurationi suae transfiguratos gloriâque ae singulari majestate ornatos voluit Christus adesse servos suos sic solent in nuptiis festisque aliis diebus nobiles viri pretiosis ornati vestibus Regibus adesse Christ would have his servants present transfigured as well as himself and adorned with singular glorie and majestie as at marriages and other festivall dayes the

wicked in that 2. By the words of the Creed is proved that some shall never die The same is confirmed by other places of Scripture with the consent of S. Augustine and Cajetan The definitions Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum of the sentences and tenents of the Church leave the words doubtfully Rabanus his exposition rejected 3. The place of S. Paul 2. Corinth 5.4 evinceth That some shall not die Cajetan with us and against Aquinas Doctour Estius and Cornelius à Lapide the Jesuit approve Cajetan S. Augustine is on our side and evinceth it by Adams estate before the fall which state Bellarmine denieth not Salmerons objections answered 4. Some shall be exempted from death as is manifested 1. Corinth 15.51 The place fully explicated The common Greek copies preferred The Greek reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We shall not all sleep standeth with all truth conveniencie probabilitie and sense The other Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We shall therefore all of us sleep and the more different Vulgat Omnes quidem resurgemus sed non omnes immutabimur Indeed we shall arise but we shall not all be changed justly exploded as adverse to sense 5. The Pelagians though accursed hereticks yet held truely That some shall not die S. Augustine dubious Others stick in his hesitancie Yet other Fathers and late Writers are constant That some shall be priviledged from death yet that change may be called a kinde of death 1. THe third main question being Whether Adam and his children all and every one of them without priviledge or exception must and shall die I have first answered and proved that there may be an exception of some who shall not die Secondly I have instanced in Enoch and Elias That they have been excepted and that they shall not die I am now come to the third branch of my answer That others also hereafter shall be excepted In the avouchment of this truth consisteth the labour till the end of this Chapter And first of all it must needs be acknowledged That all and every one of those who might have been or have been or shall be excepted may yet be said in a sort to die a Loco mortis erit momentanea commutatio The change which shall be in the twinkling of an eye shall be in the room and stead of death saith Aretius b In illis qui repentè immutantur immutatio illa erit species mortis The immutation of them who shall be suddenly changed shall be a kinde of death saith Beza Bosquier in his Terror Orbis maketh rapture to be a kinde of death we may more safely and properly call that sudden change by the name of death For in this it shall be like death That it shall take away from our bodies all corruptibilitie and mortalitie together with the defects now annexed to them and because it altereth if not abolisheth the former state or nature it shall go for a kinde of death But because this change doth not separate the soul from the bodie doth not dissolve the compositum we are bold to say It is not a true proper reall death The Papists will not be content with this immutation but urge a perfect naturall death a very disjunct separation of the soul from the bodie Aquinas goeth further and will have an incineration of the bodies from which dust and ashes incorruptible bodies shall arise But this is confuted by the Apostle 1. Thess 4.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Nos viventes relicti simul cum illis rapiemur in nubibus in occursum Domini in aera We who remain alive shall be hurried together in the clouds to meet the Lord in the aire as Montanus hath it The Vulgat differeth but in word not in sense d Qui vivimus qui relinquimur c. We which are alive and remain shall be caught up That the Apostle speaketh not this of himself and of his own person is confessed Occumenius citeth Methodius his opinion thus and addeth his reason For S. Paul was not alive corporally to that time But it cometh more home if we say as well we may that the blessed Apostle S. Paul knew that himself was none of them who were to endure alive on earth till the day of the generall judgement because he saith 2. Tim. 4.6 I am now readie to be offered and the time of my departure is at hand Yea 2. Thess 2.2 he exhorteth the same Thessalonians That though seducers should pretend his message or his letter yet they should not beleeve that Christs day was at hand His own time was at hand but Christs day was not The English translation jumpeth verbally in the contradiction At hand and Not at hand The Originall varieth but a little and that not in sense nor in the Verb it self but the Preposition and Montanus hath the word Instat by way of exposition in both places e Sed suam personam verbi gratiâ profert But he instanceth in his own person saith Methodius That he speaketh it onely of the godly is also apparent by the context for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we the remainder sheweth that a few shall be left at that time and if he had spoken of the wicked perhaps he would not have put in himself and other holy ones he would not have said Rapiemur We shall be taken up but Rapientur They shall be taken up Again when he saith Rapiemur cum illis We shall be taken up with them who are meant in those words save they onely who sleep in Jesus and whom God will bring with him 1. Thess 4.14 which are not the wicked but the godly onely They are the Saints with whom the Lord cometh Jude ver 14. The Rhemists themselves confesse that the Apostle speaketh of all the faithfull then living when Christ cometh to the last judgement Diodorus as it is in Hierom saith The Apostle f Apostolus Nos dixit pro eo quod justos de quorum ego sum numero said WE that is they who are just out of whose number I am not excluded A powerfull reason may confirm this because the wicked will wish mountains to cover them will quake and tremble at that houre and would not be willing to come to judgement if they could avoid it Therefore it is not likely that they would spring forth and put themselves forward to meet the Lord. The summe is The godly which shall be then left and be alive shall be taken up into the aire The Papists say this is not to be done g Sine media morte without intercurrent or intercedent death whereas the words are expresse We living and remaining shall be snatched up The argument of Gregorie de Valentia hath pith in it For he saith If the live men do die h Sequitur justos aliquantò pòst resurrecturos quàm alios fiquidem morientur atque adeò resurgent it followeth that the just shall arise somewhat after

secret visions whose depths were never sounded by meer man but sealed and reserved perchance from Angels till the generall judgement yet whatsoever matter sentences and words they wrote they knew as they were writers thereof and were in no doubt of them nor could they mistake them As they were not omniscient on the one side so were they not ignorant on the other side but whatsoever they spake or wrote they knew and knew much more then ever they spake or wrote The sixth question followeth viz. Whether the holy Pen-men did reade profane authours Upon the premisall of six points the answer will be most expedite The first is this That diverse Prophets and Penmen of the Old Testament were Noble-men Rulers or Kings cannot be denied by him who thinketh of Isaiahs birth of royall linage saith Hierom in the Prologue on him and Lyranus from the Rabbins or on David Solomon and others Secondly That diverse also were learned before their calling to publick place is most apparent Thus Moses was learned in all the wisdome of the Egyptians and was mightie in words and deeds Act. 7.22 and this before he was called to his publick charge Thus was Job skilled in Astronomie as his words declare and Solomon the best Philosopher as I think that ever was except Christ and Adam though Solomons great learning was rather infused then acquired The third puncto is That no Penmen of the New Testament were Noble And perchance even therefore our Blessed Saviour would write nothing by himself in person because he was of the bloud-royall S. Hierom in his Epistle to Principia the Virgin saith S. John was Noble and for his Nobilitie known to the high Priest I answer that he was very neare of kindred to our Blessed Saviour and therefore Noble but that ever he was nobly bred or brought up according to the usance of the world or that he was by his nobilitie made known to the high Priest I see not proved S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 1.26 Ye see your calling brethren how that not many wise men after the flesh not many mightie not many noble are called and vers 28. God hath chosen the base things of the world and things which are despised If any one object Though there were not many noble called yet S. John might be one Estius is peremptorie that b Inter duodecim Christi Apostolos nullus erat secundum seculum sapiens potens nobilis Not one of the twelve Apostles according to the world was wise powerfull or noble Ambrose lib. 5. in Luc. ad illud Capitis sexti 13. ELEGIT EX IPSIS thus c Adverte coeleste consilium non sapientes aliquos non divites non nobiles sed piscatores Publicanos quos dirigeret elegit nè traduxisse prudentiâ nè podemisse divitiis nè potentiae nobilitatisque authoritate traxisse aliquos ad suam gratiam videretur Observe the providence of God He chose not any wise nor rich nor noble but he elected fishers and Publicanes and them he instructed lest he might seem to have drawn men unto him by worldly wisdome or to have redeemed them by wealth or to have allured them to his side and to the participation of his grace by the reconciling authoritie of power and nobilitie The 1. Cor. 4.11 the Apostle speaketh in the person of all his fellows thus Even to this present houre we both hunger and thirst and are naked and are buffetted and have no certain dwelling place and labour working with our own hands c. which things the Noble of this world will neither do nor suffer Therefore they were not Noble The fourth thing premisable is this None of the twelve Apostles were learned before their calling S. Paul indeed was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel Act. 22.3 and S. Luke as being a Physician might be learned ere he was a Christian the like might be surmised of S. Mark and the rather because we reade not that the gift of tongues was given to these two Concerning S. Matthew though there may be some probabilitie that he was learned before his vocation because he sat at the receit of custome Matth. 9.9 for few unlearned men were gatherers of Cesars customes or tributes and though Publicanes were vilely esteemed of among the Jews yet divers passages of Cicero do shew that they were of good account among the Romanes and though more particularly it is observed Luk. 5.29 that Levi or Matthew made Christ a great feast in his own house and there was a great companie of Publicanes and of others that sat down with them whence may be inferred that S. Matthew was a rich man yet notwithstanding all this he might be unlearned and a poore man might make a great feast for joy of his extraordinarie calling See what the young perhaps poore plough-man Elisha did 1. King 19.21 Joh. 7.15 the Jews say of Christ How knoweth this man letters having never learned The Priests Scribes and Pharisees knew Christ frequented not their schools no not those at Jerusalem for Franciscus Lucas Brugensis calleth them Schools pointed at Luk. 2.46 which were in the Temple and at the outwardest Eastern gate of it I say Christ frequented them not to learn but he at twelve yeares of age went and heard the Doctours and asked them questions and belike when they could not answer he did or els perhaps he did answer to other questions propounded by them for all that heard him even they with whom he disputed were astonished at his understanding and answers Luk. 2.47 John 7.27 VVe know this man whence he is say the Jews As if one be eminent among us we usually enquire of his parents of his breeding and whole course of life so in likelihood they did of Christ They knew his breeding in the citie of Nazareth VVhere from his childhood he used a mechanicall trade with his supposed father saith Pererius They saw him not poring on books nor tumbling them over nor for studies sake resorting to any places where religion was taught yet they heard him Legis testimonia proferentem Alledge the words of the Law They did not admire his doctrine say Chrysostom Euthymius and Theophylact nor beleeved they it but they were astonished at his eloquence and learning acknowledging them rather inspired then acquired From whence hath this man these things and what wisdome is this which is given unto him say they Mark 6.2 As Christ never went to any Schools no more in all likelihood did any of his twelve Apostles who being poore tradesmen may well be thought unlettered Matth. 4.21 even John and his brother James with their father Zebedee were mending their nets whereby their povertie and mean calling was described Their ignorance is taxed by the Jews John 7.49 This people who knoweth not the Law are cursed where his disciples are held as illiterate ignorants And for this cause I think Christ chose not either Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea or the Lawyer which