MISCELLANIES OF DIVINITY Divided into three books, Wherein is explained at large the estate of the Soul in her origination, separation, particular judgement, and conduct to eternal bliss or torment.  
BY EDWARD KELLET Doctor in Divinity, and one of the Canons of the Cathedral Church of EXON.  S. AUGUST. serm. nov. 24. de S. Paulo. 
¶ Omnibus hominibus natis constituit Deus mortem, per quam de isto seculo emigrent. Exceptus eris à morte, si exceptus fueris à genere humano.— jam homo es, venisti: Quomodo hinc exeas, cogita.   printer's or publisher's device 
HINC LUCEM ET POCLA SACRA  
ALMA MATER GANTA BRIGIA  
Printed by the Printers to the University of CAMBRIDGE, and are to be sold by Robert Allot, at the Bear in Pauls-Churchyard. 1635.   

TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, MY VERY GOOD LORD, THE LORD Archbishop of CANTERBURY his Grace, Primate of all ENGLAND, and Metropolitan.  
Most Reverend,  
THE manifold graces which God hath plentifully poured on you, enabling you, even from your youth, to be a fit instrument diverse ways to advance his glory, and blessing your great good labours with the favourable acceptance of our dread Sovereign & State and all who have well-wishing unto this our Zion, have caused me, a crazy, old, retired man, who never saw you but once, and that long since, to leave behind me a testimonial to the world, both of my hearty thanks to God, that you have been; & of my humblest prayers, that you may long continue a prop of our Church, a favoured Ezra, the prompt Scribe in the Law; a powerful Aaron, to make an atonement for the people, an Elijah, zealous in your calling; a provident guide to the Prophets, to the sons and schools of the Prophets; a father, chariot, & horsemen of Israel, as Elisha called Elijah, & as king Joash called Elisha. May heavenly influences and divine irradiations say, Amen, Amen.  
Your Graces in all duty, Edward Kellet.   


The Contents of the first book.  

CHAPTER. I.  
Sect. 1. THe subject of the whole work. The reason why I chose the text of Hebr. 9.27. to discourse upon. The Division of it. Fol. 1. etc.  
2. amphibology prejudicial to truth. Death appointed by God, yet for Adam's fault. The tree of life kept from Adam, not by fantastical Hobgoblins, but by true Angels, and a flaming sword brandishing itself. levitical ceremonies dead, buried, deadly. Things redeemed dispensed with; yet still appointed. 2  
3. The Kingdom of Death reigning over all. Bodily death here meant, and only once to be undergone. 4  
4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implieth not necessarily the longinquitie of future times intercurrent; but rather a demonstration that other things were precedent. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After doth often signify an immediate succession. Judgement here taken for an act of justice. 5  
5. The general judgement here understood by OEcumenius and Bellarmine. The second book of Esdras apocryphal, and justly refused. More than the general judgement is meant. Even the particular judgement also is avouched by many authorities. Three questions arising from the former part of these words. 6   

CHAP. II.  
1. HOw God is immortal; how Angels and the souls of men; how Adam's body was mortal, and yet immortal, though compounded of contraries. 10  
2. Aristotle's last words; his death. Holcot, or the Philosophers pray for him. Aristotle canonised by his followers. Plato and Aristotle compared. Vives taxed. Adam's body was not framed of the earth, or dust of Paradise. 12  
3. Adam should not have been subject to any external force; he was lord of the creatures: inward distemper he could not have. Adam's bodily temperature: Christ's, who was fairer than the children of Adam: the helps for Adam's body, meat, drink, and sleep 17  
4. Divers opinions of the tree of life. If Adam had eaten of the tree of life before or after his fall he had lived for ever. If he had not sinned, he had not died, though he had not tasted of the tree of life. To what use the tree of life should have served. 20  
5. The Council of Milan: Cardinal Cajetan, Richeomus the Jesuit, Julianus Pomerius and Saint Augustine think that Adam could not have died, if he had not sinned. The book of Wisdom, Holcot, Doctor Estius, and two passages of Scripture Canonical, are authorities evincing that Adam had in the state of innocence an immortal body. 24   

CHAP. III.  
1. DEath is a bitter-sweet. Enoch and Elias Raptures were not painful to them. Christ's transfiguration and the manner of it. That it was not painful to him. Adam's translation to a life celestial and a body spiritual, should not have been painful, if he had not sinned. They who shall be changed at Christ's coming, shall by it find no pain. Death is painful. 28  
2. Mankind died the first minute of their sin. God draweth good out of evil. Death in some regard is changed from a punishment to be a favour and blessing of God. 31  
3. Not many or more sins, but one caused death. One only. David begotten in lawful wedlock. That this one sin is not less in the godly, nor greater in the wicked. Death was appointed for one sin only, of one person only. 33  
4. This one person only was man: this man that sinned that one sin was Adam. Strange and curious speculations, that Eve sinned not that sin for which mankind was appointed to death. 36  
5. Two School speculations propounded. The second handled at large, as expounding the former; and determined against the Schoolmen themselves, viz. That the children of innocent Adam had been born confirmed in grace. The censure of Vives upon these and the like points. A part of his censure censured. 43   

CHAP. FOUR  
1. adam's perfection in innocence. Our imperfection after his fall, contrary to his, both in understanding and will, and in the parts concupiscible and irascible. 55  
2. Adam had other laws given him: but one above all, and one only concerning posterity. 57  
3. What this law was. Adam knew the danger to himself and his offspring. The first sin was against this law. 58  
4. Eve sinned before. How she sinned the same, and not the same sin with Adam. 60  
5. Zeno, the Stoics, and Jovinian confuted. Sins are not equally sinful. 62  
6. Adam sinned fare more and worse then Eve. 65  
7. This sin of Adam was not uxoriousness, as Scotus maintained; but disobedience or pride. The branches of Adam's sin. 66   

CHAP. V  
1. Original sin is an obscure point. The errors of the Schoolmen concerning it. The oversight of Bellarmine. 73  
2. Original sin described by its causes: Distinguished from Adam's actual sin. 77  
3. In what sense Adam had, and his posterity hath Original sin. We were in Adam. He stood for us idealiter. Every one of us would have done exactly as Adam did. We did sin in Adam, and how. 78  
4. Whether Christ was in Adam, and how. 82  
5. We sinned not that sin in Adam, by imitation only. 84  
6. Adam's sin, as personal, was not imputed. Adam is saved. Adam's actual sin, as it was ideal, and representative, is imputed to us. 85   

CHAP. VI  
1. Original sin is propagated unto us. Original sin properly is not in the flesh before the union with the soul. 90  
2. Bishop Bilson, Mollerus, Kemnitius, and Luther, in an error. Bishop Bilsons' arguments answered. Conception taken strictly by Physicians, etc. We are not conceived in original sin, if we respect this conception. Conception taken largely by Divines. Thus we were conceived in sin. 92  
3. A Physical Tractate of conception clearing the point. 97  
4. A Discourse touching aborsives and abortives. Balthasar Bambach answered. The Hebrew vowels not written at first when the consonants were. Never any wrote till God had written the Two Tables. 98  
5. The manner how the soul contracteth original sin pointed at. Bodily things may work upon the soul. 103  
6. Righteous men have unrighteous children. The contagion of original sin is quickly spread. 106  
7. No sin or sins of any of our parents immediate or mediate do hurt the souls of their children, but only one, and that the first sin of Adam. 109   

CHAP. VII.  
1. A Review of the last point. Zanchius not against it. Bucer and Martyr are but faint, and rather negative then positive. 112  
2. Bucer and Martyr make the state of the question to be voluble, not fixed and settled. Their objections answered. The place of Exodus 20.5. examined. 113  
3. S. Augustine appealed unto, and defended. 116  
4. God justly may, and doth punish with any temporal punishment, any children like or unlike unto their parents, for their parents personal sins. 118  
5. God doth, and may justly punish some children eternally, and all temporally for original sin, whether they be like their parents in actual aversion, yea or no. 121  
6. God justly punisheth, even eternally, wicked children, if they resemble wicked parents. ibid.  
7. God oftentimes punisheth one sin with another. ibid.  
8. The personal holiness of the parent, never conveyed grace or salvation to the son. ibid.  
9 God never punished eternally the real iniquities of the fathers upon their children, if the children were holy. ibid.  
10. No personal sins can be communicated. The point handled at large against the error of Bucer and Martyr. 123  
11. The arguments or authorities for my opinion. The new Writers not to be overvalued. Zanchius himself is against Bucer and Martyr. 133   

CHAP. VIII.  
1. Original sin came not by the law of Moses, but was before it in the world. 138  
2. God hath good reason and justice to punish us for our original sin in Adam. God's actions defended by the like actions of men. 139  
3. Husbands represent their wives. The men of Israel represented the women. Concerning the firstborn of men and beasts. The primogeniture and redemption of the firstborn. 140  
4. The whole body is punished for the murder committed by one hand. Corporations represent whole cities and towns, and Parliaments the body of the Realm. Their acts bind the whole Kingdom. Battelling champions and duelists engage posterity. 144  
5. S. Peter represented the Apostles. The Apostles represent sometimes the Bishops, sometimes the whole Clergy. The Ministers of the Convocation represent the whole Church of England. The authority of General Counsels. Nationall Synods must be obeyed. 147  
6. Private spirits censured. Interpretation of Scripture not promiscuously permitted. An anabaptistical woman displayed. 149  
7. Another woman reproved for her new-fangled book in print. Scriptures not to be expounded by anagrams in Hebrew, much less in English; but with reverence. How fare the people are to believe their Pastors. 152  
8. Saul represented an entire army. Joshua and the Princes bind the Kingdom of Israel for long time after. 183  
9 Christ represented us. Christ and Adam like in some things, in others unlike. Christ did and doth more good for us then Adam did harm. 184    

The Contents of the second book.  

CHAPTER I.  
Sect. 1. THe question propounded, and explained. Fol. 1.  
2. Armenius, or rather his son Zoroaster, dead, and revived. ibid.  
3. Antillus' dead, and living again, because the messenger of death mistook him, in stead of Nicandas: Nicandas died in his stead. 2  
4. A careless Christian died, and recovered life: lived an Anchorite twelve years: died religiously. ibid.   

CHAP. II.  
1. A Division of such as have been raised. They all died. 3  
2. The widow of Zarephath her son raised, yet died again: supposed to be Ionas the Prophet. The Shunammites son raised, not to an eternal, but to a temporary resurrection. A good, and a better resurrection. 4  
3. Christ the first who rose, not to die again. 5  
4. The man raised in the sepulchre of Elisha, arose not to immortality. ibid.   

CHAP. III.  
1. Whilst Christ lived, none raised any dead save himself only. 6  
2. The ruler's daughter raised by Christ, died again. ibid.  
3. So did the young man whom Christ recalled to life. 7  
4. Many miracles in that miracle of Lazarus his resurrection. ibid.  
5. Christ gave perfect health to those whom he healed or raised. 8  
6. Lazarus his holy life, and his second death. 9   

CHAP. FOUR  
1. TAbitha died again. 9  
2. So did Eutychus. 10  
3. They who were raised about the Passion of Christ, died not again; as many ancient and late Writers do imagine. Mr. Montague is more reserved. ibid.   

CHAP. V.  
1. Who were supposed to be the Saints which were raised, by such as maintain that they accompanied Christ into heaven. 12  
2. A strange story out of the Gospel of the Nazarens. ibid.  
3. Adam's soul was saved. Adam's body was raised about Christ's Passion, saith Pineda out of divers Fathers: Thus fare Pineda hath truth by him. That the sepulchre of Adam was on mount Calvarie: so say Athanasius, Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Euthymius, Anastasius Sinaita, Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople. ibid.  
4. It was applauded in the Church in Hieromes time. 13  
5. Theophylact thought Adam buried in Calvarie. Drusius unadvisedly taxeth the Fathers. Tertullian consenteth with other Fathers, and Nonnus, who is defended against Heinsius. 14  
6. At Jerusalem they now show the place where Adam's head was found. Moses Barcepha saith, that Sem after the flood buried the head of Adam. 17  
7. The Roman story of Tolus, and Capitolium, much resembling the story of Adam. ibid.   

CHAP. VI  
1. HIerom saith, Adam was not buried on mount Calvarie. Both Hierom, Adrichomius, and Zimenes say, he was buried in Hebron. Hierom censured, for doubling in this point, by Bellarmine. 19  
2. Hieroms' arguments answered. 20  
3. The Original defended against Hierom in Josh. 14.15. ADAM there is not a proper name, but an appellative. Arba is there is a proper name of a man. Adrichomius erreth in Kiriath-Arbee; and the words signify not Civitas quatuor virorum, The city of four men. New expositions of Kiriath-Arbee. ibid.  
4. It may signify as well Civitas quatuor rerum, The city of four things: as, Quatuor hominum, Of four men. The memorable monuments about Hebron. 22  
5. It may be interpreted Civitas quadrata, quadrilatera, quadrimembris, quadricollis; A city foursquare, of four sides, of four parts, of four hills. 23  
6. If Kiriath-Arba doth signify the city of four men, yet they might be other men, besides the four Patriaches. 24  
7. If it had its denomination from four Patriarches, and from their burial there, yet Adam is none of them. 25  
8. Augustine peremptory for Adam's burial in Calvarie; and Paula and Eustochium, or rather Hierom. 26  
9 Another objection answered. The Jews never shown extraordinary honour to Adam, or Noah; but to Abraham, and others after him. Drusius preferreth the reading used by our late translation, Hos. 6.7. before the Genevean and Tremellian. 27   

CHAP. VII.  
1. THough Adam was buried on Calvarie, as Pineda saith; yet his proofs are weak, that Adam was raised with Christ, and went bodily into heaven with him. The cited place of Athanasius proveth only Adam's burial there. Origen, in the place cited, is against Pineda. Augustine is palpably falsified. 29  
2. Adam's skull shown lately at Jerusalem. 30  
3. Dionysius Carthusianus saith, Eve then arose. His opinion is without proof. ibid.  
4. Nor Abraham then arose. ibid.  
5. Nor Isaac then arose, whatsoever Pineda affirmeth. 31   

CHAP. VIII.  
1. PIneda his fancy, that Jacob then was raised. 33  
2. The reason, why the Patriarches desired the translation of their bones, was not, to rise with Christ, as Pineda opineth; but upon other grounds, and to other ends. ibid.  
3. Where Joseph was first buried, where secondly. 34  
4. The great difficulty of Act. 7.16. propounded. Two answers disliked. The original is not corrupt. 35  
5. Beza taxed for imputing corruption to the original, on Mat. 13.35. and on Luk. 22.20. and on Matth. 27.9. All these places defended, and the sacred Majesty of Scripture vindicated from criticism. Many good answers to Matth. 27.9. Erasmus faulty with Beza. 36  
6. S. Augustine and Cyrill against them. 40  
7. Masius and Junius prefer the Arabic and Syriack before the Greek. Junius recanteth. A little error may (perhaps) be ascribed to the Transcribers. A general error in Greek and Latin may not be admitted in all copies of Scriptures. ibid.   

CHAP. IX.  
1. THe second answer disliked. Melchior Canus censured for saying, S. Steven his memory failed him. His like proof from Jephthah his mistaking, answered. 42  
2. Another argument of his, from Matth. 2.6. answered. 44  
3. Heinsius touched at, Cusanus rejected, for holding that Adam could have understood all languages now in use. The manner of the confusion of tongues at Babel. ibid.  
4. The Oriental languages, a goodly ornament, and necessary in some places. The Syriack enlightening the Greek. 48  
5. The Jewish excommunications. Donations to Religious houses sealed up with curses to the infringers. Mr Selden in part defended, though his History of Tithes hath done hurt. MARAN-ATHA. The amphibology of Act. 3.21. cleared by the Syriack. Ubiquitaries with Illyricus taxed. Heavens, and Heaven, taken for God. ibid.  
6. Heinsius strictly examined, and rejected. 54  
7. Things granted, viz. The inspirations and conceptions of holy Penmen were under one or other language: in which conceptions they could not err; nor could they err in writing. 57  
8. Questions handled at large: Whether it were necessary that the Scripture should be written: Whether the sacred writers wrote casually. Whether they were commanded to write: Whether they were compelled to write: Whether they understood all that they wrote: Whether they did read profane Authors: Whether they studied the things before hand. 68  
9 Conclusions against Heinsius. 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. We are not to have recourse to the thoughts of S. John, rather than his words. They had no liberty left them, to put in their own conceits, or in writing to add or blot out what they had done. They had no liberty to  their inward apprehensions with words of their own. They did not conceive in one language, and write in another. 95   

CHAP. X.  
1. Real truth in the Greek and Latin texts of Act. 7.16. The place expounded thus, The Fathers were not Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; but the twelve sons of Jacob. 112  
2. These twelve Fathers were not buried in Abrahemio, but in Sychem. 114  
3. Abraham in this place is not taken properly, but patronymicé. ibid.  
4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by S. Stephen, amphibolous, and expounded. 116  
5. Two opinions concerning the place of Acts 7.16. propounded. 117  
6. The last preferred. 118   

CHAP. XI.  
1. PIneda makes Moses to be one of the raised at Christ's Passion, if once he died. Pineda censured for his assertion, or rather his hypothesis. 119  
2. David then arose in Pineda his judgement. 120  
3. His argument answered. Bishop Bilson wavering, and rejected, as he rejecteth S. Augustine. ibid.  
4. A demonstration (upon S. Augustine his ground, and Act. 2.24.) that David was not raised, nor ascended bodily into heaven. 122  
5. David's sepulchre now kept by the Turk. 123   

CHAP. XII.  
1. PIneda doubteth whether Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, were raised at Christ's passion; because there now are said to be some relics of them; some at Rome, and some at Venice, saith Lorinus. 124  
2. Other relics. The table at which Christ ate with his Apostles. Some hairs, said to be the hairs of our glorious Saviour: others, of his all-gracious mother. A bone of Philip's. A sandal of S. Peter's. 125  
3. S. Peter's chain miraculous, as they report. ibid.  
4. Mr. Montague, now the reverend Bishop of Chichester, defended. ibid.  
5. S. Paul's chain also miraculous, from Gregory & Bellarmine. 126  
6. False relics taxed by Erasmus and Calvin. John the Baptist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, supposed to have three heads at the least. Three or four prepuces of Christ. ibid.  
7. Relics before Christ's time. The ark. The holy oil. The rod of Moses and Aaron. The throne of Eternity fancied by the Jews. The horns of Moses. One finger of the holy Ghost. The Papists faults in forging of false relics. 128  
8. All Relics are not false. What respects are to be denied to true Relics: 130  
9 What are to be given. 131  
10. No likelihood of the raising up of Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, about Christ's passion. 132   

CHAP. XIII.  
1. PIneda saith, Ionas arose then, and Noah. His reasons very shallow. 133  
2. Daniel arose, saith Pineda from Nicetas. If Daniel arose, he arose but with one leg: the other leg is yet showed at Vercellis. ibid.  
3. Job arose now, saith Pineda. His proof lame. Jobs Epitaph poetical. His sepulchral pyramid made of imagination. 134  
4. Job shall arise at the general judgement. Pineda wrincheth the Scripture. ibid.  
5. The end of Jobs book, according to some Greek copies: a double exposition of the words. 135  
6. Jobs body supposed to be translated to Constantinople. ibid.  
7. Bartholomaeus Sibylla saith, S. Hierom is express, that the holy mother of our Lord, and John the Evangelist, are bodily ascended. The like cited from Aquinas. And Holcot saith, That the glorious virgin's body was not to be incinerated. Her supposed day of Assumption, most honoured among the Papists: and yet there is monstrous disagreeing among them who favour her Assumption. The last instances concern not our question. ibid.  
8. Pineda presumed too fare upon uncertainties. Lorinus dareth not name any particularly that were raised. It cannot be known certainly, 136   

CHAP. XIIII.  
1. MY conjecture, that none of the Patriarches or old Prophets were raised. 137  
2. An objection, concerning Peter's knowing of Moses and Elias on mount Tabor, answered. ibid.  
3. A conjecture that the Saints who lived in Christ's time, and died before him, were raised at his Passion: Who they were in most likelihood. When Joseph, the reputed father of Christ, did die. 138  
4. The end, why they were raised. To whom they appeared. 139  
5. A crotchet concerning the wives of dead men which have been raised. 140   

CHAP. XV.  
1. THe raised Saints ascended not into heaven with Christ; as is proved by Scripture, and reason. Suarez his shallow answer. Epiphanius strengthening my former positive conjectures. 141  
2. If the raised ascended bodily into heaven, the Patriarches should not be left behind. 142  
3. The ascending bodily of the Saints into heaven, not necessary or behooveful. ibid.  
4. Only Christ's body was seen ascending. 143  
5. In likelihood, Christ would have showed the Patriarches unto some of his Apostles. ibid.   

CHAP. XVI.  
1. ANgels taken for men. Angels representing men, are called men. 144  
2. The name JEHOVAH ascribed to an Angel representing JEHOVAH, say Estius and Thyraeus. Picking of faults in the Apocryphal Scriptures, to be abhorred. ibid.  
3. Drusius his poverty. The Apocrypha is too little esteemed. The Angel, who guided young Toby, defended. 145  
4. The great difference between Christ's manner of rising, and Lazarus his. 146   

CHAP. XVII.  
1. THe place of Matth. 27.53. is diversely pointed; and, according to the pointing, is the diversity 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. 148  
2. The second inferreth, that they arose before Christ, though they went not into the city, till after his resurrection. This is favoured by the Syriack, and is more agreeable to reason. ibid.  
3. That the raised Saints died again, proved by reasons, and Heb. 11.40. 149  
4. Christ the first-fruits of the dead, and of the raised. Angelical assumed bodies were seen and heard; much rather should men's bodies ascending with Christ. 150  
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. 151   

CHAP. XVIII.  
1. THe arguments of the contrary opinion answered. Suarez, and especially Cajetan, censured. 152  
2. That by the holy City, Jerusalem below was meant, proved at large. Josephus and the Jews erring about the name of Jerusalem. Hierom uncertain. 154  
3. How the raised appeared. A difference between appearing as men, And appearing as newly raised men. Franciscus Lucas Brugensis rejected. 156  
4. An argument of Maldonat answered by the prodigious Legend of Christina, who died twice. No hurt is to man, if God will send his soul from an heavenly place, to live a while on earth again. 157  
5. No harm to die twice. The difference between death complete and incomplete. 159  
6. God can dispense with his own laws. 160   

CHAP. XIX.  
1. STrange conceits concerning Nero, from Suetonius, Tacitus, Hierom, Augustine. Nero supposed to be Antichrist. 161  
2. Another incredible relation of the Armenian, who is said to have lived at Christ's passion. The Armenians have their holy frauds. ibid.    

The Contents of the third book.  

CHAPTER I.  
Sect. 1. MAny Papists are very peremptory, that all and every one must die. Melchior Canus is more moderate. The words are only indefinite, not universal. 165  
2. Objections brought to prove, that universally all shall die. Their answers. General rules have exception. Even many learned Papists have acknowledged so much. The point handled, especially against Bellarmine. 166  
3. Indefinites have not the force of universals. Even universals are restrained. 169  
4. Salmeron bringeth many objections to prove an absolute necessity that every one shall die. All his objections answered. Man's living in misery is a kind of death. ibid.   

CHAP. II.  
1. THe third question resumed, Whether every one must die? The second part of the answer unto it, That some have been excepted, as Enoch and Elias. The controversy hath been exquisitely handled by King James, and Bishop Andrews. 173  
2. Bellarmine's third demonstration, that Antichrist is not yet come, propounded. The place of Malachi 4.5. expounded by Bishop Andrews: and enlarged by my additions. The Papists objection answered. 174  
3. The place of Ecclesiasticus 48.10. concerning Elias examined. 178  
4. Another place of Ecclesiasticus 44.16. concerning Enoch, handled at large against Bellarmine. Enoch was never any notorious sinner, in some men's opinions: Others, otherwise. Their arguments for both opinions are only probable; and answered. My opinion: and it confirmed. Some think Enoch died. Strange and various opinions concerning S. John the Evangelist, his living, death, and miraculous grave. More miracles, or else mistake, in the Temples, of Christ's Sepulchre, and his Assumption, about Jerusalem. S. John did die. Enoch did not die, but is living. Mine own opinion of the place Genes. 5.24. Et non ipse: and it confirmed. A comparison between enoch's, Elijahs, and Christ's ascension. The posture and circumstances of Christ's ascending. 180  
5. Bellarmine and others say, Paradise is now extant: In the earth, or in the air, saith Lapide the Jesuit. The old translation censured. The heaven, into which Enoch and Elias were carried, was not Aërium nor Coeleste; but Supercoeleste. The earthly Paradise is not extant, as it was. Salianus with others say truly, The material remaineth, not the formal: Superest quoad Essentiam, non quoad Ornatum: The Place is not removed, but the Pleasure, and amenity. Salianus his gross error, That Enoch and Elias are kept by Angels, within the bounds of old Paradise on earth. 194  
6. Enoch shall never die, as is proved from Hebr. 11.5. Three evasions in answer to that place, confuted. Melchizedech, and strange things of him. The East-Indian language hath great affinity with the Hebrew. An error of moment in Guilielmus Postellus Barentonius. Elias was not burnt by that fire which rapted him. Soul and body concur to make a man, saith Augustine from the great Marcus Varro. Vives taxed. Moses at the transfiguration, appeared in his own body. An idle conceit of Bellarmine, concerning Moses his face; and good observations of Origen upon that point. It is probable, that Elias was changed at his rapture, and had then a glorified body. An humane soul may possibly be in a mortal body in the third heaven. Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, are in their bodies in hell, properly so called; and alive in the hell of the damned. Ribera and Viegas confuted. Our Doctor Raynolds was not in the right in this matter. Some kind of proofs, That Enoch and Elias are in glorified bodies in heaven. The place of Revel. 11.7. concerning the two Witnesses, winnowed by Bishop Andrews. Enoch and Elias are not those two witnesses. 200   

CHAP. III.  
1. SOme others hereafter shall be excepted from death. The change may be accounted, in a general large sense, a kind of death. The Papists will have a real proper death: Aquinas, an incineration. This is disproved 1. Thessal. 4.17. which place is handled at large. The rapture of the godly is sine media morte, without death. The resurrection is of all together. The righteous prevent not the wicked, in that. 224  
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 tenants of the Church, leave the words doubtfully. Rabanus his exposition rejected. 227  
3. The place of S. Paul, 2. Corinth. 5.4. evinceth, That some shall not die. Cajetan with us, and against Aquinas. Doctor Estius, and Cornelius à Lapide the Jesuit, approve Cajetan. S. Augustine is on our side; and evinceth it by Adam's estate before the fall; which state Bellarmine denieth not. Salmerons' objections answered. 228  
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, conveniency, probability, 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 all arise, but we shall not all be changed, justly exploded, as adverse to sense. 230  
5. The Pelagians, though accursed heretics, yet held truly, That some shall not die. S. Augustine dubious. Others stick in his hesitancy. Yet other Fathers and late Writers are constant, That some shall be privileged from death; yet, that change may be called a kind of death. 235    
FINIS.   

A Catalogue of the several Authors quoted in these three books of MISCELLANIES.  

A  
ABen Ezra.  
Abraham de Balmis.  
Abulensis.  
Adrichomius.  
Cornelius Agrippa.  
Albericus Gentilis.  
Albertus Magnus.  
Alchabitius.  
Alexander ab Alexandro.  
Ambrose.  
Bishop Andrews.  
Anselmus.  
Apollinaris.  
Appianus Alexandrinus.  
Aquila.  
Aquinas.  
Petronius Arbiter.  
Arboreus.  
Franciscus Aretinus.  
Aretius.  
Arias Montanus.  
Aristoteles.  
Athanasius.  
Avenarius.  
Augustinus.   

B  
BAlthasar Bambach.  
Moses Bar Cepha.  
Baronius.  
Barradius.  
Basilius.  
Beda.  
Bellarminus.  
Bernardus.  
Bertram.  
Beza.  
Bilson.  
Boëtius.  
Bolducus.  
Bonaventura.  
Bosquier.  
Brentius.  
Broughton.  
Lucas Brugensis.  
Bucer.  
Bullinger.  
Busaeus.   

C  
Coelius secundus  
Curio.  
Caesaris commentaria.  
Cajetanus.  
Calvinus.  
Melchior Canus.  
Carafa.  
Carthusianus.  
Casaubonus.  
Cassander.  
Cassiodorus.  
Catharinus.  
Centuriatores.  
Cevallerius.  
Chaldee Targum.  
Christopher Castrensis.  
Chrysostomus.  
Cicero.  
Clemens Romanus.  
Clemens Alexandrinus.  
Joannes Climachus.  
Philip de Comines.  
Concilium Elibertinum.  
Concilium Milevetanum.  
Franciscus Collius.  
Coverdale.  
Cusanus.  
Cyprianus.  
Cyrillus Alexandrinus.   

D  
DAmianus à Goës.  
Rabbi David.  
Del Rio.  
Demosthenes.  
Petrus Diaconus.  
Didymus.  
Dionysius Areopagita.  
Dorotheus.  
Drusius.  
Andrea's Dudithius.  
Durandus.   

E  
ELias Levita.  
Epimenides.  
Epiphanius.  
Erasmus.  
Espencaeus.  
Estius.  
Eugubinus.  
Eusebius.  
Eustathius Antiochenus.  
Euthymius.   

F  
FAber Stapulensis.  
Felisius.  
Fernelius.  
Ferus.  
Festus.  
Fevardentius.  
Dr. Field.  
Dr. Fox.  
Fulgentius.  
Dr. Fulk.   

G  
GAgneius.  
Galenus.  
Gasparus Sanctius.  
Genebrardus.  
Gerson.  
Gorranus.  
Gregorius.  
Greg. Nyssenus.  
Greg. de Valentia.  
Gretser.   

H  
HAlensis.  
Haymo  
Heinsius.  
Helvicus.  
Hermogenes.  
Hieronymus.  
Hilarius.  
Hypocrates.  
Hippolytus.  
Holcot.  
Homerus.  
Horatius.  
Hugo Cardinalis.  
Hugo Eterianus.   

I  
JAcobus de Valentia.  
K. James.  
Jansenius.  
Ignatius.  
Illyricus.  
Irenaeus.  
Isidorus.  
Isidorus Pelusiota.  
Josephus.  
Justinus.  
Benedictus Justinianus.   

K  
KEmnitius.  
Kimchi.   

L  
LAertius.  
Cornelius à Lapide.  
Laurentii historia Anatomica.  
Joannes Leo.  
Rabbi Levi.  
Libavius.  
Livius.  
Lombardus.  
Lorinus.  
Ludolphus Carthusianus.  
Ludovicus de Ponte vallis Oletani.  
Ludovicus Vives.  
Lutherus.  
Lyranus.   

M  
MAjoranus.  
Maldonatus.  
Marianus Scotus.  
Marsilius Andreasius.  
Martin Marre-prelate.  
Martinus Cantipretensis.  
Justin Martyr.  
Masius.  
Matthew Paris.  
Melchior Flavius.  
Rabbi Menachem.  
Mercer.  
Minshew.  
Mollerus.  
Bishop Montague.  
Lord Michael de Montaigne.  
Montanus.  
Peter Morales.  
Mr. Fines Morison.  
Rabbi Moses.  
Peter Moulin.  
Muncer.  
Musculus.   

N  
HIer. Natalis.  
Nazianzenus.  
Nicephorus.  
Nicetas.  
Nonnus.   

O  
OCkam.  
Oecolampadius.  
Oecumenius.  
Jofrancus Offusius.  
Olympiodorus.  
Origenes.   

P  
PAcianus.  
Pagninus.  
Paracelsus.  
Paulinus.  
Pererius.  
Peter Martyr.  
Petrus Pomponatius.  
Philo Judaeus.  
Photius.  
Pighius.  
Pineda.  
Plato.  
Plinius.  
Plotinus.  
Plutarch.  
Polybius.  
Julianus Pomerius.  
Porphyrius.  
Postellus.  
Primasius.  
Procopius Gazaeus.  
Propertius.  
Prosper.  
Ptolomeus.   

R  
Dr. Raynolds.  
Ribera.  
Richeomus Jesuita.  
Rodulphus Cluniacensis Monachus.  
Rosinus.  
Ruffinus.  
Rupertus.   

S  
EMmanuel Sa.  
Salianus.  
Mr. Salkeld.  
Salmanticensis Judaeus.  
Salmeron.  
Rabbi Solomon.  
Mr. Sands.  
Sasbout.  
Scaliger.  
Scharpius.  
Dr. Sclater.  
Scotus.  
Mr. Selden.  
Seneca.  
Septuaginta.  
Mr. Sheldon.  
Barthol. Sibylla.  
Sixtus Senensis.  
Sleidanus.  
Socrates.  
Sohnius.  
Sophronius.  
Soto.  
Stapleton.  
Robertus Stephanus.  
Stow.  
Strabo.  
Suarez.  
Suetonius.  
Suidas.  
Surius.  
Symmachus.   

T  
TAcitus.  
Tertullian.  
Theodoretus.  
Theodosius.  
Theophylactus.  
Petrus Thyraeus.  
Tichonius.  
Titus Bostrensis.  
Toletus.  
Tostatus.  
Solomo Trecensis.  
Tremellius.  
Trelcatius.  
History of the council of Trent.  
Turrianus.   

V  
VAlla.  
Terentius Varro.  
Vasques.  
Vatablus.  
Didacus' Vega.  
Ludovicus Vertomannus.  
Blasius Viegas.  
Joannes Viguerius.  
Godfridus Abbas Vindocinensis.  
Virgilius.  
Vorstius.  
Bishop Usher.  
Leonardus de Utino.   

W  
WHitakerus.  
Willet.   

Z  
ZAnchius  
Zimenes.    

O Blessed God, Father, Son, and holy Ghost, whose deserving mercy to me hath been so infinite, that nothing in earth, which I enjoy, is worthy enough to be offered unto thee: yet because thou hast so plentifully rewarded the widow of Sarepta, for sharing that little which she had, unto the Prophet; and hast promised even the kingdom of heaven to them, who in thy name give a cup of water, of cold water; and hast most graciously accepted the poorest oblations, both of the goat's hair toward thy Tabernacle, and the widows two mites into the treasury; receive (I most humbly beseech thee) the free-will-offering of my heart, and weak endeavours of my hand, in this intended service: and as thou didst fill Bezaleel and Aholiab with an excellent spirit of wisdom and subtle inventions, to find out all curious works, to the beautifying of thy Tabernacle: so I most meekly desire thee, to enlighten my soul, to elevate my dull understanding; that I may search for such secret things as may be found, and find such things as may be searched for lawfully and modestly; and that I may, like Joshuahs' good spies, acquaint myself and others with the desert ways, and the several tracts and paths, which our souls, immediately after death, must travel and pass over, toward the Celestial Canaan. O God, my good God, grant me to accomplish this, through the safe conduct of Him, who is the faithful Guide, the only Way, the Light, and Joy of my soul, my Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. So be it, most gracious Redeemer, So be it.   

MISCELLANIES OF DIVINITY. THE FIRST BOOK.  

CHAP. I.  
Sect. 1. THe subject of the whole Work. The reason why I chose the Text of Hebrews 9.27. to discourse upon. The division of it.  
2 amphibology prejudicial to truth. Death appointed by GOD, yet for Adam's fault. The tree of life kept from Adam, not by fantastical Hobgoblins, but by true Angels; and a flaming sword brandishing itself. levitical ceremonies dead, buried, deadly. Things redeemed dispensed with; yet still appointed.  
3 The Kingdom of Death reigning over all. Bodily death here meant; and only once to be undergone.  
4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implieth not necessarily the longinquitie of future times intercurrent; but rather a demonstration that other things were precedent. To [after] doth often signify an immediate succession. Judgement here taken for an act of justice.  
5 The general Judgement here understood by Oecumenius & Bellarmine. The second book of Esdras apocryphal, and justly refused. More than the general Judgement is meant. Even the particular judgement also is vouched by many authorities. Three questions arising from the former part of these words.  
SECT. 1. BEcause I intent (by GOD'S gracious assistance) to explain at large the nature both of humane souls and bodies (so fare as concerns a Divine) and to bring to light things hidden, secret, and strange; and more especially to unfold the estate and passages of men's souls in their origination, and likewise in their separation from their bodies: also in their particular judgement, and their conduct or conveyance to pleasure or pain, with all the known occurrences which present themselves ab instanti terminativo vitae, from the last minute of life, till the said souls shall discern the approach of CHRIST'S second coming. And because I may (if GOD grant me life) in a second Tractate write of the Resurrection; and general Judgement, and of the same humane souls, from the first instant of CHRIST'S glorious appearing, till they are placed with their bodies in their eternal mansions; and of their bliss or punishments, with other particularities which concern that new World: In these regards I have chosen this Text, Heb. 9.27.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For these are words of great force and moment, serving aptly to my purpose, as including and containing whatsoever may be expressed or conceived, concerning this subject, under these two Propositions, 

1. It is appointed unto Men once to die.  
2. After this (is, or cometh) Judgement.    
First, the particular Judgement immediately upon Death: Secondly, the general Judgement, in that great day of Retribution; of which in due time hereafter, if it please GOD.  
2. Now because whatsoever is ambiguous and of diverse significations, is an enemy to the understanding, and that we are counselled by Luther to avoid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in matter of Religion, as we would flee from a Devil; let me remove doubtfulness from the words, and drawing away the overshadowing veil or curtain of ambiguity, seek for the true sense of each term questionable. And first of the first, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is appointed. Some things man appointeth, and GOD some others. This appointment is the sanction, not of Man, but of GOD. Of things appointed by GOD, some are so Lege naturae institutae, some destitutae: some primitively, some occasionally. This appointment came lege naturae destitutae, saith Gorranus: à DEO ultore, saith Bosquier in his Terror Orbis; the Elements having permission to destroy themselves, and the things compounded of them: GOD not only driving Adam out of Paradise, but, by fire and sword fortifying against his approach the way of the tree of life, even whilst Adam lived, saith Epiphanius Haeres. 64: yea till the Flood (if Saint Chrysostome misguide us not) with strange and uncouth assistance of armed spirits: which were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, terrible and horrible visions; of affrighting fire in one place; of fire in the fashion of a flaming sword in an other place; of dreadful shapes of beasts otherwhere; as Theodoret, and after him and from him, Procopius Gazaeus do fancy: but indeed there were true Angels, or Cherubims; and a flaming sword which turned every way, Genes. 3.24. More than one Angel, and more than two (I know not how many) and perhaps many swords; every Angel having at least one sword, a two-edged sword (as some will have it) which they brandished and flourished with, to the terror of our sinful parents. For what should more Angels do with one sword only? Therefore the flaming sword is to be understood for more swords, the singular for the plural, by a Synecdoche, the certain number for the uncertain; which is usual in Scripture: or else, besides the astonishing sight of Angels, prepared by an unknown manner and means to defend the straits and passages unto EDEN, there was a sword also which turned itself every way; 
* Acies gladii sese vibrantis & vertentis.  The edge of a sword brandishing, and turning itself, as Tremellius and the Interlineary Bible do read, and that most agreeable to the Original. Again, of things appointed by GOD consequentially: first, some have been wholly abrogated, as the levitical ceremonies; which now are not only 
* Non tantùm mortuae sed etiam mortiferae. Vide Aquin. 1.2. quaest. 103. art. 4.  dead, but also deadly, causing just damnation to the users of them: because they deny in effect that Christ, who is the substance of those types, is incarnate. It is true, that awhile after Christ's resurrection the Jewish rites continued; for the Synagogue was to be brought honourably to her grave; and at Jerusalem especially, S. James advised S. Paul to observe the Ceremonial Law: yea there were fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem after Christ's time; who all successively were of the circumcision, and one Mark was the first uncircumcised Bishop in the time of Adrian, after the destruction both of the Temple and City, saith 
* Niceph. lib. 3. cap. 25.  Nicephorus. But in other places it was otherwise: for though S. Paul did circumcise Timothy, because of the Jews which were in those quarters, 
* Acts 16.3.  (which he might well do, by reason the mother of Timothy was a Jewesse) yet Titus, 
* Gal. 2.3.  being a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised, no though he was at Jerusalem. Yea S. Paul telleth the Gentiles, with great majesty and solemnity, 
* Gal. 5.2.  Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. Secondly, the things appointed by GOD have been redeemed, as the firstborn, Exod. 34.20. and tithes, Levit. 27.31. and these being instituted by GOD to one end, were by their redemption purchased to other uses; yet made they no gain, but redeemed them at a dearer rate: see Numb. 18.16. and Levit. 27.31. Thirdly, some other things appointed by GOD have been dispensed withal. Thus circumcision, while the Israelites traveled in the wilderness, and awhile after, was omitted above forty years, and again resumed into practice, Jos. 5.2. Thus the Passeover, by one that was not clean, or was in his journey, might be forborn, Numb. 9.13. To this third kind and sort of things by GOD appointed, do I reduce this in my text. This appointed death is not wholly abrogated, it is not redeemed; and yet sometimes it hath been, sometimes it shall be dispensed withal (of which hereafter) and yet for all this dispensation, it is truly said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. not It Was appointed, as having reference to what only was passed; but It Is appointed. It is a yoke, that neither our fathers did, nor we shall ever shake off: and not only labour and travel is an 
* Ecclus 40. ●.  heavy yoke upon the sons of Adam, but much more death. Neither hath the world's 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 equal power  
At th' poor man's door 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 years) 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 Romans, when they were loath to say one was dead, spoke 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 universal 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 Absalon, nor strong Samson, nor wise Solomon, nor crafty Achitophel. It is appointed to all, men and women; no sex is freed, no nation privileged, no age excepted. If some few have been dispensed withal, 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 signs of divine power: some things are done naturally, and some miraculously. We speak of the ordinary course. It is appointed for all men TO DIE, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Death is a name of sundry significations, and it is taken diversely: for there is 
The last death, by the loss of glory:  
The death of the soul, by the loss of grace:  
The death of the body, by the loss 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 mortal, 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 eternal 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 snatched away from their body, but in a manner buried in it. For the present, our life is not a life, but a death. Of the bodily death only are the words of my Text to be understood, being a prime commentary 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 corporal 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 mass together. That these articles, Post, tum, mox, modò; After, then, anon, presently, and the like, are taken at large for some years before or after: you may see it proved in 
* Alb. Gent. disput. ad 1. lib. Maccab. cap. 3.  All bericus Gentilis. The Scripture thus, Genes. 38.1. At that time (But it was ten years, saith Tremellius) Exod. 2.11. It came to pass in those days: and he meaneth forty years. Matt. 3.1. In those days: that is, twenty and five years after. Luke. 23.43. To day is taken for presently. Aretius hath it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Upon that, or presently after that. And questionless that is the meaning: for though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After may be interpreted longafter, as the word proximus, contrarily, doth not enforce necessarily a nearness: 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 intent a large intercedencie of time. John 19.28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After that, Jesus saith I thirst: you must not understand it, long after, not years, months, weeks, days, or hours after that; for our Saviour hung upon the cross not above four hours, and many things were said and done before this. So in this place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not evidently infer 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify a vast and immense longitude of time: but there are also, besides them, other evident words, arguing such pawses and spaces of times: As also, because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or post itself is so expounded by Pererius on John 5.4. 
* Post motionem aquae, significat idem ac st dictum fuiss●t, Postquam coepta erat motio, & turbatio aquae.  After the troubling of the water, signifieth as much as if it had been said, After the moving and troubling of the water was begun, saith he: for the infirm did wait and expect the moving of the water, ver. 3. and the impotent man said to Christ, ver. 7. I have no man to put me into the pool, when the water is troubled; that is, so soon as the water beginneth to be troubled: for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first descendant into the water, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after the troubling, was healed. Therefore you must expound the word after, for immediately after, instantly there upon. For if he had first stepped in, he had been healed: whereas if you expound, after the motion, that is, a long while after, he might indeed have been put into the water, but never the nearer to be healed. So also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, John 5.19. and diverse other places evince, that the phrase implieth not length of time intervenient, but rather an historical narration of things succeeding, and sometimes depending one of the other. So here, first death, after that, (i) shortly after that, cometh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, judicium, judgement. Judgement is taken two ways; first, for the assenting or dissenting of the intellect; in this sense we say, I like or like not such a man's judgement: so judgement is taken for one's opinion, persuasion, or determination. The Text is not meant of judgement in this sense. Secondly, it is used for an act of justice, giving to every man what belongeth to him. Thus is it here taken. An act of justice not proceeding from man, but from GOD, and terminated upon man. The judgements of GOD upon man are manifold, both in this present life, and in the life to come. The judgement here mentioned, is the judgement after death. And of judgements after death there are two, 

Private of souls,  
Public of bodies and souls.    
Whether of these two judgements is to be understood, we hope to find out, when we have considered the last thing propounded, the words in a lump together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, After that the judgement.  
5 That there are two judgements after this life, we take it here for granted; but by GOD'S assistance it shall be, in a fit place of this discourse, demonstrated at large. But whether the general judgement of souls and bodies be especially here meant, or the private and particular judgement of souls, or both of them, is the question now, and must be determined by authority and reason.  
Oecumenius is for the first way, and wittily interprets these words; as if it had been said, When all and every one which ever were in the world, are dead; then followeth, after the universal death, universal judgement. To him assenteth 
* Bell. de Purgat lib. 2. cap. 4.  Bellarmine, and the book of Esdras long before either of them, 
* 2. Esdr. 14.35.  After death shall the judgement come, when we shall live again, etc. where the general judgement is pointed at, and not the particular. And from hence S. Paul may be thought to have borrowed the words. I answer, that the Apostle had them not from that author; for there is neither Greek, nor Hebrew copy of that book of Esdras, 
* Bell. de Verbo Dei, lib. 1. cap. 20.  saith Bellarmine, from S. Hierome: only it is preserved in Latin, and no Council ever held it as canonical, saith Bellarmine. Again, I can find no passage of either of these books of Esdras cited in the New Testament; though out of other apocryphal books there be diverse things taken. And though Ambrose cited the second book of Esdras (commonly called the fourth book of Esdras) in his book de Bono mortis, and in his second book on. Luke, and in his second epistle to Horatianus; yea, though 
* Sixt. Sen Bib. Sanct. lib. 1.  Sixtus Senensis saith of Ambrose, that Ambrose thought Esdras wrote this book by divine revelation, and that S. Paul did follow Esdras in those things which he hath concerning the diversity of order of glory, of brightness in the elect when they shall be raised: yet Sixtus Senensis himself esteemeth not the book to be either canonical, or deutero-canonicall, but merely apocryphal: and in it, he saith, are 
* Quaedam suspecta dogmata, regulis orthodoxae fidei apertè contradiceutia.  some suspected doctrines manifestly gainsaying the rules of orthodox faith: and he instanceth in the 
* 2. Esdr. 4.35, 36, 39, 41, 42.  fourth chapter, maintaining, 
* Omnes animas detineri quibusdam abditis promptuariis in inferuo.  that all souls are kept in certain hidden floors or chambers in hell, till the general judgement. Sixtus Senensis addeth, that S. Ambrose seemeth to approve of this opinion. Also, saith he, in chap. 6. vers. 49. there are fabulous Jewish fooleries, of Henoch and Leviathan, two fishes. Upon these grounds I may confidently say, that though some ignorant people might be seduced by this book, (and thence, perhaps, arose the error of the souls not being judged till the resurrection) yet S. Paul would never take a testimony from that book, which hath such palpable untruths, and is not extant in Greek or Hebrew. Moreover it hath no place vouchsafed in Arias Montanus his Interlineary Bible: nor doth Emanuel Sa comment on any word of it: and Bellarmine himself marvelleth why Genebrard would have it held canonical. Estius saith, 
* Liber ille non habet autoritatem in Ecclesia Est. in 2. Sent. Dist. 19 num. 4.  That book hath no authority in the Church. But I return to the first exposition.  
The general judgement may be meant, and is involved; I will not deny it. Yet these reasons persuade me, that the particular judgement is not excluded. First, if the Apostle had intended it only of the general judgement, it is likely he would, as he doth in other places, have used fittest expressions, and terms properly advancing to that sense: as thus, At the second coming of Christ, or, At the end of the world, or, When the corruptible hath put on incorruption, or, After the resurrection cometh judgement. But, since it is written, It is appointed for men to die, and after that cometh judgement; to interpret it only of the general judgement, is, in my opinion, to leave a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a great gulf between death and judgement: which hiatus will handsomely be filled up, if there be reference to the particular judgement.  
Secondly, what if I say, that the words do denote rather the not passing of judgement while we live, and the beginning of it to be shortly after death, excluding judgement in this life, and placing death rather before judgement, than any great distance betwixt death and judgement? according to the native use of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which before.  
The second exposition is of Gregory de Valentia, 
* Tom. 4. Disp. 1. quaest. 22. punct. 9  who applieth the words to the particular judgement immediately upon death. So doth Ludovicus de ponte Vallis Oletani, 
* Part. 1. Meditat. medit. 9  who sets it down as a verity of faith, 
* De particulari judicio animae, quod sit proximè post mortem, judicium singulorum exerceri invisibiliter statim post eujusque mortem.  Concerning the particular judgement of the soul, which is done immediately after death; every one is judged invisibly presently after his death: and evinceth it by this Text. So doth Joannes 
* Viguer. Instit. pag. 692.  Viguerius. 
* Bus. initio Panarii Antidotorum spiritual.  Busaeus the Jesuit likewise accounteth 
* Secundum novissimum est judicium particulare mortem proximè consequens.  the second last thing, to be the particular judgement following death immediately; the severity whereof, saith he, Job the holy patient feared. Job 31.14. What shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? S. Ambrose on this place hath it thus, 
* Post mortem judicabitur unusquisque ●uxta userita sua.  Every one shall be judged after death according to their own deservings. Which words do point at the particular judgement, saith Suarez. Lastly, lest I may seem too eager against the second book of Esdras, let me borrow a testimony or two from thence. 2 Esdr. 9.11, 12. They that loathed my law, while they had yet liberty and place of repentance open unto them, must know it after death by pain. And 2. Esdr. 7.56. While we lived and committed sin, we considered not that we should BEGIN to suffer for it AFTER DEATH. Whence we may probably collect, That the beginning of punishment is immediately after death, upon the particular judgement; and the increase or additament at the general judgement. 2 That some are in torments before the general day of retribution. 3 That the beginning to suffer, is not after a long time, (GOD only knoweth how long) but after death, yea presently after it. All these proofs on each side make way for the third and best interpretation, That the Apostle meaneth not only either of these judgements, but both of them. Benedictus Justinian on these words, thus, 
* Post eujusque obitum, sequitur judicium privatum, in quo quisque suarum actionum reddit urus estrationem: post finem mundi erit judicium omnium, tum hominum tum daemonum.  After every one's death private judgement follows, in which every one is to give an account of his actions: after the end of the world shall be the judgement of all, both men and devils. Of both the Apostle may be understood, saith he. So also Salmeron, and Hugo Cardinalis, and Carthusianus. Oecolampadius thus, 
* Sive speciale judicium intelligas, sive generale, vihil refert.  Whether you understand the special judgement, or the gener all, it matters not.  
Thus have I brought you back to the point where I first began: That this text is fitted to my intentions, affording me just liberty to write whatsoever may be conceived or expressed, concerning the estate of humane souls in their animation or in death, or after it in the life future; because the words must be expounded of both judgements. And now the text being cleared from ambiguities, the terms explained, the state being made firm and sure, not rolling and changeable; and being fixed upon its basis and foundation, three questions do seem to arise from the first words of the text, and each of them to crave its answer, before I come to my main intendment.  
First, How and when Death came to be appointed for us?  
Secondly, Whether Adam and his children, all and every one without privilege or exception, must and shall die? It is appointed for men to die.  
Thirdly, Whether they that were raised up from the dead at any time, did die the second time? It is appointed to men once to die.  
O Gracious LORD, who orderest all things sweetly, and who dost dispose whatsoever man doth purpose; I humbly implore thy powerful guidance, and enlightening assistance, in all this work, for his sake, who is Alpha and Omega, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, thy only SON, my blessed SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST: Amen.   

CHAP. II.  
1 How GOD is immortal; how angels and the souls of men; how Adam's body was mortal, and yet immortal, though compounded of contraries.  
2 Aristotle's last words; his death; Holcot or the Philosophers pray for him. Aristotle canonised by his followers. Plato and Aristotle compared. Vives taxed. Adam's body was not framed of ●he earth, or dust of Paradise.  
3. Adam should not have been subject to any external force; he was Lord of the creatures: inward distemper he could not have. Adam's bodily temperature: Christ's, who was fairer than the children of Adam: the helps for Adam's body, meat, drink, and sleep  
4. Divers opinions of the tree of life. If Adam had eaten of the tree of life before or after his fall, he had lived for ever. If he had not sinned he had not died, though he had not tasted of the tree of life. To what use the tree of life should have served.  
5. The Council of Milan: Cardinal Cajetan, Richeomus the Jesuit, Julianus Pomerius and S. Augustine think that Adam could not have died, if he had not sinned. The book of Wisdom, Holcot, Doctor Estius, and two passages of Scripture Canonical, are authorities evincing that Adam had in the state of innocency an immortal body.  
1. TO the full answering of the first question, how or why Death was appointed for us, I shall need to clear but these two points; 

That Adam for sin was appointed to die.  
That Adam's sin, and punishment was propagated to us.    
Thus sin was the mother of death, thus we were appointed to die, because of sin. As a preparative to the first of these two points, I hold it fit to demonstrate, that Adam at first was made an immortal creature.  
Concerning adam's soul, and the spirits of all men descended from him, that they are immortal, I hope to prove it so sound in an other part of this tractate, that I will fear no other reproof but this, that I bring too much proof for it. Therefore supposing, or rather borrowing that truth (which by GOD'S grace shall be repaid with interest) I now come to show that Adam's body was created immortal.  
Immortal I say, not as GOD is immortal, who neither had beginning, nor shall have end; with whom is no shadow of change, much less any real, substantial change; who hath, as all other good things else, so, immortality eminently; and so eminently, that our Apostle in some sort excludeth all others, and appropriateth it to him, saying, 1. Tim. 6.16. GOD only hath immortality.  
Neither was the body of Adam immortal, as the Angelical spirits, and souls of men, which had a beginning, but shall have no end: Nor immortal, as the counsels of GOD, which had no beginning, but shall have an end.  
His body was not eternal, but eviternal, or immortal; not absolutely immortal, but conditionally: it should never have tasted death, if he had not first tasted of the forbidden fruit. Immortal, 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 mortal; he had posse non mori, and so was immortal. As mortal is taken for earthly, animal, and contra-distinct to spiritual, so his body was mortal and terrene, not spiritual or celestial: As he could not possibly die, unless he had sinned, his very body was immortal.  
In the Schoole-phrase, thus: both mortal and immortal are taken two ways, 

Mortal, for one 

who must needs die: thus Adam was not mortal in innocency, but by sin was made mortal.  
who can die: thus was he mortal, yet only in sensu diviso; because he could sinne, therefore could die.    
Immortal, for one 

who cannot die: so Adam in innocency was not immortal, save only 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 immortal and could not die, unless he sinned.  
upon whom there is no necessity laid that he should die: thus was he simply immortal.      
Lombard thus, Adam had in his nature some mortality, an aptness 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 aptness by which he might not die. 2. Sent. dist. 19 lit. F.  
Further, as some have said, Adam was neither mortal, nor immortal (for thus wrote Petrus Diaconus, and Fulgentius, 
* Corpus Adae ante peccatum, & mortale secundum aliam; & immortal secundum aliam causam dici poterat. De Genesi ad literam lib. 6. cap. 25.  and Maxentius) so others have written, that Adam was made both mortal and ●●mortall: and all and every one of these in some sense is most true. Augustine saith that Adam's body before sin may be said to be mortal in one respect, and immortal in another, as he there proveth at large. Hierome hath a different strain, and an unusual phrase in one of his 
* Epist. ad Paulum Concordiensem.  epistles: wherein he maketh the body to be eternal, till the serpent, by his sin, prevailed against Adam; and ascribeth a second kind of immortality to the body, because some of the first ages lived so long a time, as about, or above 900 years.  
Even they who say Adam's body was mortal, agree in sense with me. They distinguish thus, It is one thing to be mortal, 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 fin, I will not be offended much, though they say he was mortal. As this our flesh, which now we have, is not therefore not to be wounded, because there is no necessity that it should be wounded: so the flesh of Adam in paradise was not therefore not mortal, because there was no necessity that it should die, 
De peccat. Meritis & Remis l. 1. c. 3.  saith Augustine. So that this is but a mere logomachy. They who call him mortal expound themselves, that he could not mori, unless he had sinned; and I mean no more, when I say he was immortal; that is, he could not have died in the state of innocence: 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 mortal: I say, he was therefore only immortal, because in that blessed estate he could not die. Whether of these two contraries, Mortal or Immortal, 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 Wisdom 12.22. upon these words, We should look for mercy.  
2 Aristotle, saith Holcot, spoke these his last words, IREIOYCE THAT I GO OUT OF THE WORLD, WHICH IS COMPOUNDED OF CONTRARIES; BECAUSE BACH OF THE FOUR ELEMENTS IS CONTRARY TO OTHER, AND THEREFORE HOW CAN THIS BODY COMPOUNDED OF THEM, LONG ENDURE? Then he died, and the Philosophers prayed for him, saith Holcot. And because he did scorn to be behind the Philosophers in love to Aristotle, Holcot himself secondeth their prayers, thus, 
* Ille qui suscipit avimas 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 Rhetoric that Holcot had, or was used in his days: or otherwise it might be the prayer of the Philosophers related by Holcot; for the words are doubtful. No marvel therefore if after this, our Christian Peripatetics, the Divines of Culleyn, have made Aristotle a Saint, as they did, if we believe 
* 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 contrary opinion; for he saith, 
* Ipsis Daemovibus 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 Poet 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 Christ's time. And he resolveth affirmatively: because Aristotle had the best intellect among all the creatures under the sun: for supernaturals (saith he) are given according to the disposition of naturals, 
* Cum conatu hominum.  with men's endeavour; grace distilling on man, according as he well useth the talon of nature. But at the end of that book, the Expositor strikes all dead in these words, 
* Concludendo finaliter & cum veritate, dico, etc.  Concluding finally, and with truth, I say, that Aristotle (who hearty implored the mercy of GOD, praying, 
* ENS ENTIUM MISEREREMEI.  O BEING OF BEING'S HAVE MERCY ON ME,) by an holy and bodily death is translated 
* Ad solium aeternae beatitudinis.  to the Chair of Estate, the seat-royal, and Throne of everlasting bliss. 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 goodness, 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 vaturalibus, 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 personal 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 forerunner of Christ, if he be placed in eternal happiness, 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 Aristotle's 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 stars, saith, that Aristotle was the Highpriest of Philosophers, yea 
* Vir coelestis. Hens. Prolegom. in Nonnum.  an heavenly man, saith Heinsius: others have deified him. Yet, there were diverse Philosophers, from Aristotle's death till some hundreds of years after Christ's time, who were in greater estimate among all the learned of those times, then ever Aristotle was; and perhaps there may be a fare perfecter body of Philosophy compiled from the dispersed tenants of other ancienter Philosophers, and more accordant to truth and Scriptures, than 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 entitle 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 Precedents of the Stoical sect, and who are the defenders of the doctrine of Aristotle the Stagiritan? etc. And as for Plato, who made many speeches of the immortality of the soul, he could never persuade 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, 
* Quivam hodie inveniuntur Stoicae sectae praesidentes? quive etiam sunt qui Aristotelis Stagiritae doctrinam corroborant? etc. 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 heretical 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.  Read, saith he, Plato, peruse the subtleties 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 styled 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 Magis, 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 Platonics, because their books are better known. For both the Greeks, whose tongue excelleth among the Gentiles, have highly extolled them, and also the Latins; being moved hereunto, either by their excellency, or by their glory and renown, or by their sweetness, etc. So much for the great esteem of Plato hath Augustine. Ludovicus Vives on this place addeth, that from the days of Plato and Aristotle till the reign of Severus the Emperor, 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 votiores. Name & Graeci, quorum lingua in Gentibus praeeminet, eos magnâ praedicatione celebrârunt, & Latini; permoti earum vel excellentiâ, vel gloriâ, vel gratiâ, etc. Aug. De Civit. 8.10.  until Schools were publicly erected in France and Italy, that is, so long as the Greek and Latin 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 theatrical, 
* Postquam theatricae coeperunt esse disciplinae, omnisque earum fructus existimatus est, posse disputando fucum fa●ere & os obturare & pulverens 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 dexterity and with words coined at pleasure, the Logic and Physic books of Aristotle seemed to be more fit.  
And now was Plato not named; and though Vives confesseth he thinketh Aristotle no less learned than 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 prefer 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 celestial sense then ever they were intended: as if Aristotle had a knowledge of the Trinity, and apprehended it above humane reach: and therefore is by him styled the divine man.  
Augustine saith, Plato and the Platonics were so fare preferred before others, in the judgement of posterity, that when Aristotle, a man of excellent wit, and though not comparable to Plato for eloquence, yet surmounting many others, had set up the Peripatetic sect, and (even while his master lived) by his excellent fame 
* Plurimos discipulos in suam haeresin congregâsset: tamen recentiores Philosophi nobilissimi, quibus Plato sectandus placuit, noluerunt se dici Peripateticos aut Academicos, sed Platonicos. Aug. De Civitate Dei lib. 8. cap. 12.  had gathered very many disciples unto his sect: yet the most noble later Philosophers, whom it pleased to follow Plato, would not be called Peripatetics or Academics, but Platonics. Vives on this place of Augustine confesseth, that Aristotle was before Plato in variety of knowledge, etc. above most, in wit and industry; above all, skilful in arts; that the Greeks called Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now both the same Greeks called Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latins DIVINUM. These things are ill observed by Vives. First, though Laërtius bringeth the saying of Plato, 
* Aristoteles in nos recalcitravit, ut in matrem pulli.  Aristotle hath kicked against us, as colts against their dam; yet others deny that he taught publicly in Plato's life-time. Vives little remembreth, that the precedent words of S. Augustine may incline to the contrary; besides other authorities, aswell as Laërtius. Secondly, that Augustine his term haeresis, in the Greek, is but secta in the Latin; yet, by Vives his leave, S. Augustine could & would have said Congregâsset in suum Lycaeum, in suam scholam, partem, sectam, disciplinam, or any othersuch word, rather than in suam haeresim, unless Augustine had intended to lay some aspersion upon Aristotle by the word of haeresis, which is homonymous. Thirdly, Vives reporteth, without his author, that Plato should say of his two disciples, Xenocrates and Aristotle, that the former needed the spur, and Aristotle the bridle: whereas Cicero in his third book De Oratore ascribeth the saying to Isocrates, concerning two of his disciples, Theopompus and Ephorus; Ephorus the dull, Theopompus the witty and apprehensive: more distinctly, Suidas saith, it was spoken of Theopompus Chius, not Theopompus Gnidius. Again, Vives is mistaken in taxing Plotinus for obscurity, 
* Nè degeneraret à more sectae.  lest he should degenerate from the custom of the sect. Whereby he would insinuate, that either Plato was obscure, or Plotinus, an Aristotelian: when S. Augustine accounteth Plotinus among the famous Platonics, in the same place; which Suidas also confirmeth. For Plotinus his disciples were the great Origen, and Porphyrius, and diverse other famous Platonics; and as all the Platonics did Pythagorize, so did all the Fathers Platonize; and Plato was in that high esteem, that it was an ancient Proverb, 
* Jovem, Graecè loqui si vellet, non aliter locuturum quìm Platonem.  That if Jupiter would speak Greek, he would speak no otherwise than Plato.  
I return from the comparison of Plato with Aristotle, and from the oscitancy of Vives to the old matter.  
Strong delusions rightly befall them, who make Philosophy equal to Divinity, and ascribe as much authority to Aristotle as to Moses or the Prophets, or to any Apostles or Evangelists, and who do answer their Texts with equal reverence. If they pray to them, or for them, let them see to it.  
I proceed from the Philosophical axiom, That no Body compounded of contraries can perpetually endure (which was spoken only of the decayed estate, beyond which Philosophers could not aspire, and not of the state of integrity, which is our Quaere; and I come to a passage of Divinity tending that way. It is true, that Adam was made of earth, or rather of the dust of the ground, Genes. 2.7. of the worst of the elements, and the worst part of it: God framed man dust of the ground, as it is there in the Original: Not of the dust, or earth of Paradise, but of other earth, 
Vives in Aug. De Civit. 13.24 Pulvis aridus inidoneus erat ad plasmandum.  as it is in the Chaldee Targum, saith Vives: of earth severed and distinct from that blessed garden. Cornelius à Lapide the Jesuit saith, Dry dust was unfit for to be form; as if God could not work but like a potter, by fit and necessary materials: and he citeth Tertullians' words, God by adding some fat liquor, 
Deus addito opimo liquore, in limum & quasi argillam coagulavit.  cruddled it into slime and clay, as it were. I say, though God had done so, yet he could have done otherwise; he could have made Man of water without earth, or of earth without water, or of any something, or of nothing. I will confess de facto, 
Pulvis humectus. Aug. De Civit. 13.24.  with Augustine, it was wet dust, because it is said, Genes. 2.6. There went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground; (Augustine readeth it, Fons ascendebat: the Chaldee Paraphraze hath it, Nubes; but properly it is a vapour or a mist) and immediately, The Lord form Man. Now it was of earth out of Paradise: for the Lord took the Man, (therefore he was before created) and put him into the garden, to dress it, and keep it, Genes. 2.15. (therefore he was out of it ere he was put into it) & after Adam sinned, God sent Adam forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, or that ground, from whence he was taken, Genes. 3.23. (therefore the ground from whence he was taken, was a different ground from Eden, from whence he was expelled; and so Adam was not moulded or framed of the earth or dust of Paradise. All this being granted, I say, God could frame as lasting and as good a body, and as durable against the force of contrariety, of the dust out of Paradise, as of the dust of the Garden. And questionless Adam was made of the earth before it was cursed, and why not then equal to the earth of Paradise? So that my Position is not yet shaken, The contrary disposition of the elements had not forced dissolution, but Adam had an immortal body. Which that you may the rather believe, let me confirm it by reason and authority.  
3. The first reason is this; Death cometh not but by outward violence, or inward distemper: in which regard, Death is divided by Aristotle into these two branches, Violent, 
Arist. lib. de vita & morte  Natural.. But Adam should not have been subject to external or internal force, or dyscrasy, if he had not sinned: Therefore he had a body that, during innocency, was immortal, and not subject to death. The Assumption is only questionable. Concerning the former member of it, I evidence it thus: Before Man was created, the dominion over the Creatures was reserved for him, and forepromised Genes. 1.26. so soon as he was created, the dominion was assigned over to him, verse. 28. And if no beast hurt Noah, or his family in the Ark (though every Creature imitated Adam, and rebelled against him their Lord, as he did against his Lord God) much less could they have hurt Adam persevering in innocence. During which estate, the lamb and the wolf, the lion and the dragon would not have hurt one another: much less would they have hurt Man: lest of all, would the issue of Adam have done him violence, or have said as the wicked in the Gospel, This is the heir, let us kill him, and divide the inheritance, Matt. 21.38. For, then there had been no distinction of Lord, Heir, and Servant, nor strife for inheritances.  
It is too too true, that the higher bodies and the heavenly powers do now, besides their ordinary influences, sometimes dart down among us hurtful and noxious qualities, the workers of sickness and destruction; so that in diverse Regions have been Epidemical & popular diseases: which in the great conjunction of Planets falleth out, saith Prolemee, Alcabitius, with other Astronomers. But then the heavens should have dropped plenty, & poured down health, and no baneful quality could have descended from them. As for lightning and thunder, and the now-right-ayming thunderbolts, the armies of God's wrath and messengers of death, either there should have been none (the air then needing no purifying) or at least not hurtful or dangerous.  
Lastly, if Satan could have used outward violence, and destroyed Adam or his posterity that way; perhaps he would never have brought in Death by the backdoor of sin, and never have undermined him by such hidden baits, and lurking temptations.  
Likewise, inward distemper he had none, nor could have: and thus it appeareth;  
There is a twofold temperature, 

Vniformis, all humours being exactly in the same degree;  
Difformis, one humour ruling & prevailing over the rest.    
The first may be called temperamentum ad pondus, which is proportion Arithmitica, when all the four qualities are equally weighed and tempered: so that there is no predominancy, no superiority, nor can be; but all parts are equipondiall and even.  
The second is termed temperamentum ad justitiam, which is Geometrica proportio, when the four qualities hang unevenly in the balance, yet fitted to the best service and use of the body. Whether of these two tempers was in Adam, I will not define; But if there were in his body difforme temperamentum, it was so perfect, yea equal in in equality, as was fit for such a body, as might be fit for such a soul: & such was the mixture of humours, by the divine hand of God compounding them, that both he and we should have lived, in the flower of youth, for ever, if Adam had not offended. What the bodily constitution of the first Adam was, may be thought to be the same or the like of the second Adam: to whom the Psalmist singeth, Psal. 45.2. Pulchruisti prae filijs hominum, Thou art fairer than the children of men: Perpulchruisti, as Vatablus rendereth it: which can not be so properly understood of Solomon, as of Christ: who not only superabounded in all virtues, (and virtue is fairer than the morningstar, saith Aristotle) but also in all comely proportion, and bodily beauty. 
* Prae filiis hominum; quare & non prae Angelis? quid voluit dicere prae filiis hominum, nisi quia homo?  Then the children of men: why not then the Angels? What means he by saying, Then the children of men, but because he is a man? as S. Augustine on the place reasoneth most acutely; inferring, that not Christ's divinity, but even his humane nature is in this place commended for beauty. Though the Prophet saith of him, Esai. 53.2. He had no form nor comeliness, yet he speaketh it in the person of the Jews, and as they thought, saith Hierome on the place: Or, he had no comeliness in his own apprehension, as Christ himself in great humility might undervalue his own worth. Thirdly, I may expound all passages seeming to vilify Christ's bodily shape, only comparatively, with reference unto his divinity; thus the bodily beauty of Christ is not to be named, or to stand in competition with the Deity. Fourthly, and most properly, in my opinion, Esa● describeth Christ as he was to be in his Agony and Passion; his body rend and torn with rods, so ruefully, that David in the first and literal sense (if not in that sense only) compareth the tormentors to plowers, and the dints, impressions, and the bruised bloody concavities and slices, to furrows, The plowers ploughed upon my back and made deep furrows: his face spit upon, his temples gored and bleeding by the Crown of thorns which was not only plaited on his head, but fastened in it by the beating with canes; his body black-and-blew by their striking; his hands and feet digged throughout with great nails, that I may use the metaphor of the Psalmist, rather digged, foderunt, then pierced, to show the latipatencie of his wounds; his side so rend a sunder, so broad and wide, that Thomas thrust his hand into it. Take Christ, as bearing our griefs, as wounded for our transgressions, as bruised for our sins, as weltered in his streaming blood, I will say as Esai said of him; or as the Psalmographist, I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people, Psal. 22.6.  
But consider him before his Passion; 
* In ejus facie syderéum quiddam illuxit. Totum ejus corpus fuitspeciosum; quia formatum virtute Spiritus Sancti, in cujus opere non potest esse error aut defectus. Lyran. in Ps. 45.  There shined some starry thing in his face, saith S. Hierome, and his whole body was beautiful, because form by the power of the holy Ghost; in whose work there can be no error nor defect, saith Lyranus. Thou art fairer than the children of Adam (so it is in the Original) Augustine, Cassiodorus on the place, and Chrysostom Homil. 18 on Matth▪ expound it of Christ's corporeal feature. I think I may say, if Christ exceeded not Adam, yet he was equal to him. The first Adam was made out of virginal dust, the second out of virginal flesh and blood; both of them being framed by the miraculous hand of God: but miracles do more exceed naturals, than naturals do artificials. What is thy beloved more than another beloved, O thou fairest among women? say the daughters of Jerusalem to the Church, their Mother, Cant. 5.9. She answereth in the next verse, My beloved is white and ruddy; a goodly person (as the Bishop's Bible readeth it) or, as the late Translation hath it, the chiefest among ten thousand. 
* Partium congruentia cum quadam coloris suavitate. Aug. De Civit. 22.19.  Whether beauty be to be defined Aptness of parts with some pleasantness of colour, as S. Augustine opineth, or, A convenient medley of white and red especially, as from this place may seem probable; certain it is, Christ wanted no comeliness, nor beauty; though he had no womanish or effeminate shape, 
Tom 4. Disput. 1. quaest. 14. punct. 2.  but such as was most befiting a man, saith Gregory de Valentia. Thou art beautiful, O my love, as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, Cant. 6.4. and, Thou art all fair, there is no spot in thee, Cant 4.7. In which regard, perhaps, it was, that though the humours of Christ's body did increase with the increase of his body, and grew up from infancy to puerility, from it to juvenilitie, thence to virility; yet there was so harmonious a proportion, if not of weight, yet of justice, that we read not any one part of Christ's body to have been out of tune, excepting in his Agony and Passion, when his very bones were out of joint: nor is he recorded to have been sick at any time, nor so much as inclining to sickness, all his life. 
Non suscepit infirmitates individui, sed speciei.  He took not upon him the infirmities of particular men, but of mankind: as to be weary, to mourn, to weep, to be hungry, thirsty, to suffer, to die. As for sin and diseases flowing from sin, he was subject to none, nor to personal defects; but only to the general defects of humane bodies. Indeed it is said, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Bas. in Regu●is brevior●●us quaest. 177.  Esai 53.4. Surely he took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses: but Basil expounds it thus, He bore our sicknesses; not that he did transfer them upon himself, but because he healed those that were sick Where he seems to remove all sickness from Christ.  
Besides Adam his excellent temper, consider his food; he had all the trees of the garden for meat, except the forbidden one. The healthy waters about Paradise he had for drink: Wholesome things he knew from hurtful (if any hurtful things were:) His giving them names doth prove, that he was acquainted with their natures. As for taking too much or too little, it could not be, whilst his soul was innocent and spotless. For he had original justice, which in the use of lawful meats should subject his senses and his appetite unto reason. As for clothing, he needed it not: Innocency apparelled him, till he put off the robe of righteousness; and so it should have continued. Lastly, as Adam in Paradise had a deep sleep which fell upon him, Genes. 2.21. which, I confess, was extraordinary; so Augustine, 
Aug. De Civ. t. 14.16. Tertul. De Anima. cap. 24.  Tertullian, and the School after them, do yield, that ordinary sleep was not excluded out of Paradise; but in the night he was allowed sleep. So that Adam enjoying all things necessary, delightful, or convenient, which concerned his body, we may safely conclude the first reason, That since neither outward force, nor inward distemper could befall Adam's body, if he had continued in innocence, his body should never have tasted of death; and so was, and so should have been immortal. And this will yet more plainly appear, if we will weigh the reasons following.  
4. Among the trees of the garden there was the tree of life, which Adam had liberty freely to eat of.  
Some think it was appointed as a means to translate Adam to immortality without sickness or death. Others say, it would hinder the loss of natural heat and radical moisture: whereby though years or age, yet weakness, or de crepitnes should not come nigh him. Others say, that it being once tasted should bring perfect immortality, even such immortality as we should have after the Resur rection. See Bellarmine de Gratia primi hominis, cap. 28. and Mr. Salkeld in his Treatise of Paradise, where in some whole Chapters he hath laboriously collected, and copiously explained the various opinions concerning the tree of life. Take my glean after their full vintage, and taste what I have gathered.  
Though Lombard, Sent. 2. Dist. 29. Lit. F. questioneth, Whether Adam before his sin did eat of the tree of life, and out of Augustine concludeth there, That they did eat; as it was commanded, that they should eat of every tree, fave one: yet I can no way agree with him. This his error is grounded on an other, which he hath cited Distinct. 9 of the same book, in the letters B and C, That Adam was commanded to eat of the tree of life; and that he should have sinned, if he had not used it. For first, It was not a command, but a permission. God gave the use of the tree no otherwise to man, Genes. 1.29. then to the beasts and fowls the green herbs, verse 21: but this was by way of indulgence, not of command. Secondly, Genes. 2.16. Of every tree of the garden thou may'st freely eat. And though it be in the Hebrew, Eating thou shalt eat, yet it implieth no absolute precept. Thirdly, Genes. 3.2. the woman saith, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; she saith not, We musteat, or We are charged; much less, presently, so soon as we see them, or before we do other things. Fourthly, Genes. 9.3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. Are we commanded to eat every beast, and every herb? then whosoever forbeareth any one, sinneth. Or was there in this a difference between the grant unto Adam, and the grant unto Noah, and their posterities?  
The second error is of Lombard, That Adam did eat of the tree of life. His proof out of Augustine falleth short, even as it is cited, though the place is mistaken by him, and the words maimed. Indeed Augustine thus. 
* Rectè profectò intelliguntur primi homines, ante malignam persuasionem, abstinuisse à cibo vetito, atque usi fuisse concessis; ac per hoc, & caeteris, & praecipuè ligno vitae. De peccat. Meritis & Remis. 2.21.  Certainly it is well thought, that our first parents, before that malicious persuasion, did abstain from the forbidden food, and used such things as were granted them, and consequently the rest, specially the tree of life. * Note first, He saith granted, not commanded: as Noah ate not of every thing granted to him, yet Noah spent many hundred years more time after the Flood, than Adam did in Paradise. Neither can I think Adam in that estate so addicted to his belly, that he in so short a time would cat of so many, of all, and every tree. Secondly, Rupertus saith, The eating of the tree of life but once, 
Rup. in Genes. l. 3. cap. 30.  had made them live for ever. Augustine moreover addeth, It is no where read in Genesis, 
Aug. Cont. Adversar. Legis & Prophet. 1.15  that Adam in Paradise did not eat of the fruit of the tree of life; of which place by and by. Now as Augustine is directly against me in the second point, he is as directly against them in the first point: 
* Vtendi ad escam omni ligno, quod in Paradiso erat, acceperant potestatem. Ibidem.  They had received power to eat of every fruit that was in Paradise. To strengthen their side, Augustine annexeth this reason, What is more absurd then to believe that he would eat of other trees, and not of that? saith Augustine. I answer, perchance Adam thought that he had no need of that tree, as yet, as knowing both that he should not die, if he did not sin, and that the time of his translation was not come. Nor did those or the like thoughts savour of sin, or ignorance. Augustine in this point is incoherent to himself, saying, 
* Gustus arboris vitae corruptionem corporis inhibebat.  The taste of the tree of life did hinder the corruption of the body. Again, 
* Vitae arbour, medicinae modo, corruptionem omnem prohibebat.  The tree of life, by way of physic, did prevent all corruption. But, say I, if corruption seized not on Adam, till he sinned; what needed Adam, till he sinned, use that medicine? since the sick have need of physician and physic, and not the whole. If Adam had eaten of the tree of life before he had eaten the forbidden fruit, God would have kept him from the forbidden fruit, as after he kept him from the tree of life: or else the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil had not caused destruction, the apple had not been deadly; but Adam should have lived immortally. This will not seem strange, if you weigh what followeth.  
If after Adam had sinned, he had taken of the tree of life, and eaten the fruit; he had lived for ever, Genes. 3.22. for else, what needed God to have placed such a watch and ward against him? Again, if Adam might have lived everlastingly, for all God's threat, yea though he had now a dead body, when God debarred him from the tree of life, if he had but eaten of it, he should also have lived for ever, if he had eaten of it before he sinned. But, saith Augustine, 
* Post peccatum, Adam potuit indissolubilis manner si à Domino permissum il li esset edere de arbore vitae. Aug. lib. quaest. Vet. & Novi Testam. c. 19 Tom. 4.  After sin Adam might have remained indissoluble, if God had given him leave to eat of the tree of life. The conclusion reacheth home against Augustine, That Adam ate not of the tree of life, before he ate of the forbidden fruit. I think the malice of Satan egged Adam on to taste first of the unlawful fruit, the usher of death, though the tree of life stood next unto it (for both the tree of life was in the midst of the garden, Genes. 2.9. and the tree of knowledge of good and evil was also in the midst of the garden, as appeareth in the same place, and more plainly Genes. 3.3.) If any be so curious, as to inquire what was the form and figure of the garden of Eden, when two trees are just in the midst of it; I answer, We must not take the word Midst strictly or Mathematically, but at large, or Rhetorically. When the Shunamite said, 
2. Kings 4.13.  In medio populi ego habitans sum, it is well rendered by our late Translatours, I dwell among mine own people; not as if the words enforced, that she dwelled exactly in the midst of them. The like Hebraism is used by Abraham, Genes. 18.24. Si fortè fuerint quinquaginta justi in medio civitatis; that is, Fifty righteous within the city; not as if all the fifty dwelled together in the exact middle of the city. David also useth the like phrase, Psal. 102.24. Take me not away in the midst of my days: in which place, as well as in the propounded difficulty, we must not be too strict or rigorous upon the letter. The like is in Esay 5.8.  
The last touch we will give at this point is thus; God turned Adam and Eve out of Paradise, and by Cherubims and a sword kept away the tree of life; so that neither Adam, nor his posterity should be able to approach it. And perhaps the Cherubims were purposely placed to confront Satan and his evil Angels, lest they might bring to Adam and Eve, or to their posterity, the fruit of the tree of life: for if we had been immortally miserable & cursed, as Satan himself is, was as much as he desired. So great a virtue had the tree of life, if once it had been eaten.  
Let me add in the third place, If Adam had not sinned at all, nor at all eaten of the tree of life, yet he had not died: for death was appointed for sin and for nothing else. Bonaventure saith, 
* Impossibile est ' ut simul consistant innocentia & corruptionis poena. Bonav. in 2. Sent. dist. 19 art. 2.  It is impossible that innocence and the punishment of corruption should stand together.  
But to what use was then the tree of life? The question was made of old by an adversary to the Law and the Prophets: 
* Ista arbor quae in Paradiso fructus vitae ferebat, cui proderat?  That tree which bare fruit of life in Paradise, to whom was it profitable? I confess Augustine answereth, To whom but first to our first Parents, the man and the woman placed in Paradise? But that is the point to be proved. Again, Augustine there saith, Enoch and Elias eat of that tree, but (saith he) we must not hastily say that any other eateth of it: but how unlikely are these things? The adversary of the Law and the Prophets might better have been answered, That there was no more use of that tree, then of others which were untasted (for no man can think, that they tasted of every one in so short a time.) Or what inconvenience ariseth if we say, A proffered courtesy not accepted came to nothing? What can the adversary conclude from thence? for God proffereth salvation and the means thereof to many, who do not accept of it; the fault being on Man's part, and not on Gods  
To finish this point, I resolve, There was no use made of the tree of life, as it fell out. If it be further questioned, What might have been the use thereof? I answer, That the exact specialties can not punctually be known. Probable it is, that the tree of life might have conferred much to the existence of life, though not to the essence. Adam should have lived howsoever, and that immortally, if he had not transgressed God's commandment: the tree of life might have been conducible to his better being; yea to his best being: by it he might have been changed from his terrestrial not-dying estate, or immortal life, to a celestial; and not only an immortal, but an unchangeable eternal life. In which regard, perchance, the tree of life is styled Genes. 3.22. The tree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hachajim, of lives, as profitable (if tasted) both to Adam's present life, which was in time to have its consummantem finem, though not consumentem; its end, though not its death; and also to his future and more happy life, which should never have end. I sum up all with Augustine's words, 
* Cibus aderat, nè Adam esuriret; potus, nè sitiret; lignum vitae, nè illum senecta dissolveret: nullus intrinsecus morbus, nullus ictus metucbatur extrinsecus. De Civit. 14.20.  There was meat, lest Adam should hunger; drink, lest he should thirst; a tree of life, lest old age should dissolve him: no inward disease, no outward blow was feared.  
A new Quaere may be made, Whether if Adam after his sin had eaten of the tree life, his posterity as well as himself had lived for ever? My answer settleth on the negative; because Adam's action had been personal, not representative or ideal; and his posterity was neither to answer for his second sin, or after-offences, nor to have received any benefit by his good deeds succeeding his fall: but he stood alone for us, and we were in him only as he had power to keep or break the first commandment.  
And now am I come to the second Topick place, by which I undertook to prove that Adam's body had been immortal, if he had not sinned; and that is Authority.  
5. Not S. Augustine alone, but a whole Council where he was present, to wit the Milevitan Council, is strong on our side. 
* Quicunque dixerit Adam primum hominem mortalem factum, it à ut sive peccaret, sive non peccaret, moreretur in corpore, ho est, de corpore exiret; non peccati merito, sed necessitate naturae; Anathema sit.  Whosoever shall say that the first man Adam was made mortal, so that whether he had sinned or no, he should have died in body, that is, gone out of the body; not for the desert of sin, but by the necessity of nature; let him be accursed. And this curse fell heavy upon the Pelagians, who did think that Adam should have died, though he had not sinned: for so they held, saith 
* Lib. de Haeresibus cap. 88  Augustine. Cajetan thus: 
* In 1. Cor. 15.53.  In the state of innocence Adam had a corruptible body, in regard of the flux of natural moisture, but not mortal. Richeomus a Jesuit saith, 
* In statu innocentiae Adam corpus habebat corruptibile, quantum ad fluxum humidi naturalis, sed non mortale.  If man was created mortal, those threatenings where by God did denounce death unto him, were unprofitable; for Adam might have answered, I know well enough that I shall die, although I neither taste nor touch the tree of knowledge of good & evil. And again; God in the production of every one of his works, kept an exact and most beautiful symmetry between the matter and the form, the body and the soul, and such a symmetry as was most fit and accommodate to 
* Si komo mortalis creatus fuit, inutiles crant illae minae, quibus ' Deus mortem illi intendebat; poterat namque respondere, etc. In Valedictione animae devotae, Colloq. 32.  obtain the end of every creature, furnishing the matter with qualities and instruments most apt and pliable to serve the virtues and faculties of the form. Therefore the soul of man being immortal, and the faculties and operations proportioned to the essence, the body also then must needs be immortal. Item, In every good marriage two things are observed at least; the qualities of the parties, and their age. Therefore unto the soul, which is free from the tyranny of death, God married the body, which was free also from the graveclothes and bands of death. Death is the brood of sin, saith Julianus Pomerius; & Adam was so created, 
* Colloq. 34.  that having discharged his duty of obedience, without the intervention of death he should have been followed of Angelical immortality and blessed eternity. He had immortality, 
* Etiam ipsam nobis corporis mortem, non lege naturae, sed merito inflictam esse peccati. De Civit. Dei. 13.15.  yet changeable; not Angelical and eternal. As I began with S. Augustine, so with him will I end: It is a constat among Christians holding the Catholic Faith, 
* Ad●ujusque creaturae finem consequendum.  that even the death of the body hath been inflicted upon us, not by the law of nature, but by the desert of sin. 
* Peccatum est pater mertis.  Otherwhere he saith, 
* Colloq. 35.  Sin is the father of death. Again, 
*  perfunctus obedientiae munere, sine interventu mortis Angelica eum immortalitas, & aeteinitas sequeretur beata.  If Adam had not sinned, he was not to be stripped of his body, but clothed upon with immortality, that mortality might be swallowed up of life, that is, that he might pass from a natural to a spiritual estate, from an earthly to an heavenly, from a mortal to an immortal, as I truly interpret his meaning. For he taketh not Mortal for that which must die. And Again, 
* Si non peccâsset Adam non erat expoliandus corpore, sed supervestiendus immertalitate; ut absorberetur mortale à vita, id est, ab animali ad spirituale transiret, à terrevo ad coeleste, à mortali ad immortal. De peccat. Merit. & Remis. l. 1. cap. 2.  It was not to be feared, if Adam had lived longer, that he should have been troubled with age, or death: For if God was so gracious to the Israëlites, that for forty years their clothes waxed not old upon them, nor their shoes waxed old upon their feet, Deutero. 29.5. what marvel were it, if God granted to obedient Adam, 
* Ibid. cap. 3.  that having a natural and mortal body he should have in it some state and condition, that he might be old without imperfection, and at what time it pleased God, he should come from mortality to immortality, 
*  animale ac mortale habens corpus, haberet in eo quendam statum.  without passing through death? Where though S. Augustine seems to say, Adam had a mortal body, and should have passed from mortality; yet he taketh Mortal for all one with Animale, and opposeth it to Spirituale. So that I confess, Adam in Paradise had not a spiritual body, not such a body as he and we shall have after the Resurrection. And thus the body which he had, may be called Animale or Mortal: and yet S. Augustine with us, and we with him, acknowledge this truth, that the body of Adam could not have died, if he had not sinned: and in that regard Adam's body may be justly termed immortal, not with reference to that heavenly and spiritual body which he shall have hereafter; but immortal therefore, because (except for sin) his body (as it was) was free from death. And the same Augustine hath a whole Chapter entitled thus, 
* Sine media morte?  Against the doctrines of those that believe not, that the first men had been immortal, if they had not sinned.  
Among such a troup, may I put in somewhat unthought of by others? Some have said truly, that the divine providence, and preserving power, which extendeth to the least things in our declined estate, as to the lives of birds and beasts and the fall of every hair (God not being 
* Contra eorum dogmata, qui primos homines, si non peccâssent, immortales futuros fuisse non credunt. De Civit. 13.19.  less in the least things, than he was in the greatest, and governing all things in number, weight, and measure) would have much more watched over Adam and his offspring, continuing perfect. But this is that which I propose, Whether the good Angels did immediately minister unto Adam in his integrity, and should have done unto us, to keep mankind from harm? To which I answer, That since the Prophet, Psal. 91.11, describing the blessed estate of the godly, maketh this one especial branch, He shall give his Angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways; and verse 12. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone: I can not but think that the same Angels should have watched over us, and friendly conversed with us in our innocence. For God reduceth 
* Deus non minor est in minimis qu●m in maximis.  the lowest things to the highest by the middle, working by subordination of causes. Yea, 
* Infima ad suprema per media.  grant that this is spoken of the Son of God only, (which by the Evangelists Matt. 4.6. and Luke 4.9. seemeth to be the Devils argute inference) yet it excludes not their watching over us, and their ministry (if we had not fallen) whose very office and name consist in being ministering Spirits: All being sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation, Heb. 1.14. which out of doubt both Adam and his issue, continuing in perfection, should have been. But leaving these things, Christ's answer to Satan proves, that unto whom these words were said, He shall give his Angels charge over thee, etc. unto the same was also said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God, Matt. 4.7. which was not spoken to Christ alone or principally, but in the plural number to the Israëlites and others succeeding them, as appeareth Deuter. 6.16. Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah. They are deceived, whosoever imagine the ministry of Angels should not have been any way necessary, if Adam had not sinned; since Christ (the immaculate Lamb of God, who sinned not, nor could sin) refused not their ministry, Matth. 4.11. and comfort or strength, Luke 22.43; and since one Angel strengtheneth himself with an other, Dan. 10.21. and Revel. 12.7; and since they might have ministered more matter of joy unto us, by their most familiar conversation in assumed bodies.  
Unto these authorities let me add two memorable places out of the Apocrypha. The first is, Wisd. 1.13. God made not death. Satan begot it, sin brought it forth, Adam and Eve nursed it. The other passage is in Wisd. 2.23. God created man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be immortal, & made him an image of his own eternity. On which words Holcot thus, Corporeal creatures have only a footstep of God: Man is the image of God. Again, 
* Quantum fuit ex parte Dei, creavit hominem inex●crminabile msecundum corpus.  On God's part, he created him unperishable according to the body. And there he hath a large discourse, proving, howsoever Aristotle (Metaph. 8.) defineth Man to be a reasonable creature mortal, that the opposite is true, and he resteth in it. For Aristotle knew not Adam's innocence, but spoke of us as we are in the state of sin. Whosoever desireth to read more curiosities strange and learned, concerning the bodily immortality of Adam, at the Creation, let him read Estius on the second of the Sent. Distinct. 19  
But to confirm the truth delivered in the book of Wisdom, the last and the best kind of authority shall be produced out of the unquestionable Canon: death is styled our Enemy, 1. Corinth. 15.26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inimicus, as Hierome on the 27. of Esai readeth it: hostis, saith Valla: therefore death is not natural or kindly to us, but rather a consort, and fellow-soldier of Satan and sin, who fight against us. But the sharp-pointed places are in Genes. 2.17. In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die; or, dying thou shalt die. Mortalis eris, as Symmachus well translates it; or morti obnoxius, as Augustine well expounds it: and Genes. 3.3 Ye shall not touch it, lest ye die: therefore they should not have died, if they had not touched the forbidden fruit. And so they both were, and ever might have been immortal.  
When the woman of Sarepta said to Eliah, 
* 1. Kings 17.18.  Art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son? doth she not secretly intimate, that sin is a murderer? And if there had been no sin, there had also been no death, 
* In 2. Sent. dist. 19 quaest. 1.  in and by her evident confession that her sin was the cause of his death. Scotus shall determine the point; Punishment can not be without fault: but death is the punishment of sin; and during the state of innocency there could be no sin: therefore no death.  
I have dwelled the longer on this part, because every reason & authority by which I have proved, that Adam's bodily estate in the time of innocency was immortal, affordeth also, by way of preparative, a binding argument, to evince that Adam for sin was appointed to die; which is the first of the two Propositions which I propounded. In which words we intent to handle these things: First, somewhat concerning death; secondly, that Adam was appointed to die for one sin only; Thirdly, that it was for Adam's own sin only, and not for Eves; Fourthly, we will inquire what that sin was.  
O Onely-wise God, who createdst Man in thine own likeness, and mad'st him the Image of thine own eternity: I beseech thee, to renew in me that decayed Image; make me like unto thee: give me the favour to taste of the Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God, and to drink of the pure River of the Water of Life, clear as Crystal, proceeding out of the Throne of God, and of the LAMB. Hear me, O blessed SAVIOUR, for thine infinite Merit, and mercy's sake. Amen.   

CHAP. III.  
1. Death is a bitter-sweet. Enoch and Elias Raptures were not painful to them. Christ's Transfiguration, and the manner of it. That it was not painful to him. Adam's translation to a life celestial and a body spiritual, should not have been painful, if he had not sinned. They who shall be changed at Christ's coming, shall by it find no pain. Death is painful.  
2. Mankind died the first minute of their sin. God draweth good out of evil. Death in some regard is changed, from a punishment to be a favour and blessing of God.  
3. Not many or more sins, but one caused death. One only. David begotten in lawful wedlock. That this one sin is not less in the godly, nor greater in the wicked. Death was appointed for one sin only, of one person only.  
4. This one person only was Man: this Man that sinned that one sin, was Adam. Strange and curious speculations, that Eve sinned not that sin for which mankind was appointed to death.  
5. Two Schoole-speculations propounded. The second handled at large, as expounding the former, and determined against the Schoolmen themselves, viz. That the children of innocent Adam had been born confirmed in grace. The censure of Vives upon these and the like points. A part of his censure censured.  
1. COncerning Death, I mean in this place to touch only the strange medley that is mixed in it, of 

Sower.  
Sweet.    
The sowernes or bitterness of death is discerned, because that manner of secession or departure is only painful; whereas all other approaches unto glory, all other stairs, steps, and means, inducing to blessedness, are void of pain.  
Let us see it exemplified in Enoch; He walked with God, and was not; for God took him. Genes. 5.24. His manner of not-being, as he was before (whatsoever it were, or howsoever) was never held painful. Secondly, the chariot of fire, and the horses of fire, which parted Eliah and Elisha both asunder, 2. Kings 2.11, hurt neither of them: Elijah (saith the place) went up by a whirlwind into heaven; the very form of words implying a willing-easie ascent: nor did the whirlwind molest him, or pain him, though Ecclesiasticus 48.9. it is said, it was a whirlwind of fire.  
Christ's Transfiguration comes next to be considered. It was a true representation of that bodily glory, which at the recollection & retribution of all Saints, God will adorn and clothe the faithful withal: Christ showing them the mark at which they ought to shoot: for we also are to be fashioned or configured to his transfiguration, Philip. 3.21. 
* Qualis futurus est tempore judicandi, talis Apostolis apparuit.  As he is to be at the time of judging, such did he appear to the Apostles, saith Hierom on Matth. 17. And let not man think he lost his old form and face, saith he, or took a body spiritual or aerial: the splendour of his face was seen, and the whiteness of his vestments described. 
* Non substantia tollitur, sed gloria commutatur.  The substance is not taken away, but the glory is changed. Or that I may utter it in Theophylacts words on Mark 9.2. By the transfiguration (so Oecolampadius should translate it) understand not the change of character and lineaments, but the character remaining such as it was before, an increase was made of unspeakable light. This admirable light not coming from without to him as it did to Moses, but flowing from his divinity into his humane soul, from it into his body, and from it into his very clothes; will you say his clothes were changed, saith S. Hierom? His raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow: so as no fuller on earth can white them, Mark. 9.3. And his face did shine as the Sun, Matth. 17.2.  
What S. Chrysostom saith of the spiritual bodies of the Saints, I will much more rather say of Christ's body transfigured (for if star differeth from star in glory, man from man; much more shall Christ shine above all other men, by infinite degrees) They shall shine as the Sun: not because they shall not exceed the splendour of the sun, 
Aquin part. 3. q. 45. art. 2.  but because we see nothing more bright than the sun, he took the comparison thence. And this shining, saith Aquinas, 
* Fuit gloriae claritas essentialiter, licèt non secundum modum, cùm suerit per modum transeuntis passionis,  was essentially a clarity of glory, though not in the manner, seeing it was by way of a transient passion, as the air is enlightened of the sun: whereas 
* Ad corpus glorificatum redundat claritas ab anima, sicut qualitas quaedam permanens.  to a glorified body clarity from the soul doth accrue, as some permanent quality. Which essential clarity Christ had from his nativity, yea from his first conception; yet by dispensation he eclipsed it ever, till he had accomplished our redemption, except at this time, when appeared a brightness of glory, though not a brightness of a glorious body; not imaginary (unless you take imaginary as synonymal with representative) but real, though transitory.  
Can any one think that herein was any pain, or rather not infinite pleasure? The beholders rejoiced: they could not do so at the pain of Christ. If there were any pain or grief, it would rather have been so at the withdrawing of his unusual clarity: which not being likely, the manifestation of this clarity, at this transfiguration, was less likely to be painful.  
The fourth and last kind of degree to happiness, is translation; not only as Enoch was translated, from one life to an other kind of life, but such a translation as should have been of Adam, if he had not sinned, and shall be of such as shall be alive at Christ's coming. Adam's translation had been sine media morte. Nor was his slumber painful, nor solutio continui at the drawing out of his rib, nor the closing of the flesh again: nor is it likely there was in Adam's side any scar, the badge of pain and sorrow: much less should he have had pain at his translation. Pain is the grandchild of sin, the daughter of punishment; from both which the estate of innocency was privileged. Every thing in the Creation was very good, Genes. 1.31: Every tree was pleasant to the sight, and good for food, Genes. 2.9; and could the tree of life cause pain? By tasting the fruit thereof, Adam and his offspring had come to an higher and more unchangeable happiness. The middesse was then proportionate to the beginning, and to the end. Sorrow was part of the curse: innocency could not feel pain, much less shall eternal happiness; and should the tree of life have caused pain? Then were there little difference between it, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Or what difference in that point would there be between Adam's death, which was painful, and his translation, if it should have been painful? As concerning the translation of them that shall be found alive at the last day, I am thus conceited: That there shall be no true, and real separation of their souls from their bodies; at least, so much as concerneth the righteous: That they shall be changed: That they shall put on immortality. If it be delightful now to our bodies to receive ease, shall it be painful to be clothed with incorruptibility? It shall be done in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye: 
2. Cor. 5.4.  Nolumus expoliari, saith the Apostle, showing the unwillingness of men to die, sed supervestiri desideramus or volumus; for so must the Apostle be interpreted, as appeareth vers. 2, We groan earnestly, desiring to be clothed upon. Tertullian saith, 
* Qui●uon desiderat, adhuc in carne, superinduere immortalitatem, & continuare vitam lucrifactam mortis vicariâ denuntiatione? De Resur. carnis.  Who desireth not, being yet in the flesh, to be clothed upon with immortality, and to continue his life gained by a substituted denunciation of death? Can so blessed a change be painful? or can we naturally desire pain? shall we groan, and groan earnestly, that we may have pain? Hierome, in his Epistle to Minerius and Alexander, saith thus of the word Rapiemur: 
* Hoc verbo estendi puto subitum ad meliora transcensum, & ideirco raptum se voluisse dicere, ut velocitas transcuntis sensum cogitantis excederet.  I think that this word showeth a sudden passage to a better place, and that he said he was caught up, to signify that his passing was swifter than his thinking; not as if it were painful to be taken, as I imagine. S. Paul speaketh of this translation and change, as a matter worthy of thanks unto God, 1. Corinth. 15.51, etc. Only death, of all other ways by which God useth to call mankind to glory, death only is painful. Psal. 116.3. The sorrows of death compassed me. God loosed the pains of death, Act. 2.24. and Hebr. 2.15. Some through fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage. And indeed this pain of death is part of the curse denounced. But of this point, more hereafter. And thus do I make my approach towards it.  
2. 
* Aug. De. peccat. Merit. & Remis. 1.16.  Augustine saith, When disobedient Adam sinned, then did his body lose the grace of being obedient to his soul. Then arose that bestial motion, to be ashamed of by men, which he blushed at in his nakedness. Then also, by a certain sickness taken by a sudden and contagious corruption, it came to pass that the stability of age being lost, in which they were created, by the changes of ages they made a progress to death. For though they lived many years after, yet they began to die the same day when they received the law of death, by which they were to grow old. For whatsoever by a continual change and degrees runneth unto an end, not perfecting or consummating, stands not a moment, but decays without intermission. Thus was fulfilled what God said, Genes. 2.17. In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. So he.  
Let me add my conjecture. First, if God had not called Adam and Eve so sensibly to an account, yet had they died, by virtue of the former sentence. For the later sentence inflicts not death, which was then entered on them, but labour and pain, In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life, Genes. 3.17. And though it be said vers. 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground: for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return: Yet this is but an explication of the former sentence, showing that the manner of the death shall be by incineration, which was not so exactly speciallized before. Secondly, the same instant that Adam had eaten, I make no doubt but both their eyes were opened and they knew their nakedness, which was the first sensible degree towards death and corruption. For though the Scripture doth not say expressly, Immediately their eyes were opened; yet it implieth so much, as may appear by the implicative particle and, Genes. 3.6, etc. Eve did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat, and the eyes of them both were opened, etc. S. Augustine thus, 
* Quomodo corpus nostrum dicit Apostolus mortuum (Rom 8.10.) cùm adhuc de viventibus loqueretur, nisi quia jam ipsa conditio moriendi ex peccato parentum haesit in prole? De Gen. ad lit. 6.26.  How doth the Apostle say that our body is dead, (Rom. 8.10.) when he speaks of the living; but because the condition of dying, arising from the sin of the parents, sticks to the posterity? So we also die, or are dying, the first hour of our being. And again, 
* Corpus mortuum est propter peccatum: Nec ibi ait Mortal, sed Mortuum; quamvis utique & mortale, quia moriturum,— mox ubi praeceptum transgressi sunt, ecrum membris, velut aliqua aegritudo lethalis, mors ipsa concepta est. Quid enimaliud, non dicam nati, sed omnino concepti, nisi aegritudinem quandam inchoavimus, quâ sumus sine dubis morituri? Ibid. 9 10  The body is dead because of sin. He saith not there, It is mortal, but, dead; albeit it is truly mortal, because it shall die.— So soon as they transgressed the commandment, death like some deadly disease was conceived in their members. For as soon as we were, I will not say born, but even conceived, what did weels but begin a certain sickness, by which we shall undoubtedly die? IN THE MIDST OF LIFE WE ARE IN DEATH, and now non vitam vivimus, sed mortem; which was touched at before, and must be handled again.  
God (who drew light out of darkness, yea all things out of the unformed TOHU-BOHV, and that mass or rude lump out of nothing) is so good a God, and so divine a goodness, that he would never have suffered sin in this world, but that he knew how to extract good out of evil, and to turn man's sin to his benefit. Neither would he have permitted death to enter upon man, but that he knew how to use the sting of death to man's greater happiness, and how to bring forth meat out of the eater, and sweetness out of the strong, Judg. 14.14. As of the viper's flesh is made a preservative against the poison of the viper: so from this bitter cup of death ariseth health, joy, and salvation to mankind.  

* Aug. De Civit. Dei. 9.10.  Augustine hath a witty collection from Plato and his follower Plotinus: Plato in Timaeo writeth, 
* Hominum animos mortalibus vinculis esse à d●is minoribus illigatos.  that the spirits of men are tied with mortal bands by the lesser gods. So Vives on the place citeth Plato, but Plotinus in lib. de dubijs Animae, as he is also cited by Vives, on that place of Augustine, thus, 
* Jupiter Pater laboranta● animas mis●ratus, earum vincula, quibus laborant, solubilia fabri●avit.  Father Jupiter, having compassion of the afflicted souls, hath made their bands soluble, wherewith they are wearied. These quotations at large, give light to S. Augustine's meaning, which is subobscure: for he saith, 
* Plotinus Platenem prae caeteris intellexisse laudatur. Is, cùm de humanis animis ageret, Pater, in ●uit, misericors mortalia illis vincula saciebat.  Plotinus is commended for having understood Plato above the rest. He treating of the souls of men saith, The merciful Father made them mortal bands. Whether the particle Is aimeth at Plato, or Plotinus, appeareth not by Augustine. Bartholomaeus 
* Barth. Sib. Peregrin. Quaest. Decad. 1. c. 2. q. 2.  Sibylla appropriateth the word Is to Plato; I rather assign it to Plotinus, as the good Expositor of Plato: Or it may be that S. Augustine, taking some words from both of them into one sentence, purposely left it doubtful, unto whom the Is must be referred. Howsoever, his collection (as I said) is ingenious and subtle; 
* Ità hoc ipsum quòd mortales sint homines corpore, ad misericordiam Dei Patris pertinere arbitratus est, nè semper hu●us vitae miseriâ teneantur.  So he thought that this very thing, that men are mortal in body, proceeds from the mercy of our divine Father, lest they should be always held with the misery of this life. Even as the very misery of mankind, from which no man is free, could not pertain to the just judgement of the Almighty, if there had been no original sin, as Augustine saith otherwhere. God's judgement brought misery and death for sin: yet in death God remembered mercy, & distilled good out of it, I cannot omit this memorable speech of Gregory 
* Naz. Orat. 2. de Pasch.  Nazianzen, Adam was expelled and extruded from this tree of life & from Paradise at once, by God, for sin:— And yet even in this case by death he gaineth the cutting off of sin, lest the evil should be immortal. So was punishment turned into mercy. He is excellently seconded by Rupert, 
* Rup. De Trinit. 3.24. etc.  How should we turn away with deaf ears the care of the death of the soul, and the general judgement, if we should never have died, that are so proud to day, & dying to morrow? Well therefore did our Lord God strike Man with the death of the flesh & of the body, lest he should be ignorant of the death of his soul, and sleep securely in his pleasures till the dawning of the last day: that at least Man might be waked, even by the fear of the instantaneall death, and that he might not, like the immortal devil, add prevarication to prevarication, but rather flee and avoid the pride & height of sin by humble repentance. Let me add, Hence is the patience of the Saints. Here are the crowns of the Martyrs, saith Chrysostome. This death causeth many virtues, which had else never been. 
* O munde immunde, si sic me tenes breviter transeundo, quid faceres diu permanendo?  O unclean World, saith devout Bernard, if thou holdest me so shortly passing, what shouldest thou do long remaining? If ye desire more proofs, that death was appointed to Adam for sin, and that he was kept from the tree of life, after he had sinned, lest his miserable life should have been immortal, consult with the authority of Irenaeus, in his third book and 37. chap. of Hilarius, in his commentary on Psal. 69.26: of Hierome, on Esai 65. of Cyrill of Alexandria, about the middle of his third book against Julian; and they shall confirm you in this point, That death is a bitter-sweet, a compound of judgement and mercy, a loathsome pill, and a punishment; yet wrapped up in gold, and working out health and blessings for mankind. 
* A culpa natae sunt duae filiae, Tristitia, & Mors; quae duaefiliae pessimam matrem destruunt.  From the transgression two daughters are born, Sorrow and Death: which two daughters destroy their very ill mother. Augustine against two Epistles of the Pelagians 4.4. 
* Quamuìs bonis conferatur per mortem plurimum boni, (unde nonnulli etiam DE BONO MORTIS Congruenter disputaverunt) tamen & hinc quae praedicanda est nisi misericordia Dei, quòd in usus bonos convertitur poena peccati?  Although by death much good be bestowed on good men (whereupon some have fitly discoursed even of the good of death) yet what hence can we commend but God's mercy, that the punishment of sin is turned to good uses? I will seal up all with the saying of Cicero in the beginning of his third book de Oratore, where he spoke wiser than he was ware of, 
* Mihi non à diis immortalibus vita erepta, sed mors donata est.  Life hath not been taken away from me by the immortal gods, but death hath been given. Death is a benefit, though it was appointed unto Adam for sin, for one sin only; which is the next point to be explained.  
3. It is true, that the wages due to any one sin is death; and as true, that we commit many sins; which are rightly divided into original and actual. Actual sins are of a thousand kinds committed by us; yet none of these our sins, nor Adam's after-sinnes, but his first sin only produced death. Likewise, original sin consisteth of two parts; of Adam's transgression, & of our corruption. In Adam's transgression were many sins involved: & our corruption consisteth both in the want of original justice, & in the positive ill-qualitie of our nature. Adam's sin is imputed to us; our corruption, both inherent & imputed. His sin, as a quality, concerned himself; as relation, concerned us. As he was an individual man, it touched himself only; as a common person it dropped down upon us. His actual sin is not propagated; his corrupting of our nature is derived. And this corruption is both a sin and a punishment of sin. Some late Divines have written, Original sin is said to be twofold. 1 Imputed, which was inherently in Adam, and charged upon his posterity. 2 Inherent, which is naturally propagated to us. So, amongst others, Scharpius pag. 463. But they speak improperly; for original sin is but one only, made up of two parts or branches; indeed, perchance, parts constituent, not ratione only, but re differentes; yet not so natively to be called a double sin, as one sin, of two steps, degrees, sections, composures, parts or branches: for original sin is not many, not two, but one only, viz for which death was inflicted. And this is the point I must now insist upon, and thus I prove it apodictically.  
Rom. 5.12. Death entered by sin; and verse 21, Sin reigned unto death. Likewise, Rom. 6.23, The wages of sin is death; and 1. Corint. 15.56, The sting of death is sin. All in the singular number, evincing it to be one only sin. David complaineth Psal. 51.5, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. In sin, not in sins; both the Hebrew and the Vulgar Translation have all these places in the singular number. Concerning David, it is observable, (lest any one might imagine, that David's mother was lascivious, and that therefore he complained, and so this complaint concerned David himself only and personally, and not us) that it was no part of David's intent, to disparage his mother; and Aquinas saith, David was born of a lawful wedlock: and we are sure by a certainty of faith, that the lawful use of marriage is no sin.  
To this let me superadd Rom. 5.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Per unam offensam, as Montanus readeth it, and this exposition is by our last Translation admitted into the margin. But of this point more by and by.  
Neither is it only one, but it is all alike; not more in the evil, not less in the good Rom. 3.9, Are we better than the Gentiles? We have proved that Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, as it is written, There is none righteous, no not one. Vers. 19, All the world is become guilty, or, subject to the judgement of God. Again, vers. 22. There is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. And before, he exactly describeth the corruption of every man. Galat. 3.22, The Scripture hath concluded all under sin. 
Si parvuli nascuntur, non propriè, sed originaliter, peccatores; profectò, eo modo quo sunt peccatores, etiam praevaricatores legis illius, quae in Paradiso data est, agnoscuntur.  Augustine De Civitate Dei 16.27, If infants are born sinners, not properly, but originally; certainly in the same manner that they are sinners, they are acknowledged to be also transgressors of that law which was given in Paradise. How could one infant transgress the law in Paradise, more than an other? Genes. 17.14, He hath broken my covenant. Which words you are to interpret of breaking the covenant in Adam, by original sin, aswell as of breaking the covenant of circumcision. Augustine in the place above cited, when he had said 
* Cortum est de fide, legitimum matrimonii usum non esse peccatum Aquin. Cont. Gert. lib. 4. cap. 50.  Since it is not the fault of the infant, whose soul God threatened to cut off; neither hath he broken God's covenant, but his parents, who took no care to circumcise him (for such a child discerneth not his right hand from his left, Ionas 4.11, and such little ones have no knowledge between good and evil, Deuter. 1.39.) then he resolveth thus, 
* Cùm haec nulla sit culpa parvuli, cum us dixit animam perituram; nec ipse dissipaverat Testamentum Dei, sed majores, qui eum circumcidere non curârunt.  Infants, not in regard of their own life, but in respect of the common source of mankind, have all broken Gods covenant in him in whom they have all sinned. Again, 
* Parvuli, non secundum vitae suae proprietatem, sed secundum communem generis humani originem, omnes in ill o uno Testamentum Dei dissipaverunt, in quo omnes peccaverunt.  In Adam he himself hath also sinned with all the rest. My question here is, Did not all children sinne alike in Paradise? Aquinas answereth, All are born equally sinners, all equally obnoxious to original sin; so that in them that die in original sin only, there is no difference in fault or punishment answering unto it. See Estius 2. Sentent. Distinct. 33. Sect. 5. and before him Lombard, with his army of Schoolmen.  
Three places there are most fully demonstrative, both that it was one offence only, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and that this offence was of one person only. Rom. 5.15. By the sin, the single singular sin, of one (for none of it is in the plural number) many are dead. Death crept not in by more sins, or by more sinners, but for one only offence of one person only. It is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, per peccatum unius. He might have said as easily (if he could have said it as truly) by the sin of two, if by Eves sin properly we had died. This is also excellently secondedin the next verse, Rom. 5.16. And not as it was by ONE that sinned, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (there is the singularity of the person) so is the gift: for the judgement was of ONE to condemnation (which you must not interpret of one Adam, or one Person, but of one sin, if you make the antithesis to have marrow and sinews; and so the Old Bishop's Bible reads it) but the free gift is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of many offences unto justification. So to the singularity of one person, you see annexed the singularity of one offence. The same truth is confirmed and reiterated, Rom. 5.17, 18, 19: every verse proving it was but one person, and one sin.  
The Fathers join issue with us. Chrysostom Homil. on 1. Corinth. 9, Adam by one sin did draw in death. And again, He by one only sin brought so much evil and death. For if Adam had not sinned; as he had not propagated his personal gifts, graces, acquisite virtues, nor experimental knowledge; so after his first sin, which is derived to us, his other sins were merely personal, and one only is become natural to all of us: all his other sins were bound up in the sole reference unto himself, none imputed or derived to his posterity. And therefore original sin hath no degrees, nec suscipit magìs aut minùs; or hath more branches or parts in any child of Adam, then in others; but equally and alike extendeth unto all; none free, none more infected than others, as I proved before.  
Paulinus calleth it 
* In Adam, cum omnibus, etiam ipse peccavit. Aquin. 1.2. q. 82. art. 4.  The fatherly poison, by which the father having transgressed hath infected his whole kind. Others style it The venom of the loins. Chrysostom, on 1. Corinth. 9 termeth it The radical sin. Augustine saith, 
* Virus paternum quo universitatem generis sui pater praevaricatus infecit. Apud August. Epist. 106.  There is one sin in which all have sinned, and therefore all men are said to have sinned in one Adam, and by one sin of Adam, because all were that one man. Item, 
* Esse unum peccatum, in quo omnes peccaverunt, & ideò dici omnes homines in uno Adamo, & uno Adae peccato peccâsse, quia omnes ille unus homo fuerant. De Peccat. Merit. & Remis. 1.10.  That one sin which is so great, and was committed in a place and condition of so great happiness, that in one man originally, and, that I may say, radically all mankind should be damned, is not done away but by Christ: And often he beats on this point, that it was one sin which overthrew us. 
* Illud unum peccatum, quod tam magnum, in loco & habitu ●antae felicitatis admissum est; ut in uno homine originaliter, atque, ut ità dixerim, radicaliter totum genus hominum damnaretur, non solvitur nisi per Christum. Enchirid. cap. 48.  One, none but one transgression the Apostle will have to be understood, saith he against Julian. And again, 
* Vnum, non nisi unum, delictum intelligi vult Apostolus. Cont. Julian. 1.6.  Infants die guilty only of original sin, men of years guilty of all sins which by a wicked life they have added to that one. Ignatius calleth it The ancient impiety. Irenaeus styleth it The hand-writing written by Adam. All in the singular number pointing at one man only, and at one sin only.  
Two points are cleared: 

We are appointed to die for one sin only,  
We are appointed to die of one person only.    
It followeth by the native and genuine method; This person was one man; 
* Parvuli moriuntur soli peceato originali obnox●i; adulti omnibus peccatis quae malè vivendo addiderunt ad illud unum. Enchir. cap. 43.  This one man was Adam: And so by consequent it was not Eves sinne for which death was appointed to us. And first of the first part.  
4. That this person sinning was one man, seemeth evidenced, Rom. 5.16, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, By one that sinned. It is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
* Ignatius. Epist. ad Trallianos.  Yet if that proof reach not home, but may suffer extension, even to Angels or spirits; others shall. 1. Cor. 15.21. 
* Iren. lib. 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By man came death, and by man the Resurrection of the dead. You may as well deny the Resurrection by the Son of man, as that sin or death came not by man. Again, Rom. 5.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, By one man sin entered into the World, and death by sin: the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 demonstrating the humane nature; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joined with it, necessarily pointing and signing out the masculine, and not the feminine. Rom. 5.19, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, By the disobedience of one man; where most evidently, not only the humane nature is signed, and marked out unto us, but also the masculine sex; the He, and not the She.  
Having found that he was a Man, for whose sin death was appointed, let us now follow the sent, and we shall trace out who he was; which is the main point of inquiry.  
Searching the Scriptures, even close to the former place occurreth this, 1. Corint. 15.22, As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. He who confesseth the quickening power of the second Adam unto Resurrection, must also confess the weakness of the first Adam, and that In him all men die. Indeed it is said, Eccl. 25.24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Accusative, Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die. But of Adam the phrase is used in the Genitive, Rom. 5, three several times, Per illam, non in illa morimur. The Divines distinguish them two: We die by her, and in Adam; We also die by the Devil, as he was the tempter of her, as well as by her, she being the tempter of Adam; by them both occasionally, by him and only in him effectually. So for the former part of the words, it is true, 
* Ab Eva initium peccati, ab Adamo complementum.  Eve began sin, but Adam made it complete. She was principium, but principium principiatum: Satan was the principium principians, the mover primo-primus. He was a murderer from the beginning. John 8.44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: not from the first absolute beginning; for then Satan had no being: not from his own beginning; for at his creation he was good, as all things else were: but so soon as ever man was, he resolved to destroy man, and with reference to that intention he was a  or a murderer of man from the beginning of man. From Satan was the beginning of sin, from Eve a seconding, a middesse, a continuation; you may call it an other beginning, secundo-primum. But had not Adam sinned, death had not reigned: for in Adam all die; it was never said of Eve, in Eve we die.  
Augustine saith, 
* Aug. De Civit. 12.21.  God made some certain creatures solitarias, & quodam modo solivagas, solitary, and after a sort wand'ring alone, as eagles, kites, lions, wolves; other creatures gregales, that love to troop, fly, shoal, and herd together; as pigeons, stairs, fishes, dear; and made diverse of them, all at once, of several kinds, and not only two of each kind, by which the rest should be propagated; but he made the man unum & singulum, one and single, and would not create the woman when he created the man; but made her of man himself, 
*  omne ex homine uno diffunderetur genus humanum.  that all mankind should be derived from one man. He annexeth other where, That original sin might come from one only man.  
The Apostle saith most divinely, 1. Timoth. 2.14, Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. From whence though the ignorant may think, that Eve was the sinner, and Adam was not; yet they err, not understanding the Apostle. His main intent is to prove, that a woman ought to be silent and subject, and not usurp authority over the man, as a talking woman doth; and this he effecteth by two reasons. First, Adam was first form, then Eve. The reason holds of things of the same species. Otherwise, beasts and birds were created before Adam. Secondly, Adam was not deceived, but Eve: not first deceived, not deceived by a beast, and one of the worst of them, a serpent. Therefore she is unfit to be any longer a teacher. Chrysostom thus, The woman taught once, and marred all; therefore let her teach no longer. Hence it appeareth it was no part of the Apostles meaning, to handle, Whether the sin of Adam or of Eve caused mankind to fall (which is our main point) for the transgression here mentioned was not that sin, that great sin, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, diverticulum transiens, a peccadillo, a little sin, in respect of that great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which engaged all mankind: much less did the Apostle intent to excuse Adam from that great presumptuous offence, in which he only was. That sin of his being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 5.19: which must needs be a crying sin, and almost infinite; since it is opposed to Christ's obedience, called there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Adam was not deceived; because no man is properly deceived, but of him who hath an intent to deceive: now the Devil only had such an intent, and thereupon deceived Eve. Wherefore she complaineth saying, the Serpent beguiled me, Genes. 3.13, & the Apostle ratifieth it, 2. Corinth. 11.3. The Serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety. And in this manner Eve only being deceived was in the transgression. For Satan set not upon Adam. 
* Diabolus non est adorsus eum qui coràm acceperat coelesse mandatum, sed eam quae à viro didicerat. Ambr. lib. de Paradiso cap. 12. Dolo illo serpentino, &c Aug. De Gen. ad lit. 11.42.  The Devil set not upon him that had received in presence the heavenly commandment, but upon her that had learned it of her husband, saith Ambrose; Yea S. Augustine opineth 
* Tu es Diaboli janua, tu es quae eum invasisti quem Diabolus aggredi non valuit. Tert. lib. De Habitu muliebri.  That by that serpentine craft, by which the woman was seduced, Adam could not have been seduced. Tertullian speaketh thus to womankind; 
* Probat quòd Diabolus non poterat seducere Adam, sed Evam. Hiero. lib. 1. adversus Jovinianum, circa medium.  Thou art the Devil's door, thou art she that hast invaded him whom the Devil could not set upon. If he could not set upon him, much less could he have overcome him. Hierom saith, * the Apostle doth prove that the Devil could not seduce Adam, but Eve. But than comes Eve in her simplicity, intending no hurt or deceit to her husband, & upon three other grounds specialized Genes. 3.6. First, she saw that the tree was good for food. Secondly, it was pleasant to the eyes. Thirdly, a tree to be desired to make one wise. She (I say) upon these three motives did both eat and give Adam to eat. So Adam was not deceived, either first or immediately, by the Serpent or serpentine deceit, as Eve was: neither doth Adam complain, that the Serpent or Eve beguiled him; but when he derived the fault from himself, the worst that he said of Eve was this, Genes. 3.12, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree. Neither doth the Scripture any where impute a malicious, envious, or guileful intent to Eve, in drawing Adam into the transgression. Nor doth the Apostle say absolutely, Adam was not in the transgression; but, Adam was not deceived, or brought into the transgression by fraud. For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to be deceived by art and craft: so the Devil persuaded Eve, That God of envy unto man forbade him that tree, saith. 
* Aug. De Gen. ad lit. 11.30.  Augustine; and perhaps told her it was no sin for her to eat, because she received no immediate commandment; whereas Adam knew it was a sin, but therefore might think it easily pardonable, because he had formerly known no experience of God's severity, saith the same 
* Aug. De Civit. 14.11.  Augustine. And yet for all this Adam might be in a transgression, in the transgression, and the greatest transgression, though not in that transgression of being seduced. And for his transgression death is appointed for us. For in Adam all die. Abel was the first who died the bodily death; yet Abel died in Adam: and if for Adam's sin death had not been appointed to him first, Abel had not died yet, since Morte morieris was spoken to Adam alone, before Eve was created: and it may be it implieth, that upon his sin all that any way came of him, either by avulsion of some part, as Eve did, or by propagation, should die in him. And so though Eve had eaten, if Adam had not sinned, neither Adam, nor perhaps Eve herself had died. And if Adam had eaten and Eve forborn, yet perhaps Eve should have died: for Eve was in Adam as well as we, 1. Corinth. 11.8. The man was not of the woman, but the woman of the man. And in him was she to stand or fall, live or die, as well as we. In Adam all die, and she among the rest, since she was one, and a part of that all. If my above mentioned speculations require further proof, consider Rom. 5.14, Death reigned from Adam; where he is expressly mentioned, as being, in my interpretation, the Idea of mankind, and we being in him tanquam in principio activo. Satan sinned against God in tempting the woman, the woman sinned against God in eating and offering the fruit unto the man. If thou, O Adam, hadst not consented, neither of these sins had hurt thee or mankind. 
* Adam erat nos omnes.  Adam was we all. Give me leave to say so, since S. Augustine saith, 
* Omnes eramus ille unus Adam. De pe●cat. Merit. & Remis. 1.10.  We all were that one Adam. Nor did God first challenge Eve, but Adam; nor her so punctually as he did Adam, Genes. 3.9. And vers. 22, it is not said of Eve, but of Adam, ironically, Adam is become like one of us: for he was the root of mankind, Eve was but a branch of Adam before or when she sinned, and no root of mankind actual, but potential; for she sinned when she was a virgin. Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Triphon thus, Eve being an intemerated virgin, and conceiving by the Serpent, brought forth disobedience, and by consequent, death. Theodoret on those words of the Psalmist, Psal. 51.1. etc. The transgression of the commandment went before Eves conception: for after the transgression, and the divine sentence, and the privation of Paradise Adam knew Eve his wife; and she having conceived brought forth Cain. Had Adam carnally known Eve before he sinned, yea after herself sinned, she had conceived, and then the issue had had no original sin: yea, he is no worse Divine than Aquinas, who holdeth that at this instant if one by miracle were created an humane creature, body & soul, he should not have original sin. 
1.2. Quaest. 18. Art. 4.  
* Art. sequenti.  And if Adam had sinned, & not Eve, we had fallen into original sin; and if she had eaten, and not he, we had not been stained with original sin. Scharpius saith, * The cause of original sin was Adam, not Eve; and Adam's sin, not Eves, doth pass to the posterity. Tertullian proveth that Eve was nevertheless a virgin, because being in Paradise she was called a woman. * A woman, saith he, pertains to the sex itself, not to the degree of the sex. One may be called a woman, 
* Mulier ad sexum ipsum, non ad gradum sexûs pertinet. Tertull. lib. De velandis Virginibus.  though not a wife; but a non-mulier, a no-woman can not either be or be called a wife. I add, she was a wife, & so called, Genes. 2.25: and yet, till after Adam sinned, she was a virgin, espoused, married, yet not known carnally. She was termed Isha, or Issa, Virago, before the fall, Genes. 2.23: because she was taken out of Ish, or Is, out of man. She was also styled The female, and wife; but she was never called Eve, during her creation and innocency, or in the interim between her fall and adam's. But after Adam's sin he first called his wife's name Eve, Genes. 3.20, because she was the mother of all living. Not as if any did then live as from her, or were born of her, when Adam so called her; but the great Calculator of natures, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Onomastick, or exact and true Nomenclator of all things brought before him, thought fit to name her Eve, that is, The mother of all living; not before, but after his fall, because, in my opinion, she had not been Mater viventium, if she alone had sinned. Her sin might have had other punishment, her personal fault had ended in her personal chastisement. Eve was created in Paradise; and, for all her sin, we had continued still in Paradise, if Adam had kept in it: but as Adam was made out of Paradise, so out of it again by his fall he brought both himself & us. S. Ambrose saith, 
* Fuit Adam, & in illo fuimus omnes; periit Adam, & in eo perierunt omnes. Ambr. in Lucam lib. 7.  Adam was, & in him we were all; he perished, & in him all perished. Eve was only a part of Adam, till his fall; he being till then the only root: after his sin she is now also Eva, matter viventium, a root; yet radix de radice: we receive our sap, & bring forth fruit through both of them. And for all this, both Scripture and Fathers run with a torrent, ascribing that great sin, which plunged mankind into destruction, not unto Eve, save only as the occasioner, but unto Adam, as the immediate causer. And though Eve sinned before Adam, and that in diverse respects; yet is he chief, yea only faulty, for presenting us, by his fall, to destruction. Hosea 6.7. They like Adam have transgressed the covenant there; or (as the Vulgar hath it, joining Ibi to the latter clause) Ibi praevaricati sunt in me. Ibi, saith Hierom, that is, in Paradise. And Adam is excellently painted out, Esai 43.27, Thy first father hath sinned. Eve is not mentioned; for her sin, considered by itself, reached not to them, nor hurt any but herself per se, and us per accidens, as Adam yielded to her temptation. When God had denounced several punishments, first to Eve, then to Adam, and proper to each by themselves, he added this to Adam only, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. For even in him, and by him was Eve to return to dust, and by his offence formally Death cometh on all. And therefore not from Eve, but from Adam doth S. Luke draw our pedigree, Luke. 3.38, Which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. And therefore as the Genealogies were ever drawn from the males (perchance to show that the woman was but accidental to our first making, and the first sin reducing all up to the Protoplast Adam, who derived original sin both to Eve and all us, though in different manner) so when they had drawn their Genealogies down to Christ, who had no man to be his father, nor had original sin, but satisfied for it & all other sins, all Genealogies are ceased, yea counted by the Apostle as foolish and vain, Titus 3.9. Against one of these passages if it be objected, that Joab is not termed after his father, but full often, yea always after his mother, The son of Zeruiah, for she was the sister of David, 1. Chron. 2.16: I answer, that Zeruiah the mother of the three famous brethren, Joab, Abishai, Asahel was, perhaps, married to some base ignoble groom before David came to his greatness: or she herself was an extraordinary Virago, active in State, plotting and furthering the plots of her children, though she crossed her brother David; and therefore (as I take it) she is named, not so much in honour as in dislike, These men the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me, 2. Sam. 3.39: Or lastly, the father of Joab had committed such a sin or sins, that the remembrance of him was odious, and might resemble Judas Iscariot, who deserved that in the next generation his name should be blotted out, Psal. 109.13.  
When Adam transgressed my statutes, 2. Esdras 7.11, 12.— then were the entrances of this world made narrow, full of sorrow and travel. And in reference, it may be, to Adam's especial sinning both a man-child was born before a woman-child, and a man-child died before a woman-child, & the males only were circumcised, and Adam himself died ten years before Eve, as Salianus, out of Marianus Scotus, Genebrard, & Fevardentius, collecteth; though never a woman else, except Eve, from the creation till the Law of Moses is recorded to have outlived their good husbands. As for Ere & Onan, they were wicked, & for their sin cut off shortly, Genes. 38.7, etc. Sure I am, he had an especial manner of transgression, since some are punished who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, Rom. 5.14. Other sins we sinned, & are like to Adam: but herein we are unlike. His sin hurt us aswell as himself: our sins hurt not him, but ourselves. Bellarmin hath brought unto my hand the three following authorities: Tertullian, 
* Omnis anima eousque in Adam censetur, donec in Christo recenseatur. Tert. lib. De Anima.  Every soul is counted in Adam, until it be reckoned in Christ. Hierom, 
* Vnusquisque nostrûm in Paradiso cum Adamo cecidit. Hieron in Mich. 2.  Every one of us fell in Paradise with Adam. Cyprian derives the infant's sin from Adam only. For we were in him tanquam in activo principio. In him, to stand or fall. Adam is the figure of him that was to come, Rom. 5.14. Was Eve a type of Christ? was Christ ever resembled or compared or contraopposed unto Eve? The Apostle, Rom. 5.15, 16, 
* Cypr. lib. 3. Epist. 8. Ad Fidum.  showeth wherein Adam was like and unlike to christ (of which hereafter.) And most divinely to our purpose, verse 17, etc. If by one man's offence, death reigned by one, much more the righteous shall reign by one jesus Christ. No inkling, no intimation of more sins then of one; of more persons first sinning that one sin, then of one; and that one was not Eve, but Adam: therefore as Christ's Merits only save us, so Adam's sin only did destroy us. Cherubin faceth Cherubin, Type and Antitype must agree. When the Apostle saith of Adam, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, illius futuri (as the interlineary reads it) not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; not quae, but qui, proveth the exclusion of Eve. But of the first man Adam and the last Adam, is a noted sweet resemblance, 1. Corinth. 15.45. Where he holdeth it not enough to say, The first Adam, but lest Eve might seem to be included in the comparison, he addeth, The first man Adam; and so compareth him to Christ. Likewise verse 47, The first man is of the earth earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. Yet was not Christ the second man in number, but in representation of mankind, being the substance of the first shadow. Adam was the first, the only one who hurt us; Christ is the second man, the only one who helpeth us. Yea, I think I may be bold to aver, that Christ would have taken on him the feminine sex, if by Eve we had fallen: but since we fell by man, by man only; therefore our Redeemer, though he came of a woman, yet was made a man. And Christ having determined to be, not a woman, but a man, I dare further avouch, if he had been a stone cut out, not 
* Et abscissus est lapis Dontinus, & Salvator, sine manibus; id est, absque coitu & humano semine, de utero virginali. H●eron. in Dan. 2.34 Quid est Praecisus de monte, sine manibus? Natus de Gente Judaeorum, sine opere hominum. Omnes enim qui nascuntur, de opere maritali nascuntur: ille de Virgin natus, sine manibus natus est: per manus enim opus humanum significatur, quò manus humanae non accesserunt; ubi maritalis amplexus non fuit, foetus tamen fuit. Aug. in Psal. 99.5. ipsi, 70 secuto, 98, sub finem.  a stone cut out without hands, Daniel 2.34, without the help of man, as he was: if he had not been conceived by the Holy Ghost; if the Blessed Virgin had not been over-shadowed by the power of God only: if Christ had been begotten by one of the sons of Adam, with an ordinary and natural generation; even Christ himself had had both original and actual sin, and had died for himself by and through Adam, and had wanted a Redeemer for himself; much less could he be our Redeemer. But Christ was that STONE. This Stone which the builders refused, is become the headstone of the corner, Psal. 118.22: A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, azure foundation, Esai. 28.26. Let me add a little: Since Adam was made without the help of man or woman, and Eve came of man without woman: since all the whole world of rational people proceed from both man and woman; it was convenient enough, that there should be a miraculous and fourth kind of generation, different from all the rest; namely, that Christ should come of a woman alone, without the assistance of man, that he might be free from original sin, which was first committed by Adam and his masculine brood, and not without his seed and the artifex spiritus in it.  
In which regard (without derogation to the thrice-blessed Mother of our Lord, that holy-aeviternally Virgin Mary, now, next to her Son, the greatest Saint in heaven, and placed deservedly above Angels and Archangels, Cherubims and Seraphims) great Divines do make this difference; She, who was not begotten but by man, was subject to original sin; but her son, the Son of God, was free, even in his humane Nature, from all infection, original and actual, because in his framing there was no admisture of virile and masculine cooperation. For the poisoning of our nature arose from Adam's sin, and not from Eves. Moreover, if by miracle God should preserve a man from any touch or tickling smach of lustful sin in the act of generation, the father's personal holiness should not discharge his child from original mire: for the traducted nature is corrupt. 
* Bell. De Amiss. gratiae & Statu peccati. 4.12.  Bellarmine goes one step further, thus, If both man and woman, the children of Adam, by God's singular privilege were exempted from lust, in the generation of their children; yet should they transmit sin to their offspring. For though S. Augustine saith expressly, 
* Non generationem, sed libidinem esse, quae propriè peccatum traducit. De peecat. Merit. & Remis. 1.9.  that it is not the generation, but the lust, which properly transmits' sin: yet S. Augustine may be interpreted to speak of generations merely usual and wholly natural, not privileged or extraordinary. Cursed therefore are the Pelagians, who say, Sin and death entered by Eve. Sin personal did, but not original, nor death. Grosse is the ignorance of the Pelagians, who when the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, think to delude it with this silly shift, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth either man or woman; and say it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which must needs have been understood of Adam only. I answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is fully equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not, and can not be understood of the feminine. Secondly, the Apostle maketh the Antithesis between that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ, which can not be between Eve and Christ. Thirdly, a little after the Apostle twice expresseth Adam, but never nameth or meaneth Eve. last, it is said remarkably concerning Abraham, Hebr. 11.12, There sprang even of one, and him as good as dead, many. And more approaching to our purpose, Act. 17.26, God made all mankind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of one blood, with apparent reference to Adam only. Therefore as the natural generation is ascribed to Adam and Abraham only, though Eve and Sara in their sort concur to the material part of the embryo, because the Men do confer the formal: so the degenerating unto vice is justly imputed to Adam only, though Eve did minister the occasion; because his consent and action only could give form and shape to that prodigious sin which overthrew mankind.  
5. From this point more questions may yet arise. First, If Adam & Eve had not sinned, but Cain or some other of their children, whether that sin had been derived to their posterity? 
* Aquin. quaest. 5. De Malo art. 4.  Aquinas is for the affirmative, others for the negative: Because the first man only represented our whole nature, all other men's sins are particular and personal, & can not infect others. Thus fare Scharpius.  
I make a second Question. If Adam and Eve had continued in innocence, and had been confirmed in grace, whether any of their children could have sinned?  
Augustine embraceth the affirmative of this Question, saying, 
* Aug. De Civit. 14.10.  As happy as Adam and Eve were,— so happy had been the whole company of mankind, if they, nor no stirp of them committed sin which should receive damnation. The same 
* De Gen. ad lit. 9.3.  elsewhere, The children which should have been begotten of innocent Adam and Eve, 
* Ad eundem perducerentur statum, si omnes justè obedienterque vixissent.  had been led to the same state, if they all had lived justly and obediently. 
* Est. in 2. Sent. dist. 20. paragr. 5.  Estius seconds him, alleging these reasons: First, Adam and Eve had not begotten children in better condition than themselves were created of God; therefore they should have begot just children, but not confirmed in justice. Secondly, Angels were not ordained to blessedness, but by the merit of their freewill to good or evil; and we are to think the like of men: 
* Non priùs erantin termino constituendi, quàm viae hujus curriculum, quod est tempus merendi, peregissent.  They were not to be settled in the end, till they had finished the course of this way, which is the time of meriting. Thirdly, Hugo and Lombard say, God propounded to Adam and Eve invisible goods and eternal, to be sought by their merits, and ordained that by merit they might come to reward. Aquinas 
* Aquin. part. 1. quaest. 100 art. ●.  determineth, That children born in the state of innocence, had not been confirmed in justice: yaes, 
* Non videtur possibile, quòd pueri in statu innocentiae nascerentur in justitia confirmati.  it seems not possible, that in the state of innocence children should be born confirmed in justice. So Aquine, and Gregory de Valentia on him.  
A second way is taken by 
* Abul. in Gen. 3. quaest. 6. & 7.  Abulensis, and followed by 
* Cath. in locum.  Catharinus, viz. That if Adam had not sinned, his posterity should have been confirmed in original justice, but not in gratia gratum faciente, in saving grace. Where they do very ill, to set such inward friends so much at odds; for original justice and gratia gratum faciens differ only ratione, not re; and none could have one, that had not both, they being in the state of innocence glued inseparably: but they had been born in gratia gratum faciente, saith 
* Aquin. part. 1. quaest. 100 art. 1. ad. 2.  Aquine. Therefore do I conclude, both with Aquine against them, that the posterity of innocent Adam had been born in gratia gratum faciente; and with them against Aquine, that they had been confirmed in original justice.  
Scotus seeing the inconveniences of Aquin's position, takes a third way, namely, That the posterity of just Adam should have been born both in justice and grace, but not confirmed till they had overcome their first temptation. Before I come to grapple with Scotus, I must first try my strength against Aquinas; from whose position these three consequences do necessarily flow, as 
* Est. in 2. Sent. dist. 20. Parag. 5.  Estius his great disciple confesseth. First, that some of Adam's children might have continued obedient, others might have been disobedient to God. Secondly, That the just children of innocent Adam should have been tempted by Satan, not once only, but often. Thirdly, That without temptation they might have sinned, by their own will only. Against the first consequence I thus argue. If some of innocent Adam's children had sinned, should they have had any children or none? Not none; for the blessing of Crescite & Multiplicamini reached to all. Should their children then naturally have been good or bad? Not good and innocent; for that is not the issue of actually disobedient offenders. If they had been born wicked, then had their generations so been, and the generations from them to the World's end: and millions of souls had perished, which fell not in Adam, but in and by their other parents; which crosseth the main current of Divinity. For Adam only represented all mankind, and in him only were we to stand or fall. Adam in Paradise, even before his sin, was a Type of Christ, (compare Genes. 2.24. with Ephes. 5.30, etc.) and stood idealiter for us all. See Rom. 5.12, etc. He was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Adamerat nos omnes, & nos omnes eramus ille unus Adam. By Aquins' consequence more first adam's are set up, by which mankind might have fallen; and so more second Adam's to restore them. But by one man came death, and by the blood of only one are we redeemed. Again, if innocent Adam's just children, though unconfirmed, had begot just unconfirmed children, & yet after that generation these unconfirmed fathers had sinned; what children should they have begot after their sin? should the same father have brought forth life and death? good children and bad? and seen some of his children happy, and himself and other children miserable? And suppose the mothers had sinned, and not the fathers; should the mothers have been in the stead of the first Adam? should the children have fallen in them, or no? A third absurdity followeth from Aquins' position, namely, That the righteous should have begotten not one constantly righteous, from the beginning to the World's end: but every one that had sinned, should have begotten sinful children for ever. And so, for one that had continued righteous and been tranlated, millions might have been sinners, and died. Lastly, no one man had been certain of his salvation any time of his life, though he had lived never so long, and never so justly; which yet, even in statu lapso, hath been granted to some few.  
Against the second consequence from Aquins' doctrine, viz. That even the just children of innocent Adam should have been tempted by Satan, not once, but often, I oppose these demands: How many times are included in the word often? or when should there have been an end of tempting? If at any set time of their life; why at that time, and never before nor after? If they should have been tempted all the days of their life, the felicity of Eden might have been more troubled, and fluid then the waters of it; and I might justly say, O poor Paradise, unsettled integrity, provoked or tempted innocence, tremulous estate; where Satan the stronger had power always to tempt, and malice enough to charge home with cunning, and man the weaker had power always to fall.  
The third consequence is somewhat questionable, as inferring, that all and every of Mankind, even without any temptation, might have sinned by their own will only; making the happiness of Paradise worse than our present unhappiness, where man sinneth not but, being tempted either by Satan, or his own concupiscence, Jam. 1.14. For all the evil thoughts of our will are truly divided into 
* Immissas & ascendentes.  injected and ascending; and none of the ascending have been in the will before they were in the understanding, and nothing hath been in the understanding that hath not been in the senses. Besides, death was to be inflicted, not for the sin of the will only, or merely, but for the eating of the forbidden fruit.  
These or the like, or worse inconveniences, perhaps, made Scotus to  from Aquine, and more probably to defend, That upon triumph over their first temptation, every one of the children of innocent Adam had been confirmed in grace. We may not yield this, saith Estius. And it is not true, and there is no reason for it, and it little agreeth with the commination, In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die, Genes. 2.17, saith Gregory de Valentia. I answer, That the words In the day may prove, that they might not have been tempted the first or second day, or in a short time; but they hinder not, but upon overcoming of their first temptation, they might every day after have been confirmed. Again, the commination was not spoken to Adam, as an individual person, but to him as the Feoffee of mankind. If every one should have stood for himself and his posterity, what is Adam's sin more to me then cain's, or my last and immediate father's first actual sin, if neither Adam, nor any of his children had sinned before mine own father? But since we did fall, not personally in ourselves, not in our immediate parents, not in any but Adam, by the breach of that commination: so on the contrary, not by any other parents obedience, not by our own obedience, but by the obedience of that one man unto that one commination, we should have stood, yea have been confirmed. Thus have you mine opinion against Scotus, much more against Aquinas: and this is my reason. Naturally, by the blessing of ordinary generation, every creature was to beget its like according to kind: the branch was to partake of the virtue and nature of the root; and so, without Adam's representing us, he should have begot us in such an estate as he himself was, with a liberty to good and evil, with a power to fall or not fall. But as God's infinite wisdom chose him out, with express or tacit compact, that if he stood, all his posterity should live in him; and if he sinned, they should all die in him: it seemeth reasonable, that we should have had as much good by him, as we have had harm from him, and he being to have been confirmed in grace, upon the overcoming of the first suggestion, should have begot us his children, not voluble, deambulatory, and pendulous, but like himself confirmed in grace. For as the Angels were confirmed in grace, so soon as they had declared them-selves to adhere to God; (or else, when were they confirmed, or are they not confirmed yet? 
* Statim post unum actum charitate informatum Angelus beatus fuit. Aquin. part. 1. quaest. 62. art. 5.  Presently after one act informed with charity the Angels were blessed, saith Aquine) so should Adam have been confirmed presently, if he had powerfully adhered to God. Yea, I think if he had but at that first suggestion disliked Eves eating, or rather kept her and himself from consenting to the eating, that nor they, nor any of their posterity should ever have eaten of the forbidden fruit. But as it was placed at first in Paradise, to be their Shibboleths of trial, so ever after it should have continued as a Symbol only of their obedience. Again, by this my opinion, That all Adam's issue should have been confirmed in his confirmation, God's justice is defended from aspersions cast upon it, for damning some little children for the sin of Adam, which sin they did neither commit nor could avoid. And the fault of not avoiding it was no way arising from them; because they who can not avoid certain damnation by Adam, might also have received as certain salvation by him, without their own victory over any temptation; which could not be, unless by his confirmed innocency every one of his issue had been confirmed in grace. Anselmus cometh home to my thoughts, saying thus, 
* Anselm. lib. 1. Cur Deus homo. cap. 18.  The first men yielding to the temptation have subjected all mankind that was to be born of them, 
* Primi homines succumbentes temptationi, totum genus humanum ex ipsis nasciturum subjecerunt necessitati peccati. Quare si eam temptationem superâssents & ipsi statim illius victoriae merito fuissent in justitia confirmati, & idem confirmatae justitiae beneficium ad totam posteritatem transmisissent.  to the necessity of sin. Therefore if they had overcome that temptation, they had both themselves been presently confirmed in righteousness by the merit of that victory, and had also transmitted to the whole posterity the same benefit of confirmed righteousness. Estius answereth Anselm thus; The way is easier to the necessity of evil, then of good; as to incurable diseases, rather than to a stable health. I reply thus on Estius, That his instances are in decayed nature, which reach not to our point; That the way was equally alike at first to Adam; or rather easier to goodness, in which he was, then to sin in which he was not: yea, in this our present enfeebled estate, one habitually grounded in virtue shall find the passage over unto sin more difficult, perplexing, thorny, and laborious, than the continuing in goodness. Out of Scotus his doctrine let me observe three points. First, he confesseth 
* Omnes nati seruâssent justitiam, non quia non servare non potuissent.  All their children had kept their righteousness, not because they could not but keep it. So they could have sinned, but should not, in his opinion. But are not they confirmed, who though they could sinne, yet should not be suffered to sin? Secondly, this confirmation in grace, being a supernatural gift, had not been transfused by Adam, but superadded by God unto every one, as well as the gift of original justice and grace. I should have asked no more of Scotus, if he had said it should have been given to us of God, not for our personal vanquishing the first temptation, but for our obedience in Adam, according to Gods compact with him. Thirdly, confirmation in grace is of two sorts, one fitting to the state of a Comprehensor, or of supreme glorification. This confirmation at its height and in its excellence, nor Adam himself, if he had stood, nor his innocent issue should have had, till their terrene bodies had been translated into spiritual. The other confirmation agreeth with a Viator, which is not without a possibility of sin, but having infallible custody, that he shall not sinne mortally. This (saith Scotus, and the Scholium on him) Adam's innocent issue should have had. But could they, being confirmed, have sinned venially? Let me add two speculations more. First, God could not make a creature in which there should not sometime be a peccabilitie, since that is a property only of the Almighty. If that tying of God's hand seem harsh to any unconversant in the Schools, I mitigate it thus, by the like instance out of 
* Scal. Exercit. 249. in fine.  Scaliger, When unto any thing God by his infinite powerful perfection doth add perfection, he must at last surcease from bettering it, and come to a NIL VLTRA: for he can not make ENS ESSENTIA INFINITUM, a thing of infinite essence; for he should make another God. Which words you must not understand, as if we stinted Gods Almighty power, but rather thus, That God can always better any thing, even to infinity; but the creature and thing itself is not susceptible of that infinity; the imperfection resting not in God, but in the creature. To that effect Scaliger: and it may be aptly applied to the making of a creature simply impeccable. Secondly, God did make Adam with a full freewill, and a power to sin or not to sin. Our will was in his, and, without offence to the Schools, as in him we were in a sort and in one kind Viatores, before his fall; so if he had stood, we had been, as he himself should, in a lesser degree, Comprehensores. For though Aquine maketh but simply singly one confirmation in grace, yet Scotus maketh a twofold confirmation: and though Scotus saith, Viator & Comprehensor distinguuntur, sicut esse circa terminum & esse in termino; yet there is a just distinction between Esse in termino completè, & esse in termino incompleté. Christ in some sense may be said to have been both Viator and Comprehensor. If Adam had been confirmed ere he fell, he had been in some degree Comprehensor: so had we; and yet both he and we should have been in some sort Viatores in termino incompleto, as not having obtained life unchangeable, and bodies spiritual, which was to be the compleatorie perfection of humane bliss. More arguments might I use, but they may be gathered in the answers unto the objections before cited.  
And first, the great S. Augustine hath many observable passages to this point. First, That only Adam was made of earth: that this gradation is not required, namely; that he should be first created a child, then become a youth, than a man, De Genes. ad literam 6.13. And in the Chapter following, 
* Creditur factus Adam virili aetate, sine ullo progr●ssu incrementorum.  Adam is thought to have been made in man's age, without any growth or further increase. And more resolvedly, De peccatorum Merit. & Remiss. 2.27. 
* Quod pertinet ad corporis quantitatem, Adam non factus est p●rvulus, sed perfectâ mole membrorum.  As for the quantity of body, Adam was not made little, but of a perfect bigness of members. Secondly, in the last cited place Augustine maketh this Quaere, If Adam and Eve had not sinned, Whether their young children should have been able to go, speak, or the like? And he answereth, Perhaps it was necessaric they should be born little, according to the capacity of the womb: but as God made Eve no little woman of a little rib, so the omnipotent Creator might have made their little children newly born, presently to be great: Even many beasts, a while after they are born, run and follow after their dams; much more might he have done for men, and given them even present use of their members. Thirdly, though Lombard rather inclineth to them who say, that the newborn children of innocent Adam should have grown by degrees, and not have been presently able to exercise their limbs: though accordingly he inclineth to them, who think that those innocent infants upon their birth should have had little sense or understanding, but by time should acquire proficiency and perfection; yet I rather imagine, they should presently upon their birth have had perfect use of body and mind, (though I deny not experimental augmentations) both because there is a nearer resemblance unto Adam, who was so created, and a further distance & dissimilitude from the estate of our corrupted nature, which creepeth sensim, pedetentim, & gradatim, by little and little, and is incompetent to the perfection of innocence. Yea Estius himself fighteth against Lombard's discourse, and saith, Innocent Adam's children should have had use of reason from their very nativity, and perhaps even in their mother's womb should have had some small knowledge of God: and confirmeth his opinion by Augustine De peccat. Merit. & Remiss. lib. 1. Cap. 36. & lib. 2. Cap. 29. and Confess. 1.7. and De Civit. 22.22. Where (saith he) Augustine speaketh not of an habitual knowledge only, but of the act and use of knowledge. Therefore if Augustine were not to be expounded, as he is by Halensis, of confirmation in obedience upon the first temptation; yet they will get little footing by that learned Father's authority, if they will weigh one place with an other, which are hereafter to be cited out of him; to which, that I may shorten this point, I refer you.  
I come now unto Estius, who had his first reason from Aquine & Scotus. Adam & Eve (say they) had not begotten children in a better condition than themselves were created by God; therefore they should have begot just children, but not confirmed in grace. First, I answer, that though God made all things very good at the creation, yet he might after (if he would) and may yet (if he will) make things better than they were at the creation. Secondly, 
* Stapl. De Peccato Originali lib. 1. cap. 15.  Stapleton quoteth this from Augustine, 
* Primus homo laetiorem, nos potentiorem gratiam accepimus.  The first man did receive a more pleasant grace, we a more powerful. Neither doth Whitaker dislike this, though he confute much of that Chap. of Stapleton: Now, if we in this forlorn estate have more powerful grace than Adam, why not in that estate? Thirdly, though the children of innocent Adam might have more grace intensively then he, yet Adam had had more extensively: for his righteousness had benefitted the whole World, theirs had redounded but to their own persons. Fourthly, let us take a more distinct view of their several gifts. Adam receiveth original justice, to stand (if he would) for himself and the whole World: his issue receive by his standing this grace more than he had at first, (though he had it before he begot them) that they cannot fall by themselves as he might. As for this, that their children should not fall, but that all their generation should have been confirmed in grace, it proceedeth not from their immediate parents, but from Adam as the root. Now then, weigh in a balance these two graces together (which the Schoolmen neglected) certainly the grace given unto Adam was (all things considered) more powerful, more abundant. As if God should give, in present possession, unto one man enough of worldly wealth, to serve sufficiently, yea abundantly for himself and his seed for ever, if he would husband it well. Secondly, if after this God should superadd unto his son, this gift more than he gave unto the father at first, namely, this grace, that he should not have power to diminish this wealth, for so much as concerned his own person; which of these two, the father or the son, had the greater gift? I doubt not but Calculator would hold, that the father had. Again, if Adam had begot children beforeever he had seen the tree of good and evil, as was possible, he had begot children as himself was created, just, but unconfirmed. The conclusion of 
* Aquin part. 1. quaest. 100 art. 2. In corpore articuli.  Aquine, or extracted out of Aquine, is unworthy of him, and so are his own words, 
* Parents quandiu generâssent, non fuissent confirmati in just it jam: ex hoc enim creatura rationalis in justitia confirmatur, quòd efficitur beata per apertam Dei visionem.  So long as the parents had begotten, they had not been confirmed in justice: for hence is a reasonable creature confirmed in justice, that it is made happy by the open sight of God. I answer, that the beatifical vision is the compliment, perfection, and boundary of all confirmation in justice: but there may be a kind of confirmation in justice without the beatifical, present, apert vision of God, or such as shall be in the state glorified. For since Aquine there confesseth, That the thrice holy Mother of our Holiest All-holy Saviour might by especial privilege generate, and yet enjoy the apert vision of God, I see not why Adam and Eve continuing innocent might not do the like, or beget children confirmed in grace, and yet generate; which he denieth. Because the supposed privilege of the All-gracious Virgin doth not derogate from the glory of our most blessed Redeemer, I will not contradict it; though it maketh her more perfect than God made Adam and Eve in their integrity. 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? Read 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 blessedness, but by the merit of their freewill; 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 actual freewill. Man was unlike to them therein; Adam's actual consent for us, stood exactly for the actual consent of each Angel; for no Angel fell in Lucifer, as we did in Adam. But to the second branch of his argument, I confess with Aquine, 
* Anim a hominis & Angelussimiliter ad bea titudin●m ordinantur.  The soul of man and an Angel are alike ordained to blessedness. The way was necessary before the goal, the means before the end. But I must add, 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 taskmaster, and man a mere journy-man; yet much was given to him who deserved little; even for one only, and the easiest hours work. So might God have done to us for his promise unto Adam's 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 happiness; 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 sin; which is more than 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 goodness; not that they should have had that plenitude of comprehension which is to be enjoyed after the general 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 only, but not beatissimus. The same Scotus further reasoneth thus: 
The grace confirmed by the Merit of Christ in Baptism, or other Sacraments confirm not the receiver;  
Therefore much less should any Merit of any parent or child have confirmed us in justice.   
I answer, The confirmation had rather been from God's 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 glory; where we shall have more comfort, delight, and good by Christ, than 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 lose the argument from S. Gregory, because it engendereth more questions, when this is too copiously handled already.  
Anselm speaketh home for me, if ever man spoke; Aquinas saith, He did it opining, not affirming: Yet he saw the reason which induced Anselm to that Assertion. Scotus also slubbereth over the authority 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 virtue then evil. But (say I) for the sin of the first man came a necessity of sinning upon all his children; Therefore if he had stood, there should have been a necessity of not sinning. Scotus answereth in the first place, as if Dionysius were to be understood of a great Evil, and a little Good, which plainly 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 Adam's sin was not cause of our confirmation in evil. I reply, we are so necessitated by our nature, that of ourselves and from ourselves we can not return to justice. We are obstinate and confirmed in evil, in regard of our own disabilities; though not confirmed in evil, nor obstinate, if we consider the powerful mercy of God. And this is enough to make the argument hold good. There should have been a necessity of not sinning of our part; otherwise, Evil should have been more powerful than Good, which is the contradictory to Dionysius. For we can not but sin of ourselves, 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 Angelical 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 than 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 yields himself captive to the force of this reason, save only that he opineth, That every one of Adam's children should, as well as Adam, have been confirmed in grace, upon their actual overcoming of the first temptation suggested unto them; whereas I maintain, That Adam's representation of us, and his obedience, should have done us equal good, to our resisting of the first temptation.  
More might pertinently be said of this matter: but besides the precedent tediousness of it, Ludovicus Vives aurem vellit, endeavouring to restrain such speculations to modest bounds. Thus he saith on Augustine De Civit. 13.1. Of things which might, or might not have happened to man, if Adam had not fallen; 
* Quid factum sit, magno nostro malo, nemo ignorat; quid fuisset, nescio an ipsi Adam ostensum fuit; quantò minùs nobis miselliss? Nam quid prodest uti conjecturis, in re quae conjecturas omnes superat humanas?  What fell out, to our great harm, no man is ignorant of: what should have befallen, I know not whether it was revealed to Adam himself; how much less to us poor wretches? For what availeth it to use conjectures, in a thing which is above all humane conjectures? But Vives himself is to blame. First, for his nesciency, or timorousness; as if Adam knew not, what estate he and his should have had, if he had persevered in innocency. The ignorance of a point so nearly concerning him, had argued imperfection; which the fullness of knowledge, in which he was created, did clearly dispel. For if God said to the corrupted World, Deut. 30.19. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you Life and Death, could uncorrupt Adam be ignorant of the life that was set before him? Or did Adam understand the miseries and punishments, the orts and effects of Morte Morieris, expressly threatened against him, in a future contingent estate; and could he be ignorant of his present condition of bliss, and certain bliss to be increased upon his obedience? Did he know the natures of beasts, and other creatures; could he know the strange production of Eve, could he prophetically intimate the strict union of Christ with his Church, by his own conjunction with Eve; and was it not showed unto him, what state he should have had, and we in him? Secondly, though these things be taxed of nicety, yet the impartial Reader, overviewing this Book, perhaps will say, It was profitable and delightful to problematize even upon this very point. But other matters invite me hence forward to them; and therefore having cleared, That it was the sin of Adam, of only Adam, and not of Eve, for which Death was appointed, Let us proceed to examine, Which and what this sin of Adam was; which is next and necessarily to be handled.  
O Most glorious Creator, who didst make us in the First Adam excellent Creatures, and wouldst have made us better, if he who undertook for us, had not brought upon us death and destruction; Grant, I beseech thee, for thy mercy's sake, in the Merit and Mediation of the Second Adam, Jesus Christ our only Saviour, That we may recover our lost Image, and be made like unto him here, and reign in Life with him hereafter.   

CHAP. FOUR  
1. Adam's perfection in Innocence. Our imperfection after his fall, contrary to his, both in understanding and will, and in the parts concupiscible and irascible.  
2. Adam had other laws given him: but one above all, and one only concerning posterity.  
3. What this Law was. Adam knew the danger to himself and his of spring. The first sin was against this Law.  
4. Eve sinned before. How she sinned the same, and not the same sin with Adam.  
5. Zeno, the Stoics, and Jovinian confuted. Sins are not equally sinful.  
6 Adam sinned fare more and worse then Eve.  
7 This sin of Adam was not uxoriousness, as Scotus maintained, but disobedience or pride. The branches of Adam's sin.  
1 LOmbard saith, 
* Quibusdam videtur quòd Adam ante lapsum non habuerit virtutem. Lomb. Sent 2. dist. 29. lit. B.  Some are of opinion that Adam before the fall had no virtue. He had not justice (say they) because he despised God's commandment; nor prudence, because he provided not for himself; nor temperance, for his appetite extended to the forbidden fruit; nor fortitude, for he yielded to suggestion. We answer, saith Lombard, He had not these virtues when he sinned, but before, and in sinning loosed them. For Augustine in a certain Homily saith, Adam was made according to the Image of God, armed with shamefastness, composed with temperance, splendent with charity. Otherwhere he saith, Adam was endued with a spiritual mind. Ambrose saith, 
* Beatissimus erat, & auram carpebat aetheream.  He was most happy, and led an heavenly life; and addeth a good observation, 
* Quando Adam solus erat, non est praevaricatus.  When Adam was alone, he transgressed not. Which may teach us to fear the enticements of company. This point deserveth not to be so speedily cast off: and therefore attend this further enlargement.  
Many, very many precepts were graven in the heart of Adam, and every branch of the natural Law was there written by the finger of God, at his Creation; nor was he ignorant, what was to be done or omitted in any business. Eccl. 17.1. The Lord created man of the earth: and verse 2. he changeth the singular into the plural, He gave them power over the things therein: and verse 3. He endued them with strength by themselves, and made them according to his image: And then followeth an excellent description of their gifts. I conceive, and explain the matter thus: Four faculties he had, and we have of our souls, 

Two superior.  
Two inferior.   The two superior are understanding and will; The two inferior, the part irascible and part concupiscible. First, the object of his understanding was truth, the perfection of it was knowledge: but now, as we are in the state decayed, this truth is darkened with ignorance, 1 Corinth. 2.14. The natural man receiveth not, nor can know the things of the Spirit of God. Eph. 4.18. Their understanding is darkened, and their hearts are blind. Psal. 49.20. Man in honour understandeth not. As Adam was in innocence, he was partaker of the truth. The Apostle, Ephes. 4.23, 24. saith, Be renewed in the spirit of your mind. New we were once in Adam, and in him also we grew old: we are commanded to be renewed as new as once we were; and put on that new man, which was created in righteousness and holiness of truth; therefore the first Adam was created in truth. You have the object, Truth; the perfection was Knowledge, Ecclesiasticus 17.7. God filled them with knowledge and understanding: and this is seconded by the Apostle, Colos. 3.10. The new man is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him. Renovation necessarily implieth precedent oldness; and oldness, precedent newness of knowledge in the first Adam. Secondly, the object of man's will, was, and is, Goodness; the perfection, Love. In the decayed estate the will is infected with vanity, Genes. 6.5. Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Ephes. 4.17. We walk in the vanity of our mind. In the state of integrity it was fare otherwise: Adam was new in his mind, and holy and righteous, as was proved before: in which regard 
* Chrys. Hom. 16. in Gen.  Chrysostom saith, Adam was a terrestrial Angel. 
* Bas. Homil. Quòd Deus non sit author malorum.  Basil reckoneth up, as Adam's chief good in Paradise, His sitting with God, and conjunction by love. As all things else, so Adam's will was good, and tended unto good; there is the object: his love in innocence was entire, and united to God; there was his perfection. Thirdly, the object of his, and our part concupiscible, is moderate delight: the perfection and felicity of it, was contentment. As now, this part is gauled with insatiable itchings, and given over to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness, Ephes. 4.19. But at the first Adam was free. Augustine saith, 
* Gratia Dei ibi magna er●t, ubi terrenum & animale corpus bes●ialem libidinem non habebat.  There the grace of God was great, where an earthy and sensual body had no beastly lust. The place he was in, was a Paradise of pleasure, a garden of delight; nothing was wanting which might give true content. Fourthly, the object of his and our irascible part may in a sort be called Difficulty, or rather Constancy; whose glory of endeavours, end, and felicity, was Victory. This part now is much weakened with infirmity. In the best of us, the Flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and (alas!) we are often vanquished, as being weak by nature: But Adam was strong, and could have overcome any temptation. Augustine saith, 
* Felice's erant primi homines, nullis agitabantur perturbatio, ibus animorum, nullis corporis laedebantur incommodis. De Civit. 14.10.  Our first parents were happy, being neither shaken with any trouble of mind, nor hurt with any infirmity of body. 
* Adam non opus habebat eo adjutorio quod implorant isti, cùm dicunt, Video aliam legem in membris meis, etc. Lib. De Corrept. & Gratia.  Adam had no need of that help which these crave, when they say, I see another law in my members, etc. Yea he is more bold there, saying, 
* Adam in illis bonis, in quibus creatus est Christ morte non ●guit. Ibid.  Adam in those good things wherein he was created, had no need of Christ's death. He had, with liberty and will, grace sufficient, whereby he might have triumphed over all difficulties and temptations. Augustine thus, 
* In Paradiso etiamsi omnia non poterat Adam ante peccatum, quicquid tum non poterat non volebat, & ideo poterat omnia quae volebat. De Civit. 14.15.  In Paradise before sin although Adam could not do all things, yet he then would not do whatsoever he could not, and therefore could do all that he would. Adam having these excellent endowments of nature and grace, had also necessarily certain objects, about which they should be conversant. These objects were, all the parts, and branches of the Law of nature, whereby he fully knew his duty. And all and every one of these he did for a while, or at the least not break: and he and his posterity should, and aught to fulfil, as they were private persons: and for the performance and non-performance thereof, both he and we should, and shall answer unto God, at the high Throne and Tribunal of the just and righteous Judge.  
2. But there was one precept, and only one, given to Eve, (perhaps to all Adam's posterity, as private persons: who, if they had eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, can not be imagined, that they could have ruinated all mankind:) but commanded to Adam only, as the public person, as the Idea of humane nature, as the stock and root, by whose obedience or disobedience all mankind was to be happy or unhappy, as the figure of Christ to come. And this sin was not to be a sin of thought only, as the sin of the Angels, who each of them sinned by his own expressed will; but such a sin, as might bring a deserved blot, and punishment upon all his posterity, who were in him: which could not be, unless it had been committed both by his soul and his body, and thereby had power to infect all the parts, and faculties both of souls and bodies. Again, the body of Adam could not sin without the soul, neither could this be a sin of the soul alone, without some concurrents of the bodily parts; for than Adam's sinning soul should have been damned, and his innocent body saved: but it was to be a sin compounded of inward aversion and outward transgression. So that if Adam had seen Eve eat, and had himself lusted after the fruit, and yet before the oral manducation had disliked his liking, had feared the punishment, and not proceeded to eat of it, or touch it, I do not think his posterity had been engaged, as they are. Augustine citeth this out of S. Ambrose, and approveth it, 
* Si anima Adami appetentiam corporis refranâsset in ipso ortu, extincta esset origo peccati. Cont. Julian. Pelag. lib. 2.  If Adam's soul had bridled the bodily appetite in the very beginning, the original of sin had been quenched.  
Catharinus thinketh there was an express covenant between God and Adam, that Adam and his posterity should be blessed or cursed, according to the breaking or keeping of that one law. What Catharinus saith is probable, and may be most true, though it be not so written. For first, if the prohibition had concerned Adam's person only, since the precept was given before Eve was created, Adam only should have tasted of death, and not Eve. Secondly, questionless that law and covenant included posterity, as is verified in the event. When Morte Morieris was threatened unto Adam, he was then Rectus in Curia, and stood as a public person, representing all his branches. If it concerned him, as a private person, he only should personally have died, and we escaped: but our dying in him evinceth, that he was reputed (if I may so say) a general, universal feoffee or person, to whose freewill the happy or unhappy future estate of all his descendants was entrusted; conditionally, to live for ever, upon the observance of one law; or to die the death, for the breach of it. Life and death was propounded, 
† Non uni, sed universitati.  Not to one man, but to all mankind.  
3. And this law is registered, and recorded, Genes. 2.17. Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Which words I verily believe that Adam understood (either by his natural wisdom, which was very great, or by divine conference or revelation, which to him was not unfrequent) to involve his posterity as well as himself. For if immediately upon the creation of woman, Adam could foresee and prophesy, Genes. 2.24. That a man shall leave 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 mystery explained by S. Paul, Ephes. 5.31, etc. (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, etc. these words are the words of God, of the Creator; as all light is from the Sun, so all truth from God; as on the contrary, all lies are from the Devil) 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 bliss of all mankind, and the contempt thereof would draw on the destruction of his posterity. And (I think) I shall not err, if I collect from the correlative correspondency, 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 mankind, as the second Adam knew that his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or obedience, was a sufficient redemption for the sins of all the World. Durand foolishly presupposeth, that the will of Adam sinning was ours only concomitatiuè & interpretatiuè, because we lost original 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 actual intention, yet he did it with a virtual 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 sons 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 witty 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 happy? and so he was in Paradise, yet not happy. If he did not foreknow his fall; then by this ignorance he was either uncertain of that blessedness; 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 sin; for there was no necessity laid upon them; and to know the unalterable certainty of a thing contingent (as their future estate was) is to take away the nature of its contingency, and to make it unavoidable. But for all this ignorance, they were certain enough of blessedness, if they would themselves; and their wills and persons were in Paradise blessed, though changeable, though not so wholly 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 blessedness; the very blessed Spirits of heaven shall not be said to be blessed, especially if they be compared with God, who only is blessed. And so Adam and Eve were beati modo quodam inferiori, non tamen nullo, that I answer in Augustine's 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 sin; and yet for all this, they had the grace given to stand, if they would, and so to avoid both sin and punishment; and withal 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 happy in Paradise, yet, as they were in Paradise, they were happy, 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 Spiritual, Galat. 6.1, though they were in their bodies to pass through both temptations and tribulations, and can not diverse 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 rejoiced, saith Augustine himself, for the reward to come, that he endured no tribulation for the present. Lastly, to S. Augustine's 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 error. The second is ignorantia privationis, when a man knoweth not what he is bound to know: neither of these can consist with blessedness, 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 sinful, nor erroneous, not making either imaginarily happy, or foolish.  
This great law, in Tertullians' phrase is styled 
* 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 Adam's first sin only maketh us culpable. 
† Chrys. in Ephes. 6.  Chrysostom calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The first sin. Augustin saith that 
* Prima duntaxat Adae transgressio transit in posteros, quia illo primo peccato universa naturae corrupta est. Cont. Julian. 3.6.  Only the first transgression of Adam is passed upon the posterity, because the whole nature is corrupted by that first sin. Therefore when a child is born, he hath original sin, 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 mankind or humane nature, not because he descended from his immediate or mediate parents, not because they came from Eve, not only because he was in the loins of Adam, of sinning or sinful 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 primary 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 Bonun apparens, did little imagine to work so much mischief. Had she known that her husbands yielding should necessarily and infallibly bring forth death to him and all his posterity, and after that have offered him the forbidden fruit, she had been full of deceit, and her intentions had been stained with the just aspersion of seducement. But she might think her sin was little or none, and persuade herself she should not die, and relate that persuasion to her husband; or think only of God's mercy, who had never tasted of his judgements. And, perhaps, he seeing that she had touched the fruit, and was not dead, sunk under her enticements, and did eat. Before I part with this point, two questions more must needs be answered. First, Whether Eve sinned the same sin with Adam? Secondly, Whether of their sins were the greatest? Concerning the first, I answer, In regard that both of them knew, that to eat of the forbidden fruit was unlawful and displeasing to God, and yet did eat, they sinned the same sin: but as the commandment was given to Adam before Eves creation, as Adam was the root of mankind, and as his posterity was to stand or fall in him only, and not in Eve, so she sinned not the same sin with Adam. She sinned the same sin, in respect of the outward eating, not in regard of the inward obligation: She sinned the same sin in see, so much as concerned her own person; she sinned not the same sin extensiuè erga alios. For as her good actions, considered by themselves, should not have been the rule or square according to which our humane natures should have been framed; (but for all her uprightness, if Adam had sinned we had died) so her sin or sins, setting Adam apart, had not extended to the corruption or destruction of mankind.  
Though in innocence they did see much, yet they could then see no deformity: nay, though Eve had sinned, and sinned diverse sins before Adam sinned any; (for she believed the Serpent, distrusted God, fell to unlawful desires, and did eat) yet they were both blind: and neither Eve herself did consider her own faults, as she should, nor Adam Eves fault; but immediately so soon as Adam had eaten, Genes. 3.7. The eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. For their nakedness came by Adam's sin, and not by Eves; the same sin of hers and his was not the same: neither Adam, nor we, nor she herself by her sins were bare and naked of goodness, or had lost Bonum naturae, but only gratiae personalis: but when once he had sinned; he, she, and we were all naked, our nature's corrupt and to be ashamed of; and both of them knew it. Their eyes opened themselves; so Tremellius hath it, differing from the Hebrew and the Septuagint. The truth is, she sinned the same sin twice; for she ate first by herself, and then her eyes were not opened. Neither was she spoiled of original justice (saith Franciscus Aretinus) as it was gratia gratis data, nor did she feelthe motions of concupiscence, or knew her own nakedness, till Adam had sinned. For if she had been deprived of grace so soon as she sinned, she should have been ashamed of her nakedness; neither durst she to have gone naked to her husband, but for modesty would have sought some covering, or fled into corners. So fare Aretinus, or Cornelius à Lapide who citeth him. But after this her eating and this her sin, she cometh to her husband, and offereth him some to eat, and eateth with him the second time; and perchance began to eat the second time ere he ate once, and suffered him to see her eat. Sure I am, the Hebrew runneth thus, She did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat: but the 70 say of Eve first, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. where they are peremptory, that Adam and Eve, or rather Eve and Adam are both together. And Vatablus well expoundeth the SECUM, id est, ut unà cum ipsa ederet: and the proof is pertinent enough, though we do not read with the Septuagint, They did eat, but with the Hebrew, He did eat, namely, with her, or, after he had seen her eat. The sum is, she ate first, she ate again with him, she sinned the same sin. And further, though she sinned the same sin the third time, in his eating and by it, aswell as we did, who also were in him ratione principii; yet was it not her sin, but his sin that overthrew both him, her, and us: and in this sense we may truly say, she sinned not the same sin with Adam. So much for the first question. It cometh secondarily to be enquired, Whether adam's or Eves sin was the greater.  
5. To say that no sin is greater than other, is one of the grossest errors that have been. Me thinks a Stoic should be ashamed to say, that Nero, Heliogabalus, and the grand Epicure sinned not worse, than Cato the Utican, Aristides the Just, or Zeno the Cittien of Cyprus, the great upholder of their own sect: or that unmatchable Titus the Emperor, who lamented the day in which he did not good to some man, was no better than Timon the Man-hater. No other Philosophers ever joined hands with them in that folly. 
* Hoc de parilitate peccatorum soli Sioici ausi sunt disput are; nam sic fecerunt contra emnem sensam generis humani. Aug. Epist. 29. Ad Hieronymum.  This of the equality of sins, the Stoics only have dared to dispute; for they did so against all the sense, feeling, and opinion of mankind, saith S. Augustin. Yet Jovinian sided with them; but S. Hierom confuted him, 
* Quam corum vanitatem, in Joviniano illo, qui in hac sententia Stoicus erat, in au●upandis autem & defensand is voluptatibus Epicur●us, de Scriptures Sanct●● diiucidissimè convicisi●.  Which opinion of theirs in that Jovinian, who in this tenant was a Stoic, but in pursuing and defending pleasures an Epicure, out of the sacred Scriptures thou hast most clearly convinced, as S. Augustine in the same place testifieth of S. Hierom, to S. Hierom. The same in effect saith S. Hierom himself of himself, against Jovinian. 
* Nullam inter justum & justum, peccatorem & peccato em esse distantiam; veterémque Zenenis sententiam tam communi sensa quàm divinâ lectionecontrivim us Hieron. Cont. Jovin. lib. 2.  We have crushed both by common sense and by divine Scripture the error of Jovinian, who would prove that there is no difference between just and just, a sinner and a sinner; and also the old opinion of Zeno. And indeed, so he did in the same book, both by answering all Jovinians objections, and overlaying him with sound proofs. I omit whatsoever S. Hierom hath laboriously, acutely, and truly collected against the Stoical equality of sins, and against Jovinians wild inferences. Let him that thirsteth, have recourse to the fountain, in the said second book of S. Hierom against Jovinian: Fons vincet sitientem. Yet suffer me to cast my mite into the Treasury. First, Elencticè, upon the by, then Didacticè, on the main. Concerning the first; unto one of the witless positions of Jovinian, viz. 
* Omnia membra aequaliter diligimus, nec oculum praeponimus digite, nec digitum auriculae.  We love equally all our members, neither do we prefer the eye before the finger, nor the singer before the ear; by which he would infer a parilitie of sins, (besides what S. Hierom excellently answereth) I can not choose but oppose what Moses saith, Deuteron. 32.10. God kept the Israelites as the apple of his eye, it being more guarded with the double coverlids of skins and hairs, and more curiously than any other outward part: which proverbial similitude, being also taken up both by David, Psal. 17.8. and by the Prophet Zecharie 2.8. significantly intimateth, that one part of the body is more tender to us then any other. Neither needed there such exact retaliation as is required Exod. 21.24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, if all members were of like worth: for a tooth might have been plucked out for an eye, and the foot might have stood for the hand. Yea, whatsoever Jovinian opineth, or rather raveth, Dives being in torment had more regard to the cooling of his tongue, Luk. 16.24. then to the tip of his ear. Where sin is, there is punishment also, saith S. Chrysostom; and Dives his tongue spoke many proud things, saith he: and Dives was full of loquacity, as the Interlineary Gloss observeth even from his very speech to Abraham: and perchance his tongue was most tortured, as having been most delighted and addulced with his daily delicious fare. If any of Zeno or Jovinian his partisans will not believe, that one bodily member is better than an other, I could wish it might be beaten into them, and that they might endure sound raps or blows on their heads, which any other man, yea natural fools, by natural instinct would rather bear off upon the arms, as objecting unto danger the member of less worth, to save and defend the part more principal; which hourly experience ratifieth. I pass by all other his objections, because I have stood too long on this, and I come to the main Question, Whether all sins are equal. The answer is plainly negative. Reasons are these. First, diversity of sacrifices prove the inequality of offences, the greater offence being usually expiated with the most costly sacrifice. The sin of the Priest was, in the estimate of God, as the sin of the whole congregation, and the offering of his sin was a young bullock without blemish, Levit. 4.3. If a Magistrate sinned, he was to offer a kid of the goats, a male without blemish, vers. 23. If an ordinary man offended, a female served the turn, vers. 28. and 32. whether it were of goats or lambs. Where the best, greatest, and costliest of oblations doth not prove, that the estate, or the person of the Priest was better and more noble than the estate or person of the King, or supreme Civil Magistrate, (which the Papists impertinently would prove from thence) but the Priests greater sacrifice evinceth his sin to be greater, by reason of his greater knowledge. For the Priests lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth; for he is the Messenger of the Lord of hosts, Malachi 2.7. A second Reason may be this: Greater punishments, both criminal and capital, are ordained by the Law, for some people more than for others: But this can not be justly appointed, unless there be degrees of sin: Therefore sins are not equal. Concerning the Major, view it evinced in these instances: He that stealeth a man, shall die, Exod. 21.16. If he steal an ox, or a sheep, he shall restore five oxen for anox, and four sheep for a sheep, Exod. 22.1. He that kills a man unwillingly, shall be protected, Exod. 21.13. if willingly, the very Sanctuary, at the horns of the Altar, shall not save him; he shall die, vers. 14. The adultery of common people was punished with common death, Levit. 20.10. But the daughter of any Priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire, Levit. 21.9. that is, she shall be burnt alive. The Minor is proved, because God is just, and rewardeth every man according to his works, Revel. 22.12. Thirdly, the Scripture saith some are more wicked than others, Jerem. 3.11. The back-sliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. Aholibah was more corrupt in her inordinate love than Aholah, Ezek. 23.11. And some shall have sorer punishment than others Heb. 10.29. There is a sin remissible, & a sin irremissible, Matth. 12.31. Tyre and Sidon were more inclining to repentance, than Chorazin and Bethsaida, Matth. 11.21. Accordingly, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom, then for them, vers. 24. There are some sins of infirmity, some of presumption, and great transgressions, Psal. 19.13. Reward Babylon even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double, according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled, fill to her double. How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her, Revel. 18.6, 7. Not, double as much as she hath deserved; that were injustice; but, double as much as others drink of the wrath of God. The proselyte of the Pharisees is twofold more the child of hell than themselves, Matth. 23.15. and some shall receive greater damnation, vers. 14. Genes. 4.15. Vengeance shall be taken sevenfold on him who slayeth Cain: Not sevenfold more than such a deed as murder deserveth, but sevenfold more than is taken on some other men; perchance, sevenfold more than was taken on Cain himself. For though it be a greater sin to kill an innocent, than a bloud-guilty wretch or murderer; and more offensive to slay a brother then one of less kindred, or acquaintance, (which may seem to be the case between Cain and Abel on the one side, and Cain and his murderer on the other side) yet if we consider, that God after an especial manner forbade any man to kill Cain, that God ordained life as a punishment to Cain, that to kill Cain had been a courtesy, saith Hierom, that Cain was to live to be a terrifying example to all murderers. Lastly, if we remember, that to deter all men from the murder of Cain, God set a notorious mark upon him, such a oneas never any until this day had the like, by reason of the extraordinarines thereof; whether it were a brand or stamp in his forehead, or that the earth quaked under him wheresoever he went, or a preternatural and unusual shaking of his head, or dreadful tremors, or convulsions over all his body; of which the particular is as uncertain, as the general can not be doubted of, namely, that unto his terrors of conscience, and a vagrant unsettled mind, some outward evident mark was annexed, distinguishing him from other men, and in a sort forbidding any to murder him: I say, he that now should have killed Cain, might justly sevenfold deserve cain's punishment, and an other may rightfully incur punishment seventy times sevenfold, as it is, if not in truth, yet at the least in the swasive of Lamech to his wives, Genes. 4.24. There is a mote, and there is a beam, Matth. 7.3. This beam may be sawed into many boards or rafters; and there is no virtue nor vice but hath its latitude and degrees partaking of majus and minus. There are funiculi vanitatis, Esai. 5.18. cords of vanity. There are funes peccatorum, ropes of sins, Proverb. 5.22. And there are funes plaustri, as Vatablus rendereth it, according to the Hebrew, cart-ropes or vinculum plaustri, according to the Vulgat, the wain-rope, Esai 5.18. differencing sins, and being indebted to diverse kinds of punishments. Every sin causeth a blot on the soul: the greater sin, the greater blot. A frequent sinner is compared to a spotted leopard, Jerem. 13.23. and some notorious sinners are called spots in the abstract, Judas, vers. 12. More testimonies I could heap, but the point is cleared, and the enquiry, Wheter Adam or Eve sinned most, is yet unanswered.  
6. And here both ancient and modern Divines do much . 
* Chrys. Hom. 7. ad Pop. Ant.  Chrysostom saith expressly, Eve sinned more than Adam: and 
* In Rom. Homil. 25. in Morali.  elsewhere to this effect, Eve was more punished than Adam: but the punishment is answerable to the fault. Therefore her sin was greater. Rupert followeth him, 
* Triplicipoená mulier punitur, quia triplo majus peccatum fuit ejus quàm Adami. Rup. in Gen. lib. 3. cap. 22.  The woman is punished by a threefold punishment, because her sin was three times greater than Adam's. Hugo and Lombard, untruly supposing, that Eve only believed the Serpent's words promising them to be like unto God, do rather think Eve sinned most. The Shoolmen by troops follow them. Cajetan is dubious: commenting on Aquinas he would not differ from his Master, the great Summist, but condemneth the woman more than the man; yet expounding the third of Gensis, he brings five reasons to excuse Eve more than Adam. S. Aug. is by both sides, sometimes ascribing more fault to the man then to the woman, sometimes to the woman rather than to the man: and 
* De Gen. ad. lit. 11.35. & De Civit. 14 11.  twice he seemeth to hold, That they sinned equally. On the other side, 
* Ambr. De Instit. virgins cap. 4.  Ambrose saith, Adam's sin was greater. And again, 
* Eva magis mobilitate animi, quàm pravitate peccavit. Comment. in Luc. 4.38.  Eve sinned more by unstableness of mind then by perverseness. Isdore saith, 
* Gravius est de industria peccare, quo modo peccavit Adam, quàm ignorantiâ, quo modo peccavit Eva. Isid. De Summo Bono 2.17.  It is more heinous to sin of set purpose, as Adam; then out of ignorance, as Eve. This point needing to be distinguished upon, Aquine telleth us, The greatness of a sin is two ways considered; either exipsa specie peccati, from the especial kind of the sin, or according to the circumstances of place or person: and he resolveth thus; 
* Quantum adgenus peccati, utriusque peccatum aequale dicitur.  In regard of the kind of sin, the sin of them both is said to be equal. Pride was in both: but if we look ad speciem superbiae, Eve sinned more, for these three regards; She was more proud than the man: She not only sinned herself, but made her husband sin: Thirdly, Adam's sin was lessened by the love he bore unto his wife. Which last reason is grounded on the words of S. Augustine, 
* Adam non carnaliconcupiscentiâ victus, sed amicabili quâdam compulsus benevolentiâ, quâ plerunque fit ut offendatur Deus, nè offendatur amicus, peccavit. De Gen. ad lit. 12. ult.  Adam sinned not being overcome by carnal concupiscence, but being constrained by some friendly affection; by which it cometh often to pass that God is offended, lest a friend should be offended. Yea the same S. Augustine is cited thus, 
* Postquam mulier seducta manducavit, eíque dedit ut simul ederent, noluit eam contristari, quam credebat sine suo solatio contabescere, & à se alienatam omnino interire.  After the seduced woman had eaten, and had given him that they should eat together, he was loath to grieve her whom he thought ready to pine away without his comfort, and altogether to die being estranged from him. Lastly, Aquine saith, If we weigh the condition of both persons, the man's sin was greater, because he was perfecter than the woman. So Aquine 2.2. Quaest. 163. Art. 4.  
7. Scotus thus opineth, Because Adam was more circumspect, more noble, more strong to resist; therefore by accident his sin was more great: 
* Formaliter tamen, per se merè, & praecisè inse, peccatum Evae fuit gravius. Scotus in 2. Sent. dist. 27. quaest. 2.  Yet formally, in itself, and precisely, the sin of Eve was greater. But the learned Estius, on the same distinction, Paragraphe 7, thus, The greatness of sin cometh many ways; principally from the object and the end, then from the circumstances either of the person or the intent of him, or of the frequency of the act, or the greatness of harm that cometh by the sin, or of the ignorance or infirmity or industry of the person. If we lay adam's and Eves sin in the balance, respecting the object and the end, it weighed alike; both of them believed the Serpent, both would be like God, both ate of the fruit forbidden, both excused their faults: but weigh the circumstances (saith he) the man's sin was simply greater. First, he had more power to resist. Secondly, he dealt with a less subtle enemy, a simple woman; but she had to do with an evil Angel, of an higher nature than herself. Thirdly, he had the precept from God himself; she but from her husband. Fourthly, he was to be head over his wife, and not she over him; and he was to reduce her into the right way, when she strayed. Fifthly, his excuse cast part of the fault, as it were, upon God himself. Sixthly, indeed he was worse punished, and so saith Augustine truly. Seventhly, the better things are the worst in their corruption: The best wine turns to the sharpest vinegar, the best of government, a Monarchy, proves the worst, if it degenerate into a Tyranny. But the man exceeded the woman as well in naturals as in gratuitous. So fare in effect Estius.  
Bellarmine compareth their acts and per sons together, 
Bell. De Amis. Gratiae & Statu Peccati 3.9.  and concludeth, that both in regard of acts and persons, Eve sinned least, Adam worst. His observations are not only passable, but commendable, save in two things. First, that he makes the excusation of their sin, to be one act of the seven in Adam and Eves sin; when as in truth, their excuse was no part or branch of their first sin, but a distinct and several sin by itself. For having ended their first sin, they were ashamed, and had time to gather figleaves and sew them, and make themselves aprons, or things to gird about them: after this, they heard God speak, and hid themselves: after this, was their examination de facto, and their confession: after all this, gins Adam's excuse, Genes. 3.12. and Eves, vers. 13. The diversity of these several actions, and the distance of time interceding, show it was no part of their first sin to excuse themselves. An other especial sin it was, aggravating the former: and in this sin Adam sinned worst, as accusing God, indirectly, for giving such an helper to him as had hurt him. Who will see things more at large, let him consult with Estius and Bellarmine, unto whom, for the main, I do subscribe; though I make the last part, and act of Adam and Eves sin, to be their real oral manducation. The second scape of Bellarmine is, that whereas in true Divinity, the fall of mankind is a consequent of our first parent's transgression; Bellarmine makes it one of the seven acts of their sin, confounding the cause with the effect, and not sufficiently distinguishing the fault from the punishment. May I add these things: Out of the words of Scotus, I thus argue, Original justice was given to Adam, as to the worthier, abler, and wiser person; yea, it was so given, that if he lost it, he was to lose it for himself and his whole posterity. But it was not so given, or infeoffeed to Eve; therefore since he failed, when the trust of the whole World was reposed on him, his sin must needs be much more heinous than hers. If the first sinning Angel was the greatest delinquent, though none of the other Angels sinned in him, but each of himself, by his own proper will; then Adam certainly sinned worse, who bore our persons, and being the Refer, to whom our blessedness or cursedness was entrusted, drew us all into unhappiness. For the woman was but the incomplete principle of offending, saith Gorran: But by Adam's first sin we lost the good of nature, 
* Bonum naturae, quod erat per originem naturae traducendum. Aquin in Rom. 5. Lect. 3.  which was to be transmitted by the spring of nature, saith Aquine. By Adam's other transgressions the good of personal grace was diminished, and might be recovered, but the Natural good traducible could not be regained by any repentance. The greatness of Adam's sin appeared in that he might so easily have kept the precept, 
* Quanta erat iniquitas in peceando, ubi tanta eratnon peceandi facilitas! Aug. De Civit. 14.15.  How great iniquity was there in sinning, where such facility was of not sinning! saith Augustine. Indeed to eat of the apple seemeth a small matter to the carnal eyes of men, but in the least thing to be disobedient is not the least offence; for as to obey is better than sacrifice, so disobedience is as the sin of witchcraft, and transgression is wickedness and idolatry, 1 Sam. 15.22, 23. Naaman, who would have performed a greater matter, should much more willingly have been ruled by the Prophet in a trifle: it was the well-poised argument of his servants, 2. Kings 5.13. and his correspondent obedience was justly rewarded with health. But Adam, besides the smallness of the matter itself, erred grossly in the manner: for God did not appoint him any hard work, no laborious task to perform. Omission is of an easy and pliable nature: more facile it is for one not to wash a thousand times, then to wash once. Now, the precept unto Adam was inhibitive, merely of omission, negation, or preterition, easier to be kept then broken; and therefore to break it was a sin of an high hand, a presumptuous sin, which may be aggravated in him by this circumstance, that he received the restraint from God, which Eve did not. They who think otherwise of Adam's sin, do judge of it as the common people do of the fixed stars, who imagine them to be no greater than a candle. But if you truly take the height and breadth of Adam's sin, it will be found, as the stars in heaven, of greatness almost incredible; diverse of them, in their several stations, being greater than the whole earth. Perhaps one of the reasons, why the Apostle, Heb. 11. nameth not Adam among the old faithful Heroes, was this, because he committed a greater sin than any of them. For his offence hath been the cause of death, of sickness, of all punishments inflicted on men, in this life or in the life to come. Not Satan's temptation, not Eves seduction, but Adam's wilful disobedience cost the blood of the Son of God. And all the despighteous sins of mankind, wherewith the Father blessed for ever, the gracious Redeemer, and the sanctifying Spirit are grieved, and do as it were groan under, and at which the holy Angels are offended, and do in their sort mourn, proceed originally from that sin of Adam, and but for that had never been. Therefore was his offence greater than Eves. Moreover, God first summoned Adam, though Eve sinned first, and questioned Adam particularly for that sin, and not Eve, Genes. 3.9. and at the censure (perchance with an emphasis) God said unto Adam (which he did not unto Eve) Gen. 3.17. Thou hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded THEE, saying, THOU shalt not eat of it; and denounced more punishments against him then against Eve, and worse; and this among the rest, ratifying the former threatening, Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return; inflicting death on Adam, on Eve, on us for Adam's sin, and not for Eves. Lastly, the Spirit of God seemeth to derive the fault from Eve unto the Serpent, 2 Cor. 11.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in astutia sua: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in his craft, and her simplicity, he deceived her. Now let Scotus lessen Adam's offence as much as he can, let him say, 
* Esus ligni vetiti non fuit piccatum, nisi quia prohibitum.  The eating of the forbidden tree was no sin, but because it was forbidden; and he might well and lawfully have eaten of it, if he had not been forbidden; and he erred not against any natural law, but a law positive, and in a thing otherwise indifferent. I answer, The same and more excuses are for Eve. Again, in regard of its spreading infection, and the myriads of evils thence ensuing, & the blessed estate of many millions by him betrayed to the lake of fire and brimstone, which never shall be quenched, contrary to the trust to him concredited, I shall always think Adam's sin the worst of all sins that ever any one of mankind committed, not excepting the sin of Judas, or the sin against the Holy Ghost. For these hurt but few; and if they were worse intensively, they were not so bad extensively: and therefore I must account it one of Scotus his errors, when he saith, 
* Peccato Adae non debebatur maxima poena; imò si ipse damnatus fuisset pro illo peccato, non fuisset itá graviter punitus pro isto peccato, sicut multi alii.  The greatest punishment was not due to Adam's sin; yea, if he had been damned himself for that sin, he had not been so grievously punished for it as many others. The ancient Fathers did not so lightly prise the first sin of Adam. Augustine saith, 
* Tam leve praeceptum ad observandum, tam breve ad memoriâ retinendum, tantò majore injustitiâ violatum est, quantò faciliori possit observantiâ custodiri. De Civit. 14.12.  A Precept so light for keeping, so short for remembering, was broken by so much greater injustice, by how much more easily it might have been kept. And though Scotus holdeth, it did consist in immoderate love and friendship to his wife; yet I say, his uxoriousness was but a branch, a piece, a quarter, a rafter of that beam, a part, a member of that body of sin. 
* Tert. Cont. Martion. lib. 2.  Tertull. doubts not to call Adam's sin, Heresy, and Adam, a very rude Heretic. Ambrose on Rom. 5.14. 
* Peccatum Adae non longè est ab idololatria.  Adam's sin is not fare from idolatry. And in his 33. Epistle to his sister Marcellina, he finds infidelity in Adam, for not believing in God's word. Augustine in his Enchirid. chap. 45. imputes unto him Pride, & Sacrilege; for it was sacrilegious pride, to impropriate & usurp the fruit separated from common use. He was a murderer, destroying himself & all mankind: guilty he was of spiritual fornication committed with the Serpent. He may be further charged for felony, in stealing the fruit which was not his. Rupertus on Genes. 2.39. saith, Ingratitude was his first sin. He fell by covetousness, saith Augustine; for God could not suffice him; and having much more than he needed, yet he would need more than he had. Any one may blot him with curiosity, for seeking to know what did him hurt. His gluttony was manifest, in losing the reins to his beastly appetite. His want of natural affection toward his posterity by him decaying, is justly . Brentius hath one newfangle on John 8; That Adam's sin was rebellion or defection, because he would not be subject to Christ. He might rather have accused him for contempt of his Creator, for his folly in venturing the loss of heaven for an apple, for his credulity in believing Satan before God. The Apostle chargeth him with disobedience, Rom. 5.19. Bellarmine saith, 
* Actu primus superbiae est, ●olle subjici imperio & praeceptis alterius, quae proprie dicitur i●nbedientia. Bell. De Amiss. Gratiae 3.4.  The first act of pride is to refuse to be subject to the command and precepts of another, which properly is called disobedience: as contrarily, the first of humility is to be subject to another. But Scotus doth better set down the order of the acts of our will: 
* Est in communi duplex actus voluntatis, VELLE & NOLLE— & omne nolle praesupponit aliquod velle— & nullum nolle est primus actus deordinatus voluntatis, quia non posset habere nolle, nist respectu, vel in virtute alicujus velle. Scot i●● 2. Sent. dist. 6. quaest. 2.  There is commonly a double act of the will, LIKING and DISLIKING;— and every disliking presupposeth some liking:— and no disliking is the first inordinate act of the will, because it could not have a disliking, but in regard or by virtue of some liking. In this I prefer Scotus before Bellarmine and Estius, because the first act of pride or disobedience is self-complacencie, from whence issueth the dislike, or noll. of subjection; as in humility, the first act is Velle placere alteri, whence ariseth the groundwork of obedience. Secondly, Augustine saith, 
* In occulto mali esse coeperunt. Aug. De Civit. 14.13.  They began in secret to be evil: the ill will preceded the ill work; self-love was the bait; the Devil could not have caught Adam, 
* Nisi jam illo sibi placere coepisset.  unless he had begun already to be self pleased: they were tickled with those words, YE SHALLBE LIKE GOD'S Gen. 3.5 From whence I marvel Bellarmine observed not, that Velle sibi placere is the first step of pride, and therefore the Nolle subjici is the second act, or act concomitant. Thirdly, 
* Bellarm, ibid. cap. 5.  Bellarmine himself interfeering saith, The pride of our parents began not from this act, I WILL NOT BE UNDER THE POWER OF GOD, but after the hearing of these words, YE SHALL BE LIKE GOD'S, they began to consider within themselves, it was a goodly thing not to depend of an other; and at the same time they began to be delighted with their own power, and to desire it, and vehemently to please themselves. Here he maketh three or four acts to begin together, and maketh some ill act or acts precede this, I will not be under the power of God. Lastly, 
* Bell. De Amiss. Gratiae 3.9.  Bellarmine hath it thus, 
* Primus actus malus in peccato viri superbia fuit, quâ in sua potiùs essc, quàm in Dei potestate dilexit.  The first ill act in the sin of the man was pride, by which he loved to be in his own power rather than in Gods. And he citeth Augustine in Enchirid. chap. 45. Therefore the beginning of Adam's iniquity consisted in a VELLE, rather than in a NOLLE. Now, though Scotus his Discourse and Philosophy sideth thus fare with truth, that an evil Nolle necessarily presupposeth an evil Velle, (which is expressly against the opinion of Bellarmine and Estius) yet it crawleth on lamely towards 
* Scot Dist. 22.  Scotus his conclusion, That Adam did first sin in inordinate love of friendship towards his wife for I will place in Adam another Velle, a former Velle, a malum Velle, and a pejus Velle before his uxoriousness. Augustine in his 21 Sermon upon Psal. 118. (which we account the 119 Psal.) saith thus, 
* Quòd homo suu● esse voluit, id est inobedientiae primum & maximum malum.  That man would be his own, that is the first and greatest evil of disobedience. And 
* De Civit. 14.13. & d● Gen. ad lit. 8.14.  elsewhere he takes pride and disobedience for all one. Again, 
* Homo clatus superbiâ, suasioni Serpentis obediens praecepta Dei contempsit. Ep. st. Ad Orosium.  Manbeing lift up with pride, obeying the persuasion of the Serpent despised God's precepts. And, 
* Praecedit in voluntate hominis appetitus quidam propriae potestatis, ut fiat inobediens per superbiam. De peccat. Meri●. & Rem. 2.19.  In the will of man there goes before some desire of his own power, to be made disobedient through pride. Eves pride, out of doubt, arose from those words, Genes. 3.5. Your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as Gods. Where the hint was given to the Velle, before the Nolle; and the first motion was to the unlawful love of himself. Now, what the Serpent said to Eve, questionless she related to Adam. And her pride also might first arise from the said fountain: and his uxoriousness followed thereupon; and the immoderate love of himself was before the immoderate love unto his wife. I say questionless, because it is both true in itself, and others yield unto it, and 
* Aug. De Gen. ad ●t. 11.34.  S. Augustine observeth it, What Adam received from God, he told to Eve; what Eve heard from Satan, she told to Adam. To conclude, 
* De Civit. 14.13.  Augustine saith, Adam and Eve were first turned from God to please themselves, and thence and after that to grow cold and dull; that she either believed the Serpent, or he preferred his wives will before the will of God. Where he maketh both adam's and Eves sin to be the same inordinate love to themselves; and this is against Scotus. Prosper in the 358 Sentence, picked out of Augustine, saith, concerning Adam, 
* Primum animae rationalis vitium est, voluntas ea faciendi quae vetat summa & intima veritas.  The first vice of the reasonable soul is the will of doing those things which the supreme and most intimate truth forbids. Neither hath Scotus his argutation, rather than argumentation, his usual subtlety in it. 
* Duplexest Velle: aut est Velle aliquid amore amicitiae, qui est propter se, vel propter amatum; velamore commodi, qui est propter aliud. Primum peccatum Adae non fuit ex immoderato amore sui, sicut fuit primum peccatum Angeli, nec potuit esse; quia Angelus intelligit seprimò, per suam essentiam; & homo intelligit alia priùs quàm se.  There is a twofold will: either that will by which one desires a thing with the love of friendship, which is for himself or for the thing loved; or that will by which one desires a thing with the love of profit, which is for another. The first sin of Adam was not out of an immoderate love of himself, as the first sin of Angels, neither could be; because the Angels know themselves first, by their own essence; but man knows other things before himself. For did not Adam know himself ere he knew Eve or Angels? or hath it any necessary consequence, if he knew her first, that therefore he must love her content first, rather than please himself? Yea, if he had a desire to please her, might not this arise out of a desire to please himself? Lastly, did the Angels and Eve sin out of an immoderate desire of love toward themselves? Then how saith Scotus, that Adam's first sin neither was, nor could be an immoderate and inordinate love of himself? What was in Eve, could and might have been and was in Adam. The discourse of Aquinas in this point seems more agreeable to Scripture, and Fathers, then that of Scotus. And this it is. That unto one sin many motions do concur, amongst which that is to be accounted the first sin, in which first of all, inordination, deviation, disorder, or aberration from the Law is found. Now it is apparent, that exorbitancy or deordination is sooner in the inward motion of the soul, than it is in the body; and among the interior motions of the soul, the appetite is first moved toward the end itself, then toward the means leading toward the end: and therefore there was the first sin of Adam, where was the first desire of an unlawful and disordered end. The sum is, Man desired a illicit seeming spiritual good; namely, to subsist of himself, as God doth. Which first act or motion of pride, or inward disobedience, being all one with the first inclination to break the Law of God and to eat the forbidden fruit, and being accompanied with that chain of other evil motions & actions before mentioned, was consummated by the outward disobedience in the oral eating the food inhibited. And the time was so short between the sinful motus primo-primus in the soul, and the various continued difformity of other ebullitions, which were coherent and bound up in that unhappy knot of outward disobedience, that we may safely say, it was one sin aggregatiuè; and every particular evil thought, act, or motion, from his farewell given unto innocency, unto his plain down-fall; from the last of his inward obedience, unto his first outward disobedience, complete and ended, was a parcel or branch of that one great sin which was against that Law divine, Genes. 2.17. As our Saviour saith, Matth. 5.28. Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart: So, so soon as ever Adam looked on the apple to lust after it, the first inward motion, tending to this lust of pride or disobedience, was averse from the Law, though the external trespass made the sin to be full, and the breach to be palpable and evident. And as it is but one consummate adultery, though diverse evil thoughts, & multae morosae cogitationes, many wild motions concur unto it: so may Adam's sin be said to be but one, though consisting of diverse parts and branches, from the primative spiritual inclination of aversion, to the hindmost bodily formality, or consummation of his disobedience. 
Est. Dist. 22 Paragr. 1.  Estius hath these arguments, to evidence that pride (which is unseparably annexed to disobedience) was the first sin of man. First, our parents, Adam and Eve, were first tempted with the sin of pride, by these words, Ye shall be like Gods; therefore by that they fell first. Secondly, the Devil would draw man to perdition, by the same sin by which he fell: But he fell by pride, 1 Tim. 3.6. Lastly, Christ by humility and obedience recovered us; therefore Adam by pride and disobedience hurt us. And this is Augustine's reason, De Civit. 14.13. If any man desire more curiosities trenching upon this point, let him consult with Doctor Estius, in the place above cited, who hath handled such things apertissimè & satiatissimè, most plainly and fully, as Augustine said of Ambrose, against Julian the Pelagian.  
And now at length I am come to that second position which I resolved to unfold and handle, in giving answer unto the first Question, How and why death was appointed unto us. The first part of the answer is already handled, (& here I considered original sin principally, as it was acted by Adam) That Adam for sin was appointed to die. The second now followeth, towit, Adam's sin was propagated to us; and so by just consequent, We shall die for this sin. And first, concerning the propagation of his sin, of original sin, as it was an emanation from Adam, and as it lodgeth and abideth in us.  
Almighty, and most Gracious Father, grant unto us, that we which fell by pride, may be humility and obedience be raised up, through Jesus Christ, our only Advocate and Redeemer. Amen.   

CHAP. V.  
1. Original sin is an obscure point. The errors of the Schoolmen concerning it. The oversight of Bellarmine.  
2. Original sin described by its causes: Distinguished from Adam's actual sin.  
3. In what sense Adam had, and his posterity hath original sin. We were in Adam. He stood for us idealiter. Every one of us would have done exactly as Adam did. We did sin in Adam, and how.  
4. Whether Christ was in Adam, and how.  
5. We sinned not that sin in Adam by imitation.  
6. Adam's sin, as personal, was not imputed. Adam is saved. Adam's actual sin, as it was ideal and representative, is imputed to us.  
1 COncerning original sin, though it be most true what S. Augustine saith, de Morib. Eccl. 1.22, 
* Nihil est peccato originali ad praedicandum notius, nihil ad intelligendum secretius.  There is nothing to preach of more known, nothing to understand more hidden then original sin. And, 
* Vltra radicem nihil quaerere oportet. De lib. Arbitrio 3.17.  We ought to seek nothing beyond the root. Yet let us search, till we find this root. And since the Apostle hath broken the ground, and opened the way, let us joyfully follow so blessed a guide. S. Paul, Rom. 5.12.— hath a large Tractate of original sin, as it is propagated unto us by Adam: and Rom. 6. he speaketh of it, as it is in the Regenerate. The present questioned point hath nothing to do with this latter consideration, and it is pertinently excluded from this discourse. But of original sin, as it is conveyed unto us by Adam, diverse things must be explained. First, you are to know, that the Schoolmen are blindly led in this point. You may see it at large in Beatissimo 
* Whitak. De Originali Peccato lib. 1. cap. ●  Whitakero,. (for even that title is given to him by the learned Albericus Gentilis, in the tenth Chapter of his Disputation on the first Book of the Maccabees.) And certainly, none of late time hath so tripped them up as he hath done, in his canvasse of Stapleton. The errors of singular Schoolmen are various, too many to be here confuted severally; yet not so many as are imagined. Holcot in his Question, Whether every sin be imputable to the will, proveth out of Augustine's Book De Haeresibus, Chap. 8. that some Heretics have denied original sin, or that there is any such thing. But he resolveth, That the Church hath determined the opinion to be erroneous. And Augustine, Gregory, Bede, and all Authentic Doctors have spoken fully and expressly hereof: and I (saith he) presuppose it as one Article of Faith. Then cometh he to the diversity of opinions, Some, saith he, have held, that original sin is not culpa, but poena, or obligatio ad poenam. Anselm and Lombard dislike this, saith he. And indeed 
* Lomb. 2. Sent. dist. 3. lit. E & F.  Lombard proveth sound, both that according to this opinion original sin is neither culpa, no, nor poena; and by excellent arguments establisheth, that it is culpa. Some (saith Holcot) who say it is culpa, hold it is nothing else but the actual sin of our first parent imputed to us: and this Tenet Anselm disliketh. But Anselms dislike hath not hindered Catharinus and Pighius from embracing that error: Yea Stapleton himself acknowledgeth three great errors in this by-path of Pighius. First, That he makes original sin no sin, but an obnoxietie to punishment. Secondly, That children want all sin, and yet are by him made sinners. Thirdly, That he makes no inherent original sin in every one. Whitaker addeth a fourth absurdity, That he teacheth children are damned, who yet have no sin. I return to Holcot, who addeth, Others say, Original sin is the pure privation of justice original, or injustice which is nothing in nature, but a pure privation and want of justice, in subjecto apto nato. Yet, saith Holcot, (as I have said otherwhere) it appeareth not to me, that any such pure privation is either original or actual sin. At last, Holcot professeth to follow Lombard, holding, that original sin is an evil habit with which we are born, and which we contract from the beginning of our nativity. This habit is concupiscence, this concupiscence is a vice, quod parvulum habilem concupiscere facit, adultum verò & concupiscentem reddit; and this he fathereth on Augustine. But this opinion is no better than the rest, if by concupiscence they mean (as they do) only the sensuality, lust, and brutish appetite of things sensitive. You shall see it further confuted, when I have disclosed the erroneous doctrine, which Lombard and his partisans hold, to uphold this, That original sin is the vice of concupiscence. 
* Lomb. 2. Sent. dist. 30. lit. N.  Lombard maintaineth that every one of our bodies were in Adam: and whereas it was before objected, That all flesh which descended from Adam, could not be at once and together in him, because it is fare greater than the body of Adam, in which there were not so many, as it were, motes of flesh, as men, who have descended from him; Lombard answereth, All flesh was in him materially and causally, though not formally: and all that is in humane bodies naturally, descendeth from Adam, and in itself is increased and multiplied, and this is that which shall arise at the Resurrection: That no outward substance doth pass into that substance: That it is fomented by meats; but no meats are turned into that substance humane, which by propagation descended from Adam. For Adam transmitted a little of his substance into the bodies of his children, when he begat them; that is, a little MODICUM was divided from the mass of his substance, and thereof was the body of his son form, and by multiplication of itself is increased, without the adjection of any outward thing. And of that Modicum being augmented, somewhat is separated, whereby the bodies of posterities are in the like sort still form. His proofs were easy to be answered: but there is a veru, or an obelisk set on that opinion, in the margin, Magister hîc non approbatur. And more at large, among the errors condemned in England and in Paris (for so go the words of the Preface) not in England and France, not alone in Oxford and Paris, but in both the Universities of England, and in that of Paris, you shall find him forsaken in these opinions, pag. 985. 
1 Quòd in veritatem hum●nae naturae nihil transit extrinsecum.  That no external thing passeth into the truth of humane nature. 
2 Quod ab Adam descendit, per propagationem auctum & multipli●atum, resurget in judicio. pag. 985.  That which descendeth from Adam, and is increased and multiplied by propagation, shall arise in the day of judgement. These singular opinions being now rejected and confuted by Estius, Sentent. 2. Distinct. 30. Paragraph. 13. and whatsoever Lombard bringeth for himself, answered in his next Paragraph; let us grapple with Holcot, who is a second unto Lombard, and let us prove, That original sin is not the concupiscence of the flesh. See this confuted by 
* Bell. De Amiss. Gratiae 4.12.  Bellarmine, by this argument; If LUST were the cause of original sin, he should have the greater sin, who was conceived in greater LUST: which is manifestly false, since original sin is equal in all men. See other arguments well used to that purpose by Bellarmine in that place; yet is he amiss 
* 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 poenitentiam agit ejus peccati quod ipse non commisit, & quoth 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.  Original sin is no matter of repentance: for a man doth not well repent of that sin which he hath not committed himself, and which was not in his power. Now we have not ourselves committed original sin, but we draw it from Adam by natural 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 evil; 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 actual sins and actual goodness; that neither did Jacob good, actual good, any good in the womb, nor Esau any actual 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 original sin, 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 original sin is in part the matter of Repentance; otherwise, David in his chiefest penitential Psalm, 51.5. would not have charged himself with that sin, nor needed not so vehemently to call for mercy. Again, we may be said to commit original sin, and original sin 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 Adam's place, as he did stand in our stead. Thirdly, our will was in his will, & what he did we did: Bellarmine's Philosophy here swalloweth up his Divinity. Fourthly, he must not take committere strictly, for a full free deliberate action of commission; nor trahere strictly, for a mere 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 dirt and be integrally passive, nor yet so active as to make the original sin to be actual. So that it neither properly committeth, nor properly contracteth, draweth, or receiveth original sin: 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 faulty: For he saith, 
* Trahimus ab Adam originale peccatum.  We do attract original sin from Adam. Is there any attraction on our part, if there be no action? Or is action, or attraction without some kind of commission? Sixthly, hath the whole Church of God prayed for the remission aswell of original sin as of actual, if it be not the matter of repentance? Or needeth not one unbaptised, till he come of age, repent before Baptism, for his original sin? Lastly, why are children baptised, but that original sin is matter of repentance?  
To set all things better in order, and to clear all mists, you are to know, that there is wonderful mistaking, and ambiguity, whilst original sin is confounded with Adam's actual sin, and one taken for another, whilst 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 Adam's sin was both outward and inward.  

Outward Remote,  
Outward Propinque.  
Remote Principal, Satan.  
Remote Instrumental, the Serpent.  
Outward propinque was Eve, the principal.  
Outward propinque was The apple was the instrumental cause.   
The inward efficient cause was; first, the faculties of the soul, which we may term the principium activum, and was more remote; then the ill use of these faculties, the misemploying of his freewill, which you may style principium actuale, and was the more propinque cause. But the cause efficient of original sin was, outwardly, the actual sin of Adam; inwardly, the conjunction of the soul, after the propagation of nature. The matter of Adam's sin, subjectiuè, was the whole person and nature of Adam, and his posterity descending from him per viam seminalem; objectiuè, the liking, touching, and eating of the forbidden fruit. The matter of original sin, subjectiuè, is all of our nature, and every one of mankind, secundum se totum & totum sui, coming the ordinary way of generation: in so much, that all and every of the faculties of the soul and body, of all and every one of us, is subject to all and every sin, which hath been, or may ever hereafter be committed: and this cometh only from this original sin, and the inclination wrapped up in it. The matter objectiuè, is both carentia justitiae originalis debitae inesse, and the vices contrary unto it, now filling up its room and stead. Formalis ratio of Adam's first sin 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 formal cause of Adam's sin was disobedience; the formal cause of our original sin is the deformity and corruption of nature, fall'n and propagated, inclining to sin so soon as is possible, and (without a divine hand of restraint) as much as is possible. The end of Adam's sin was in his intention, primarily, To know good and evil; secundarily, to prefer temporals before spirituals; whilst indeed he esteemed the Bonum apparens before the Bonum verum revera, or real. In mankind after him no end can be found of original sin, since we contract it when we have nullum verum aspectum, respectum, intuitum, vel-sinem. For Finis & bonum convertuntur. There is no end of evil, per se, sed ex accidenti; and so God's Glory is the supreme end of all sin. The effects of Adam's actual sin were, his Corruptio personae, Reatus, & Poena, as he was considered by himself, till he repent; but as he was the Referree and Representor of mankind, the effects were, The corruption of our nature, our fault, our guiltiness, our punishment, till we be freed. The effects of our original sin are, sins actual, with all the penalties or punishments due to them. Moreover, that we may more distinctly enlarge this point, and remove the doubtfulness of terms, know, that in a larger sense, the actual sin of Adam may in a sort be said to be original sin; it may be called Adam's original sin, as it was first and originally in him. It may be original sin both of Adam and all his posterity; because our natural defects, and all manner of sins flowed originally from this only sin, as from a defiled fountain. Yet properly, this sin was in him actually, in us potentially; in him explicitly, in us implicitly; in him personally, in us naturally; in him pierce, in us per accidens. And that his first sin or aversion from God, may both be said to be his original sin, and the cause also of our original sin; the cause, not physical or natural (for he doth not traduce, by the virtue of that sin, any real thing which is properly sinful, unto his posterity) but it was and is the moral cause of our original sin. As original sin is by some described, namely, to be propagated, to be in all alike, and to be in the humane creature at the beginning of his being, or to be an hereditary transgression: so Adam had not original sin, but only his posterity. As original sin is defined to be That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or transgression, that total aversion of mankind from God, whereby we incur death and damnation: so was Adam's sin our original sin, and he had original sin.  
3. Which the fuller to demonstrate, let me insist on this point, namely, That sin of Adam we sinned this way, as we were in him materialiter, though not formaliter. As the several members of a man's body united to his soul, make one individual person: so all the branches of Adam's posterity, with himself, make one humane nature, and are as it were but one by participation of the species. 
* Fuerunt omnes in Adam quando peccavit; fuerunt quidem in illo, sed nondum nati erant ipsi.  All were in Adam when he sinned: they were indeed in him, but they were not yet born themselves, saith Augustine, De Civit. 13.14. and more punctually in the same Chapter, 
* Nondum erat nobis singillatim creata & distributa forma, in qua singuli viveremus, sed jam natura erat nobis seminalis, ex qua propagaremur.  The form in which every one of us should live, was not yet created and distributed to us; but the seminal nature was already, of which we were to be propagated. Anselm saith, 
* Infans qui damnatur pro peccato originali, non damnatur pro peccato Adam, sed pro suo: nam si ipse non haberet suum peccatum, non damnaretur. A●sel. De Partu Virgins. cap. 26.  The infant that is damned for original sin, is not damned for the sin of Adam, but for his own: for if he himself had not his own sin, he should not be damned. And therefore Augustine, Retractat. 1.13. 
* Originale peccatum in parvulis, cùm adbuc non utantur libero arbitrio voluntatis, non absurdè vocatur voluntarium.  Original sin in infants, though they have not yet the use of freewill, is not absurdly called voluntary. And Confess. 1.7. 
* Imbecillitas membrorum infantilium innocens est, non animus infantium.  The weakness of infantine members, not the soul of infants is innocent. Lastly, De Peccat. Meritis & Remiss. 3.8. as he calleth original sin oftentimes Alienum peccatum, to show it began not in us alone, but was delivered to us, came from without: so in the same place he termeth it Peccatum proprium, ourselves sinning in and with Adam, and having corruption in us by him. It can not sink into my head, that God would have imputed unto us Adam's fault, by his absolute irrespective decretory will of good pleasure: but that he whose foresight reacheth to things that are not, yea to things that shall never be, much more to things certainly future (of which in another place) did foreknow and preconsider, that every one of mankind, if they had been in Adam's state and place, would have done as Adam did. Therefore, let us not accuse God, or lay the fault only on Adam; ourselves would have done so. For, as one said concerning the thief on the Cross, confessing Christ when Christ was on the Cross nailed, naked, pained, reviled, scorned, dying, and forsaken of his own Disciples, Profectò ego non sic fecissem, I should not have made so glorious a confession as the penitent thief did at that time: So, on the contrary, I say, and am fully persuaded, I should have done as Adam did. Let God be just, and all men faulty; for it would have been the fault of all men. Yea, I must go one step further, and without boldness justifiably say, by verdict of Scripture, it was the fault of all men; all men did sinne that sin in Adam. It is not said Propter hominem, but, Per hominem Mors, 1 Cor. 15.21. and Rom. 5.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: In quo, in whom all sinned. Of the first man, Adam, are all these words [By man, and in whom] to be understood: and by him, and in him all died and sinned, saith the Apostle; and sinned that sin by which death came into the world. Though the father of the faithful paid tithes of all unto Melchisedec, before Leviwas born, and Abraham alone personally discharged that duty; yet for all this, the Apostle saith, Hebr. 7.9. Levi also who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham; for he was yet in the loins of his father: So on the contrary, though Adam, the universal father of mankind, did actuate that great offence long before we were created; yet we also concurred in our kind, and were partakers in that iniquity. For he stood Idealiter for us, and we were in him; our will in his, our good and hurt in his: and so fare as he received a law for us, so fare as he represented us; so fare when he sinned did we sin in him, with him, and by him. And if the worthy S. Augustine may say, as is before cited, 
* De Peccat. Merit. & Remiss. 1.10.  Omnes eramus ille unus Adam; I hope I may as well say, Adam ille erat nos omnes. I am sure, Prosper in his Sentences picked out of Augustine saith, that 
* Primus homo Adam sic o●im defunctus est, ut tamen post illum secundu, homo sit Chrisius, cum tot hominum miilia inter illum & hunc orta sint: & id●ò manifestum est pertinere ad illum, omnem qui ex illa successione propagatus nascitur; sicut ad istum pertinet omnit qui gratiae largitate in illo renascitur: unde fit, ut totum genus kumannm quodam modo sint homines duo, PRIMUS & SE●VNDUS. Prosp. Sent. 299.  The first man Adam so died in time past, that yet after him Christ is the second man, although so many thousands of men be born between that and this: and therefore it is evident, that every one who is born propagated from that succession belongs to that former, as whosoever is born again by the liberality of grace pertains to this latter: whence it comes to pass that all mankind, in some sort, consist in two men, THE FIRST and THE SECOND. Yea, the whole world, except Christ only, as men, are the first Adam; and the first Adam, as he believed in Christ to come, is not now the first, but a branch of the second Adam. What Christ did for us, we are said to do; what Adam did misdo, as he represented us, we may justly be said to misdo with him, Genes. 4.10. The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me: Sanguinum; yea, Seminum, saith the Chaldee Paraphrase, and the Rabbins; whom, howsoever the Jesuit Cornelius à Lapide faulteth, yet I will commend for their witty invention, That God seemed, as it were, to hear the cries of all those many little ones, which ever might have descended from Abel; and them Cain killed, and their blood he shed even ere they were, and their blood cried in Abel's. So we consented with Adam, and in him all sinned, saith our Apostle: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, our latest Translation hath it For that all have sinned, The Bishops Bible in as much as we have all sinned: So Erasmus, and some others; yet our latest Translation alloweth a place in the margin for in whom: it is rendered by the Vulgat, In quo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not here taken for a Preposition, of whose various constructions see the Grammarians; none of which constructions afford so full and punctual a sense to this place, as if we render the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in whom: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a Preposition by itself, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the Dative of the subjunctive relative article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Genevian readeth it in whom, and interprets the words in whom to be in Adam: and so indeed it may be read and must be meant; for though the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be otherwise rendered and used, yet diverse times it is confounded with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and necessarily is so to be understood. View in one Chapter two places, Hebr. 9.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Solummodo in cibis & potibus, Which stood only in meats and drinks, as our very late Translatours have it. And vers. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Testamentum enim in mortuis ratum est: so word for word is it construed. So Demosthenes hath it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In his acquiescere. Basil in his Epistle to Nazianzen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In hac solitudine. So we usually say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In nobis, and the like. This reading being established, let us search the meaning of these words In whom or in which, and to what they are referred. There are but four things, to which these words can possibly have relation. First, unto the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and then the sense is, By one man sin entered into the world, in which world all have sinned. This exposition is very absurd. For first, it is nothing to the intent of the Apostle, who proveth that we fell in Adam, and are raised by Christ: but how conduceth this unto that sense? Secondly, the senselessness of the words is most ridiculous, being thus read, As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in which world all have sinned. The Spirit of wisdom would not speak so, nor the God of order so disjointedly. The second exposition is as unlikely, and that readeth it, In which death all have sinned: but as 
* In peccato moriuntur homines, non in morte peccant. Aug. Cont. duas Epist. Pelag. 4.4.  S. Augustine saith, Men die in sin, not sin in death. The phrase is improper: yet grant that some sin in death, yet it is most untrue That in death all sin. The third word to which In whom, or which may be referred, is Sin: In which sin all have sinned; and thus 
* Aug. De Peccat. Merit. & Remis. 1.10.  Augustine did interpret it once. And if it were so to be read, it is all one in effect, to say, In Adam all sinned, and, In which sin (of Adam) all sinned. But 
* Vide Aug. Cont. 2. Epist. Felag. 4.4.  Augustine afterward more accuratly examining the place, rejecteth that exposition, and confirmeth another by the authority of S. Hilary. And indeed Grammatical construction overthroweth the sense: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the feminine gender, to which the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can have no good reference. Therefore the last exposition is best, which renders it In quo, In which (Adam) all have sinned. So it is expounded by Hilary, Augustine, and Ambrose; by Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and generally both by the Greek and Latin Fathers; and the Apostle strongly argueth for this sense, verse 19 By one man's disobedience many were made sinners. In him we sinned. And whoso shall throughly weigh both the precedent and subsequent dependences, must needs acknowledge that the words In whom, or In which do point at Adam only; in whom, as in a mass, we were contained, and in him sinned. Photius thus, 
* In hoc ipsi Adam commorimur, quòd ipsicompeccavimus: ille initium dedit peccato,— nos adjutores illi fuimus.  In this we ourselves die with Adam, that ourselves have sinned with him: he gave the beginning to sin,— we have been helpers to him. And, Neither by the Devil, who sinned before the woman; nor by the woman, who sinned before her husband; but by Adam, from whom all mortality draweth its beginning, did sin truly enter into the world, and death by sin. So fare Origen. Augustine likewise, 
* In Adamo omnes peccaverunt, quando omnes ille unus homo fuerunt. Aug. De Baptismo parvulorum 1.10  In Adam all have sinned, when all were that one man. So punctually speaketh he. For we were in Adam radically, seminally, representatively. Adam was our head; he did lead the whole body into evil: he was our parent; all the issue of him were disinherited by him. Augustine thus, 
* Peccavimus omnes in Adamo voluntariè; non voluntate nostrâ propri●, sed voluntate illius cum quo & in quo eramus unus homo, atque una omnium voluntas. Aug. Epist. 23. Ad Bonifacium.  We have all sinned in Adam willingly; not by our own will, but by his will with whom and in whom we were one man, and one will of all. As the King represents the Kingdom, and the chief Magistrate the City, and the Master of the house the household; so did Adam represent us; and in him, and with him we sinned.  
4. I can not part with this second point, till I answer the objection, Whether Christ were in Adam. The doubt will be cleared by these two Positions. First, Christ may be said to be in Adam some kind of way. Therefore the Evangelist derives Christ's Genealogy from him, and he is said to be The Son of Adam, Luke 3.38. And if he be called The Son of David, as often he is, Matth. 21.9. Mark 10.47. Rom. 1.3, He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh: if he took on him the seed of Abraham, as he did, Hebr. 2.16, and is flesh of our flesh and bone of our bones, and we of his, Ephes. 5.30, it must needs be confessed, He was in Adam. Paracelsus talketh of Non-Adami, such as descended not from Adam's loins: these, if such, are monsters in nature, and as great a monster in Divinity is it, to say, that Christ was no way in Adam. I will enlarge this by a distinction. Christ was not in Adam, no, nor we neither, so, that our substances, or any part thereof, were really or materially in him. Yet, both Christ and we were in him. First, because mediately we were born of him, and because he was the efficient cause of generation; not the immediate, propinque, and proximous cause thereof, which necessarily communicateth some matter to that which is begotten: but he was the remote, mediate, yea the furthest, and most distant efficient natural cause of all; from which it is not necessary that its matter reach to the hindermost effects. Secondly, be cause if he had not begotten children, neither Christ in his humane nature, nor we now long after him, had ever been born. Thirdly, Christ took flesh of the thrice-blessed Virgin Mary; and she was in Adam, (as all others are, except Christ) she was begotten by the concurrence and cooperation both of man and woman: and so, inasmuch as his holy Mother was in Adam, Christ in a sort may be said to be in Adam. 
* Christus fuit de genere Adae. Hol●●t. De Imputabintate peccati.  Christ was of Adam's kindred, saith Holcot.  
The second Position is this, Christ was not in Adam every manner of way, as we were. For we differed in this peculiar sort and manner, because we were in Adam secundum seminalem rationem, quâ, per communionem utriusque sexûs, fit generatio. For Adam could beget no child without a female sex; which was one main reason of Eves creation: neither did ever daughter of Eve conceive without a different sex (except only that stupendious miracle of our Saviour's Incarnation) And after this manner Christ was not in Adam. He had true flesh from Adam; but it was only the listens or similitude of sinful flesh that he had, Rom. 8.3. All other flesh, except his, is the flesh of sin. Had he come from Adam every way exactly as we do, he had had not only true flesh, as he had, but true sin also: but because he had not Patrem naturalem, as Scotus phraseth it; therefore, neither did he sin in Adam, nor was in Adam as we were.  
Lombard 
* Lomb. lib. 3. dist. 3.  enquireth, Why Levi was tithed in Abraham, and not Christ, when each of them was in the loins of Abraham, in regard of the matter. He answereth, 
* Leviticus ordo qui in Abraham secundum rationem seminalem erat, ex eo per concupiscentiam caruis descendi●: Sed Christ us non descendit secundum l●gem communem, aut car●is libidinem.  The levitical order which was in Abraham according to the seed; descends from him by the concupiscence of the flesh: But Christ came not according to the common law or lust of the flesh. And he resolveth thus, When Levi and Christ according to the flesh were in the loins of Abraham, when he was tithed, therefore was Levi tithed, and not Christ, because Christ was not in the loins of Abraham, after some manner or other that Levi was. Moreover, how could Christ be tithed to Christ? how could the same, in the same regard, both pay and take? Melchisedec was a figure of Christ, and tithes by an everlasting law were due to the priesthood of Melchisedec; as is unanswerably proved by my reverend friend (now a blessed Saint, Doctor Sclater) against all sacrilegious Church-robbers. Therefore Christ was not to be tithed in Abraham, though Levi was. Yea, if Aaron, or Melchisedec himself had lived till Christ had come in the flesh, and lived with him; perhaps they would have resigned up, as it were, their Office, and no more have taken tithes; or continuing in Office Sacerdotal under him, they would have taken tithes in his name, and for him. Aquine out of Augustine thus, 
* Quomodocunque Christus fuit in Adam & Abraham & in aliis Patribus, alii homines etiam ibi fuerunt. Aquin. part. 3. quaest. 31. art. 6. ex Aug. De Gen. ad lit. 10.19.  After what manner soever Christ was in Adam and Abraham and in other Fathers, other men were there also, but not contrariwise. And Aquine himself setteth his conclusion, When the body of Christ windeth up to the Fathers, and so to Adam, mediante Matris suae corpore, Christ was not in them, secundum aliquid signatum & determinatum, sed secundum originem. Which, I imagine, he establisheth against such as (Lombard saith) did hold, That from Adam descended, by way of generation, some such part or parcel as of it Christ was made. Against which Aquine argueth thus, (whether modestly enough and truly, let others judge) The matter of Christ's body was not the flesh and bone, or any other actual part of the Ever-blessed Virgin, but only her blood, which was potentiâ caro. 
* Corpus Christi non seminaliter conceptum est, sed ex castissimis & purissimis sanguinibus. Aquinas ex Damasceno.  But what she received from her parents was actually part of her, but not part of Christ's body. Nor was Christ's body in Adam and the other Fathers, secundum aliquid signatum, so that any part of Adam's body, or of the other Fathers, could determinately be pointed out, and be said to be the very exact individual matter out of which Christ's body was framed: but Christ was in Adam secundum originem, as others were. Whilst Christ was in the womb of the most happy Virgin Mary, even many months before her delivery she was called, Luke 1.43, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The mother of my Lord: which words, in part, Elisabeth took from David's speculation, Psal. 110.1. The Lord said unto my Lord. Never woman was truly called or to be called a Mother, before she were delivered, except only the Al-gracious Virgin Mary; who could not possibly suffer abortion, nor lose that Blessed Fruit of her womb, by the sin of man, or the punishment of mankind for sin: which was conceived in her, without the help of man or sin, and was even then Lord of all things.  
5 Another point followeth, towit, We sinned that sin in Adam, not by imitation only. For Adam sinned, and in a sort imitated Eve, who sinned first, and ate of the forbidden fruit before him: yet it is not said, That in Eve Adam died, or many died in Eve, or Adam sinned through Eve. So likewise the Devil offended before Adam was, and Adam's sin did nearly in many particulars resemble the Devils: yet Adam died not by the sin of the Devil, though after a fashion he did imitate it. But it is said, Rom. 5.15, Through the offence of Adam many be dead: and thereabouts, In Adam all die. Therefore this sin of ours must needs be more than by imitation. And this is S. Augustine's argument against Pelagius, If it had been by imitation only, 
* Apostolus peccati principium non fecisset Adamum, sed Diabolum.  The Apostle had not made Adam the beginning of sin, but the Devil. Against Julian, 6.10. he useth this other argument in effect, Who almost (yea, who at all?) thinketh of Adam, when he sinneth? whereas the imitator propoundeth himself a pattern to follow and imitate. Or what is Adam's eating of an apple like unto witchery, blasphemy, murder, lying, or the like? and how there have been, yea are yet, many millions in the world who never heard of Adam, much less of his sin? and did they intent to imitate, or did they imitate him? Thirdly, 
* De Peccat. Merit. & Remiss. 1.9.  Augustine thus argueth, As the second Adam (besides this, that we are to follow him, and imitate him) giveth hidden grace unto the faithful: so (contrarily) we are faulty, and die not by the imitation only of the first Adam, but by the secret blot and spot by which he hath infected us. Fourthly, he thus disputeth in his 89 Epistle to Hierome, The Apostle saith, Rom. 5.16, The fault is of ONE offence to condemnation: but he must have said, It had been of MANY offences, and not of ONE, if all are condemned for their actual & personal imitation of Adam, since the offences of many men must needs be more than the ONE offence spoken of by the Apostle. Lastly, let me reason thus; Rom. 5.14, Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. But death was the wages of sin. Therefore some died who did not resemble Adam in finning. And there is a sin not like to his; for Adam's sin was actual, most voluntary, and personal. Children in sinning of original sin do not imitate Adam: for their sin was only implicit, in and with him; and they have not that absolute freedom of will that he had; and their sin is rather natural then personal. Yet, children die for sin, and for such a sin as is not after the similitude of Adam's transgression; and so original sin cleaveth unto us, not by imitation only. 
* Aug. De Peccat. Merit. & Remiss. 1.15.  Augustine thus, If imitation only make sinners by Adam, only imitation should make us just by Christ; and then, not Adam and Christ, but Adam and Abel should be compared. For Adam was the first wicked man, and just Abel, Hebr. 11.4. the first just man: But these things are not thus. Therefore we sinned not only by imitation of Adam.  
6 I come to a new point, namely, to prove, That this sin of Adam is not ours by imputation only; as if Adam alone had offended, and we were wholly clear from that great sin. Indeed Adam's actual first sin, or his other sins after his repentance, as they were personal and private, are not imputed to us. For he was to answer for himself as well as we are. If we repent, what doth our repentance help him? If he had not changed his mind, and turned to God, himself alone should have been condemned, as himself alone was saved by his own repentance. That Adam was by divine wisdom brought out of his fall, is said, Wisd. 10.1. 
* Veniae redditus est.  He hath been restored to pardon, saith S. August. And in the Tribe of Judah there is to this day a den, or hole called Spelunca Adam, The Cave of Adam, & in it a rock, in which are two stony beds of Adam & Eves: and here they mourned (as is delivered by Tradition, saith Adrichomius) an hundred years for the murdered Abel. (why not rather for their own sins, say I?) This place is not fare from either Ager Damascenus, where they say Adam was made of that Red earth, which is mire tractabilis, saith Adrichomius; or from that place which to this day is shown, and recorded to be the plat of ground which drank up Abel's blood, when Cain slew him. And though I deny not but they might mourn for the death of Abel, yet they were more bound to mourn for that sin of theirs, which brought death both upon Abel, and themselves, and all their posterity.  
That Adam was a Type of Christ is expressed, Rom. 5.15. and unfolded in many excellent particulars by 
* Sal. Ad annum 930●  Salianus. That the more eminent Types of Christ should be saved, is evinced, because of their resemblance, and conformity, unto the Antitype: nor can it be proved, that ever any of his figures were condemned. For the shadow must follow the substance, and Christ that Proto-type being not only saved, but called Jesus, because he shall save his people from their sins, Matth. 1.21. They are his people especially who in principal things resembled him: and wherein can they better resemble him, then in being blessed and saved as he was? But I return to Adam. Concerning Adam, Augustine saith thus, 
* De illo quidem primo homine, patre generis humani, quòd eum ibidem solverit, Ecclesia ferè tota conseutit. Aug. Epist. 99 Ad Euodium.  As for that first man, the father of mankind, almost the whole Church agreeth, that (Christ being in hell) he there delivered him. Concerning his body, that it arose, if other Saints of the Old Testament arose, and that it was besprinkled with the blood of Christ dying, shall be showed hereafter. And if God had such care of Adam's body, or part of it, he shall be impudently unreasonable that shall say his soul is not in blessedness. Now, as his personal repentance saved himself only, and not one of his offspring; so, if he had died unrepentant, his sin or sins, as they were personal, should not have prejudiced one of his posterities salvation.  
Bellarmine 
* Bell. De Amiss. Gratiae 3.12.  saith, It was one of Tatianus his errors, That our first parents were damned. Indeed Irenaeus 1.30. ascribes this opinion to Saturninus and Martion, and chap. 31. to Tatianus the first founder of it. Tertullian in his book De Haeresib. towards the end, taxeth Tatian for the same opinion, and confuteth him thus, 
* Quasi non, si rami salvi fiunt, & radix salva sit.  As if the branches being saved, the root also should not be saved. But in his book De prescript. advers. Haereticos (as it is cited by Bellarmine) there is no mention of Tatian, in Rhenanus his Edition. Augustine saith of the Tatians and Encratites, 
* Quòd contradicunt primorum hominum saluti. Aug. De Haeresib. cap. 25.  That they gainsay the salvation of the first men. Where Bellarmine used another Edition than Erasmus his, or was mistaken in the collation. He who will see more into this point, let him consult with Bellarmine, in the place above cited, and Salianus ad Annum Mundi 930. where he justly taxeth Rupert, for saying in this third book on Genes. chap. 31. 
* Salvationem Adami & à multit liberè negari, & ànullo satìs firmiter defendi.  That the salvation of Adam is freely denied by many, and by none strongly enough defended. And he bringeth many authorities and proofs to the contrary. From Irenaeus he bids them blush, for saying Adam was not saved: and more vehemently, That, by saying so, they make themselves Heretics, and Apostates from the truth, and Advocates for the Serpent and Death. God cursed not Adam and Eve, but the earth and the Serpent. Yea, before God pronounced any punishment against Eve or Adam, even in the midst of his cursing of the Serpent, with the same breath he both menaced Satan, and comforted Adam and Eve with the gracious promise of the Messiah, Genes. 3.15. Now, there was never any, unto whom God vouchsafed a special promise of Christ, but they were saved. Indeed the Apostle reckoneth not Adam among the faithful ones, Hebr. 11. but one reason of this omission is, because he entreateth of such faithful ones only as were much persecuted; which Adam was not, so fare as is recorded. If it be further objected, That God is called THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB, Exod. 3.6. Matth. 22.32. and is no where called THE GOD OF ADAM, let it be answered, That Adam is called THE SON OF GOD, Luke 3.38. And I think he is too severe a judge, who saith a son of God is damned. The Targum or Chaldee Paraphrase (set forth by Rivius) on the Canticles chap. 1. vers. 1. saith, 
* Et vevit dies Sabbati, & protexit eum, & aperuit os suum, & dixit Psalmum Cantici diei Sabbati.  That the first song that ever was made, was indicted by Adam, in the time when his sin was forgiven him. Damianus à Goes, De Moribus Aethiopum, makes this the belief of Zagazabo and the Ethiopians, for whom he negotiated, That Christ's soul descended into Hell for Adam's soul, pag. 93. and that Adam was redeemed by Christ from Hell, pag. 55.  
How glorious was it for Christ, to save his first sheep? and how would the Devil glory, if it were otherwise? Adam's fig-leaves may be thought to be sharp, afflictive, and penitential. Epiphanius, Haeres. 46. calleth Adam Holy, and saith, We believe he is among those Fathers, whom Christ reckoneth alive, not dead: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Irenaeus saith, Adam humbly bore the punishment laid upon him. Can humility be damned? then may pride be saved. Josephus 1.2. recordeth, That Adam foretold the universal destruction of the World; one by the flood, the other by fire. And can the first of Mankind, the first King, Priest, and Prophet of the World be condemned? Others probably conjecture, that before his death he called the chief of his children, grandchildren, and their descendants, and gave them holy and ghostly counsel, as Abraham did, Genes. 18.19. and Jacob, Genes. 49.1, etc. and Moses, Deuteron. 31.1, etc. Salianus fits him a particular speech at his death, and a witty Epitaph. Fevardentius, on Irenaeus, thus relateth, Nicodemus Christ's Disciple, in the History ascribed to him OF THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION OF THE LORD, reporteth, That our Lord Jesus Christ, when he descended into Hell in his soul, spoke thus to Adam, and held his hand, PEACE BE UNTO THEE, WITH ALL THY SONS, MY JUST ONES. But Adam falling on his knees (such spiritual knees as before his spiritual hand, which Christ held, while both their bodies were in the grave) weeping-ripe, thus prayed with a loud voice, 
* Exaltabo te, Domine, quoniam suscepisti me, nec delectâsti inimicos meos super me: Domine Deus, clamavi ad te, & sanâsti me; eduxisti ab inferis animam meam, saluâstime à descendentibus in lacum.  I will magnify thee, Lord, because thou hast received me, and hast not made glad mine enemies over me: Lord God, I have cried unto thee, and thou hast healed me; Thou hast brought up my soul from Hell, thou hast saved me from those that go down to the pit. Thus Salianus in his Scholia ad Annum 930. Another ancient Apocryphal book affirmeth, that Adam repent. Didacus' Vega, in his second Sermon on the fifth penitential Psalm, pag. 443. thus, Leonardus de Vtino, in his Book De Legibus, Sermon de Poenitentia, saith, That Adam repent not of his sin, but remained obstinate till the death of Abel: but when he saw him lie dead at his feet, wallowed in his blood, and yet pale; and as in a glass saw the deformity of death, he began to repent. Strabo saith, He was so sorrowful, that he vowed chastity for ever, and would have performed it, if an Angel had not enjoined him the contrary. And from the authority of Josephus he saith, Adam was so sorry for Abel, that he wept an whole hundred years. But I believe, saith Vega, He rather wept for the cause, which was sin, then for the very death of Abel. Ludovicus Vertomannus, in his sixth Book, fourth Chapter, of his journey to India, hath recorded, that a Mahometan Merchant told him, that at the top of an high mountain in the Island of Zaylon, subject to the King of Narsinga, there is a den, in which Adam after his fall lived and continued very penitently. And though their tradition rests on an idle conjecture, because there is yet seen the print of the steps of his feet, almost two spans long, (for how should they know they were his feet, rather than some giants?) and because, how Adam should come to this Island, and why, cannot be showed; yet, so fare as is probable, we will join issue with their belief, to wit, That he was penitent, and so saved. Thus much be spoken concerning the salvation of Adam's soul.  
Concerning adam's actual sin, though I said truly before, That, as it was private and personal, it was not imputed to us; yet (I must needs say) as it was ideal and representative, it was and is imputed to us. He who denieth this, let him also deny, that Christ's active and passive Merits are imputed to us. Neither can the Divine providence be taxed with rigour, much less with injustice, for imputing Adam's sin unto us. For first, he imputeth not our own actual and personal iniquities, but forgiveth us both this sin of Adam and all manner of our own sins. Secondly, he imputeth Christ's Merits unto us, as if we ourselves had done them. For as by one offence of one, judgement came upon all to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life, Rom. 5.18. We are then not so accursed by the imputation of the first Adam's transgression, as we are blessed by the imputation of the second Adam's holiness. Yet is this sin original not absolutely and simply imputed unto us, if we take imputation for laying to our charge the sin of another, without any reference to any offence of our own: but it is imputed to us, as being both his sin and ours; though we concurred in our kind, and he in his; he by an explicit act of his will, we by an implicit of ours. In virtue of the masters will, the servant willeth, yea performeth many things. He saith to one servant, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to a third, Do this, and he doth it, Matth. 8.9. In all transactions and negotiations, the wife's will is included in her husbands. The father selleth away lands of inheritance for ever from the son: and though the children be unborn, the children's will was in the fathers, and bindeth them that yet are not. But of this, much more hereafter. So are we by Adam sold under sin, Rom. 7.14. Which hath reference to the original sin of Adam, saith Augustine in his Retract. By one man's disobedience many were made sinners, Rom. 5.19. Not as Bath-sheba said, 1 Kings 1.21. We shall be counted offenders: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, say the Septuagint; Ero ego, & filius meus, saith the Hebrew; that is, in others estimate: but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Constituti sunt, Were made; which is more than only esteemed sinners, more than this, That Adam's sin was imputed to us, as excluding our own unrighteousness. For this original sin is not merely extraneall, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but a sin that dwelleth in me, saith the Apostle, Rom. 7.20. and peccatum circumstans, Hebr. 12.1. which doth so easily beset us; called also there a weight, as depressing us. That I may avoid amphibology, and open the point plain, conceive me thus; as original sin is taken actively, for that sin of Adam, to which our will involvedly concurred, and which caused sin in us, it is called Originale peccatum originans: and again, as it is taken passively, for corruption traduced unto us, it is called Originale peccatum originatum; and both these ways sin may be said to be imputed to us, though somewhat differently. The former more properly is said to be imputed, the latter more properly is said to be propagated; yet both what Adam did, bearing our persons: what we did in his loins, by a kind of implicit blind obedient disobedience; and what he propagated to mankind, is all but only one original sin, partly imputed, partly inherent.  
O Judge most righteous, o Father most merciful, grant, I beseech thee, that all of us who have been made Sinners by the Disobedience of one, may likewise be made Righteous, and Sanctified, and Justified, and presented blameless before thee by the Obedience of one; of one, thy only Son, in whom thou art well pleased, our only sweet Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.   

CHAP. VI  
1. Original sin is propagated unto us. Original sin properly is not in the flesh before the union with the soul.  
2. Bishop Bilson, Mollerus, Kemnitius, and Luther, in an error. Bishop Bilsons' arguments answered. Conception taken strictly by Physicians, etc. We are not conceived in original sin, if we respect this conception. Conception taken largely by Divines. Thus we were conceived in sin.  
3. A Physical Tractate of conception clearing the point.  
4. A Discourse touching aborsives and abortives. Balthasar Bambach answered. The Hebrew vowels not written at first when the consonants were. Never any wrote till God had written the Two Tables.  
5. The manner how the soul contracteth original sin pointed at. Bodily things may work upon the soul.  
6. Righteous men have unrighteous children. The contagion of original sin is quickly spread.  
7. No sin or sins of any of our parents immediate or mediate do hurt the souls of their children, but only one, and that the first sin of Adam.  
1 AT length we are come to show, that original sin is traduced and propagated unto mankind; and this is evident. For since Adam's aversion remained, and was rooted in the nature of him as an habit, and since we have our nature from him, as he had it, not before he sinned, but after sin, this aversion is left in nature. And this nature is conveyed unto us by generation; conveyed (I say) as corrupt, not as sinful: and so corrupt as flesh and blood can be, before a reasonable soul be united to it. So that we being in Adam, secundum causam seminalem, & propagandi virtutem, our first father transmitted after his fall some corruption unto all his children. And this corruption was mingled with the whole nature of his posterity; neither could a man single out any part of any one, in which there was not some deal of that primitive corruption. And Adam's offpring ever since hath made such a transmission as they received. As if one do throughly mingle a little leaven with a whole unleavened lump; not only that mass may be said to be perfectly leavened, but whatsoever is afterward incorporated into that mass. Such a leaven of corruption was mingled by Adam, and spread or dispersed unto and by his posterity: or as a needle touched by a loadstone, imparteth its received virtue to other needles depending on it. From the will of every one of us, actual sin is derived to all the other parts and faculties both of our bodies and souls: so from the will of the first parents by generation is original sin conveyed to all mankind. Or rather thus, in Aquinas his words. 
* Actus peccati exercitus per manum vel pedem non habet rationem culpae ex voluntate manûs vel pedis, sed ex voluntate tetius hominis. Aquin. in Rom. 5. Lect. 3.  The act of sin exercised by the hand or foot, is not made sin by the will of the hand or foot, but by the will of the whole man. From which, as from a certain head or fountain, the motion of sin is derived to every member: so from the will of Adam, who was the fountain of humane nature, the whole aberration of nature is found culpable in us. And the means he thus there describeth. Though the soul be not in the seed, yet in it is a dispositive virtue apt to receive the soul; which when it is infused, is conformed to it so fare as it is capable, because 
* Quicquid recipitur est in recipiente per modum recipientis.  every thing received is in the receiver according to his capacity.  
I need not doubt to say, That the corruption which the fleshly part draweth from our first parent, before the soul be united, is not sin, but a punishment of sin, a debility of nature, an effect of sin. For if the Embryo should die, or suffer abortion before the infusion and unition of the reasonable soul, (as such a time there is, & such a thing may be) it must appear in judgement, and, without extraordinary mercy, be damned, if there were sin in it: but that a lump of flesh, which only lived the life of a plant, at the utmost the life of a brute creature (for indeed some abortions, seeming liveless lumps, being pricked have contracted themselves, and shown they had sense) which never had reasonable soul or spirit, or life of man, (for those three several lives are not only virtually, but really distinguished) I say, that such a rude mass of flesh should be liable to account, and capable of eternal either joy or pain, is strange Divinity; which yet followeth necessarily, if sin be in the seed, or unformed Embryo. But you may ask, When sin beginneth? I answer, So soon as the soul is united, 
* Subest rationale peccati susceptibile.  There is a reasonable subject susceptible of sin; and then sin entereth. Original sin is in the reasonable soul as in the proper subject, and is there formally: the fleshly seed is the instrumental means of traduction, both of humane nature and original sin. Original sin (in a large sense) may be said to be in the flesh, and fleshly seed virtually, as in the cause instrumental, and to be in it originally, causally, materially; and in such sort to be sooner in the body then in the soul, by the order of generation and time: but exactly, and in most proper terms, sin is sooner in the soul by the order of nature; and hath its first residence in the substance of the soul, then in the faculties of it, and last of all in the body.  
2 In Bishop Bilsons' Survey, pag. 173. this Position following is produced, and maintained against him by his opposers, Pollution, that is sin and real iniquity, is not in our flesh without the soul. The Bishop answereth very copiously, The soul cometh not to the body presently with the conception. Mothers and Midwives do certainly distinguish the time of quickening from the time of conceiving; neither doth the child quicken presently upon conception. That the body is not straightway framed upon the conception, many thousand 'scapes in all females, and namely women do prove. Physicians and Philosophers interpose many months between the conception and the perfection of the body. Job saith, we were first as milk, then condensed as cruds, after clothed with skin and flesh, lastly compacted with bones and sinews, before we received life and soul from God, Job 10.10.— The New Testament noteth three degrees in framing our bodies, Seed, blood, flesh. Upon the premises he thus argueth. If nothing can be defiled with sin (as by your doctrine you resolve) except it have a reasonable soul; of necessity we either had reasonable souls at the instant of our conception, which is a most famous falsehood, repugnant to all learning, experience, and to the words of Job; or else we were not conceived in sin, which is a flat heresy, dissenting from the plain words of the Sacred Scriptures, and from the Christian Faith.  
So fare Bishop Bilson. If company may excuse his opinion, I add these. First, Mollerus accordeth with him, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be referred to the time of conception, so soon as ever it was conceived in the womb; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the time that the Foetus lieth hid, & is carried in the womb; signifying the seed was impure, the conception was not without the flames of concupiscence, and all the mass of blood that nourisheth the Embryo, was defiled with vices in the womb: and lastly, the mass of the Embryo, when in the first ardour of conception it first began to be warmed by the womb, was contaminated with sin. Enough of Mollerus. Kemnitius in his Examen de Peccato Originali, pag. 167. thus, 
* Cùm mossa Embryonis, in primo ardore conceptionis, primùm inciperet uteri calore foveri, jam erat peccato contaminata; quae contaminatio, juxta Davidis confessionem, habebat veram rationem peccati, cùm nondum formata essent vel mentis, vel voluntatis, vel cordis organa.  When the mass of the Embryo, in the first ardour of conception, began to be warmed and cherished by the heat of the womb, it was already defiled with sin; which defilement, according to David's confession, was truly a sin, when the instruments of the mind, or of the will, or of the heart were not yet framed. Luther, on the words In iniquitatibus conceptus sum, thus, 
* Non loquitur David de ullis operibus, sed simpliciter de materia & ipso esse; & dicit, Semen humanum, id est, massa ex qua conceptus sum tota est vitio & peccato corrupta. Materia ipsa vitiata est: lutum illud ex quo vasculum bee fingi coepit, damnabile est: foetus in utero, antequam nascimur & homines esse incipimus, peccatum est.  David speaks not of any works, but simply of the matter and being; and he saith, The humane seed of which I have been conceived, is all corrupted with vice and sin. The matter itself is infected: that clay of which this little vessel hath begun to be fashioned, is damnable: the fruit in the womb, before we be born and begin to be men, is sin. Hierom, in his Commentary on the words, 
* Concipitur & nascitur in originali peccato quod ex Adam trahit●r.  Whatsoever is drawn and derived from Adam, is conceived and born in original sin. Cajetan thus, 
* Hic est textus unde tr●kitur originale peccatum, quo scilicet ex commixtione maris & foeminae conceptus dicitur in originali peccato.  This is the Text from which original sin is deduced, wherein every one is said to be conceived in original sin by the conjunction of male and female.  
All this shall not make me believe, that there is sin and real iniquity without a reasonable soul. Illyricus is justly deserted, for saying, The very substance of the soul is sinful. And these deserve as few followers, who say, That the substantial, bodily, soul-wanting mass is sinful. And I profess in this latter to take part with others rather, then with the otherwise most Reverend and learned Bishop. For 
* Culpa non potest esse in re irrationali.  There can be no sin in a thing reasonles. Unto Bishop Bilson I thus answer, That all his premises are true, that I subscribe to his opinion, in the first member of his disjunction. The second part of it I do wholly deny; nor do I fear his aspersion of heresy. To the place of the Psalmograph, I answer with reverence by distinguishing. First, that the words sin and iniquity are taken rather for inclinations to sin, then for sin properly so called: thus we were conceived in sin, that is, so soon as ever we were conceived, we had a propension and aptitude to sin, such and as much as the flesh was then capable of. Augustine thus, 
* Etiam jumenta, quamvissunt rationisexpertia tamen plerumque dicimus debere vapulare cùm peccant. Aug. De Adultermis Conjugiis lib 1. circa medium.  Albeit cattles be void of reason, yet even of them we say oft, that they ought to be beaten when they sin. But let us leave the vulgar forms of speech. The said Father annexeth, 
* Propriè peccare, non est nisi ejus qui utitur rational is voluntatis arbitrio. Holcot, De Imputabilitate Peccati, mendosè legit argumento.  To sin, properly is but of him that useth the pleasure and liking of a reasonable will. Secondly, If you will needs take sin according to its true definition, than I distinguish of conception; which is used either strictly and properly, or at large and extensively. The first way is followed by Naturalists, Anatomists, Physicians, and Philosophers; the second way by Divines. The first way, they make conception to be an action of the womb: for when the womb hath begun its work with attraction,  
(Nam sitiens haurit Venerem, interiúsque recondit) and continued it, both by permixtion thereof and immuring retention; in the fourth and last place it ends the operation by the suscitation of the enclosed sperms, which is properly called 
* Vide Laurentii Histor. Anatomicam lib. 8. quaest. 12. pag. 619.  conception. The spiritus artifex, and the foetus only formeth, nourisheth, and increaseth what is done afterwards: the womb only containeth, and therefore conserveth, because the place is the conservation of the thing placed in it. To say, that we did sin properly, when our mother thus conceived us, is to say we sinned before we had life: and we may aswell be said to sin while we were in our father's seed, (before their conjunction and commixture with our mothers, which is not an hour before conception) and so in their blood before seed, and in their meat ere it was blood. Thus, I dare say, the Spirit of God never meant that we were conceived in sin, and the traducted matter is not properly full of sin, or sinneth at all. But take we conception largely, and as Divines do use the word, (for the preparatory formation, or a degree of it, is a kind of conception; as the exact formation unto the full grown measure, a little before the nativity, may be called the completorie conception) we may be said to be conceived in sin; conception being taken for the time of our perfecter formation, extendible almost to our nativity. In iniquitatibus conceptus sum, saith Lyra, 
* Quia homo descendens ab Adam per carnalem generationem, in union animae ad corpus contrabit peccatum originale, quod est ad actualia peccata inclinativum.  Because man descending from Adam by carnal generation, in the union of the soul with the body contracts original sin, which inclineth to actual sins. Tremellius hath it, In iniquitate formatus sum, & in peccato fovit me matter mea: and expounds it in this manner, 
* Iniquitat  & peccati reus sum; in utero formatus & fotus; haecenim non ad formam conceptûi, formationis, & fo●ûs, s●dad foetûs constitutionem pertinent.  I am guilty of iniquity and sin, being framed and warmed in the womb; for these pertain not to the form of the conception, shaping, and warming, but to the constitution of the fruit. Vatablus rendereth it, In iniquitate genitus sum—, and interprets it, 
* Fictus sum, formatus sum, natus sum.  I have been fashioned, framed, born. 
* Concepit me, id est, peperit.  Conceived me, that is, brought forth, saith Emanuel Sà, out of Hierome, though I find it not so in Hierom on the place. S. Augustine following the Septuagint, with Theodoret and others, for the reading In iniquitatibus conceptus sum, hath these passages, 
* Ipsum vinculum mortis cum ipsa iniquitate concretum est: nemo nascitur nisi trahens poenam, trabens meritum poenae.  The very band of death is grown together with sin itself: None is born without drawing punishment, without drawing the merit of punishment: and he doth in a sort parallel this place with an other place of the Prophet (and it is in Job, I guess, who may well be styled a Prophet) Nemo mundus in conspectu tuo, nec infans, cujus est unius diei vita-super terram, Job 15.14. Our English late Translatours vary thus, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive or warm me, as it is in the margin: which shaping and warming is also after the union of the reasonable soul to the body. Not one of all these doth take conception strictly and physically, but largely, and significantly enough both to the Scripture and to our purpose. Stapleton thus, 
* Anima, non caro, st subj●ctum virtutum & vitiorum. Stapl. De Orig. Pecc. to 1.4.  The soul, not the flesh, is the subject of virtues and vices. Augustine, 
* Semen vitiat, most, non vitium. Aug. Hypognost 2. initio.  The seed is infected, not infection. Godfridus Abbas Vindocinensis, 
* Non ex carnis corruptione animae mors pracessit; nec Diabolus priùs carnem no●ram infecit quàm animam. Godfridus Abbas Vind. Epist. 39  The death of the soul went not before from the corruption of the flesh; neither doth the Devil infect the flesh before he defile the soul. Augustine, 
* Non caro corruptibilis animam peccatricem, sed anima peccatrix facit esse carnem corruptibilem. De Civit 14.3. circa medium.  The corruptible flesh doth not make the soul sinful, but the sinful soul makes the flesh to be corruptible. Thus it was in Adam, is in us: our flesh is not properly sinful or defiled before the soul inhabit it. Reason also is of our side: for if so soon as there is conception in the womb, there is true sin, how many thousand conceptions miscarry, and never come to perfect formation? as in the Mola, where the forming of the parts being begun can not be perfected, but (the weak workman being drowned in abundance of blood) in stead of a living creature is engendered an ill-shaped, hard, and idle lump of flesh, oppressing the womb with its ponderousness, (saith 
* Fernel. De Hominis Procreatione 7.8.  one) as the stomach is loaded with indigestible meats. Is there sin in this conception? sin before life? sin when there is no motion? (as there is none in the lumpish Mola) sin in a Mooncalf? But put we the case in a perfect conception, which without mischance may come to formation & birth, and casually suffereth abortion before the soul be united; yet it can never be proved, that it sinned In & At the conception.  
The arguments that trendle that way are these, The very seed, of which we were begotten and conceived, was an unclean thing (saith Bishop Bilson) as Job calleth it, saying, Who can make a clean thing of an unclean? Job 14.4. It is also corruptible, that is, (saith he) full of corruption, as Peter nameth it, when he saith, Born again, not of corruptible seed, 1 Peter 1.23. of which we were born of our parents. Thirdly, The Apostle calleth our flesh, The flesh of sin, Rom. 8.3. If by these places he takes uncleanness, corruption, and sin, improperly, for such ill dispositions as seed, blood, and liveless flesh is capable of, the Question is ended: I confess all. But he understandeth uncleanness, corruption, and sin, properly. The title of his pages 174. and 175. is this, Man's flesh is defiled in conception, before the soul is created and infused. And in the body of his Discourse he enlargeth it: as in his Conclusion to the Reader, at the end of his Sermons, pag. 252. he first propoundeth it, and citeth Ambrose to assist him, saying, 
* Priùs incipit inhomine macula quàm vita. Amnr. Apolog. David cap. 11.  Pollution sooner beginneth in man then life. Now the soul is the life of the body; then if pollution cleave to the flesh. before life come, and consequently before the soul come, whencesoever it cometh, it is evident that Adam's flesh defileth, and so condemneth us. So fare he. None of these proofs reach home to clear this, That sin, true sin, proper sin, original sin or actual is in the seed, or blood, or flesh, before the reasonable soul be united. Neither did that learned Bishop consider, that it can not be called our original uncleanness, pollution, or sin, till we have originem, that is, till our soul hath its first being in the body. He erreth to say, Pollution cleaveth to the flesh before life cometh: and more erreth, saying, Adam's flesh defileth and condemneth us, if he make the flesh subject to condemnation, before its life and union of the soul. For then many thousand abortions should be damned, which never had rational soul annexed to them. As for Ambrose, 
* Whitak. De Origin. Peccato 1.4.  Whitaker thus citeth him from the same Book and Chapter, 
* Antequam nafcimur, maculamur contagio; antequam usuram lucis, originis ipsiut accipimus injuriam.  Before we be born, we are stained with contagion; before we enjoy the light, we receive the injury of our very beginning. Ambrose saith not, We have sin ere we have life, but, We are conceived in iniquity: which is true, and confessed, if we take conception largely: so Ambrose taketh macula, for such inclination to evil as is in the seed potentially maculative.  
Concerning the place of Job: First, Job saith not, The seed is unclean, but, Quis dabit mundum ex immundo? Which may have reference to the person, or the nature of the unclean father. Secondly, it may be a parallel with that of Job 25.4. How can he be clean, that is born of awoman? yea the stars are not pure in his sight, vers. 5. Lastly, things may be said to be unclean, that have no sin. Ask the unclean beasts, and they will justify it; and the trees will send forth this truth as leaves. Levit. 19.23, 24. The fruit of the trees planted shall be as uncircumcised (or unclean) unto you three years, it shall not be eaten of: but in the fourth year it shall be holy, to praise the Lord withal: yet was not the fruit sinful itself, but quoadusum.  
The place of S. Peter is answered by the same Apostle, 1 Pet. 1.18. Silver and gold are things corruptible: yet these creatures, as creatures, are good in themselves; & though they are causes of most sins, yet have no sin: & many other corruptible things, as heaven & earth, are void of all sin. As concerning the place of the Apostle S. Paul, I answer, it is apparent he speaketh of flesh, after the soul is united; which is nothing to our Question, and therefore a most impertinent proof of the Bishop. Lastly, the Reverend Bishop bringeth this objection against himself, How could David say he was conceived in sin, when at the conception he had neither soul nor body? His main answer is; With God nothing is more frequent, then to call those things that are not, as though they were, Rom. 4.17. and speaketh in Scriptures of things to come, as if they were past or present. David and Job call that seed which was prepared to be the matter of their bodies, by the names of themselves, because it could not be altered what God had appointed. But the void conceptions of women which miscarry before the body be framed, never had either life or soul, and so neither name nor kind, but perish as other superfluous burdens and repletions of the body. So he. I reply, (that I may not question the worthy Bishop about the meaning of that place, Rom. 4.17.) He hath made a great stir to little purpose, since he maketh many conceptions void of fin or punishment, like superfluous burdens and repletions of the body, which none ever said to have sinned. Secondly, which is the better answer to the place of the Psalmist, to say, as the Bishop doth, Conceptions which come to nothing are not sinful, but such as may have souls are sinful before they have souls, (whereby he splitteth himself on this rock, That a perfect conception susceptible of a soul, and aborsed casually before the unition with the soul, is sinful and liable to account.) or to answer with me, That sin and iniquity in the place of the Psalmist is taken for the aptitude to sin, which is in the matter; or else, conception is taken in its latitude, for our time in the mother's womb; and so true original sin not to be in the body without a soul. Aquine saith, 
* Quum sola creatura rationalis sit susceptiva culpae, ante infusionem animae rationalis proles concepta non est peccato obnoxia. Aquin. part. 3. Quaest. 27. art. 2. in corp. art.  Sith none but the reasonable creature is susceptible of fault, the child conceived is not subject to sin before the infusion of a reasonable soul. Whitaker saith well, 
* Carnem nihil concupiscere sine anima, nec doctus, nec doctus dubitat, ut loquar cum Augustino. Quid enim caro i●animis a trunco differt? Whitak. De Origin. Peccato 3.1.  That the flesh covets nothing without the soul, neither the learned nor the unlearned doubts, that I may speak with Augustine. For what doth the inanimate flesh differ from a stock? And I hope the Bishop will not say, A block or a stock hath sin. Moreover, after thousands of sins committed in the body, and by and with the body, yet the body separated from the soul hath no sin, is not sinful, much less is sin: and shall the seed in the womb be called sinful or sin, as Kemnitius or Luther calleth it, before it is warmed with life or enlivened with a soul? Lastly, in our very Creed conception is used with liberty and freedom, 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 child, saith our late Translation, and shalt bear a son. And usually in the Scriptures there are only made two degrees of man's nativity. First, conception, wrapping within its verge generation, with all degrees of formation, nutrition and augmentation. Secondly, birth or bringing forth. Whereupon they often run in couplets together, Concepit & Peperit; where conception is extended unto our nativity. 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, progress, and end of conception, with its infallible bounds and limits of time, and wholly agrees with his fellows; yet out of their manifold diversity I have gathered enough to justify, that conception is within a very short time of coition, when it is impossible there should be sin properly, unless the seed in the bodies of mankind be sinful, 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, ut arboris trunco ramus, qui virescii adhuc, & vita tenetur.  The seed liveth no less than a part of the mother's body: for by vessels (which are receptacles) it is as straight engrafted 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 Hypocrates 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 fruitful seed to the shaping of the fruit, and be the fourth several action of the womb, 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 hours; 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 pass 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 kinds of abortives; which the Latins also do curiously discern and distinguish by the several 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 liveless & formless; the latter living, and form before abortion: the former aborsed within 40 days 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 burial place, though not properly a grave. Fulgentius, De Prisco Sermone, saith, The Ancients did call the places of infant's burial, 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 putrify) and full often denoteth the sepulchers and graves in the Holy Writ: yet, perhaps, it would better have sorted to the ancient custom of interring untimely births, if they had read it, I should have been carried from the womb 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 womb? (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 years,— and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial, I say; an untimely birth is better than he. If any one wonder, why Job desired to be like each of the untimely births, and why Solomon should prefer 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 appear by the rest of the curse unfolded in these similitudes, Break out the great teeth of the young lions, o Lord, vers. 6. and vers. 7. Let them melt away as waters, which run 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 pass away) you are to know, that Job did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Tremellius; and the Preacher, ex ratione carnis, saith the same; that is, (as I interpret him) out of carnal reasoning: he might rather have said, ratione carnis, because the flesh of the abortive was buried, and the churls carcase unburied. Nor let any man thwart me, by saying, that in the Septuagint is no such matter; but the words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Vulgat accordeth, Supercecidit ignis, and the whole troops both of Greek and Latin Fathers so read it, and so expound it: I answer ingenuously, that (ascribing so much as I do to the Septuagint and Vulgat) I wondered, how there should be so great difference from the uncorrupt original. The Vulgat (thought I) trusted to the 70. and the 70. to some Hebrew Copy varying from others more perfect. The 70 rendered, Gen. 4.8. not according to the Hebrew (which is certainly defective, saith Vatablus, and somewhat is to be understood; for indeed there is an extraordinary pause) but according to the Samaritan Pentateuch, Cain said unto his brother, Let us go into the field, as Mr. Selden evinceth by the authority of Hierom and Cyrill of old, and by a Samaritan Copy, now in the hands of Bishop Usher: which the Jerusalem Targum amplifieth, relating, That Cain told Abel there was no future world, nor reward for goodness, nor punishment for sin: all which Abel contradicted; and thereupon Cain slew him: So might the 70. or the Vulgat, or both, translate the passage of the Psalmist, not accordant to those Copies which are now in price, but answerable to some other Hebrew one. At length I rested assured, that the Copies which they used, differed only in one letter, and in the points. For instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with five points (as it is most commonly read) and with six points, saith Kimchi, (which signifieth abortivus, and is in the Psalmist) their Copies had it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth cecidit, there being the same Radicals, and no letter changed. Secondly, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mulieris, which is in David, they read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth fire: the omission only of one letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath caused abortivus mulieris to be translated cecidit ignis. For as for the variety of punctations, that is of small moment, by reason of their often interchanging and easy mistake; and points were not used in the days of the Septuagint, (as some say) scarce when the Vulgat first was, (as others say) not from the beginning (say I) if the names of the points and accents be Syriacall. Drusius in his Henoch, chap. 1. saith, Hieronymus ante Masoritarum tempora, à quibus apices habemus (ut communis opinio est) qui nunc in usu, vixit. Mercer in the great Dictionary of Pagnine, on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates, that when the Chaldee translates, Deuter. 26.5. Laban Syrus quaerebat perdere patrem meum, and when the Vulgat rendered it, Syrus persequebatur patrem meum (whereas indeed it ought to be read, as it is in our last Translation, A Syrian ready to perish was my father) non est dubium (saith he) quin sine punctis, quibus tunc carebant Biblia, legerint in Pihel, non in Kal. Yea, Sine dubio novas literas habemus; if we may believe Bellarmine, De Verbo Dei, 1.1.  
And indeed, the three fundamenta laid by Balthasar Bambach, That the points were coëtaneall to the Hebrew letters, are founded on the sands. First, saith he, Sine vocalibus consonantes proferri non possunt, & omnis lingua, quae illis destituta est, manca, imperfecta, & mutila efficitur. What of all this? how followeth this, Because the consonants cannot be pronounced without vowels; therefore the vowels were underwritten? Let him know, the Hebrew Tongue was most perfect, when it was least written, and till Moses his time there were not so much as consonants written; (howsoever they fable of a pillar written upon long before) for God invented the letters first, when he made his Two Tables, and writ the Law in them. See this proved by our learned Whitaker, saying, 
* Deus ipse scribendi exemplum, modúmque ost endit, quando Legem suis digitis conscriptam Mosi tradidit. Sic Chrysost. & Theophylact. in 1 Matth. & Papistae in confess. Petrocoviensi, cap. 15, & Screckins Jesuita, Thes. 13, De Verbo Dei; Whitak. De Script. Controvers. 1. quaest. cap 2.  God himself hath showed an example and manner of writing, when he delivered to Moses the Law written with his own fingers. So Chrysostom and Theophylact write on the first of Matthew, and the Papists in their Confession, etc. But though Eusebius, Praeparat. Evangel. lib. 18. saith, Moses first taught the use of letters to the Jews, yet Saint Augustine, De Civitate 15.23, saith, Enoch wrote 
* Nonuulla divina.  some divine things; since Saint Judas testifieth so much. But that ever honoured Father considered not, that Judas said only Enoch prophesied, which he might do by saying only, and not writing; as Adam, Genes. 2.24. yea God himself prophesied of Christ in Paradise, Genes. 3.15, which Moses first wrote (for aught that we know:) and S. Judes' words are, Enoch prophesied, saying; in which writing is rather excluded then included. Drusius in his Enoch cap. 27, saith, There was a book called LIBER BELLORUM DOMINI, out of which Moses bringeth a testimony. Cornelius à Lapide saith, It was written before the Pentateuch. Aben Ezra saith, The book was in the days of Abraham. In the book of Job, who lived before Moses, is mention of writing, and of books, as of things common, and of graving in stone with a pen of iron. Cusanus prinketh higher: in his Compend, chap. 3. pag. 241. he saith, Our first parents had the art of writing; since by it man hath many helps; for things past and absent are by it made present. By the same reason he may say, Adam knew the art of Printing, of Brachygraphy, of Characters. Let us passe-by the unauthorised vast fancy of Cusanus, and answer the objection drawn from Jobs book: which if it were written by his three friends, or their Scribes, at their dictate, as saith Bolducus the Carthusian (since they could make Job no better satisfaction then to historify his innocency, and their own petulancy) or if by Elihu the Buzite (as is very probable: for he was young when they were old, Job 32.6. and might well live till after the writing of the Pentateuch, and publishing of books) or by Job himself, for Job himself might have conferred in Midian with Moses, saith Bolducus; who also died but thirteen years before Moses died, saith that Carthusian: yea Job lived after Moses, if he lived 248 years (as the Septuagint and Olympiodorus do account.) And certainly, after all Jobs misery, he lived in prosperity 20 years longer than the whole years of Moses (compare Job 42.16. with Deuter. 33.7.) and so Job might know the writing of the Law in Tables of stone, and the other Sacred Writings of Moses; perhaps also books of other men, to which he alluded; and yet there was no writing before the Law. Concerning the book, Numb. 21.14. suppose the word run in the present tense, Dicitur, It is said in the book of the Wars of the Lord; yet it is expounded by the Chaldee as of a thing past, What God did in the Red Sea, and in the brooks of Arnon; which latter clause necessarily implieth, that the book was written after the Law; for The battle of Arnon was the fortieth year after their Exodus, saith a Jew, by Vatablus his commendation, very eminent. Or say it be read (as Robert Stephen, in his Annotations on the Pentateuch, gathered from the King's Professors at Paris, hath it) Sicut fecitin Mari Rubro, sic faciet in torrentibus Arnon, which sense Cornelius à Lapide embraceth; yet those words evince, that the book was written since their going out of Egypt, which was but forty days before the giving of the Law, saith Helvicus. But indeed, first, the word Sepher doth not always signify a book, but sometimes a Narrative of things past; whereupon Tremellius readeth it, Idcirco dici solet, IN RECENSIONE BELLORUM JEHOVAE: And so others have held, saith Vatablus; plainly denying, that there was ever any such especial book of wars. Others read it in the future, It shall be read; and thereupon some of the Jews think it is the Book of Judges, which handleth the War with Amalek; or another book which recounted the miracles of God in the Red Sea, and by the river Arnon: which book, perhaps, is now perished, as diverse others of the holy Scriptures; and amongst them, a book made by Samuel, 1 Samuel 10.25. Which I wondered that neither Drusius, nor any who handled the controversies, whom I could yet meet with, ever observed before me. And indeed Jeamar is the future tense, It shall be said, or, it shall be written. So Vatablus, the Interlineary, Eugubinus, and the Genevians. So the words are rather prophetical then historical: and so no particular book of the wars of the Lord was written before the two Tables. Lastly, that I may leave no objection unanswered, add this to the answer of S. Augustine, That Christ, speaking of a prophecy in Paradise concerning himself, doth not say, It was written before Moses, but, It is written by Moses of me, John 5.46. Moreover, if we can read the Hebrew now without vowels, much easier and better could they whose daily speech it was. The necessity of pronouncing the consonants by the vowels, evinceth not the writing of consonants; the necessity of writing the Hebrew tongue by consonants evinceth not the necessity of writingvowels: they may be of a later invention.  
Secondly, saith he, 
* Quum duae linguae Syriaca & Arabica, quae ab Hebraea ortae sunt, vocales habeant, ut ex libris manuscriptis & impressis apparet; Matrem vempe Hebraeam, illis carere verisimile non est.  Seeing that the two tongues, the Syriack and the Arabic, which came from the Hebrew, have vowels, as it appears out of manuscripts and printed books, it is not likely that the Mother-tongue, to wit the Hebrew, wants them. I answer it followeth not, Because the Syriack & Arabic have now points; therefore they had ever so when they were written: and if they had ever points, it is likely they invented them, and added them to their consonants, the rather because the Hebrew wanted them.  
Thirdly, 
* Quâ Linguâ Deus Sacra sua oracula promulgavit, banc certam miniméque ambiguant esse necessariò statuendum est.  We must needs hold that tongue to be certain, and no way ambiguous or doubtful, in which God hath published his sacred Oracles. I answer, Then God should have writ in any other language: for the Hebrew, of all other is most dubious and ambiguous. And whereas he addeth, That the Hebrew without vowels hath no certain signification, but from the antecedent and consequent; and admitteth three, four, or five significations, according to the diversity of vowels: I answer, the antecedents and consequents are guides sufficient, and God did it purposely to exercise our wits, and to make us know, that though in things necessary to salvation the Scripture is easy, yet in some matters there are depths not to be sounded; in others, The lips of the Priest should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth, Malach. 2.7. which the unlearned scorn now adays to do; though there be much ambiguity: but how bold-daring, selfwilled would they be, if there were no difficulties?  
I return from the words to the matter, and say, That as the strong births of the womb are a blessing of God, whether in women, or in beasts, Deuter. 30.9. So an abortion is a curse, and abortives (I mean that had life and reasonable souls) by the ordinary rules of Genes. 17.14. when Circumcision was in force; and of John 3.3. whilst Baptism is in force, is a fearful estate. Howsoever God may dispense with his own Law, and show mercy extraordinarily; yet David, when he wished his enemies to be like abortives, wished them no good, but evil: yea, if he did not curse them, but foretold what they should be like; and that they were not the words of imprecation, but prediction; yet he did not fore-divine, or fore-prophesie any good estate to them, whom he likeneth to abortives. Let this suffice concerning abortives, incapable of sin or punishment; and abortives, whose estate of soul is dangerous, being measured by the rules of precepts. Which I say against Anabaptists, and the contemners or causeless delayers of that gracious Sacrament.  
5 It is now supposed, and shall (if it please God) hereafter be demonstrated, That humane souls are not traducted, nor causally brought out of the flesh: yet are they occasionally, (that I may touch at the manner) God having resolved and decreed, after generation and fit organization of the Embryo, to create and infuse a reasonable soul: which soul, because it is united to a mass corrupted, in such a manner as a spiritless mass may be corrupted, or rather to a mass inclining or inducing to corruption, in the very unition it contracteth original sin. Hugo Eterianus thus descanteth on this point, 
* Cum anima languore afficitur, non voluntate, non necessitate, sed solâ societate peroellitur: si voluntate corrumperetur anima; non originale, sed actuale peccatum censeretur: si necessitate c●deret, von ultrà esset imputandum illud vitium, Hugo Eater. de Animarum regressu ab Inferis cap. 4.  When the soul languisheth, it is neither cast down by the will, nor by necessity, but only by fellowship, if the soul were corrupted by the will, it should not be counted original sin, but actual: if it should fall by necessity, that vice were no further to be imputed. Concerning the latter part, I answer, if in his necessity he imply coaction, he saith true: otherwise, by this concurrence of our condescending will in Adam, or by our own implicit will, we may draw on us a necessity of after-sinning, which most justly may be imputed to us, and we may tie ourselves with our own bonds. To the former part this may give satisfaction, That against the will of the soul, the soul itself can not be corrupted: for then the will should be forced, and so no will at all, but Noluntas, and not Voluntas. It is not necessary, saith Bellarmine, that our soul must needs come from Adam, because we draw sin from him: if but one part come from him it is enough. For a father doth not per se produce original sin in the child, but per accidens; namely, as by the act of generation it cometh to pass, that his son is a member of mankind, which was overtaken in Adam's corruption, and that the propension unto evil of the earthly part traducted, meeting with a soul not much resisting, causeth this original sin to result thencefrom, and death by this original sin. So that no sooner is the soul united to its body, and the matter glued to the form, but the infant deserveth to be, and is the child of death, by reason of the primigeneall corruption. If you inquire after what manner the body worketh the soul unto this evil; we may truly say, 
* Corpus non agit in animam actione physicâ & immediatâ.  The body worketh not upon the soul by a natural and immediate action. You heard what Hugo Eterianus said, It is stricken or cast down only by fellowship. He enlargeth himself in the same Chapter, thus, 
* Vitium & languor & corruptio ante animae conjunctionem in carne persistunt, ex qua tabe anima maculatur; sicut si testa odore malo imbuta sit, quemcunque liquorem susceperit, suâ corruptione inficit.  Imperfection, languishing, and corruption abide in the flesh before the souls conjunction; from which disease the soul is infected: as if a vessel be tainted with an ill odour, it infects therewith whatsoever liquor it receiveth. Gerson thus, 
* Anima ex conjunctione ad corpus contrabit illud vitium; sicut quandoquis cadit in lutum, foedatur & maculatur. Gers. in Compend Theolog.  The soul by the conjunction with the body contracteth that infection; as when one falleth into the mire, he is besmeared and stained. Felisius thus, 
* Pomum mundum in manu immunda positum foedatur. Vinum bonum tran●fusum in vas acetosum, suum naturalem perdendo saporem centrabit alienum: sic anima, quando incipit esse in carne unita, suum naturalem amittit vigorem.  A clean apple put in an unclean hand is soiled. Good wine poured into a fusty vessel contracts a strange taste, and loses its own natural: so the soul loses its natural vigour, when it is united in the flesh. Another thus, Anima cum labente simul labitur, & frustra nititur dum innititur. To the same effect another saith thus, As the purest rain-water falling on dust, is turned with the dust into a lump of mire: so at the coadunation of the soul unto the earthly part, both spirit and flesh are plunged in the dirt of corruption. Augustine against Julian the Pelagian, 4.15. preferreth the very Heathen before Julian; for he held, That nothing was conveyed unto us from Adam; and they held, 
* Nos oh antiqua scelera suscepta in vita superiore, poenarum luendarum causâ esse natos.  That we were born to be punished for old crimes committed in a former life. And, saith Augustine, it is true which Aristotle relateth, That we are punished like to those who fell among the Hetrurian robbers, 
* Quorum corpora viva cum mortuis, adversa adversis accommodata, quàm optissimè colligabantur & necabantur.  Whose living bodies being coupled face to face with dead men's carcases, were so killed. Of the Hetrurian Tyrant Mezentius Virgil, Aeneid. 8. recordeth the like; 
Mortua corporibus jungebat corpora vivis,  
Componens manibúsque manus at que oribus ora,  
(Tormenti genus) & sanie tabóque fluentes,  
Complexu in misero, longâ sic morte necabat.  But I return from this Digression. The Heathen say (as S. Augustine relateth) 
* Nostros animos cum corporibus copulatos, ut vivos cum mortuis esse conjunctos.  That our souls united to our bodies are like the living coupled with the dead. They saw somewhat, saith he, and commendeth their wisdom in discerning the miseries of mankind to be for somewhat before committed, & in acknowledging the power and justice of God; though without divine revelation they could not know, that it was Adam's offence which brought such a wrack both on our souls and on our bodies.  
What hath been hitherto related, seemeth too much to incline to the natural, physical, immediate working of the soul upon the body. Others are as faulty, who say, The soul receiveth no annoyance from the body, but by way of IMPEDITION only, where the spiritual faculties are hindered, and the Music spilt, by reason of the untuneablenes of the organs. But they will not seem to hear, That a spiritual substance can receive infection from a nature corporeal. Both opinions may rest contented in the middesse or mean, That as the body cannot go beyond the sphere of its activity, and work properly and physically upon the soul: so by the interposition, as it were, of a middle nature, the body not only hindereth the faculties of the soul from working, but sometimes worketh upon the soul. Thus the natural, vital, and animal spirits do bind and unite the soul to the body, that neither part can part from other, though it would. Thus bodily objects work on the mind, but it is by the mediation of the outward and inward senses. Shall corporeal, outward, and remote objects, by degrees, draw the soul into sin, even in our perfect age, when our natural reason is most vigorous; and may not the corrupted seed, having as great a propension to evil as Naphtha to take fire, at the conjunction infect the soul with a participation of uncleanness, though the operation be not physical, or immediate? By Adam's soul sinning was Adam's flesh infected; may not our soul be infected as well by our flesh? A spiritual substance can produce a bodily effect. Boëtius saith excellently, Forms material came from forms immaterial: Our will was moved by our intellect, our appetite by our will, and a bodily change conformable to our appetite. And may not a bodily species work by the same degrees, backward, on the soul itself? The reason is alike in the contrariety. Doth the corporeal fire of Hell torment and affect the incorporeal spirits of evil Angels, and shall it of wicked men, (as most certainly it doth and must; which shall be proved, God willing, otherwhere) and may not the matter make some impression on the form, the body upon the soul, when there is such a sympathy in nature betwixt them? If the soul do no way suffer from the body, how doth it follow the temperature of the body? How doth madness, foolishness, anger, and love, with other affections, work upon the mind? Yea, how cometh it to pass, that not only strength and nimbleness of body, but even goodness of wit is propagated, (if nature be strong) and children resemble their fathers both in manners and understanding? The flesh itself without the soul, if it be beaten, hurt, or cut, is no way sensible. Reunite the separated soul to the wronged body, the soul feeleth, and is much affected: nor is the grief in the incision only, but in the soul. Yea, in apoplexies and deep sleeps, cast upon men by stupefactive ingredients and compounded by art, while the soul is in the body, wounds have been given unto the earthy part, and it never felt them: when those fits are vanished, the soul feels the pain of the discontinuity, and division of the flesh, as well as the body. Doctor 
* Praelect. 51. De Libris Apocryphis.  Rainolds thus, God by nature hath ordered, that the soul naturally united to the body, 
* Compatiatur corpori, & afflicto corpore vexetur, & recreato exhilaretur, & corpere occiso condolescat; ut quodam medo ratione corpor is patiatur.  Should suffer with the body, and be grieved the body being afflicted, and rejoice it being refreshed, and be sorrowful the body being killed; so that some way it suffers by reason of the body. Permit me but the use of his modification, some way, and I dare say, The body draws the soul its way, some way to sin. Aquinas on Rom. 5. Lect. 3. It should not seem, that sin which is an accident of the soul, can be produced by the original of the flesh: It is answered (saith he) with reason. Though the soul be not in the seed, yet there is in the seed a virtue disposing the body to receive the soul, which soul being poured or infused into the body, is after a sort conformable to the body, because every thing received is in the receiver according to the capacity of the receiver. To him let me add, If a new created soul should be put into a body not descending from Adam, it should not have original sin; but meeting with a body disposed to corruption, after its kind it yields, and contracteth original sin.  
6. Yea, but the act of Adam's sin passed quickly away, and the guiltiness was forgiven; how could it infect us? I answer, 
* Persona primùm infecit naturam, pòst natura infecit personam.  The person did first infect the nature, afterwards the nature did infect the person. The speedy gliding act poisoned our nature; and we have not uncorrupted Adam's nature, or any part of it; but his corrupt nature propagated corrupteth our persons. The forgiveness of that his guilt and sin joined with subsequent holiness of life, is no privilege of innocency to his posterity; who were not made of his perfect, but vitiated nature. Accordingly since that time, they who are cleansed with the laver of regeneration, sealed with the spirit, justified by faith, presented blameless to God by Christ, precious in the eyes of the Lord, just among men, elect, and pure; even such do beget children over whom this gangrene of corruption creepeth, and the babes are infected with original sin. If it be objected, If the root be holy, so are the branches, Rom. 11.16. therefore holy men's children are better in their generation, then wicked men's children: I answer, the fallacy is in the word Holy, which in the place to the Romans signifieth not inward holiness in the sight of God, but outward holiness, whereby they might be distinguished from other profane people. Thus the wicked Jews were as holy as the righteous Abraham, even the traitor Judas himself. If any further insist and allege, The children of a believer are holy, 1. Cor. 7.14. It is also truly further answered, That the same word Holy is homonymous; not being all one with justified, regenerate, exempt or free from sin: but they are said to be holy, in regard of the communion with the Church, for that covenant sake, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. So Holiness signifieth a relation, not a quality, saith 
* Sanctitas significat relationem, non qualitatem. Scharp. Curs. Theol. pag. 461.  Scharpius. Augustine thus, 
* Sicut gignatur ex oleasir● semine oleaster, & ex oleae semine non nisi oleaster, cùminter oleast. 'em & oleam plurimum distat. Aug. De Nuptiis & Concupijcentia 1.19. & 2.34.  As a wild olive-tree is brought forth out of the seed of a wild olive-tree, and out of the seed of an olive-tree nothing but a wild olive-tree, although there be a great difference between a wild olive-tree and an olive-tree. The seed both of the wilde-olive, and also of the garden, true, good olive-tree bringeth forth a wilde-olive: so a sinner is begotten of the flesh of a sinner, and also of the flesh of a righteous man, though there is a great difference between a sinner and a just person. Hast thou ground fallowed, manured, fit to be sown? hast thou seed of the best, picked, winnowed, or tried? is it clear from tares, chaffe, or dust? though thou hast thy desire for a seasonable time of sowing, though the heavens drop fatness, and the earth conspireth with them to yield thee a plentiful and good crop; yet shall thy corn arise, grow up, and be reaped with weeds, at least with husk, chaffe, and dust: so doth a just man beget an unjust, Christianus non Christianum, A Christian an ; the circumcised Hebrews beget children uncircumcised: for the generation is natural, and not spiritual. Wicked Ahaz begat good Hezekiah, wicked Ammon good Josiah; good, not by generation, but regeneration. Those wicked Fathers had no more privilege then just Lot, who begat wicked daughters; or David, who had Absalon; or Abraham, who had Ishmael; or Isaac, who had Esau; or Noah, who had Ham; or, to wind it up to the highest, Adam, whose first-begotten was the accursed Cain. A whole family may be bound to some special service, for some disloyalty they have showed to their King. If the King be so gracious as to make proclamation, That whosoever in a battle fighteth valiantly shall be himself freed from such servitude and bounden service; shall his children expect to be freed likewise? Personal acceptance is no necessary sign of general successive manumission. We betrayed God for a little pleasure. Those that fight a good fight under Christ, are freed: yet do the children of the just groan under that yoke, out of which their fathers by special grace have plucked their necks. Yea, but he sinneth not that is begotten; for neither body is framed, nor soul united: he sinneth not that begetteth, for the bed is undefiled; and in matrimony the act of generation lawful, yea commanded, yea meritorious, say some of the School: He sinneth not also that createth the soul. By what cranny, crank, or chink shall original sin creep in? It was the objection of Julian the Pelagian, saith Augustine: who answereth, 
* Quid quaeris latentem rimam, cùm habeas apertissimam januam? Nam secundum Apostolum, Per unum hominem peccatum intravit. Aug. De Nuptiis & Concupisc. 2.28.  Why do you seek a secret chink, sith you have an open door? for according to the Apostle, By one man sin entered. And the manner how the soul is made sinful, is described at large before, to wit, That by the union it is infected, and so soon as it is infused it tasteth of corruption. But this seems strange, if not impossible, That the soul, so soon as it is tied to the body, should be caught like a bird with a limebush, and bound up in corruption as in a bundle. Let him that objecteth, remember the Angels, higher of nature than men: Created they were in the truth, but they did not abide in the truth, John 8.44. God found no steadfastness in the Angels, Job 4.18. Did not Satan fall like lightning from heaven? or rather according to the Greek, Satan fell from heaven like lightning, Luke 10.18. and lightning is gone, ere we can say, it is come. The Angels kept not their first estate, but left their own habitations, Judas, vers. 6. Do not some of the School say, They fell the second instant of their creation? and Aquine and his fellows maintain, it was 
* Statim post primum instans.  presently after the first instant? So that what Seneca said of the burning of Lions, 
* Diutiùs illam tibi periisse, quàm periit, narro. Sen. Epist. 91.  I am longer in telling thee that it perished, than it was in perishing, we may well apply to the evil Angels not standing, or beginning to fall. And (alas!) what a short time was there between Adam's perfection, and imperfection? how suddenly did he conceive, and bring forth corruption? So quickly doth the soul of a young child sink under corruption, though it be not speedily discerned. The seed of a stote, fox, or serpent, hath dangerous and desperate inclinations in it, though they break not forth long after. For as in the dark night you can not difference, distinguish, or know the blindness of a blind man's eye, from the eye of him who is not blind; but when the light cometh, it is easily discerned: so in infants original sin appeareth not, but in process of time it groweth manifest. Humours putrifying and putrified are long in the body, ere they come to their height, and show themselves outwardly: so is sin in the soul of every child; it lurketh in our nature, which was derived unto us from our Forefathers. Yet let me not be mistaken, as if I held, that we are answerable for the sins of our Forefathers, or that Adam's future sins, after his first sin and fall, were propagated, or the iniquities of any other our immediate, mediate, or remote progenitors shall lie heavy on us. For man begetteth man like to himself, as he is Species hominis, not as he is Individuum: and Accidents belonging to the individual person of the Father pass not over to the child, but those things that pertain to the specifical nature. Therefore what belongeth to man, as he is Individuum, he doth not propagate. As for example, A Musician begetteth not a Musician, but a man; an ginger an earthly, a wiseman a fool, a Divine a carnal, a holy man an unclean person. Should we propagate as we are Individua, we should also convey, and communicate to our posterity our knowledge, our arts, our sciences, and our Father's holy inclinations, and mortified dispositions. For good is more diffusive and spreading of itself, then evil can be; and God extendeth Mercy further than he doth his Justice, Exod. 20.6. Which virtuous good since we do not derive unto our posterity, neither do we or shall we partake of our predecessors sins, or of any one sin, except of the only first sin of our first predecessor.  
7. There was not given either to Adam, or to the sons of Adam, any one precept which belonged to all mankind: I mean such a precept by the breach of which we might have fallen in their fall, or in Adam's fall, without our own actual consent, save only one, of which I spoke so much before; neither do the acts of any fathers necessarily bind all his descendants. Jonadab the son of Rechab commanded his children, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons for ever: neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any, Jerem. 35.6, 7. They are commended because they performed the commandment of their father, vers. 16. and are blessed for obeying and keeping all his precepts, vers. 18. but therefore (in my opinion) more commended and more blessed, because the performance was more of voluntary devotion, then of binding necessity, or a mere imperious charge: for his precepts could not lay so great a tie upon all his descendants: but certainly the obedience was of free condescent, not coactive command; unless we say, by immediate divine revelation he was commanded to put that yoke upon his posterity for ever.  
It is a true maxim in School-divinity, 
a Purè personalia non propagantur.  Merely personals are not transmitted. Of this sort is holiness and sin; and therefore not tranducted unto others. After Zacharie was dumb, Luk. 1.24. he begat John Baptist, a crier, the voice of one crying, Mark 1.3. And John 9.20. the blind man had parents which could see. Halting Jacob, Genes. 32.32. begat the lion Judah: the lusty-lovely Jonathan, the lame Mephibosheth. But there are others which may be called mixt-personals, and these are oftentimes hereditarily derived. Thus through the noisome quality of the seed, one leper begetteth an other; and a father subject to the stone or gout, transmitteth those diseases full often to his children: and it hath been the wish of some Physicians, and (if I be not much mistaken) I have read it as the practice of some countries or commonwealths, that they that are naturally subject to contagious diseases, or evils hereditary, as Apoplexies, Epilepsies, Consumptions, or the like, are forbidden to sow their seed in wholesome ground; yea, are forbidden marriage, to avoid future danger. But these diseases reach not to infect the soul with sin. Aquinas on Rom. 5. Lect. 3. goeth one step further: The sons are like the fathers, even in the defects of the soul; Angry and mad men are begotten of angry and mad men. Yet in the end he closeth thus, It is manifest, that though the first sin of the first Adam be traducted to posterity by the original; yet adam's other sins, or the sins of other men are not derived to their children: because by the only first sin sublatum est bonum naturae, that natural good was taken away, which should have been traducted per originem naturae, by the original of nature. By other sins the good of personal grace is withdrawn, which passeth not over to posterity. Hence it is, that though Adam's sin was blotted out by his repentance, yet his repentance could not wipe out the sin of his posterity: because his repentance was by an act personal, which could not extend itself beyond his person. So fare Aquinas. But let discourse give way to Scripture. Jer. 31.29, 30. They shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge: but every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. They had occasion to use this proverb, in reference to Adam who ate one sour grape, in whom we sinned and are punished. But as I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel, Ezek. 18.3. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die, vers. 4. And when God said, Exod. 20.5. I visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: I answer, First, the place speaketh not of the sins of children, (for the father's personal iniquity maketh not the son inique or wicked) it is only spoken of punishments. Secondly, even punishment eternal doth not reach from the father to the son, unless the son communicate with the sin of the father: for if a wicked father beget a son that seethe all his father's sins, which he hath done, and considereth, and doth not such like, he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live, Ezek. 18.14, 17. In this sort you may object, A man shall not be punished at all for the sins of his forefathers, but for his own sins only. I answer, He may be punished temporally, but not eternally: for in temporal chastisements, as there be many causes producing one effect, so many sins, even of divers men, may be corrected by one punishment; and the father is often more grievously punished in his son, then in himself.  
Now having spoken what I thought convenient, concerning the propagation of original corruption unto all the posterity of Adam, I am in the last place to show the just consequent; That as he did die for that his sin, so we his offspring for having that sin should die; and in regard of this sin, It is appointed for men to die, and to undergo that punishment. For original sin is in one regard a fault of transgression, and the same original sin, in a different respect is also a punishment. 
b Aug. de baptismo parvulorum.  As every man was in Adam, and his corrupted nature was propagated to us, it is a sin: as original sin is considerable in every man, without reflecting on the common nature, it is a punishment. It is so a sin, or such a sin, that it is also a punishment: and we have spoken of it as a sin, let us now descend to handle it as it is a punishment.  
MOst Prepotent, Eternal, and only Wise God, I a poor dejected sinner, with an humble and contrite soul, devoutly beg pardon at thy Mercy-seat, confessing from the bottom of my heart, my manifold, personal, and actual sins, from all which if thy Grace had prevented me, yet my offence in Adam and with him had justly condemned me: But I meekly beseech thy Divine Majesty, that I may be one of those many, to whom the blood of thy dear Son shall do more good, than the fault of Adam did hurt. Grant this, I beseech Thee, for the all-sufficient merit of thy only Son, our only dear and gracious redeemer, Jesus Christ. Amen.   

CHAP. VII.  
1. A review of the last point. Zanchius not against it. Bucer and Martyr are but faint, and rather negative then positive.  
2. Bucer and Martyr make the state of the question to be voluble, not fixed and settled. Their objections answered. The place of Exodus 20.5. examined.  
3. S. Augustine appealed unto, and defended.  
4. God justly may, and doth punish with any temporal punishment, any children like or unlike unto their parents, for their parents personal sins.  
5. God doth, and may justly punish some children eternally, and all temporally for original sin, whether they be like their parents in actual aversion, yea or no.  
6. God justly punisheth, even eternally, wicked children, if they resemble wicked parents.  
7. God oftentimes punisheth one sin with an other.  
8. The personal holiness of the parent, never conveyed grace or salvation to the son.  
9 God never punished eternally the real iniquities of the fathers upon their children, if the children were holy.  
10. No personal sins can be communicated. The point handled at large against the error of Bucer and Martyr.  
11. The arguments or authorities for my opinion. The new Writers not to be overvalued. Zanchius himself is against Bucer and Martyr.  
1. HAving thus fare proceeded, and (as I thought) without the contradiction of any, I found by the discourse of a loving learned friend, that divers late Writers were otherwise minded in the point last handled in the former chapter; whereupon I betook myself to review it. Zanchius in locis common. Theolog. upon the second chapter of the Ephes. loc. prim. toward the end, bringeth this objection against one part of his definition of original sin: Some say, that if therefore Adam's sin was transferred to posterity, because we were in his loins; by the same reason, the other sins of Adam and our other parents should be likewise traducted: which is absurd, and cometh not always to pass; since of evil parents oftentimes the best children are born. He answereth, first, The reason is not alike: for the first sin was not so proper and personal to Adam, as common to humane nature: his other sins, and others after him are truly personal. Which answer is excellent, and he confirmeth it at large. Then cometh he to a second answer, which is not his own, but only barely related, without his approving or open disproving of it. 
a Deinde, negant multi viri docti absurdum esse, si dicatur, peccata pronimorum parentum communicari liberis; ità ut similes parentibus nascantur filii, vitiosi vitiosis.  Besides, many learned men deny, that it is absurd to say, that the sins of the next parents are communicated to the children; so that sons are born like their parents, vicious and perverse sons of vicious and perverse parents; which they confirm by experience, by examples of Scripture, by Exod. 20.5. And Augustine truly in Enchirid. cap. 46. saith it is probable for that place of Exodus. For, saith he, if the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, but the soul that sinneth shall die, and yet God visit the sins of the fathers upon the children; it seemeth to follow, that the sins of the parents pass over to the sons, and the sons follow the sins of the parents, that those sins may be justly punished in them, which are not so proper to the parents, as common both to parents and children. And for this opinion he citeth Bucer and Martyr. All this cloud (for it is but a cloud, and an empty one also) will quickly be dispersed. First, in the general replication observe, that Zanchius himself never specializeth this, as his own judgement. Secondly, note how cautelously Bucer and Martyr carry it on the negative; Many learned men deny that it is absurd to say, etc. Themselves see no convincing demonstration, but are content if their opinion be not absurd. Errors there are that are absurd; if this be not absurd, all is well. Thirdly, of those many are but two named by him, Bucer and Martyr: learned men indeed, yet not more learned than many that herein differed from them. Fourthly, many words are homonymous, and they themselves slide back from them, by varying the state of the question, as will appear by and by. Lastly, let the grounds by me set down in the last chapter be well weighed, and the truth will appear on my side.  
2. Now let me descend to the matter of their objections. 
b Peccata proximorum parentum communicantur liberis.  The sins of the next parents are communicated to the children, say they. Here they should have been punctual, and I desire to be satisfied what they mean; Whether the sins of the father and mother be transfused into all the sons and daughters? and into all of them alike, or not alike? And if the father be virtuous, and the mother wicked; or contrariwise, the mother virtuous and the father wicked, what is communicated to the child? Secondly, what sins be communicated? all, or some? Whether Atheism and profaneness of thoughts, or only such sins as the body is much employed in performance of? Thirdly, whether the sins of grandfathers and grandmothers be derived? and if so, whether if there be a good grandfather and a good grandmother and a good father, the children shall inherit no goodness, but the sin of their wicked mother only? Or if two of them be good, and two bad; the males good, and the females bad; or contrariwise; what sin shall be communicated to their children? Fourthly, whether the sins of the great-grand-father, and of his parents, our more remote progenitors, be derived? and where beginneth the derivation of these sins? and why from such determinate persons and generations, rather than from others? Or whether they must reach up from all the descendants of Adam, to his actual and personal sins? Fifthly, whether such actual and personal sins as are repent of by our parents and all our forefathers, be derived unto us? or only such as they were not repentant of? or both sorts of them? Sixthly, let novelty know, Peccata proximorum communicantur liberis, in stead of Propagantur ad liberos, is an unknown phrase to antiquity: and it is better to speak plainly according to the days of the Fathers, then in terms covert and dubious; and then in defence of such riddles, to say no more than the old Tenet, 
c In universalibus latet dolus.  Deceit lieth hidden in universals.  
The second branch of pendulous newfanglednesse is this: 
d Peccata proximorum parentum communicantur liberis; ità ut similes parentibus nascantur liberi, vitiosi vitiosis.  The sins of the next parents are communicated to the children; so that children are born like unto their parents, vicious of vicious. First, it is petitio principii, that the vicious child being like to his vicious father, proceedeth from the father's multiplied transgressions: for if he be like to his father in sin, he is also, in that regard, as like and more like to many other actual sinners, from whom there could proceed no generative communication of iniquity. Secondly, what is natural, is ordinary, is oftenest, is always so, without some notable hindrance: but the children's being like the parents are not thus; therefore the communication is not natural. Thirdly, suppose a wicked son curseth his father, or wisheth him dead, or mocks at him; he also begetteth a son, which son doth the like to him, as he did to his father: shall we say (if the generation had descended, after many, from Cham, who laughed or mocked at his father, Gen. 9.22.) that this sin of Cham was traduced, derived, or did pass over to this last mocker? or shall we say it was derived unto him from the personal sin of his immediate last father? No; we must rather say, it was derived unto him from his last parents, in and by that original sin only, which was traduced. That this may the better be manifested, consider these points. First, that Adam's first sin, though it were one only, yet more sins were involved in it. Augustine saith, 
e In illo uno peccato, quod per unum hominem intravit in mu●dum, & in omnes homines pertrans●it,— possunt intelligi plurapeccata, si unum ipsum in sua quasi membra dividatur singula. Aug. Enchir. cap. 43.  In that one sin, which by one man entered into the world, and passed over to all men, more sins may be understood, if that one sin be divided into all its parts or members. And he found there many branches of Adam's sin, and denieth not but more may be found in ho● uno admisso, in that one committed. Secondly, he maketh that one to be transfused unto all mankind. Thirdly, none in the world were ever more eager than some of these latter times, to aggravate the greatness of original sin. Illyricus is almost frantic on the point. Zanchius and others are truly peremptory, that all faculties of body and soul are infected. Let me add, There never was sin, nor can be, but the seed of it was couched in the sin original. So that every man hath just cause to bless God, for withholding him from every sin, great or small; since every man hath a natural inclination to every sin, even unto that sin which (by God's grace) he most detesteth. Therefore if wicked children be like their parents, it proceedeth not from their parents personal transgressions, but from that one infectious root of the first sin of Adam, strengthened by connivance, ill breeding, or custom, or ill company. Fourthly, an holy man and woman who never mocked their parents, have a son who mocks at them; shall his mocking proceed from his parents, or his parents parents, who never personally did the like? or shall Cham's sin be communicated to him? Then, why do they instance in this sin of the next parents? If they mean, it is communicated in original sin, they mean what I say, and contrary to their own words. Lastly, sin original is alike in all and every one, and alike remitted in Baptism of infants; yea, though the parents should be infidels, and send their child for fashion-sake, or by way of jesting to be baptised: if the Church know not so much, and if the child be offered unto God by the well-meaning devotion and faith of Priest and people present, and be baptised with true matter and form, it receiveth spiritual regeneration, as I read long since, if my memory fail me not, in S. Augustine. The personal offences or holiness of parents are not communicated to their children. Again, they object, that they confirm this by experience. These are words of wind, and nothing else. That wicked ones beget often children like to them, who denieth? That their children have their father's personal sins 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 sins 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 sins, which is our only question. Even Illyricus himself among all his expositions of visitare, hath none for communicare, propagure, transfundere, transfer: and particularly of this place of Exodus, he saith, 
f Visitans iniquitatem patrum, id est, puniens posteros ob majorum suorum enormia delicta.  Visiting the iniquity of the fathers, that is, punishing the posterity for the enormous sins of their ancestors. Yet if to visit had been to propagate actual sins, it had been his best proof, That the substance of the soul is corrupt by original sin, and hath in it the image of Satan. They allege 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 sins of their parents, not only 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 sin, which passed over to all men, and is so great, that in it humane nature was changed and turned to a necessity of death, more sins are found; and other of parents, which albeit they change not our nature, yet by their guilt they bind children: where he makes an apparent distinction, between that one sin which changed our nature and was propagated unto us, and those other personal sins of our fathers, which change not our nature, but bind us over unto punishment: for that is his meaning of reatu obligant. He doth no where say, such sins are communicated unto us, or that they bind us with the guilt of offence; but he is to be understood of the guilt of punishment. And so Bellarmine expounds him, De amission. great. & 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 spoke only 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 goodness, to visit: but never is used for the communicating, or propagating, trajecting, or transmitting of sins. Nay, 
k Greg. Mor. 15.22.  Gregory goeth further, as he is cited by Bellarmine, teaching that the place of Exodus is to be understood of those children, who imitate the sins of their parents; and so the Chaldee Paraphrase hath it, saith Vatablus. Lastly, to clear this truth, that Augustine in that place meant only 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 vascitur 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 omnium praecedentium parentum suorum originaliter peccata contrabere, & poenas pro iis debitas pendere. An aliud aliquid, de re tanta, in Scriptures san●●is diligentiùs perscrutatis & tractatis, vakat vel non valeat reperiri, temerè non audeo affirmare.  But touching the sins of other parents, by which every one from Adam himself to his own father succeeds his ancestors, it may well be disputed, Whether he that is born be involved in the evil acts and multiplied original sins 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 sins, because, through his merciful moderation, he extends his wrath no further for the faults of progenitors; lest they to whom the grace of regeneration is not given, should be pressed with too great a burden in their eternal damnation, if they were forced to contract the original sins of all their forefathers from the beginning of mankind, 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 Said, 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 sins of their parents: and of the 47 chapter, 
n Quousque majorum peccata prorogcutur, non temerè desiniendum.  We ought not rashly to determine how fare the sins of ancestors 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 sins 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 contracting of sins, and undergoing punishment for them. Fourthly, weigh this strong inconvenience which he toucheth at, That the latter born in time, is still the worse in nature, worse than any that went before; as followeth necessarily, if the sins of our forefathers are communicated to us. Fifthly, he seemeth to conclude the unreasonableness, That they who were never regenerated, should be overburdened with eternal damnation, if they should be compelled from the beginning of mankind to contract the sins of all their progenitors, and be punished for them. And therefore he questioneth, Whether it reacheth only to the third and fourth generation. I would also question, Whether (if the threat reach only to the third and fourth generation) upon supposal, that from Adam all the predecessors of a man were wicked till the fourth generation, that man shall have none of those sins imputed to him, before his progenitors in a fourth ascent. Or if an others progenitors were all good from Adam till the four last generations, and from it all and every of his parents, in a lineal descent, were stark-naught, till we come to himself, who is good, Whether he shall have communicated to him the sins of these four last progenitors, and no goodness for a thousand generations of holy and repentant forefathers (himself also being a holy man) since God showeth mercy unto thousands that love him, that is, more mercy to more good men, than severity, which extendeth, even towards his haters, but to the third and fourth generation; which number is short of thousands.  
The last objection from the place of Exodus, is this; 
q Consequi videtur, Deum permittere ut p●ccata parentum in filios transeant.  It seems to follow, that God doth permit that the sins of parents pass unto their children, and the sons imitate the sins of their fathers, that God may justly punish sins, which are not so proper to the parent, as to the parent and child. I answer, He doth well to mince it with It seems to follow. But, Quaedam videntur, & non sunt; Some things seem to be, and are not. Bucer and Martyr do float too much in generalities; they neither mention what sins, all, or some; neither what parents, good, bad, or all; nor what they mean by passing, when they say, 
r Peccata parentum in filios transeunt.  The sins of parents pass unto the children. There are also nets and gins in these their words, 
s Peccatorum labes & cou contegium redundat in patris corpus, & per ejus sanguinem & semen in filios.  The spot and, as it were, contagion of sin overspreadeth the father's body, and by his blood and seed redoundeth upon the children. Before they said sins, now the spot of sins, though there be a great difference between them two: for the sin is passed before the spot cometh, and the latter is the effect of the former. Again, because it is easy to prove, that 
t Macula patris non redundat in filios.  the stain of the father redoundeth not on the children; it is added, 
u Labes & ceu contagium.  the spot and, as it were, contagion. Moreover, how unaptly do they bring the place of Exodus, to prove the sins of the next parents to be communicated (if by them they understand only the immediate father and mother) when in that place there is express mention of the third and fourth generation? If they stretch the words [of the next parents] to the third and fourth generation only, why not to the fifth, sixth, and so upward? Sixteen generations since Christ's time, are the next parents, if you compare them to the thirty nine generations, which in the law of Nature and of Moses preceded Christ. Lastly, note their wild inference, God permits the father's sin to pass unto the child, and the child to imitate the father that he may punish: as if God could not justly punish the sins of the fathers in the children, unless they be like them in personal transgressions: as if the communication of original sin only, were not cause enough to punish children for the sins of their parents: as if the evil of sin were ordained to justify the evil of punishment. Away then with this fishing in troubled waters, this delighting in amphibolous terms. Which censure that I may the rather justify, I will endeavour to explain all things necessary to the knowledge of this point, to salve all doubts, to unfold all intricacies in these seven propositions.  
4. God justly may, and doth punish with any temporal punishment, any children like or unlike to their parents, for their father's personal sins. Horat. Epod. 7. 
— Immerentis fluxit in terram Remi  
Sacer nepotibus cruor.  And Carminum 3. Ode 6. 
Delicta majorum immeritus lues, Roman—  For the children are a part of the fathers, and in the child's punishment the father himself is punished. For as a son receiveth (under God) life and the things of this life, by the father: so it is no injustice, if he lose the same for him. The widow of Zarephath her son, was (in her apprehension) dead for her sin, 1. King. 17.18. So, 2. Sam. 12.15. God struck the child that Uriahs' wife bare to David, and it was sick and died. Both father and child endured a punishment of seven days: the father in sorrow fasting a fast, lying on the earth, in a holy sordiditie weeping and praying: the child by sickness tormenting him to death. Ahabs' children were punished for his offence, 1. King. 21.21. and among the rest Jehoram his son: who although he wrought evil in the sight of the Lord, yet was not so bad as his father or mother, 2. Kings 3.2. The passage is very observable, Jer. 16.3, 4. For thus saith the Lord concerning the sons and daughters that are born in this place, and concerning their mothers and fathers, They shall die of grievous deaths: Both the great and small shall die, vers. 6. The punishment of Gehazi his posterity is more exemplary: for though they sinned not, nor could sinne the sin of Gehazi; yet the leprosy of Naaman did cleave unto him, for that his personal simony, and unto his seed for ever, 2. Kings 5.27. The case of Jobs children surpasseth this: for they were not stricken with death for their own sins, or the sins of their father Job, so much as for the trial of his patience, and for the experimental confutation of Satan; yet was it not unjust that they should lose their lives for their father's good, which they had by him; since he also suffered in their sufferings, and might easily see Gods especial hand against himself: For the greatest wind in the world naturally cannot smite the four corners of an house; and if it should, yet one corner would uphold the other: but this whirlwind did so, and the house fell, Job 1.19. 1. Sam. 15.6. the Kenites are spared, because they shown kindness to the children of Israel when they came out of Egypt: but because Amalek had fought with Israel, Exod. 17.8. though they were presently punished, by being vanquished in battle; yet God said, vers. 14. Writ this for a memorial in a book,— I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek under heaven.— And the Lord did swear he would have war with Amalek from generation to generation, Exod. 7.16. And above four generations after, about 400 years, Saul destroyed them. A Quaere indeed may be made, Whether God can justly punish the fathers for the children's actual delinquencies. And this resolution is easy, That he may do it, if the father hath doted on the children, & not duly corrected them: (for so did God to 
* 1. Sam. 2.29.  Eli) or if wicked children do tenderly love their parents (which though it be not usual, yet it hath been so;) and in this case the punishment of the father is indeed a punishment also of the child. But if an holy father do his duty, and hate his son's courses, and thereupon the child loveth not his father; if God can punish the father with temporal punishments for the notorious faults of his son, yet he will not punish him eternally. Nay, I will go yet further, and truly avouch, that the sins of predecessors which are not of consanguinity with us, but are fathers only by our imitation, fully may be punished on their children. First, the word father is taken two ways in Scripture: for either there are fathers by imitation, or fathers by nature, from whose loins we lineally descend. The Jews, though they came not of Cain (whose posterity ended at the flood) yet may be said to be his sons by imitation: yea they are called the sons of Satan, Joh. 8.44. because they followed his steps, and did the work of their father, vers. 41. which is one degree more remote. Those, who thus take a pattern for themselves out of example of wicked ancestors, God justly punisheth. Satan having been a murderer from the beginning, John 8.44. Cain being (as it were) the head of murderers among men, and the Jews treading in their steps to an inch, they may justly be cast into the same fire prepared for the devil and his angels, Matth. 25.41. And the Apostle S. Judas justly pronounceth, vers. 11. woe to them that have gone in the way of Cain. Yea, our blessed Saviour himself foretelleth the Jews, that for their bloody proceed, Upon them shall come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of the righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, whom they slew, etc. Mat. 23.35. Where, first, the distinct deaths of several martyrs or just ones (as the Syriack hath it) is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one just blood: secondly, they are said to slay Zacharias, whom others slew: thirdly, the blood is not said in the preterperfect tense, to have been shed; but in the present tense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is shed, or is now a shedding. as Jerusalem is called, vers. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quae occidisti, occîdis, occisura es, as Erasmus well expounds it. All these circumstances concur, to make (as it were) one continued act of murder, from the beginning of the world till the destruction of Jerusalem, repaid with one and the same punishment upon the father and all the sons of imitation. Now as the punishment of the fathers by imitation may in an extended sense be communicated to posterity: so their sins cannot be said to be communicated. For how can the sin of Cain be communicated unto him, who last of all killed his brother? and unto the Jews, who descended not from him, but from the younger brother? Or can we think that God will inflict damnation upon men for others personal transgressions? Temporal chastisements he may justly inflict for the ungracious perpetrations of parents. 
x Non est tibi, Israel, ultio, in qua non sit uncia de iniquitate vituli.  There is no vengeance taken on thee, Israel, wherein there is not an ounce of the iniquity of the calf, saith Rabbi Moses Ben Nachman, whom they call Ramban, or Gerundensis. See an excellent place for both points together, Jerem. 32.18, 19 And eternal torment can he rightly adjudge the souls and bodies of men unto for original sin: which is our second proposition.  
5. God may, and justly doth punish some children eternally, and all temporally for original sin, whether they be like their parents in actual aversion and back-sliding, yea or no. For the most righteous sons of Adam endure pain, labour, sickness, death, which are the orts and effects of the primogeneall offence: and the death both of soul and body was inflicted in Morte moriemini: and this shall hereafter be fully proved.  
6. God justly inflicteth eternal punishment on wicked children, if they resemble their wicked parents. 
y Malorum imitatio facit, ut non solùm sua, sed etiam eorum quos imitati sunt, merita sortiantur. August. in priori Enarrat. Psal. 108.  The imitating of wicked men, makes a man to be punished not only for his own sins, but for theirs also whom he imitates. This is a truth so apparent, that it needeth no further proof.  
7. God oftentimes punisheth one sin with an other. And in my opinion, this manner of punishing, if it continue all a man's life, is worse than the torment of hellfire, which were better to be speedily undergone, then to be deferred with the increase of sin. Psal. 69.27. Add punishment of iniquity, or Add iniquity unto their iniquity. Thus God gave the Gentiles over to a reprobate mind, Rom. 1.28. and then such offenders do but treasure up wrath against the day of wrath, Rom. 2.5. But this happeneth not for the foregoing offences of our progenitors, but for our own transgressions.  
8. The personal holiness of the parent never conveied grace or salvation to the son. Abraham the father of the faithful prayed for his son, Gen. 17.18. Oh that Ishmael might live in thy sight! yet was he a castaway. Temporal blessings indeed he had for Abraham's sake, vers. 20. Isaac had an Esau, David an Absalon, and often the like.  
9 God never punished eternally the real iniquities of fathers upon their children, if the children were holy. Let an instance be given to the contrary. Indeed it is said, Psal. 109.14. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord, and let not the sin of his mother be done away. But he speaketh, first, of a very wicked man, equalling (if not exceeding) his parents in sin. And the New Testament applieth it to Judas, Act. 1.20. to Judas, the monster of men. Secondly, the remembrance mentioned, hath reference rather to penalties consequent, then only to sin's precedent; 
z Memoratur quantum ad poenam, quoniam puncti sunt filii pro iniquitate patrum, qui occiderunt Christum.  It is remembered in regard of the punishment, because the children were pricked for the iniquity of their fathers who slew Christ, saith Cajetan on the place. And this is not our question. Thirdly, why may there not be a change of number, as Vatablus styleth it? And though the interlineary bible readeth it patrum eorum, and Vatablus so expounds it, but reads it patrum ejus: why may it not be expounded patris ejus? being accordant to that following, peccatum matris ejus? and whether it be patrum eorum, or patrum ejus, or patris ejus, I see not but original sin may be meant in both places, as being expressed only in the singular, rather than the many actual transgressions: especially, since our singular original sin came to him by many fathers: and it was not the intent of God's Spirit in this Psalm, to extenuate the sins of the wicked one's forefathers, and to plaster this over with the title of one single iniquity. Indeed Theodoret on the place saith thus, 
a Paterna virtus saepe siliis peccantibus prosuit, ut fides Abrahae Judaeis, & Davidis pietas Solomoni.  The father's virtue hath often profited the transgressing children; as Abraham's faith did the Jews, and David's piety Solomon. So Cesar at his pardoning of those in Marseil, and in Athens, who took part with Pompey in the civil wars, said, They were excused for their ancestors sake: as contrarily, 
b Pravitas pattum filiis similibus poenam adauget.  The wickedness of parents increaseth the punishment of like children, saith Theodoret. I answer, That all this speaketh of temporal chastisements, none of eternal horror, infligible upon good children for the sins of their parents. When God saith, I will visit the sins of the parents; if it employed the visiting them with like sins, as it doth not; yet it is of them that hated him also, and by their personal hating him deserved to have one sin punished with an other: for the hatred of the sons is meant, as annexed to the sins of the fathers. This any one may see that will read Ezekiel 18.14. Lo, if a wicked man beget a son that doth not like his father: he shall not die for the iniquity of his father; he shall surely live, vers. 17. God hath no pleasure that the wicked should die, vers. 23. And hath he delight that the righteous shall perish eternally for his wicked ancestors? The drift of the whole chapter is against it, and proveth his ways to be equal: because a wicked man repenting shall not die for his own transgressions, vers. 25. etc. And shall a righteous man die, or be condemned (for he meaneth the death of the soul) for the offences of others? Who ever perished being innocent? Even as I have seen, they that plough iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same, Job 4.7, 8. and God rewardeth every man according, not to the works of his forefathers, but according to his own works, Rom. 2.6. Mat. 16.27. which seemeth to be taken from the Psalmograph, who ascribeth to the Lord, not injustice, not severity, but grace and mercy in his judicature; Unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou rewardest every man according to his work, Psal. 62.12. And Every one shall give account of himself, Rom. 14.12. Every one shall receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or evil, 2. Cor. 5.10. If this be not enough, more may be added with an easy hand, to the strengthening of this sixth Proposition, now chief questioned, God never damned a good child for the father's personal wickedness. I now come to the seventh Proposition.  
10. No personal sins can be communicated. Indeed, they who maintain the traduction of souls may, if that be granted, better defend the propagation of actual iniquities. But that opinion being false, ridiculous, exploded, and heretical, (of which otherwhere in this Tractate) the superstructive is founded on slippery ice: and these terms, To propagate, communicate, derive, transmit, and transfuse sins personal, are merely amphibologicall and dubious phrases. If they mean as the words do signify, let them say, that the matter of sin actual is transfused, or the form, or both. The matter is the action, the form is the obliquity thereof: both these do vanish. Doth the guilt of punishment pass over? 
c Reatus est vinculum inter poenam & peccatum, quasi medium interjectum.  Gild is a band joining punishment & sin as a thing coming between them: And this band is rather in God, then in man, to tie or untie at his pleasure. 
d Actus qui jam transiit, dicitur manner quoad reatum; non quia rectus sit aliquid, sed quia à tali actu denominatur quis reus. Reatus peccati non est aliqua res, cùm non sit substantia vel accidens, sed solùm maneat in occultis legibus Dei & mentibus Angelorum.  An act that is passed already, is said to remain in regard of the guilt; not that the guilt is any thing, but because a man is denominated guilty from such an act. The guilt of sin is not any thing, since it is neither a substance nor an accident, but only remains in the secret laws of God and minds of Angels, as Holcot, De Imputab. pec. truly gathereth from S. Augustine. The guilt is not the personal sin itself, but the effect thereof; and our question is not now of the descent of punishments. Doth the guilt of sin take hold of the child? they cannot say so, unless here also they confound the effect with the cause: and this is but Petitio principii in other terms. Again, how heterodoxal is it, to say, A man begetteth a son guilty of all his actual iniquities? For then, though the father may be saved by his after-repentance, yet the son who knoweth not perchance, nor ever heard inkling of his father's horrid and secret sins, (according to their position) may be damned for them. Do they mean, the stain and spot is communicated? I answer, The stain and spot is not the actual sin, but the fruit of it inherent in the soul of the offender, and not transmissible by the body, and is only metaphorically termed the stain, having no positive reality transmissible. Zanchius himself relates their opinion thus, 
e Peccatorum, quae aliquis parens committit, labem, & ceu contagium justo Dei judicio redundare in ejus corpus & sanguinem, & per ejus porrò sanguinem & semen in filios, quos ex illo semine it à vitiosè affecto gignit, transfundi.  That the spot and, as it were, contagion of the sins which any parent committeth, doth redound, by God's just judgement, upon his body and blood, and is further transfused by his blood and seed into the sons whom he begets of that seed thus viciously affected. I answer, That [justo Dei judicio] is brought in tanquam Deus aliquis è machina, to make things vast & improbable seem likely & passable: but the vain impertinency of these words is easily observable by any, who knoweth that no manner of God's judgements are any way unjust. Secondly, are not sins of omission personal sins? and are they communicated to the body? Thirdly, what say you to pride of heart, and secret Atheism? Is the proud man's, and Atheists body and blood infected with these prodigies? Again, If such people be wholly forgiven, and their sins by repentance blotted out; are they now in their body, seed, and blood, which are wiped out of their soul? and suppose he beget a son between the Atheism and repentance; shall his child be damned, while the repentant Atheist is saved? should not he rather communicate his later repentance, than his former Atheism?  
But let us weigh the words a little nearer, 
f Peccatorum, quae aliquis parens committit, labes, & ceu contagium, redundat in ejus corpus & sanguinem, & per ejus sanguinem & semen in filios.  The blot and, as it were, contagion of sins which the father commits, redounds upon his body and blood, and by his blood and seed to the sons. What blood is corrupted? all, or only that which was made seed? and of seed, what seed? all seed, or only that which is fruitful? Suppose a father begets a son with the seed which was in his body yet his sin was committed; how doth his sin vitiate his blood, or his blood the preformed seed? If seed and blood be properly vicious; then any ejaculation of seed, or letting of blood, should empty people of their sins or stains in them inherent; and sin should no longer be a privation, but a positive thing. Moreover, when they say, That by the father's blood and seed, the blot and, as it were, contagion is transfused into the sons, they speak without reason or sense. For the blot and, as it were, contagion are transfused (if transfused at all) into the womb of their mother, which hath a preexistence; and not into the children themselves, who have no preexistence. The vessel is before any thing can be poured into it; how then can sin be yoted by the father's blood & seed into the child that had no being? The last passage is this, The children's bodies are first infected by these stains or actual sins, & their souls after defiled by their bodies. If by the word infected they mean, really, truly, properly, and actually infected, I remit them to the place where I have proved, that the Embryo without a reasonable soul is not, cannot be sinful: If they would be expounded of a pronitude to evil, or inclinations tending that way, when the soul is united; they have made much ado about nothing: a mere logomachy, retaining the old sense, and using novelty of terms. Again, if I should yield, That the seed of one man is proner to one vice then an other, according to the vivid strength and able disposition of the parents, as (they say) bastards are more healthy, and more salacious than other people, as retaining part of that spiritful vigour in which they were begotten; yet is original sin the same in every one, alike in all parts and every way; and the likeness to the parents in wickedness is most remotely ascribed to the seed, but properly to original sin, as to the inward cause; and to the parents ill breeding them, or to bad company, or custom, or to the remembrance of their parent's sin (which is a powerful precedent in corrupt nature) as to the outward cause. For a wicked child is as like a thousand other wicked men, if not more like in behaviour then to his father; yet this proceedeth not from their seed, but from original sin. But to the more distinct handling of this point (this seventh and last Proposition) First, I will prove, That the personal sins of all our forefathers, are not derived to us. Secondly, That not the sins from the third and fourth generation are propagated. Thirdly, That the personal sins of our immediate parents are not transfused; And so it will arise of itself, that no personal sins are communicated. In the second place I shall bring to light the authorities on our side. But before I begin either, let me briefly remove an objection. Bucer and Martyr teach (saith Zanchius) that by this doctrine the transfusion of original sin is more confirmed. I answer, That God's truth hath no need of man's lie to uphold it. Cicero said well, 
g Perspicuitas argumentatione elevatur.  Perspicuity is lessened by argumentation: For what is more believed, more known to Christians, than that original sin is traduced? Weak arguments do often prejudice a good cause; and while Bucer and Martyr would seem to confirm that truth, which neither Jew, Turk, nor Christian doubt of, let them take heed, lest when they say actual sins are traduced, they give occasion to the world to think, that humane souls are not created, but traducted; & so by consequent, bring in the mortality of the soul. For it hath been confidently averred by learned men, That if the souls be traducted, they are mortal. But of this hereafter.  
Concerning the first branch, these arguments confirm it. If the actual sins of all our forefathers be communicated to their posterity; then they that are the more ancient are still the better; and the last people of this world shall absolutely, by nature, be worst. But it is not so: for Pagans and Infidels now should be many thousand times worse than the first infidels: which is not so, as is seen by experience. Secondly, than we might truly say, O happy Cain! happier by nature then Abel the righteous: (since Adam and Eve did manifoldly sin between cain's and Abel's generations) yea, happier than Abraham, and the Patriarches, just Job, and the Prophets, the Apostles, and Evangelists: since thou hast fewer sins to answer for then any in the world. Happier is all the drowned world in this regard, than the days since Christ. But to say so, is new Divinity. Therefore all sins of actually transgressing parents are not communicated. Secondly, God dealeth not so rigorously with mankind, as he did with the devils: Verily he took not on him the nature of Angels, but took on him the seed of Abraham, Heb. 2.16. whereby he magnifieth God's mercy to man, above that to the rebellious spirits: but he should or did deal worse with mankind, at least with the damned, then with them, if all the personal sins of our progenitors be communicated to all us. For each of them bore only but their own sins, and none did bear one another's sin further than they actually partaked with it. And this can not be otherwise: for both their sin was pride, and their nature uncapable of propagation, or communication of sin, unless it be by real and present consenting or partaking. Lastly, They all fell together the second or third instant of their creation, saith the School. Suddenly the devil of Lucifer became Coluber; of Oriens, Occidens; of Hesperus, Vesper. He abode not in the truth, Joh. 8.44. Satan fell from heaven like lightning: where lightning is not said to fall from heaven; but he saw 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luk. 10.18. Satan falling as suddenly from heaven, as lightning doth from the clouds on us; which is gone ere we can say it is come. Yea, not Satan alone, but the rest of the Angels kept not their first estate, Judas vers. 6. which Job thus varieth, God found no steadfastness in his Angels, Job 4.18. Seneca might well say of materials, 
h Nulla res magna non aliquod habuit ruinae suae spa●ium.  Epist. 91. No great thing but had some space of time in its ruin and destruction; yet in spirituals he was blind or mistaken. For there was no succession of times in the sins of any sinning Angels: but as at once they were punished, and their place found no more in heaven; so at once almost they sinned: nor did succeeding Angels bear their predecessors sins or punishments: Therefore mankind shall not do so neither.  
Thirdly, S. Augustine in his Enchiridion, chap. 47. toucheth at this argument as unreasonable, if they who have not the grace of regeneration, should contract the sins and bear the punishment of all their progenitors, from the beginning of the world; saying, 
i Premerentur nimiâ sarcinâ in aeterna sua damnatione.  They should be overburdened in their eternal damnation. But God punisheth rather citra, then ultra condignum; rather less, then more than we deserve; and his mercy is above all his works. And as his wrath is to three or four descents, so his mercy extendeth unto more, unto thousands; but his mercy is not showed unto more, if all our forefathers sins lie upon us, unless we can find that there is somewhat more than all. Therefore mankind contracteth not the sins, nor suffereth the eternal punishments due to the sins of all our parents.  
Fourthly, The justice of God will not permit the same sin a million of times among many millions of persons to be punished: but thus it must be, if Seth answer for Adam and Eves actual sins, and all Seths' posterity to this day for every one of their predecessors sins. Therefore all sins of progenitors are not communicated.  
This first branch receiveth strength and confirmation from the second, which is this, Personal sins of our progenitors are not derived or communicated unto us from the third or fourth generation, much less do they reach up to our first parents. Indeed the great S. Augustine in his Ench. chap. 47. makes this Quaere, Whether God threaten posterity with the sins of their fathers, from the third and fourth generation; or threaten the fathers with punishing their posterity, because his wrath extendeth no further, lest posterity should be overburdened: Or whether some other thing concerning this business, may, or may not be found by diligent search of Scriptures, I dare not rashly affirm. But I hope, without rashness, I may be bold to affirm, that God threatneth not to punish sin with sin in that place, but with other punishment. Secondly, nor menaceth eternal punishments for the only sins of parents preceding: but only the commination is of temporal punishments, if they be unlike their wicked parents; & eternal, if they be like in sin unto them. This being the apparent meaning of the place, and the word visito being ever taken to be synonymous with punio, or castigo, whensoever it is contraopposed to facere misericordiam (as here it is) whereupon God's judgement is called the visitation of souls, Wisd. 3.13. Psal. 89.32. I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes, or scourges. Let me in the third place affirm, That though God punish posterity temporally, for the only sins of parents; and eternally, if wicked children resemble their parents; yet it followeth not, that sins are communicated to the third and fourth generation. For the temporal punishment may be justly inflicted on good children of wicked parents: and eternal is as justly inflicted on the evil offspring of an evil man; yet, rather as himself is evil, then as his parents were evil. Again, both the threat and the mercy are only conditional. Lastly, if God should stint the punishment always at the end of the third or fourth generation, which he needeth not, and doth not; yet it followeth not that sins are stinted at the third or fourth generation, or that, that is the prefixed period of time, to which the communication of sins may be extended. But as in the words [unto thousands] there is the uncertain for the certain, the indefinite for the definite, (for it is not expressed how many thousands, either of men, or years, or generations) so in the words [the third and fourth generation] there is the certain for the uncertain, the definite for the indefinite. And as God doth not tie himself to show mercy unto the exact numbers of hundreds & thousands, so is he not restrained from punishing beyond four generations. But therefore the third and fourth generation is named, rather than any other, because many a man now liveth to see his third or fourth generation flourish or decay: And therefore in our Liturgy, in the solemnisation of marriage, the Priest prayeth that the couple united may see their children's children unto the third and fourth generations. And indeed, Job lived, after his great afflictions, to see his sons, and his son's sons, even four generations, Job 42.16. Again, Gregor. Moral. 15.22. interprets this of original sin: and not only the Vulgat, but the Hebrew hath it iniquitatem patrum, in the singular; and the third and fourth generation, (if so understood) hath reference to the ages of the world, saith 
k Aug. Cont. Adamantum cap. 7.  Augustine: from whom Procopius Gazeus little differeth upon the second commandment, thus; Our Saviour said somewhere, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled, (the place is Mat. 24.34. accordingly Mat. 23.36. All these things shall come upon this generation) and truly he spoke of the end. So he makes the fourth generation from Christ's time to the end of the World; the third from the Law to Christ; the second from Abraham to the Law (he should have said from the Flood to Abraham; for was not Noah and all his, till Abraham, part of humane generations?) the first from Adam to the Flood. And the opposite member, [showing mercy unto thousands] may be understood of millions of actual offences forgiven. So much by the way for that exposition.  
I return to the second branch, Sins are not communicated to the third and fourth generation. For why not aswell to the fifth and sixth generations, and so downwards to the world's end? Let some reason be showed, why the force of communication of sins should rest there. The place of Exodus intimateth not the communication of sins, but the punishments; and the punishments so fare, because many live so fare, and few farther: and the exemplary sins of fathers may be seen and remembered and followed by their fourth generation, and not further: and fathers dote not so much on their children, as grandfathers and great-grand-fathers', nor cocker them up so much in evil. It is a senseless consequence, That man communicateth sins actual, to the third and fourth generation, because God punisheth the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation, unless they can prove, Whatsoever God punisheth, man doth communicate unto man: which is impossible; for God sometimes punisheth such sins of the child as the father never had, and of such a child as never had child after, to whom he might communicate them.  
The third and last branch of the seventh and last Proposition is this, That the immediate parents personal transgressions are not communicated to us. They may by way of punishment, by way of offence or sin they cannot. No one sin actual is traducted, propagated, transfused, communicated. If any one actual sin be derived, why not more? why not all, and every one?  
Why should the communication of sins rest in the father and mother, ascendendo, when many children are liker their grandfathers both in shape and feature, and in mind, and in vices, then to their father and mother, who were void of such personal transgressions?  
Thirdly, it is a true and old distinction, That original sin viciateth our whole nature, and actual sins infect the person. But this distinction is taken away and removed, if actual sins do vitiate our nature, and are propagated by the seed, which is proper to sinne-originall. It is not called original sin, for being the root of all sin, (for Satan sinned first) but as it is in our nature originally. In this point Whitaker agreeth with Stapleton, De originali peccato, 1.4. And there Stapleton worthily observes, that 
l Originale peccatum differentiam specificam notat, quae opponitur personali; designans causam peccati naturam esse, non personam.  Original sin noteth a specifical difference, which is opposed to personal; intimating that the cause of sin is the nature, not the person. As when we mention actual sins, we make an opposition to sins habitual, or to sins of omission, or to sin original. If personal sins do pass over unto the children, than Adam's sin did so to his children. But not so. For it is but one single singular sin which we sinned in Adam.  
If Adam's personal vices were propagated to Cain; were all, or part propagated? if part, what were those? and why those above others? if all, what did Adam traduce to Abel, Seth? etc. Did he propagate only those sins, which were committed between the generation of one and the other? And what sins did Seth propagate to his posterity? Are personal sins propagated alike to all the children? How is it that of one man's children, I have known one naturally exceeding angry, an other naturally stupid? Again, if a natural fool begetteth one wise, what sins doth he communicate? or on the contrary, a Machiavelli begetteth a natural fool; shall the fool be damned for his politic father's malengin?  
If actual sin be traduced; then, is it in the seed ere the soul come? in the seed in the father's body? in the seed at the emission, at the reception, and retention? Then millions of seeds spent in lawful matrimony, when women do not conceive; or what they have conceived, yet having no soul, shall have sin actual: and if they have sin, they must come to account. But such fruitless disburdenings do not appear in judgement. Again, if personal sins be propagated, are they remitted in Baptism, or not? if remitted, how are they so like their parents afterwards? How can the seed, which is not so much as an humane body actually, but only potentially, be actually sinful? If personal sin be communicated from the next parents, how is it that experience teacheth us, that very godly men's children are given to such enormities, as their parents in their youth, middleage, and old age have detested? It cannot come by communication of actual sins. You will say, it doth arise from sin original. So we say, and so do all sins whatsoever arise from that corrupted fountain, that ever-bubbling wellspring of evil, and not from a fantastical communication of actual transgressions. If a mere Pagan and heathen, an idolatrous worshipper of devils, beget two twins; shall they be alike wicked? We have heard and known the contrary. God's discriminating saving grace doth not difference them, as you may say it doth in Christians. Lot committed actual sin, and knew it not; was that sin propagated to his sons? That actual sin should be in the seed, which is but a superfluity of nature, is very strange. If Job had presently, after that God had commended him to Satan, saying, There is none like him in the earth, a perfect and upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil, Job 1.8. betook himself to the act of generation: or David at those times, when he was a man according to Gods own heart: what personal iniquities had they propagated? Isa. 56.5. unto holy eunuches God will give a place better, and name better than of sons and daughters: yet, by this opinion, they of all other are most miserable; for they receive all the actual sins of their fathers, and cannot waft-over either them or their own sins into their children by their feed, (for they have none) but all must rest in their souls, in their bodies, in their blood, and upon themselves only.  
If God should miraculously create a man and woman, not of the seed of Adam, and they blaspheme God, and beget children; shall they transfuse actual sin, which have not original sin? or shall their children blaspheme naturally? Or, if they be innocent themselves from that great offence, shall they be damned for their parent's blasphemy?  
If personal sin be propagated, than the habits or acts. But neither. Not acts; for they are transient, and glide away. Not habits; for then, first, why should not habits of knowledge, or goodness, or the like be transfused, as well as of evil? especially the habits of knowledge of evil? Secondly, than a child is not only originally sinful, by froward inclinations; but habitually, by multiplied actions. Thirdly, habits belong to the person individual, not to him as he is a species of mankind: but propagation is according to the kind or species, not according to the individuals.  
If ye object, Ezek. 16.3. God chargeth them of Jerusalem thus, Thy father was an Amorite, thy mother an Hittite; whereby he upbraideth them with their father's sins: I answer, These words are not spoken of natural descent, but of parents and children by imitation. For the Amorites and Hittites were idolaters; and the Israelites who succeeded them in their inheritance, as children do fathers, inherited also their sins, as appeareth in the whole chapter, especially vers. 44. Behold, every one that useth proverbs, shall use this proverb against thee, saying, As is the mother, so is her daughter. Thou art thy mother's daughter, that loatheth her husband and her children; and thou art the sister of thy sisters, which loathed their husbands and their children: your mother was an Hittite, and your father an Amorite. And thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand: and thy younger sister that dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters. The whole kindred is by imitation, not by nature. But our question is of true consanguinity, and real generation. Further, if the immediate parents of those of Jerusalem were idolaters, like to Amorites and Hittites; yet their sins are related, as arguments the rather to deter their children from the like, and to keep them from the temporal punishments, which might justly be inflicted on them: but no way do the words intimate, that they should be damned for their predecessors offences, unless they continued in the same.  
A second objection may be this: Gen. 9.22, 25. I'm the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of Noah, and Noah cursed his grandchild Canaan. I answer, That Cham or Ham had diverse other children, to wit, Cush, Mizraim, and Phut, Gen. 10.6. and Noah cursed none of Cham's children save Canaan only. Upon which I conclude one of these two things; either that the curse extended only to things of this life; or that Canaan was partaker of his father's sin. For otherwise, the rest of Canaan's brethren must have been equally involved both in his guilt and in his punishment. Concerning the first, the words are Gen. 9.25. Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. The other two might perchance, at distinct times, rule the one over the other; but Canaan shall be a servant, both to Shem, v. 26. and to Japhet, v. 27. To be a servant of servants, indeed was the curse of Canaan; and it was really accomplished, when the Canaanites were made tributary and overcome, and the Gibeonites (a part of them) were made vassals to the meanest Israelites, which were the offspring of Shem. Witty Epigrams and Pasquil's have been made both against the city of Rome and its Popes. 
Aversum coluit quia Roma infamis Amorem;  
Nomen ei averso nomine fecit Amor.  Which name of Rome, if it had been first given, when not only the Apostle S. Paul taxed them, Rom. 1.26. etc. but even their fellow-heathen Petronius Arbiter, in satire. might have had some colour for that denomination: But since it was called Rome, when the sins of that kind were not hatched or heard of; I say the inverted and averted name was rather witty and posthumous, then sound. Likewise they have this crochet against the Papal title of Servus Servorum, 
Roma, tibi quondam fuerant Domini Dominorum:  
Servorum servi nunc tibi sunt Domini.  And Calvin derideth that Gregorian title. But the Abbot Rupertus well doth difference, that the Pope is not called absolutely Servus servorum, The servant of servants; but Servus servorum Dei, The servant of the servants of God: to which I add, that he is not said to be Servus servorum fratribus suis, A servant of servants unto his brethren, which was the exact curse of Canaan; but that he makes himself to be called Servus servorum filiis suis in Christo, A servant of servants unto his sons in Christ; from whom he imagined he took his name of Pater and Papa. The second branch of my answer is, that Canaan was partaker of his father's sin. That it might be so, is demonstrable. For though Canaan was not born while Noah was in the ark, wherein few, that is eight souls, were saved by water, 1. Pet. 3.20. And those eight souls were Noah and his wife, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and their three wives, Genes. 7.13. yet Canaan was born unto Ham not long after the flood, Genes. 10.1, and 6, verses. The Rabbins say, Canaan was ten years of age, and first saw his grandfathers nakedness, and in derision shown it to his father; whereupon the father was cursed in that son more than others. But that the innocent son should be cursed eternally for the father's offence, was never intended.  
A third objection may be this: Joh. 9.2. the Disciples asked Christ, Who did sin, this blind man, or his parents, that he was born blind? From whence is inferred, that the Apostles believed, that the sin of parents is prejudicial to the child. I answer, The Apostles interrogation was grounded on knowledge, yet perhaps mixed with some ignorance. They truly did know, both that bodily punishments are sent of God upon men for their offences, and that a child might justly be punished corporally for the parent's iniquity. But their ignorance is seen in this, that they thought no punishment was inflicted, but for some singular singled noted offence. But for whose offence, or what offence, there is the doubt which Christ thus untieth, Neither this man sinned, nor his parents; (where he meaneth not that they had no particular sin, but not such sin or sins as for which this man was made blind) but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. Secondly, this instance is so fare from proving the sins of the fathers to be derived to their sons, that it excuseth both parents and children from such and such sins. Thirdly, it hath apparent reference to corporal punishments, which neither the Apostles nor I do deny, but they may justly be inflicted on the bodies or goods of children for their parents transgressions.  
11. It followeth in my method, that I show the authorities on our side. Bellarmine, De Amissione Grat. & Statu peccati 4.18. proveth at large, 
m Non transire ad posteros per generationem omnia peccata parentum sed primum tantùm primi hominis lapsum.  That all the sins of parents do not pass unto their posterity by generation, but only the first sin of the first man. Trelcatius and Willet cross him not in this point. Scharpius pag. 487. in Cursu Theologico upon that point of Bellarmine maketh this Quaere; 
n An peccata proximorum parentum originaliter in posteros transecunt?  Whether the sins of the next parents originally pass unto their posterity? and he answereth, That Augustine moved the matter, yet determined it not: but we (saith he) agree with Aquinas, that it is impossible so to be. And he allegeth diverse sound reasons for that purpose. Augustine himself indeed somewhere is somewhat doubtful: and though he saith against Julian 6.3. That Fundanus a Rhetorician of Carthage, 
o Cùm accidenti vitio luscus esset, luscum filium procreavit.  being by an accidental hurt blind of one eye, begat a son likewise blind of one eye: (where he seemeth to patronise the transfusion of personals) yet the case is above ordinary, as experience showeth; and much may be ascribed to the imagination of the mother, rather than to the imperfect generation of the father. Though Augustine also in Enchirid. be somewhat cautelous and timorous; yet otherwhere (as I have proved before) he is confident, that we shall stand forth to judgement for one only sin of Adam, our original sin: which truth he confirmeth in one particular, thus, against Julian the Pelagian 6.12. 
p Propter hoc itaque, id est, qu●niam peccavit Adam, nec ipse Cain peccasse dicendus est, qui eundem patrem suum noverat.  Therefore neither can Cain himself, though he knew his father Adam, be said to have sinned because his father sinned. And more fully, De peccat. Meritis & Remiss. 1.13. 
q Ab Adam, in quo omnes peccavimus, non omnia nostra peccata, sed tautùm originale traduximus.  We have not derived from Adam (in whom we all sinned) all our sins, but only original. Thus much be said to prove the divine S. Augustine to be of our side.  
Only Vorstius, of all the canvasers of Bellarmine that I have met with, differeth from him and us, and maketh a double propagation, General, and Special: and saith, If Bellarmine's drift be against the general propagation, it is false; because nature teacheth, and experience witnesseth, 
r Corruptiores ex corruptioribus ordinariè generari.  that ordinarily worse children are begotten of worse men. If he speak of the special traduction, our men easily assent unto him, saith Vorstius. I reply on Vorstius. First, who ever before him talked of a double propagation? Not Scriptures, nor Fathers, nor Counsels. Secondly, is this general propagation done at the same time that the special is accomplished? Is this general propagation better or worse than original sin? Is this general propagation, of all sins, and of all parents up to Adam, and of sins repent of, and of sins of omission, and of transient sins; or of such as Atheism in the soul, which hath small, or no participation with the body? Let him define or describe this trimtram of general propagation contraopposed to the propagation of sin original. But, saith he, Nature and experience say, Worse children are begotten of worse men. I answer, I never knew any worse, than some children of some good men. Secondly, he puts non causam pro causa, ascribing the wickedness of children to the propagation of actual sin of their immediate parents, when he may better impute it to their hearing or beholding of their parent's wickedness, or to ill breeding and ill custom. Thirdly, the vices of the immediate parents, and of the remoter, yea of the remotest, even from Adam, yea all the sins that ever were committed, yea which yet never were committed, but shall be or may be hereafter, differing either in kind or number from all sin's precedent, all have been, are, shall be (in regard of the beginning, root, and fountain) in original sin. Fourthly, none ever that handled this controversy (as Augustine, or the School) did ever take actual sins for inclinations to sins. Fifthly, in Vorstius his distinction there is a fallacy, viz. Petitio principii, while he, without good proof, taketh that for granted which is the only thing denied, namely, That there is an other propagation, besides the propagation of sin original. Sixthly, how inconsequential is this? Wicked men have ordinarily wicked children; Therefore personal sins are propagated. But indeed we deny the antecedent, and say, The sons of the wicked are as righteous, by natural generation, as the sons of the righteous. If Vorstius reply, that every age groweth worse and worse, and 
Aetas parentum pejor avis tulit  
Nos nequiores, mox daturos  
Progeniem vitiosiorem.  And again, 
Aurea prima sata est aetas:—  
— subiítque argentea proles,  
Auro deterior, fulvo pretiosior aere:  
Tertia post illam successit ahenea proles;  
— de duro est ultima ferro:  The answer is expedite, These are but poetical fictions, fictions of those who knew no propagation of original sin, and ascribed this growing worse and worse to the depravation of manners then present in use, and to evil customs, rather than to the propagation of personal iniquities: Laudamus veteres, sed nostris utimur annis. Much there is to the like purpose in heathen authors. Lastly, Vorstius himself, after his seeking to find a knot in a bulrush, after his needless opposition in this point, concludeth thus, Hoc transeat, quia parvi momenti est; Let this pass, because it is of small moment. So that, even in his judgement, this controversy is small, and indeed I think it not worth the name of a controversy.  
When I had come thus fare, labouring to prove that no actual or personal sins are propagated, I casually again conferred with that learned loving friend of mine, who formerly brought to my hand the opinions of the new Writers; and upon some discourse, he settled on this exposition, which otherwise he gave over as indefensible, That they do mean by actual sins, that inclinations unto sins are communicated. I answered, That I used to gather men's meanings by their words, and that neither their words, nor the words of Zanchius the relatour, do incline to these inclinations. Again, never did any author of any time before expound personalia, and actualia peccata (for of these must the question be necessarily understood) by the inclinations unto sin. Moreover, if by peccata they did mean the proneness unto sin; to avoid doubtfulness, they should, and as readily and easily they could (if they would) have written peccatorum inclinationes, as peccata in general; or might have signified in some other words, and in some other passages, that they had meant so. This I know, They talk of peccata, peccata proximorum parentum, of labes peccatorum, & ceu contagium; they have words enough, doubtful and obscure enough, which I dare say themselves understood not when they writ, viz. peccatorum labes, & ceu contagium: yet make they no mention of inclinations. But I would further know, whether their inclinations are derived unto their children, and punished in them; which rest only as inclinations, and never come into act: Or such inclinations as begin to come into act, but are resisted and overcome by God's grace: Or only such inclinations as breed actual and personal iniquity. If thus, than the inclinations are not punished, but the actual aversions. Or, are no inclinations derived from grandfather, & c? I, but since original sin is alike in all, and some are more like to parents; whence doth this likeness to them proceed more then to others? I answer, A drunkard's child is as like in that sin to all other drunkards, as to his father.  
But why hath a drunken father more commonly a drunken son, than a sober man? First, that is not yet proved. Object. Secondly, parents sins seen or heard of, easily invite the children to do the same. Thirdly, too many parents bring up their children to do as themselves do. Fourthly, if a most drunken son hath most sober parents, than it comes from sin original: Why not so also from drunken parents? If inclination of drunkenness be more in the seed of drunken men then of sober, than the children of drunkards should naturally be more drunk and deeper drunk, than any other drunkards whose parents were temperate. But that is not so, at least not so naturally, because not always, no, nor perchance commonly. Let me once more repeat, That all possible inclinations unto sin are enveloped and involved in original sin, which they either knew not, or considered not. Lastly, when I had taken these pains to frame this chapter in defence of a point, which I never held to be questioned, it grieved me to hear my ingenious friend so much to defend the new Writers, and to dance after the new pipe. Candid and favourable expositions I shall love while I live, and both use towards others, and desire to be used towards me; but violent, forced, farre-fetched interpretations (as this hath been) I can no way allow. For since reformation hath been so sharp-sighted, as to find fault in all things, to esteem the Schoolmen as dunces, (though they are thought dunces that so censure them) to account the Fathers as silly old men, or as children, (though they are but babes that admire them not) to disregard Provincial Counsels, yea General Counsels, as the acts of weak and sinful men (though they are the chiefest, the highest earthly-living-breathing Judges of Scriptures controversed;) which cavils against former times I have heard belched forth by the brainsick zealous ignorants of our times: since we have hissed out the Papists, and think they speak against their own consciences, when they maintain the infallibility and inerrability of the Pope: May not Bucer and Martyr err? Must all new opinions needs be true, and defended with might and main, with wrested partaking, overcharitable defences, rather than a small error shall be acknowledged? If such mild dealing had been used against times precedent, we could not have found (as some now have done) about two thousand errors of the Papists. But thus much (if not too much) shall suffice concerning these men and this matter, with this close, That Zanchius himself, in the place above cited, saith thus against that new-fangled opinion, 
t Neque enim aliud peccatum in posteros transfusum est, quàm quod ipsius quoque fuit Adami: fuit enim inobedientia cum privatione justitiae originalis, & totius naturae corruption. Deinde etiam, non propter aliud peccatum nos sumus adjudicati morti, quàm propter illud propter quod & Adamus: Ejusdem enim peccati stipendium fuit mors. Illi autem fuit dictum, Morte Morieris, propter inobedientiam, etc.  For no other sin was transfused to posterity, then that which also was Adam's: for it was disobedience with a privation of original justice and corruption of the whole nature. Besides, we are sentenced to death for no other sin then for that for which Adam also was: for death was the wages of the same sin. Now it was said to him, THOU SHALT DIE THE DEATH, for disobedience, etc.  
Now let them say, (if they can) that Adam was sentenced to death for any sin of predecessor or successor, or any other sin of himself, but one only. I have maintained and do resolve, Death was inflicted for his first sin only. Therefore by Zanchius his true Divinity, against Bucer and Martyr, and their peremptory defenders, Not all, not many sins, of all, of many, of any, of our predecessors; but the first sin only of Adam is transfused to posterity: nor are they guilty or condemnable, for any other preceding actual sin or sins of others whosoever.  
O Father of consolation, O God of mercies, who knowest that every one of us have sins personal more then enough to condemn us; lay not, I beseech thee, the sins of our fathers, or forefathers, or our own (if it be thy holy will) to our charge, to punish us in this life present; or our original sin, in, and by Adam, or our own actual misdeeds, to trouble our consciences by despair, or to damn us in the world to come: but have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, according to thy great mercy in Christ Jesus, our alone Lord and Saviour. Amen.   

CHAP. VIII.  
1. Original sin came not by the Law of Moses, but was before it in the World.  
2. God hath good reason and justice to punish us for our original sin in Adam. God's actions defended by the like actions of men.  
3. Husbands represent their wives. The men of Israel represented the women. Concerning the firstborn of men and beasts. The primogeniture and redemption of the firstborn.  
4. The whole body is punished for the murder committed by one hand. Corporations represent whole cities and towns, and Parliaments the body of the Realm. Their acts bind the whole Kingdom. Battelling champions and duelists engage posterity.  
5. S. Peter represented the Apostles. The Apostles represent sometimes the Bishops, sometimes the whole Clergy. The Ministers of the Convocation represent the whole Church of England. The authority of General Counsels. National Synods must be obeyed.  
6. Private spirits censured. Interpretation of Scripture not promiscuously permitted. An anabaptistical woman displayed.  
7. An other woman reproved for her new-fangled book in print. Scriptures not to be expounded by anagrams in Hebrew, much less in English; but with reverence, How fare the people are to believe their Pastors.  
8. Saul represented an entire army. Joshua and the Princes bind the Kingdom of Israel for long time after.  
9 Christ represented us. Christ and Adam like in some things, in others unlike. Christ did and doth more good for us, than Adam did harm.  
IT hath been plentifully evidenced, that death entered into the world by sin; and that both Adam and we were sentenced to die for one sin, the first sin only of Adam only; and not for any other sin or sins of him, or any other our remote, propinque, or immediate parents; and that death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, Rom. 5.14. I add, Death shall live, fight, and prevail, (though not reign) from Moses unto the end of the world. For when this mortal shall have put on immortality, than (then, and not till then) shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory, 1. Cor. 15.54. and the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death, 1. Cor. 15.26. Aquine on Roman. 5. lect. 4. thus, Because corporal death reigned from Adam, by whom original sin: came into the world, unto Moses, under whom the Law was given, and death is the effect of sin, especially original sin; it appeareth, there was original sin in the world before the Law: and lest we might say, they died for actual sins, the Apostle saith, Death reigned even over those who sinned not proprio actu, as children. So he.  
2. The things themselves then being unquestionable, and before elucidated to the full, That death is inflicted for original sin, and that we all and every of us (except Christ) have contracted original sin; it followeth justly, by the judgement of God, that death is appointed unto us for this sin. Tertullian lib. 1. contra Martion. 
a Homo damnatur in mortem, ob unius arbusculi delibationem:— & pereunt jam omnes quì nullum Paradisi cespitem nôrunt.  Man is condemned to death for tasting of a small tree:— and now they all perish that never were acquainted with Paradise: and let me add, They are most justly punished. Neither let man cavil, or cast aspersion of unrighteousness upon God. For though men be but of yesterday (yea though the child be born but this minute) yet by reason of their original sin in Adam, and with him, they were justly sentenced in Adam unto death almost six thousand years ago. For though God needeth no defence from the actions and behaviour of men; yet from their usances and customs generally received, from their right and equity daily practised, let us ascend to behold the blameless course in the like of the Almighty. Do we find a young snake, viper, or other venomous or hurtful beasts, birds, or the eggs of a cockatrice; we destroy them, not for the harm which they have done, but for the kind sake, and for the spoil which they may do. Do not prodigal great heirs waste and scatter abroad estates insured to posterity? Do they not cut off intails, annihilate and void perpetuities, draw inheritances dry in smoke, and consume them wholly on gut or groin, to the everlasting prejudice of their issues? Did not the disobedience of Queen Vashti unto her husband do a wrong, not to the King Ahasuerus only, but to all the princes, and all the people, Esther 1.16. and, as being exemplary, was punished accordingly? If the whoredom of the High-priests daughter be a profanation of her father, Levit. 21.9. and therefore she was to be burnt alive, though other whores were put to milder deaths: if an evil done to a brother striketh up to the abuse of the father, as it doth; (for God rendered the wickedness of Abimelech which he did unto his father, in flaying his seventy brethren, Judges 9.56.) then why might not the wickedness of a father descend in some sort upon the children, in a storm of wrath and punishment?  
3. The husband representeth the wife: what bargain he maketh, she maketh: they are one flesh. The great commandment, to keep the sabbath, was given to son and daughter, to servants and to strangers, but not to the wife. She was forbidden in her husband, which the rest were not, but dividedly: so was Eve forbid in Adam, not inhibited herself, but in him who represented her. The men of Israel represented the women, and the women had good by the actions or passions of the men. The females were redeemed in the males, every male gave a ransom for his soul unto the Lord; all and every one, rich and poor alike, even half a shekel; and they gave this offering unto the Lord, to make an atonement for their souls, Exod. 30.15. Women were partakers of this benefit, and in the men's atonement was the woman's comprised. Neither were the females presented to the Lord, but the males, the males only: and the women in them, and by them, but not in their own persons. In God's due claim to the beasts, these three conditions were to be observed: First, that the beasts should be clean; and so not swine, not horses, camels, dromedaries, elephants, or the like; but only these three kinds, sheep, ruther-beasts, and goats, were the Lords (unless you will make up the number, four, with an ass; which was to be redeemed with a lamb, or his neck to be broken, Exod. 13.13.) For though it be said Exod. 13.2. Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast: it is mine: Yet you must not extend the words to dogs, or cats, or things unclean, but only to such clean beasts as God hath appointed for sacrifices. Yea, though it be said, Numb. 18.15. The firstling of unclean beasts thou shalt redeem: You must know, there is a double uncleanness. First, that which is unclean throughout all its species; as swine, and horses, and the like: Secondly, that which is unclean by accident, and is contraopposed to perfect and unblemished, Levit. 22.22, 23. as blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed,— or which hath any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts: such beasts, even of clean beasts, as sheep, goats, etc. the Lord counted unclean, and claimed them not. Those that were thus unclean by accident, were to be redeemed: and so that place of Numb. is to be understood, and not to be wiredrawn, as if God did claim the unclean beasts to be his. The second condition, That those clean beasts should be firstborn: Thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast, Exod. 13.12. Thirdly, these clean firstborn or sirstlings must not be the females, though they first open the matrix, but the males; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Septuagints have it, Exod. 13.12. The males shall be the Lords. Semblably in the case of mankind, women were not the Lords claim, but the men only, and the women included in the men. For though it be said in general terms, Exod. 13.13. All the firstborn among thy children thou shalt redeem; yet the women were not redeemed but in the men, and the men only were offered. Luke 2.23. Every male that openeth the womb shall be holy: Openeth the womb by extramission and ejection, not by intromission and injection, as the Hebrew phrase importeth: the Greek is thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Omnis masculus primogenitus, as Beza reads it; Omne masculinum, as the Vulgat hath it; according to that, Exod. 22.29. The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give unto me. From whence let me infer this conclusion, That the firstborn had his denomination from the mother's first birth or parturition, as well as from the father's first generation. Exod. 11.5. From the firstborn of Pharaoh, to the firstborn of the maid-servant that is behind the mill. The Septuagints style the firstborn, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with reference to the father's act, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the mother; and Christ is not called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from a carnal father (for he had none) or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, John 1.18. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luke 2.7. her firstborn son. Which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ill interpreted by the old Bishop's bibles, Mat. 1.25. first-begotten; and by the Genevean translation as ill rendered, Luke 2.7. forsaking their good rendering of it, Mat. 1.25. But our late translation, in both places aptly hath it the firstborn, and not first-begotten. Though Jacob saith, Genes. 49.3. Reuben, thou art my firstborn: yet Leah might have said the same words as well; for he was the firstborn of both: Yea, I dare say, if a man had more wives at once, as Jacob had; or successively, as many others; the first male child of each of these women by the same man may justly be called his firstborn; and every one of these firstborn children, if they had lived under the levitical law, had been consecrated to God. And therefore Reuben having lost his birthright, the double portion which had been due to him, (and was due to the firstborn under the law, Deut. 21.17. and was part of those Jura primogeniturae, and one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by the Apostle, Heb. 12.16.) was by God's appointment, and jacob's just allotment bequeathed to Joseph, Genes. 48.5. And of him were two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh: whereas no other of the children of Israel had more than one tribe. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was joseph's, 1. Chron. 5.2. and not Judah's. For Joseph was the firstborn of Rachel, the first-love of Jacob, the first wife in the light, in right, and in intention: And so her eldest son Joseph was in right to be the firstborn of Jacob: and herself is preferred in place, not only by jacob's affection, but long after, by the Spirit of God, Ruth 4.11. The Lord make the woman like Rachel and Leah. Shall I step one step further? I may say, That if the willing and witting act of Jacob, preferring Ephraim, the younger son of Joseph, before his firstborn Manasseh, did only signify, that God's blessing went not always hand in hand by the priority of birth, and that God makes birthright's according to his pleasure, and not according to man's reckoning: Yet three other passages reach more home, to prove, That Joseph was the firstborn. First, because Jacob blessed Joseph two several times, Genes. 48.16. and 49.22. which he did unto none of his other children beside; and withal, he gave him one portion above his brethren, which he took out of the hand of the Amorite with his sword and with his bow, vers. 22. besides the parcel of ground in Shechem, where Joseph was buried; And it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph, Josh. 24.32. which was also a prerogative above his other brethren. Secondly, because Jacob blessed joseph's children before he blessed his own children, Genes. 48.16, etc. Thirdly, because Jacob blessed both Joseph in his children, and his children in his blessing; and blessed none of his children's children, by name, separately, and particularly, but joseph's children only (though diverse of them had little ones before Jacob went into Egypt, Genes. 46.5.) and Joseph himself Jacob blessed with the blessings of the breasts, and of the womb, Genes. 49.25. Which words, as they do promise a kind of fruitfulness; (which was taken from Ephraim, by barrenness, when it was said, Hosea 9.14. Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts) so I remember not, that ever the posterity of Joseph had extraordinary number of issue above other tribes, answerable to jacob's extraordinary blessing; but Judah, and his offspring only, had more men of war, from twenty years old and upward, then both the tribes of Ephraim and Manassch, Num. 1.26, 33, 35. and therefore, in all likelihood, had more children from twenty years downward. Which words, I say, viz. The blessings of the breasts, and of the womb, as they may in a second sense imply a numerous offspring; so in the first sense, I conjecture, they pointed at the primogeniture of Joseph and his children. Sure I am, the birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, 1. Chron. 5.1. and the birthright was joseph's, vers. 2. and perhaps, even in this point, jacob's blessings prevailed above the blessings of his progenitors, Genes. 49.26. For Abraham prayed once that his firstborn son, by his concubine, might be blessed: O that Ishmael might live before thee! saith he to God, Gen. 17.18. and Isaac would have blessed his firstborn Esau: Make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die, saith Isaac to Esau, Genes. 27.4. though beforehand Esau had sold his birthright unto Jacob, Genes. 25.33. Neither Abraham, nor Isaac prevailed in their wishes: but jacob's blessings prevailed above the blessings of his progenitors, because, whom he desired to bless, God blessed; and he gave, by God's allowance, the primogeniture to Joseph whom he loved, and to whom, in some regard, it was due before Reuben.  
I return to the old matter, and opine, That when a bachelor marrieth with a widow, which had had a son by her former husband, her first man-child by the second husband was not a firstborn, nor so accounted in the law. And if after a woman had had seven husbands, and daughters only by each of these, she had been married also unto the eighth husband, and should have a son by him, though he had had diverse sons before by other women; yet this his son by this woman is, in the eye of the law, a right firstborn child, and sacred to the Lord; and to be redeemed, not with the general redemption of every male, half a shekel, of which I spoke before, but with the particular redemptions of the firstborn. Redemptions were of two sorts: the first is expressed Numb. 3.45. where the Levites are taken in stead of all the firstborn, and the cattles of the Levites in stead of their cattles. And because there were two hundred and seventy more of the firstborn sons of the Israelites, than all the male Levites came unto, every one of those odd 270 paid five shekels to the Lord for their redemption: which sum of five shekels was ever after, during the Law, the price of the redemption of the firstborn son, Numbers 18.16; which was the second kind of redemption.  
I cannot omit to show the means which God used, to prevent the cozenage about things consecrated. They were to do no work with the firstborn bullock, nor to shear their firstborn sheep, Deuter. 15.19.  
It is also remarkable, first, that Pharaoh commanded the midwives of the Hebrews, Exod. 1.16. If it be a son, ye shall kill him: and gave in charge after to all the Egyptians, his subjects, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive, vers. 22. Secondly, that Moses was the son of a Levite, exposed to the danger of the water; and therefore called Moses, because he was drawn forth, Exod. 2. and after called by God, to revenge this wrong and others upon Pharaoh. Among which plagues, this was a great one, to slay their firstborn: and as the just retaliation used by God in other things, yea in this, was, not to destroy their daughters, but their sons; so in his mercy he would not destroy all their males, but the firstborn only; which you must not understand of their daughters, though they were firstborn, but only of their males. For when it is said, Psal. 78.51. He smote all the firstborn in Egypt, the chief of their strength; you cannot imagine that women were the chief of their strength, but the men only. And God taught the people to say, Exod. 13.15. The Lord slew all the firstborn, etc. therefore I sacrifice unto the Lord all that openeth the matrix, being males. And as the firstborn males only were sacrificed, so only were the firstborn males redeemed. And accordingly all the male Levites were taken for the male firstborn of Israel: and at the most righteous massacre of the firstborn males of Egypt, the Israelites escaped by the blood of a lamb without blemish, a male of the first year, or a son of the first year, Exod. 12.5. From whence you may see the gross error of Cornel. Cornelii à Lapide, who thinketh, That if a woman had had a daughter first, and sons after, her first son had not been her firstborn, but her daughter; because she opened the matrix first: when it is evident, that if a woman had had many daughters before one son, yet her first son was her firstborn in the Law. And God saith, Exod. 12.24, Ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee, and to thy sons for ever: viz. the ordinance of keeping the Passeover. I recollect, & apply these things thus, The men of Israel represented the women; The firstborn son, and not the daughter, was the Lords due; The male Levites were in stead of the firstborn sons; All firstborn males were redeemed; Women received good by the men's circumcision, and by men's redemption, which was in one kind or other, whether they were firstborn or not firstborn. And though the devilish superstition of the Turks now circumcise women (as Joannes Leo reporteth) yet by God's appointment women were neither to be circumcised, nor redeemed, but as they were in men, and as men represented them.  
4. Let me come yet nearer to the main purpose. The Apostle saith, 1. Corinth. 12.26. Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. From whence I thus argue; As at the committing or deed-doing in murder, the murderer's hand may be said to will the murder; not because there is any will, strictly taken, belonging to the hand; or because there is sin properly in the right hand, which doth but its duty in obeying the souls domineering disposition, or dominium despoticum: but because the hand is part of that man, in whose soul the will was that commanded the murder; and because the soul is principium totius individui, the fountain from which all members take life, and use motion, and by the soul the motion was derived to all the other parts of the body. So were we, and every one of mankind, willing to commit the sin with Adam; not as if we had been there actually to agree or disagree, but as we were parts of him who was the fountain of humane nature, which conveyed corruption unto all mankind. Semblably in the punishment: though the right hand only give the blow, and actuate the murder, yet upon the delinquents apprehension both hands are pineoned, both feet fettered, the neck is haltered, and the whole body ruth it; yea, soul and all, without repentance. So, though Adam only sinned that first great sin, yet because he did it representing us, Adam alone is not punished for it: but we that are bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, all that are members of the first Adam are guilty of the fault, and condignly are punished, if we be unrepentant. For as the diverse members of a body, are part of the person of one man: so all and every man is, as it were, a part and member of humane nature. And thus by the participation of the species, more men are one; and one, more: we, Adam; and Adam was we. But let us go out of man himself, and look to other fashions of the world, in matters political. Do not the several men in a Township or Corporation make one body thereof, and the whole Corporation is, as it were, but one man? and what a few do, is it not the act of all? of which he complained, who said, That Mr. Maior, for his own particular, was an honest man, and so were all the brethren, who promised him fairly; but (because, contrary to their promise, they pinched upon him) the Corporation was a knave. Doth not the House of the Commons represent the Body of the Realm, in the Parliament time, though the thousand part of the subjects be not present? and what they enact, the absent enact; what they deny, the absent deny: and what immunities and privileges they obtain, for succession as well as for themselves they obtain them: and what services, tributes, subsidies, or taxes they yield unto, all the rest of the Realm must yield unto, and pay: yea, by the trust reposed in them, they bind or lose the whole Kingdom, sometimes in such things as others would never have consented unto, and yet must undergo, and see performed. In the fifth book of the History of Portugal, the University and Divines of Alcala, among other things, truly decreed, and religiously guided Philip the second towards the attaining of the crown of Portugal, in these words, saying, that, When as Commonwealths do choose their first King, upon condition to obey him and his successors, they remain subject to him to whom they have transferred their authority; no jurisdiction remaining in them either to judge the realm, or the true successor, seeing in the first election all true successors were chosen.  
Every man is considered doubly. First, as a singular person: so only his own proper actions belong to him. Secondly, as a member of a society: so what the Prince, or the whole city, or the greater part do, doth concern him: For so saith the Philosopher, saith Scharpius the Divine. Much more did Adam represent our persons, when, what he willed and performed, we willed and performed; we being in him, as many waters in a fountain; all to be corrupted, if he were corrupted; all to be pure, if he continued pure; all to live by his righteousness, all to die by his iniquity.  
Furthermore, in the famous battle between the three Horatij and the three Curiatij, did not they represent both the armies and both the people? the Horatij, of the Romans? the Curiatij, of the Latins? Did not their wills, their strength, their fortune depend on the wills, strength, and fortune of those combatants? did not the Latins fall into subjection by the death of the Curiatij? and did not the Romans thrive and prosper by the valour of their superviving Horatius? Yea in the Scripture, long before this battle, there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, Goliath of Gath, 1. Sam. 17.4. with a proud challenge, and bold defiance; Am not I a Philistine, and you servants of Saul? Then he articleth, Choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me. If he be able to fight with me, and to kill me; then we will be your servants: but if I prevail, and kill him; than you shall be our servants, and serve us. It should seem, the Philistines referred themselves to his success; for when David had undertaken the duel, and when the Philistines saw their champion dead, (they fought not a stroke) they fled. And the men of Israel and of Judah pursued, wounded, and killed them, vers. 51, 52.  
Yea, in our own country, if upon imposed crimes by an appellant, the defendant shall yield, or be overcome in battle, 
b V●imo supplicio punietur, cum poena gravi vel graviori, secundum criminis qualitatem, cum exhaeredatione haeredum suorum, & omnium bonorum amissione.  He shall be put to death with a grievous or more grievous pain, according to the quality of the crime, with the disinheriting of his heirs, and loss of all his goods. Furthermore, though he were slain, yet the formality of the Common-law proceeding, adjudgeth him to capital punishment, that thereby his posterity may suffer the grievous concomitancy of his deserved infamy, saith that most learned M. Selden, my most courteous and loving friend, in his Duello, or Single Combat, pag. 30.  
5. But let us come from the sword, where things are cut out with more rigour, if not cruelty, unto matters Ecclesiastical, and so more civil and peaceable. Did not S. Peter stand in stead of all the Apostles, when Christ said to him, Joh. 21.15, 16. Feed my lambs,— Feed my sheep. And again, Feed my sheep, vers. 17. Likewise when Christ said to him, Matth. 16.19. I will give unto thee the keys of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. And when this promise to Peter was promised to the rest of the Apostles also, Matth. 18.18. and when both these promises were fulfilled and accomplished, as they were after Christ's resurrection (and not before) and authority given, and by a solemn ceremony exhibited by Christ, not only to S. Peter, but to all and every of the Apostles, saying, Joh. 20.21, etc. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. Did not the Apostles represent the whole body of the Ministry? unless you will fable, that in the Apostles days they had more need of remission of sins, than we have now; or that Christ loveth not his Church now, nor affordeth the like means of pardon and reconciliation, as he did in those times. But by the same deceitfulness of cavillation, you may say as well, that when Christ broke bread, and gave it to his Disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body: and gave the cup to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; none but they might eat, or drink the Supper of the Lord. But it is undeniable, that when Christ said to his twelve Apostles, Luk. 22.19. This is my body which is given for you: Do this in remembrance of me; he spoke it to them as representours of the whole Priesthood only: who only have power to consecrate the body and blood of our Lord. Indeed Hierome saith, 
c Quid facit Episcopus, exceptâ Ordinatione, quod Presbyter non facit● Epist. 85. ad Euag.  What doth a Bishop, except Ordination, which a Priest doth not? as if the Apostles represented the Bishops in that point only: and the Centurioators acknowledge, that the first Bishops, after the Apostles, were made Bishops by the Apostles: and they say no more than is confirmed, 1. Timothy 5.22. and Titus 1.5. Act. 20.28. But other Fathers extend the comparison between the Apostles and Bishops to other matters; appropriating to the Bishops, above the Presbyters, the power of Confirmation, and diverse other things. All which though we grant, yet no man will deny but for preaching, baptising, and especially for consecrating of the Eucharist, and Sacerdotal Absolution, or Ministerial Remission of sins, the Apostles represented not the people in any wise, nor the Bishops only; but the universal body of Christ's Ministers.  
And do not, among us, the Right Reverend Archbishops, and Bishops, and the Clergy, assembled in the Convocation, represent the whole Church of England? are not they our Nationall Council? do not their Articles of Religion bind in conscience all and every one of the Church of England, as much, if not more then Civil laws? Nor is there the like humane authority on earth, for the settling of our consciences in matters of Scripture, or Scriptures controverted, or to be controverted, as the external public breathing voice of a true Ecumenical Council of the Patriarches, Bishops, and choice Divines of the Christian world. The essential, universal Church of Christ is (and we must believe it is) the house of God, the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth, 1. Tim. 3.15. It never erred, it cannot err, its judgement is infallible. The Spirit leadeth this Church into all truth, Joh. 16.13. Of the Church of God, consisting of the faithful in any one age or time, I dare say, it never did err damnably, or persisted in smaller errors obstinately; but always some truly maintained things necessary to salvation: and unto this fluctuant militant part of the Church, Christ hath promised to be with it to the end of the world, Matt. 28.20. The whole visible Church at no time can fall into heresy; but some seek after the truth, and embrace it, and profess it. Subject it is to nesciency of some things, and perhaps to some kind of ignorance; but it cannot err in things necessary, nor in less matters, schismatically, with obdurate pertinacy.  
Of the representative Church of Christ in Counsels, this may be said truly and safely: viz.  
Of the first six General Ecumenical Counsels, not one, de facto, erred in any definition of matters of faith. Of other lawful general Counsels, that may hereafter be called, though I will not deny but they may possibly be deceived, as they are men, and therefore are not free from errability: (but if such Counsels may err, or pronounce amiss, cannot cobbler's?) yet there is least likelihood of their erring. Such Ecumenical Counsels have the supremest, public, external, definitive judgement in matters of Religion; if any oppose them, they may not only silence them, but censure them with great censures, and reduce them into order. Private spirits must sit down and rest in their determinations, else do the Counsels lose operam & oleum. What S. Ambrose, Epist. 32. said of one general Council, 
d Sequor tractatum Niceni Concilii, à quo me 〈◊〉 mors, nec gladius 〈◊〉 separare.  I follow the decision of the Nicene Council, from which neither death nor sword shall be able to separate me: I say of all true and general Counsels, and of the major part of them, who bind the rest: without which issue, the gathering of Counsels, yea and of Parliaments also, would be ridiculous. For though it were a true and just complaint of Andreas Duditius; Quinquecclesiensis Episcopus, That in the Conventicle of Trent, the voices were rather numbered then well weighed: yet he doth not, he cannot find fault with that course, in a just and lawful General Council: but directeth his complaint against the tyrannical power of the Pope, who made unlearned men Bishops, as many as served his turn; and more would have made, if more need had been: Bishops 
e Pompaticos & ostensionales.  pompaticall, and only for show (as Lampridius said of Perseus his soldiers;) namely, titular Bishops, void of learning, void of Churches, void of good consciences, and mercenary parasites.  
Concerning our Nationall Church, till a lawful General Council may be celebrated, both Pastors and people of England are to obey her Decrees, Injunctions, Articles, Homilies, and our approved, last, best Translation; above Coverdales', Tindals', or any private ones. Therefore, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, Heb. 13.17. And you are to follow their faith, ver. 7.  
6. The Devil brought not a more dangerous Paradox into the Church of God this thousand years, than this, That every one, illiterate man or woman, at their pleasure may judge of Scripture, and interpret Scripture, and believe their own fancies of the Scripture, which they call the evidence of the Spirit: and the contradicting them, (though with truth) they esteem as the not convincing, nor clearing of their conscience. So that Nationall Counsels are of no esteem, General Counsels not of much: the sheep will not hear the Pastors' voice; but to their pleasure censure them: for, All may err. The Spirit from heaven (as they suppose) doth as well dictate the sense to them, as it did sometimes the words to the holy Penmen thereof. Let such seduced once know, They have the cart without the horses and horsemen: whereas the Prophet Eliah was called (and other Church-governors' may be called) the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof, 2. Kings 2.12. They have the words with the Eunuch; but want both Philip to be their guide, and the humbleness of the Eunuch, who was willing to be instructed, Act. 8.30. Though they have the letter, yet they may miss the true literal sense; which is not in diverse places to be measured by the propriety of the words only, or principally; as in proverbial, parabolical, and mysterious sentences. The literal sense is the hardest to find. 
f Simplicem sequentes literam occidunt Filium Dei, qui totus sentitur in Spiritu.  They that follow the bare letter, do kill the Son of God, who is wholly perceived in the Spirit, saith Hierome of some men, on Matt. 26.21. Presumptuous and illiterate Expositors are like the Carriers or Posts, hasting between Princes; having letters of truth in their packets, but sealed up, so that they cannot see nor know them; while their mouths are full of leasings, false rumours, and lies. They have the spirit of self-conceit and pride. These men little think, that they who wrested some hard places in S. Paul, as they did also the other Scriptures, wrested them to their own destruction, 2. Pet. 3.16. What shall become of those, who wrist easy places? These dream not, that 
g Ejusdem penè auteritatis est interpretari, cujus condere.  it belongs almost to the same authority, to interpret, and to make: That they are to rest on the General Commission given to the Priest, Teach all nations: (therefore others must learn:) That the Priests lips must preserve knowledge, and the people must fetch the Law from their mouth: That an implicit belief in depths beyond their capacity, is better than adventurous daring to take from the holy word of God that divine sense which it hath, and to fasten their own false sense upon it. Tertullian saith, 
h Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus, quantum corruptor stylus. De Prescript. advers. hętet. cap. 17. & 38.  The truth of the Scripture may be depraved as well by a false gloss, as by corrupting the text. Hierome thus, 
i Non est in verbis Evangelium, sed in sensu; non in superficie, sed in medulla; none in sermonum foliis, sed in radice rationis. Comment. in Galat. 1.  The Gospel is not in the words, but in the sense; not in the outside, but in the marrow; not in the leaves of speeches, but in the root of reason. Irenaeus 2.25. 
k Melius est, nihil omnino scientem perseverare in dilectione Dei, quae hominem vivificat, nec aliud inquirere ad scientiam, nisi Jesum Christum Filium Dei, pro nobis crucifixum, quàm per quaestionum subtilitates, & multiloquium, in impietates cadere.  It is better for the ignorant to continue in the love of God, which quickeneth a man, and to seek no other knowledge but Jesus Christ the Son of God crucified for us, then by subtleties of questions and much talking to fall into impieties. And Augustine, Serm. 20. de verbis Apost. 
l Melior est fidelis ignorantia, quàm temeraria scientia.  A faithful ignorance is better than a rash knowledge. Again, S. Hierome ad Demetriadem, speaketh of unlearned men, 
m Quum loqui nesciunt, tacere non possunt, docéntque Scripturas quas non intelligunt; priùs imperitorum magistri, quàm doctorum discipuli. Bonum est obedire majoribus, parere praesectis. & post regulas Scripturarum vitae suae tramitem ab aliis discere, nec praeceptore uti pessimo, scilicet praesumptione suâ.  Knowing not how to speak, they cannot hold their peace, but will needs teach the Scriptures which they understand not, and be masters of the ignorant, before they be disciples of the learned. It is good to obey our elders, to submit to those that are set over us, and next to the rules of the Scriptures, to learn of others how to live, and not to be led by our own presumption, the worst guide of all others. Excellent is the counsel of Gregory Nazianzen to these fanatical giddy-brained private spirits, Ye sheep, presume not to lead your Pastors, etc. If a Jew, a Turk, a Devil convince thy conscience, thou must follow it: shall the governor of thy soul have no other power over thee, than Jew, Turk, or Devil? Or was the Ministry ordained in vain? In vain indeed it was ordained, if every one be his own judge, or a peremptory judge of his guide. If great learned men may be deceived; may not the ignorant man much more? I dare truly avouch, that the unlearned, single-languaged-interpreting-lay-man, hath all the faults whatsoever learned men have, and some other; especially such as are the offsprings of ignorance. That wise Historian Philip de Commines, in his 3. book 4. chap. reckoneth it as an unseemly thing to reason of Divinity before a Doctor. The world is turned topsi-turvey: the great and most learned Archbishop of Canterbury was confronted by a cobbler; yea confounded, if we will believe that monster of men, that incarnate devil, Martin Marre-Prelate, who thus sung of his Idol, 
Who made the godly Cobbler Cliff  
For to confound his Grace?  I warrant you, the spirit, the private spirit, by which the fool presumed that he was guided. Sleidan, Comment. 22. fol. 266. saith it was one of Charles the fifth his Edicts, 
n Nè quis de Sacra Scriptura, maximè de rebus dubiis & difficilibus, privatim aut publicè disputet, aut ejus interpretationem sibi sumat, nisi sit Theologus, qui probatae alicujus Academiae testimonium habeat.  Let no man take upon him to dispute publicly or privately of the sacred Scripture, especially of doubtful and hard points; or to interpret it; except he be a Divine that hath the testimony of some approved University. It was an holy Edict, breeding reverence to the sacred word of God, and I could wish it were in practice with us; though I must needs confess, the breach of the edict was too severely punished: for the men were to be beheaded, and the women to be buried alive, though they desisted from their error; but if they were obstinate, they were to be burned, and their goods confiscated. Yet the rebellions of the Anabaptists in Germany may be some cloak for that cruel sentence; which rebellions also (forsooth) were moved by the Spirit of God; if, for example sake, you will give credit to Thom. Muncer his oration unto the armed rebellious clowns: 
o Constat nobis, auspicatum esse me hanc actionem, non meâ quadam autoritate privatâ, sed jussu divino.  We are sure (saith he) that I began not this action by any private authority of mine, but by a divine injunction, etc. And again, 
p Videbitis ipsi manifestum Dei auxilium.  Ye yourselves shall see the manifest help of God. And he had Scripture to confirm it; Scripture in word, not in sense; Scripture misapplied, things falling out contrary to his prophetical Spirit: for they were overcome, and he beheaded. Likewise Sleiden, Comment. 30. fol. 28. saith of the Anabaptists, 
q Cum Deo colloquium sibi esse, & mandatum se habere aiebant, ut impiis omnibus interfectis, novum constituerent mundum, in quo pii solùm & innocentes viverent.  They said they had conference with God, and a mandate from him, to kill all the wicked, and then to frame a new world, wherein none but the godly and innocent should live. This I will say of mine own knowledge, that when that man of happy memory, the late right Reverend, now most blessed Saint, Arthur Lake, Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, appointed Doctor Sclater (now also a Saint of heaven, than my most learned loving friend, and sometime fellow-Collegian in the two royal Colleges at Eton and Cambridge) with myself, to confer with an anabaptistical woman; we heard her determine great depths of Divinity as confidently as ever S. Paul did, though he was taught by Christ himself; and as nimbly as ever an ape cracked nuts: yet so ignorantly, and with such nonsense, that we both wondered at her incredible boldness. The Revelation she had at her finger's ends: she thought that she understood it better than S. John himself; and defined in a few hour's conference more depths of Divinity, than six General Counsels would in a long time. Mysteries were no mysteries to her: if an Angel of earth, or one from heaven instruct her contrary to her frantic prepossessed imagination, she would conclude, Because the Spirit bloweth where it listeth, that the Spirit instructed her in the right way. A fit consequence for such a pseudo-prophetissa.  
7. But what do I speak of her self-conceit, when of late an other of her sex hath printed a book of her fantastical crudities, and by English anagrams expoundeth Scripture? A new kind of interpretation never thought of, fit for a woman to be the inventour of. She teacheth Daniel to reveal himself after a new fashion: and such things, which, were he alive and racked, he must say he never thought of. She thinks she untieth knots, and gives light to prophecies; but indeed misapplieth things past, and perhaps future contingents, to present times: and while she gathereth many excellent strains of words and sentences out of the divine Writ, in coupling them together she maketh such a roaring hotchpotch, as if she had vowed to write full-mouthed nonsense in lofty terms; others not knowing, nor perhaps herself, what she aimeth at. Take a taste of her anagrams.  
DANIEL. I END AL.  
Yet did not he end all prophecies, nor all things.  
MEDES AND PERSIANS.  
SEND ME SPANIARDS.  
What would she do with them? It was feared that they would have come too soon for her and others too.  
THE ROUGH GOAT.  
THE GOES ROGUE.  
Like you this? you shall have more as bad, as void of wit.  
PRINCE OF PERSIA.  
I CAN POPE FRIARS.  
If Friars should come, and prevail, they would teach her to be more humble.  
DARIUS THE MED.  
I DREAMT THUS.  
Awake dreamer: no sense is in thy dreams, much less religion. Was ever Scripture made such a nose of wax? did ever any religious heart think, such could be the meaning of those words? Let me but touch at her obscene exposition of the end of Christ's Circumcision, pag. 5; and consider her fanatical imagination, that the Spirit of God by Michael understood King James, pag. 50: And the war in heaven with Michael and his Angels, against the Dragon and his Angels, is thus expounded by her, pag. 55. The fray is fought by seconds: by Michael is meant King James; the Dragon is the Pope, whom Michael overcame by the blood of the Lamb, and by the testimony of so many Bishops, and other faithful, crowned with the glory of Martyrdom: whereas King James had never a Bishop so crowned, and never a Bishop was so crowned since he was born. Holy, peaceable, and harmless King James, who would scarce hurt a worm, is now interpreted to be the greatest fighter among the celestial host.  
I could wish she would repent for her blasphemy, pag. 70, where she writeth, That the person of the son of God (not made) was turned into a lump of clay: and for her pointing out the day of judgement. For though she confesseth, pag. 90, Of the day & hour no man knoweth, no not the Angels that are in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father; yet she addeth, The account of this book of note is by centuries of years. Suppose it were so, (as it is not) could not Christ and his Angels know the day by the computation of centuries, as well as she? but she, by a new account, hath found out (as she imagineth) what Christ and the good Angels were ignorant of, namely, the exact day of doom. For thus she determineth, pag. 100, There is nineteen years and a half to the day of judgement, July the twenty eighth one thousand six hundred twenty five. Had not this woman been better never to have seen Scripture, than thus to profane it, and take God's word in vain? You think you have the Spirit of God, as you writ in the last page: but I am sure, if you repent not betimes, for your wire-drawing of God's word, and intruding into hidden and unsearchable depths of Divinity; you are in a desperate case, and all the Separatists and Enthusiasts of the Netherlands, where they say your book was printed, cannot defend you. Let the women rather go to their needle, and their spindle. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection, 1. Tim. 2.11. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, (as she doth, if she turn expositrix) but to be in silence, saith S. Paul.  
Quis expedivit psittaco suum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
Picásque docuit nostra verba conari?  
Cornelius Cornelii à Lapide deserveth the severest censure of the Inquisition, for expounding the word of God by an Hebrew anagram, on Exod. 25.18; though he cite a piece of Scripture for a parallel. Indeed S. Hierome on those words, Sheshach shall drink after them, Jeremy 25.26, interprets it to be Babel: because, if you mingle in the Hebrew Alphabet the first letter with the last, the second with the last save one, and so forth, till you come to the middle, and invert the order of reading, which we do for the memory of children: as for example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; when you are come to the midst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do meet: then that which in the ordinary and forward reading is Babel, in the inverted reading is Sheshach. I apprehend him thus: writ in one line the Hebrew Alphabet, beginning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and ending with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; in another line begin with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and end with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: what in the right way is Babel, in the froward way is Sheshach. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second letter being doubled, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the twelfth letter in their proper places and rank, make with their vowels, Babel; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second letter being also doubled with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the twelfth letter in the alphabet, in the preposterous posture of them, with the same vowels, do make Sheshach; & therefore Babel is called Sheshach. Magno conatu, meras nugas: Great ado about mere trifles. Indeed the Rabbins have many mutual oppositions of letters in the inverted alphabet, and none so ancient as this, as Bertram in his Comparatio Grammaticae Hebraicae & Aramicae truly observeth; and of the Cabalistical interchangeing of letters, he preferreth this Athbasch above all: yet is it more nice and curious, then sound or religious; neither can S. Hieroms' authority give authority or allowance to this minglemangle-kinde of interpretation: his authority in this point being weakened by his slender conjecture. I think (saith he) that the Prophet Jeremy did prudently conceal the name of Babel, lest the besiegers of Jerusalem should be enraged against him: but (say I) otherwhere he nameth Babel, as Jeremy 50.18. and layeth a burden upon the kingdom and city of Babylon, upon her Princes and her wise men, both in the 50 and 51 chapters. Yea in the same 25 chapter, ver. 12, Jeremy saith from God, I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation. Which inconvenience Lyra foreseeing, therefore, perhaps, the rather thinketh, that Sheshach is the name of the Egyptian King, and that Pharaoh was the common name; as afterward Cesar was the common name of the Emperors, and Julius a proper name. This is evident, there was a Sheshach, king of Egypt in the days of Solomon, 1. King. 11.40. and there might also be a second Sheshach after. But Lyra himself on Jer. 51.41. saith, that Sheshach in that place is used for Babel; and I am forced to say, that no part of the 51 chap. toucheth on the woes of Egypt, but purposely is bend against Babylon; and it is not likely that the same Prophet would call two distinct kings, or two distinct kingdoms by the same word Sheshach. Therefore Lyra is out of tune in this strain. But why then is Sheshach put for Babel? If no reason could be assigned, yet the word of God is not so to be dandled withal, or rather to be tortured, as to draw expositions out of anagrams; and therefore the Jesuit was justly , to make this place a pattern of his anagrammatisticall interpretation. Mr. Selden de Does Syris, Syntagm. 2. Cap. 12. saith, Sheshach may seem to be an idol of the Babylonians, a she-idol, or perhaps (as it is in his Addenda) a masculine Deity: but he leaveth all to conjecture; wherein though he hath done excellently, yet I rather follow in this point Tremellius, who on Jeremy 25.26. observeth, that Sheshach in the Babylonish tongue doth signify Diem festum celebrans, and so may signify, either the King, or the City, keeping a festival day: Which was never without feasting. Now that both the feast was kept, and the festival day designed to the worship of their idols, may be judged by the event, Daniel 5.4. where they praised the gods; and for so doing was Belshazzar reprehended, vers. 23. Tremellius addeth, that Jeremy by this one word did demonstrate with his finger the very day of the King of Babel, and Babylon's fall; as if he had said, At a feast he shall be slain, or, In her feasting the city shall be destroyed. For as the Lord prophesied by Isaiah, Prepare the table, watch in the watchtower, eat, drink, Isa. 21.5. where both the feast, and the fall of the King of Babel, and of the city also is divinely foretold: so God gave a second warning, Jeremy 51.39. In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, & sleep a perpetual sleep. Where Babylon's feasting-destruction is named; then followeth, I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, ver. 40. whereupon he crieth out in the 41. ver. How is Sheshach taken? that is, Diem festum celebrans, either the feasting Belshazzar, or, the feasting city overthrown? Concerning the King, the Scripture saith, Daniel 5.1. He made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine; and whiles he tasted the wine, he commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels of the temple of Jerusalem; and in the same hour the fingers of a man's hand wrote his destruction; and that night was he (the wine-bibbing Sheshach) slain. Concerning the city, I proved before out of Jeremy, that her destruction was to wait upon her intemperance; and so, Quomodo capta est Sheshach, id est, Civitas diem festum celebrans? And indeed I rather incline to this latter exposition, in this place, because also of the words immediately following, How is the praise of the whole earth surprised? (but neither Belshazzar, nor Sheshach, if it were an idol, were the praise of the whole earth) How is Babylon become an astonishment among the nations? If you judge it to be a she-idol, because it is said, Quomodo capta est Sheshach? I first answer, that at that feast service was done to many idols of gold and silver, brass and iron, wood and stone, Daniel 5.23. but that Sheshach was the chief among them, or that any one idol of them was so named, is yet to be proved. Therefore the other answer may stand good, that there is no necessity of making the word Sheshach to be the proper name of King, City, or Idol: it may rather be an appellative. For Jeremy 25.26. Rex Sheshach bibet post eos: which (as I said) you may interpret, Rex diem festum celebrans bibet post eos, The King celebrating a festival day, shall drink after them; though Tremell. hath it thus, Rex Babyloniae festa habentis bibet, etc. I cannot deny, but if there were such an idol among them as was termed Sheshach, (which is our main enquiry, yet unproved) it might, as well as Bel, Merodach, and Melcom, signify the people which worshipped it. Till that point be evidenced, I will say with Tremellius, that the forbearing to name the King, or veiling the name of the city, and describing him or it by what was prophesied they should be doing or acting, (as indeed it fell out) is to be referred ad 
r De qua Hermog. Tom. 4. de inventione.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orationis, to the gravity and weight of the speech: wherein the Scripture keepeth its majesty; and neither with bitter invective, nor harsh exprobration, but with composed gravity, and eloquent solemnity designeth the King or Babylon out, not expressly, by his or her name; but by their actions: as Nabals' name was applied by his own wife, to signify his churlish nature, 1. Sam. 25.25. Nabal is his name, and folly is with him: and Jerusalem is called the holy city, for the holy things there done, there contained. I conclude thus, If anagrams from the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriack, or Greek, languages in which the words of holy Scripture were writ, may not be admitted (as indeed they may not;) much less may we expound the sacred Original by English anagrams, the flashes and fireworks of luxuriant brains.  
Hearty reverence, and a kind of ceremonious civil adoration beseemeth the word of God. It is not much prating, or pridy-self-love, that makes the good expositor. The silence of swans is not overcome by the noise of swallows; but when the swallows are grown hoarse, the swans shall sing, saith Nazianzen. The application is easy. Josephus, in his second book against Apion, saith of the Jewish high priest, He shall judge of doubtful matters, and punish those that are convinced by the law. Whosoever obeyeth not him, shall undergo punishment, as he that behaves himself impiously against God. The great, dubious, perplexed scruples & difficulties were not left to the judicature of private fancies. Artificum est judicare de arte, It belongs to artificers to judge of the art, is a maxim of infallible truth. Hierome upon these words, Eccles. 3.7. A time to keep silence, and a time to speak, thus; 
s Omnes artes absque dectore non discimus; solae haec tam vilis & facilis est, ut non indigeat praeceptore.  We learn no art without a teacher; only this is so mean and so easy, that it needeth no teacher: and he speaketh by Irony of those who are rath-ripe in religion. Aristotle Ethic. 1. Every one judgeth aright of those things which he knows; and this is a good judge. And this is called by Ockam our countryman, 
t Judicium certae & veridicae cognitionis.  the judgement of certain and veridicall knowledge. Luther divinely, 
u Non licet Angelis, nedum hominibus, verba Dei pro arbitrio interpretari.  It is not lawful for Angels, much less for men, to interpret God's words as they list: much less for women, say I. Tertullian in his time styled them heretical women, that dared to teach, and contend in argument: and nothing truer than this, that 
x Imperitia considentiam, eruditio timorem create.  Ignorance breeds confidence, learning fear and distrust. Who is more bold than blind bayard? To the word of God we must add nothing contrary or foreign, saith Aquin. No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, 2. Pet. 1.20. Know this first, saith the Apostle there. Or is Daniel no Prophet, and his writing not prophetical? If the wit of men, or Angels from heaven, should make a law, a written law, by which people should be ruled or judged, (as for example, concerning thievery) and appoint no living judge to determine who offend against the law, and who are punishable or not punishable; but leave every one to judge himself by this written law, and every one to interpret the law to his pleasure: were it not a foolish law, a mock-law, and indeed a no-law? And shall God give us a law concerning our souls, and permit the interpretation of it to every one? The living judge, in matters of Faith and Religion, in every Kingdom of Christian government, is the Nationall Council thereof, till there be found that panchrestum medicamentum, that medicine good for all diseases, for the Universal Church of Christ, a true and free general Council; from which is no appeal, it being the supremest external judge on earth.  
Yea, but the Bereans received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so, Acts 17.11. Shall they examine the very Apostles doctrine, and not we the doctrine of our Pastors? I answer, first, These Bereans were learned and eminent men. But every unlearned scullion now, that hath skill only in the English original, will contest with the profoundest Clerks. Secondly, these Bereans were unbelievers before the examination of those things: for immediately it followeth, Therefore many of them believed, and many honourable Greek women and men. Art thou an unbeliever? Do thou then as those unbelievers did. If thou believest, show me one passage of Scripture, where ever the unlearned people did call the doctrine of their learned Pastors into trial.  
I confess, that the judgement of the Scripture and Creed is only authentic, and perfectly decisive. And if we could exactly hit on the true meaning, all differences were quickly at an end. Nor do I monopolise learning to the Clergy, when I confine and restrain the judgement of learning to the learned. Many there are among the people, who in all literature, humane and divine, exceed many Priests: and I wish they were more in number, and that way more abundantly qualified. With the Churchmen it would be better, since 
y Scientia neminem habet inimicum, praeter ignorantem.  Learning hath no enemy but the ignorant. There are sons of wisdom, and sons of knowledge. As Wisdom is justified of her children, Matth. 11.19. so learning is not to be judged by the unlearned, but by her children.  
I acknowledge, that all and every one of the people are to answer for their thoughts, words, and deeds; and that God hath given them a judgement of discretion in things which they know: but in matters above their knowledge, and transcending their capacity, they have neither judgement to discern, nor discretion to judge. Nè sutor ultra crepidam. Shall blind men judge of colours? Sus Minervam? Phormio Hannibalem? Asinus ad lyram? 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  He that learns must believe, saith Aristotle.  
I abhor that monstrous opinion of Tolet and others in the Papacy, That it is meritorious in simple men to be misled by their Pastors. And yet all truth is not at all times to be published to all alike. Christ forbade the Apostles to reveal the truth to the Gentiles and Samaritans, (who were then in an indisposition to believe) Matth. 10.5. Give not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which is holy unto dogs, and cast not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, your pearls before swine, Matth. 7.6. By which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he meaneth the Gospel, saith S. Augustine, De adulterinis conjugiis 1.27. Again, Matth. 16.20, our Saviour charged his Disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ: (namely for some time) which yet himself published, as he saw occasion, John 5.18. and 10.30. and 18.37. and died for the publishing of it, sealing the truth with his blood, Mark 14.62. 1. Tim. 6.13. Yea, Christ himself concealed diverse things from his own Apostles, and from some Apostles more than from others. Peter, James, and John did see more than the rest of the Apostles, and were commanded to conceal the Transfiguration, even from the rest of the Apostles. Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead, saith Christ to them, Matth. 17.9. and yet the knowledge of the Transfiguration was none of the necessary points to salvation. Christ at first taught obscurely as it were by shadows and resemblances: both his death by the amphibolous words, Destroy this Temple, Joh. 2.19. and his resurrection and ascension, by instancing in the type of the brazen serpent lifted up, Joh. 3.14. For Christ was lifted up or exalted; both by men (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, When you have lift up the Son of man, Joh. 8.28.) and by the right hand of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 2.33. Yea, God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, superexaltavit eum, highly exalted him, Philip. 2.9. After, he spoke more plainly, and he began to teach his Apostles of his sufferings and resurrection, Mark 8.31. and that openly, ver. 32. which is confirmed by specializing of the time, Matth. 16.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, From that time forth began Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to demonstrate: insomuch that his Disciples said unto him, Lo, now thou speakest plainly, and speakest no proverb, or parable, Joh. 16.29. And the Apostle, 1. Cor. 3.1, 2. acknowledgeth, that he fed them with milk, because they were not able to bear strong meat: insomuch that he could not speak unto them as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. Can not, that is, could not conveniently, could not to their good or edification. A young man is not a fit hearer of moral Philosophy, saith Aristotle.  
Briefly thus, All religions under heaven, the true and the falsely called religion, have had their arcana, their secrets and mysteries, the patefaction whereof was not promiscuously imparted to every one of the vulgar or illiterate sort: who sometimes her upon a good belief, and by it may rapere coelum, take heaven by force (in the phrase and sentence of S. Augustine) whiles learned men may be thrust to hell; but indeed know little with the perfection of knowledge. It must be confessed, that it was the accursed policy of our adversaries, to nuzle up the people in ignorance: but Buy the Bible, saith S. Chrysostom; Search the Scriptures, saith Christ, John 5.39. Let all the people daily read or hear them, meditate on them, and labour to follow them: let them who have any learning interpret them according to the competency of their gifts, and in their own families instruct the more unlearned. What said King Henry the eighth, Decemb. 24. in the 37 year of his reign? (as it is in Stow's Chronicle, enlarged by Howes, pag. 590) and to whom said he it? Be not judges yourselves of your own fantastical opinions, and vain expositions: For in such high causes you may lightly err. And though you be permitted to read holy Scriptures, and to have the word of God in your mother-tongue; you must understand, it is licenced you so to do, only to inform your consciences, and to instruct your children and families; and not to dispute, and make Scripture a railing and a taunting stock against Priests and Preachers, as many light people do.  
Queen Elisabeth also shown her dislike in Parliament, March 29. in the 27 year of her reign (in Stow's Chronicle, pag. 702) saying, I see many overbold with God Almighty; making too many subtle scanning of his blessed will; as Lawyers do with humane testaments. The presumption is so great, that I may not suffer it,— nor tolerate newfanglednesse. So she. Humility, and subjection of spirit ought to be in every Prophet to the Prophets: and shall the unlearned take up presumption as a buckler? and arm himself with obstinate singularity, (which is a branch of pride) as with a sword? As I would not have the people, with the Papists, as it were, to hoodwink and cover their eyes, that they may be led by others; and glory in blind obedience, which little differeth from wilful, and stupid ignorance; but advise them to unmuffle their heads, and open their own eyes, and judge of things which they do or can know, & are skilful to judge: (but 
z Ignorantia in Jadice aequiparatur dolo.  Ignorance in a Judge is as bad as injustice, and a simple unlearned Judge is a mischief, as intolerable, as unheard of) so do I wish the people, to avoid the other extreme of Separatists; who thinking they know all things, though they have no heavenly inspiration, will seem wiser than their teachers; and taking up opinions for truth, and malapert obstinacy for humble constancy, disrepute their Pastors, disregard all authority, and ascribe nothing to that sovereign general commission, He who heareth you, heareth me: which is enough to seal up their mouths and captive their thoughts unto their learned Pastors, in things which themselves cannot apprehend, and their Pastors can well judge of.  
Oh but men are men; and as men, may err. I hope, the unlearned people are not Angels, nor more free from error then the learned. Yet we must be led by our consciences. True; and your consciences even therefore ought the rather to be well grounded, and founded; not upon the slippery sand of self-conceit, but on knowledge, as on a sure and safe rock. And in whom should knowledge reside, if not in your Pastors?  
But in Queen Mary's days should a man have been led by his Pastors, when themselves were at odds, and the greatest part awry? Or how should a true Protestant, and now a subject of Spain, in Spain behave himself? How much is left to his power of discretion, when the whole Estate, both Ecclesiastic and Civil, runneth with a torrent the contrary way? If he be led by his conscience, and oppose them; there followeth (with the hideous, secret, most feared, and affrighting torments of the Inquisition) confiscation of goods, and sometimes shameful, commonly a painful and violent death. If he rely on the advice of the Pastors, he sinneth against his own conscience, and against truth. Who can, or will direct this wavering Christian, in such uncertainty of ways, that he step not aside, nor be out of the right path?  
O gracious God, send out thy light and thy truth; let them lead me, Psal. 43.3. Let them direct my discourse, and illuminate it; that it may be to the anxious and scrupulous conscience as a guide, to direct the way; and as a lantern, to give it light in the way.  
S. Hierome and Ockam, and Doctor Field, (of the Church 4.13.) three most eminent in three ages (a Father, a Schoolman, and a pillar of our Church) do counsel good men, in such a case, to silence and mourning in secret, as the Prophet Jeremy did: Men (saith he) have nothing left unto them, but with sorrowful hearts to refer all unto God. I should rather, under correction, say, That a Christian thus perplexed is to take these courses, which those Divines, perhaps, did presuppose as necessary preparatives, but did not express.  
First, I advise that man, whose conscience runneth a singular way, to wash his heart from wickedness, Jerem. 4.14. to lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty: which is pointed at, as a means whereby men may come to the knowledge of the truth, 1. Tim. 2.2. etc. For unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Psal. 50.16. Ezek. 20.3. Yes, but thou art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law, Rom. 2.10. I answer, Thou must also take the qualifications and necessary appendants to a reformer, following in that place immediately: Thou therefore that teachest an other, teachest thou not thyself? etc. Thyself must not be ignorant, thyself must not steal, not commit adultery, not commit sacrilege, not break the Law, not dishonour God. For, as it is Wisd. 1.5, 6. The holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding, and will not abide where unrighteousness cometh in. For wisdom is a loving spirit. Never were the uncharitable, ignorant, or sinful men, fit undertakers to contradict established doctrines, disciplines, or commonwealths. But, Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye, Matth. 7.5. Reasons more than ordinary will be expected by God and good men from him who leapeth out of the Church in which he was born and bred, kicking at the breasts of his mother, running with the bit in his teeth his own ways. I conclude this first point thus; He who will needs run such singular courses, had need be a man of rare sanctity, and of singular good endowments of knowledge.  
Secondly, I would have him earnestly to pray for humility, and to practise it. By pride Satan cast himself out of heaven; Adam him and his out of Paradise. David said, Psal. 131.1. Lord, my heart is not haughty,— neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. And vers. 2. Surely I have quieted my soul as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child. On which words, suffer me to make a little excursion, by way of explanation.  
Concerning the first passage: If David had appealed to men, some scruple might have remained: but saying to God the searcher of hearts and reins, Lord, my heart is not haughty; he maketh his humility unquestionable.  
In the second passage, observe, that though he was a King and a Prophet; yet some things were too high for him, by his own confession. Nazianzen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 153. Him I count humble, not that speaks humbly and modestly of himself, or that speaks courteously and humbly to his inferior, but that speaks modestly concerning God, and knows what to speak and what to conceal, and in some things can confess his ignorance, and yield to them to whom the office of teaching is committed. On the contrary, 
a Objectum superbi est ipsemet, c●lsior quàm e● convenit.  The object of a proud man is himself, and he is higher in his own conceit than is fit, saith Cajetan. Pride exalteth a man, humility casts him down: and as all pride shall be at the last thrown down; so all true humility shall be exalted. I would not go to heaven by pride: no man ever went to hell by humility.  
In the third passage, this is the sense: May my hopes, or God himself fail me, may evil betide me, (for this, or some such like imprecation antecedent is to be understood) si non posui & silere feci animam meam, as it runneth in the Hebrew. The oath itself, or imprecation is not expressed, that people may learn to be abstemious in swearing. In which regard also it is said, Ecclus 23.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Jurans & nominans; He that sweareth and nameth God: Where the Vulgat and Septuagint omit the name of God; though it be necessarily understood, and is expressed in our best translation.  
In the last passage, remember that we ought all, in this point of humility, to be as little children, if we will enter into the kingdom of heaven, Matth. 18.3. David addeth, My soul is as a weaned child: not in this respect, that newly weaned children are commonly more froward: (similitudes hold not in every particular) but as the mother applieth mustard, wormwood, and other bitter things, to her breasts, that she may keep her child from the milk which he desireth; though she know it inconvenient, or hurtful for him: so God did wean David, by the bitter remembrances of death, fear of God's judgement, and the pains of hell; and by crosses also of this life, sickness, banishment, envy in court, insurrection of his own sons, and the like, from those pleasurable things which David affected, but God knew to be naught for him. There was never any arch-heretick, or grand impostor, but made private ends his cynosure, self-conceit and self-love his card and compass.  
Even after God had wondrously appeared unto Moses, and gave him his mission, Moses replied, Exod. 3.11. Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh? etc. and Exod. 4.1, 2. his backwardness further appeareth: yea, after, though God by his two miracles confirmed the calling, yet twice more did he declare, that he was afraid to begin so great an alteration, Exod. 4.10. and especially at the 13. vers. insomuch that the Lord was angry. Humbleness, which is always accompanied with modesty, bashfulness, measuring once own strength, and subjection of spirit, is to be prayed for, and practised by any scrupulous Christian, before he make himself a formal party of opposition or contradiction.  
The third requisite followeth; That this holy and humbled man confer with more learned men, and specially with his Pastor. If his Pastor give him not sufficient satisfaction, let him confer with other Divines. Yea, if he be a Pastor himself, yet let him take heed of singularity, the daughter of pride: and let him not lightly or slightly esteem of their judgements, who more abound in knowledge, or to whom a direction of souls is by God himself more especially committed; who are, in matters above his capacity, his proper judges; and he is in such things, to subject himself unto them. I doubt not, but, if his superiors should misled him in things surmounting his knowledge and capacity, his humble, conformable obedience, and desires are better accepted of God, than another man, who without knowledge or any true ground stumbleth on a truth, grows talkative and presumptuous, though he be ready to die for that truth. Above all things, let him not apply himself to such men alone, as he knoweth to be addicted to his own way; nor come with prejudice to hear the contrary part: but since he will not rest in other men's determinations, he, who will be an upright judge, ought indifferently to hear both causes pleaded; and, after all good and necessary procedure unto true judicature, to judge with right judgement. This is a rock, upon which many split themselves; who pretend to seek out the truth, but go only to such as they know beforehand do run with a bias to their humour, and will animate them in their singularity: and thereby, in stead of instruction, are flattered in their folly, and soothed in their erroneous conceits. 
b Qui statuit aliquid parte inauditâ alterâ; Aequum licèt statuerit, haud aequus fuit.  He that determineth any thing before he hath heard both parties; though he give just judgement, he is not a just judge. And again I say, 
c Ignorantia in Judice aequipatatur dolo.  Ignorance in a judge is as bad as injustice.  
When this godly man is humbled, when this humble man hath conferred with his own Pastor, and other learned men and Ministers, and impartially heard both sides; and still rests unsatisfied from others, and his conscience still settled, that he hath the truth; I wish him, not blindly to give over himself to others; but, keeping the staff of direction, and the exercise of his judgement of discretion, (for things within his verge, or reach) and following the ways of his own conscience, in the fourth place, I would counsel him to remove into other parts. So Elijah fled from Jezebel; yet poured out his complaints to God, 1. King. 19.3, 10, 14. So our Saviour, when the Jews would have stoned him, hide himself, John 8.59. And he directed his Apostles to flee from one city to another, Matth. 10.23. S. Paul through a window was let down in a basket by a wall, and escaped, 2. Cor. 11.33. and God himself hide Baruch and Jeremy, Jer. 36.26. Thus many, both learned and unlearned, did in Queen Mary's days; and God hath given a great blessing ofttimes to this course. So S. Cyprian fled at the first; and then, during his voluntary exile, wrote divers excelelnt matters, and yet afterwards died a glorious Martyr.  
In the fifth place, if the good Christian will not, or cannot flee, I would now commend unto him silence and mourning, as the Prophet Jeremy did; which S. Hierom, Ockam, and Doctor Field prescribe as the only means. Let him worship God in private, as Daniel did three times a day, and prayed, Daniel 6.10. for God will regard the prayer of the destitute, etc. This shall be written for the generation to come, as it is Psal. 102 17, 18. which Psalm is a prayer for the afflicted when he is overwhelmed, and poureth out his complaint before the Lord: for this is the very superscription of that Psalm. The Prophet's days consumed like smoke, and his bones burnt as an hearth, vers. 3. His heart was smitten and withered, vers. 4. and by reason of the voice of his groaning, his bones did cleave to his skin, vers. 5. He was a pelican of the wilderness, and like an owl of the desert, vers. 6. like a sparrow alone upon the house top, vers. 7. whiles his enemies reproached him, and were mad against him, and sworn against him, he ate ashes like bread, and mingled his drink with weeping, ver. 8, 9 The Lamentations of Jeremy would fit his mouth, and the doleful complaints in diverse Psalms would well accord with them. But above all, he should call to mind, That there was no sorrow like Christ's sorrow: That he alone trod out the winepress of God's wrath: That he was reviled, spit upon, buffeted, whipped, crucified; & that despiteous piercing rent his very dead body. Let him solace his soul with spiritual comforts, and make melody to God in his heart; losing himself in speculation of Christ's infinite merit, and applying to his own soul all heavenly joy. Let him withdraw himself from being seen in public: let him embrace privacy and retiredness; living (if it were possble) under Ionas his gourd, or in vaults, whose darkness and blackness he expelleth by internal illumination, and spiritual irradiation. The Baptist; and our blessed Saviour himself, betook themselves to deserts and mountains for their solitary devotions, when error and unrighteousness sat in the chair of Moses. Thus the persecuted holy ones of the Primitive Church served God, at the burial of their dead, by nightly songs, saith 
d Orat. 2. in Julian.  Nazianzen; residing sometimes in cryptis, in caves and grots under ground, in dens, among the rocks. But suppose he be drawn forth, and cannot lie hid; suppose the Magistrate summon him to his tribunal, and examine him very strictly: how then ought this man to behave himself? First, I would have him to abhor all mental reservations. If he use ambiguity of word, phrase, or sentence, (which was the guise of the mysterious, enigmatical oracles) if by an Aposiopesis, Irony, or any Rhetorical figure allowed in art, practised among men, and conceivable by an intelligent auditor, he excuse, qualify, and keep secret his own actions or other men's counsels; I will not wholly blame him: 
e Nemo tenetur prod●re seipsum: quisque tenetur defendere seipsum.  No man is bound to bewray himself: every one is tied to defend himself. A traitor may without sin plead, Not guilty; that is, not proved guilty at your bar; where 
f Vausquisque praesupponitur esse bonus, donec probetur essè malus.  Every one is presupposed to be good, till he is proved to be bad. I am not guilty, so fare, as I am bound to accuse myself. And this is the allowed general acceptation of that usance. Within the veil of ambiguous words there lieth a secret, second, homogeneal good sense; perhaps hid from some simple ones, yet discernible by quick, piercing, and deep apprehensions; a sense cousin-germane in the second degree to the words; a sense involved, implicit, having traces and footsteps of reason; hard, yet investigable. Fuga in persecutione is allowed; this subterfugium verborum is but a branch of it. I will not condemn David for acting the part of a frantic man, to escape: He changed his behaviour before them, and feigned himself mad in their hands, and scrabled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard, 1. Sam. 21.13. Neither will I wholly dislike a verbal equivocation; while the sense is transparent to the wise or learned, though veiled to the ignorant. Philip Cominaeus, 4.11. reporteth, that when the Constable of France, Earl of S. Paul, had played foully and falsely on all sides; King Lewis the eleventh said thus unto Rapine, a trusty servant of the Constable, I am busied with diverse affairs of great importance, and had need of such an head as thy masters is. The servant interpreted all comfortably, to the better sense; but the King said softly to the English men and the Lord of Contay, I mean not, that we should have the body, but the head without the body. This manner of amphibolous speech our Saviour used, when he said, Destroy this temple; which they understood of the temple builded with stones: but he spoke of the temple of his body, John 2.19, 20, 21. And in the eighth of John, Christ more than once made use of that homonymous verbal equivocation.  
But let him flee, as from a serpent, so from the delusions of the serpent; who of late hath taught his locusts to make an answer consisting, part in words expressed and intelligible, part of thoughts reserved and unintelligible: the speakers mind feigning, framing, and new-coyning a wild sense, which had no correspondence with the words at all. So that, for example, if the Devil should ask of a Jesuit, Wilt thou give me thy soul? the Jesuit may (by their doctrine) safely and sound answer him, I will give thee my soul: provided always, that he keep in the hollow of his heart this mental reservation, If thou be God Almighty. Thus the Jesuit thinks, that he can cousin the Devil himself, because indeed he is not able to find out that unexpressed thought of the Jesuits heart. Yet the Angel of darkness perhaps laugheth, perhaps wondereth to see himself outgone in his own wiliness and depths, by his own children; though time will declare the truth, that by such subtleties they undermine, and blow up, as with gunpowder, their own, and their adherents salvations.  
I conclude the point: I will not condemn the man, who handsomely and artfully, without lying or mental reservation unconceivable, can shift off danger and trouble from himself or his friends; but he condemneth himself, who useth such double dissimulation, such leger du coeur: who plougheth with an ox and an ass; making up a mixed, linsy-woolsy proposition, of words sensible and thoughts heterogeneal and incomprehensible: incomprehensible (I say) by any power or powers created; since the thoughts strangely vary from the words, lurking in the vaults of the heart, and can not be fished or hooked out from antecedents, or consequents, or any other circumstances.  
But, if he be put to his oath, what shall he do? If the matter concern not his life, let him answer exactly. Bishop Andrews seems to dislike, That a man should be sworn against his own life; because the Prophet, by God's direction, made that particular exception, Jeremy 38.15. and for other reasons by that most Reverend Prelate mentioned, pag. 95. in his Opuscula. Yet my opinion is, If the life of Kings or Princes, or if the welfare of the Commonwealth be in danger, or any extraordinary mischief be like to ensue, (which was not the case of Jeremy; a Prophet, no traitor; an holy man, no plotter, contriver, or partaker with wicked ones) a man may lawfully, by the Magistrate, be put to his oath, though it cost him his life; or to the rack and torture. Unusual harms must have unusual remedies. The particular nature will destroy itself, to uphold the universal. Rather than there shall be a vacuum, fire will descend. 
g Vbi scelera per abruptum eunt, (per praerupia, in the African phrase of Tertullian) iniquum est justitiam ad gradus teneri.  Where sins run headlong, it is not fit that justice should be tied to go by degrees, saith Seneca. If the matter concern his life, he may be silent, he may appeal: It is 
h 2.2. quaest. 63. art. 1. in corpore artic.  Aquins' judgement on a case not much unlike; If a Judge ask any thing beyond what he ought in law; the accused is not bound to answer: he may appeal, or otherwise avoid it lawfully; but he may not lie. And again, 
i Art. 2. in corpore.  It is one thing to conceal a truth, another thing to propound a falsehood. It is lawful to conceal a truth in some cases (as when a man is not bound to answer, and when he is not bound to confess it) 
k Per aliquos convenientes modes.  by any convenient means: Yet a man may not either say an untruth, or conceal a truth which he is bound to confess: 
l Neque etiam licet aliquam fraudem vel dolum adhibere, quia fraus & dolus vim mendacii habent.  Neither is it lawful to use any fraud or deceit; because fraud and deceit are equivalent to a lie. But may not one equivocate when he is put unto his oath? I answer, That not so much as verbal equivocation, much less that lately invented and cursed Chimaera of mental reservation, is to be allowed. 
m Fraus non dissolvit, sed distringit perjurium.  Deceit doth not excuse, but aggravate perjury, said Cicero long since. 
n De summo Bono 2.13.  Isidore thus, With what art of words soever a man swears; yet God, the Judge of conscience, so esteemeth it, as he to whom the oath is made doth understand it. S. Hierome on Ezekiel 17.19. thus, 
o Sententia secularis est,— Dolus, an virtus, quis in host requirat?  It is an opinion of the world, that it matters not, whether a man overcome his enemy by guile or by valour. But this himself resolveth; 
p Quamdiu non jures, & pactum non ineas sub nomine Domini, prudentiae est & fortitudinis vel decipere vel superare adversarium utcunque potueris: cùm autem te constrinxeris juramento; nequaequam adversarius, sed amicus est, qui tibi credidit, & sub occasione jurisjurandi Dei nuncupatione deceptus est.  As long as thou dost not swear, and enter into a covenant, using God's name; it is wisdom and valour either to deceive or overcome thy adversary any way thou canst: but when thou hast bound thyself with an oath, than he is no longer thine adversary, but thy friend, who hath trusted thee, and is deceived through thy oath, and using of God's name. A little before, on vers. 15. 
q Qui dissolvit pactum, numquid essugiet?  He that breaketh his covenant, shall he escape unpunished? S. Hierome truly thus concludeth, 
r Etiam inter hostes servanda fides est.  Even among enemy's 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 faithful, who for the name of God believed thee and was deceived, than thou who didst circumvent thine enemy (yea now thy friend) by abusing Gods sacred Majesty. 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 mental reservation, or verbal equivocation, is wholly to be secluded and abhorred, when an oath is taken: prudent silence, in divers 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 diverse times, insomuch that the governor 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 son 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 witness a good confession, though to the expense of his blood.  

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 fare is that from Christ, which beseems not a mere man. So he. I answer, first, Tertullian speaketh of questions in Divinity, to instruct the soul: and there it were sin 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 limb: which doth somewhat vary the case. Thirdly, an homonymous answer of verbal 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 mental reservation is impossible to be unlocked, opened, and cleared, except by an hand divine. Fourthly, Tertullian cannot be thought to condemn verbal equivocation; the dainty 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 diverse thoughts, are deeper than 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, entire, exact depths, the mere creature never knew fully and perfectly. If I might have my desire, quoth S. Augustine, I had rather speak in words, whose diverse senses might give content to diverse people of different apprehensions, then in words that can have one sense only.  
The second thing I would commend unto this examinate, is, to give fair language to his Judges. Let him not be bold and malapert, nor use clamorous opposition. Let not the ignorant Syllogise in Barbara, Darii, Ferio; or mar his cause by ill handling: yet if he be unmovably 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 girl about 12 years old, did spit in the face of the Judge, that he might the rather condemn her. The answer of Hannah, 1. Samuel 1.15, etc. when she was in bitterness 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 sorrowful spirit; I have drunk neither wine, nor strong drink, etc. Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial. The manner of answering may be sinful, 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 bitterness. 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 malapertness, 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 sauciness 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 pass, 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 saucy presumptuous fellow. Thirdly though diverse learned men think the contrary; and that he spoke by an Irony, when he said, I knew not: yet I persuade myself, that S. Paul, in truth, knew not (when he spoke) Ananias to be the high priest, for these reasons:  
First, because he seemeth to put on the spirit of mildness towards them that stood by him, who were also the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, standers by, who had smit and buffeted him: and calling them by the charitable term of brethren, whom it had been fit to reprove; it argueth his plain sincerity, speaking of his superior.  
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 verity; with me it shall pass currant, that he spoke from the bottom 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  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 witness, Acts 22.5?  
To the first point; I confess, 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 confess, that not only the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's 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 principal 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 witness: 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 Council-house, but where the chief Captain commanded them to appear, Acts 22.30. himself sitting as the Moderator in his own tribunal; 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 satisfy 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 only the high priest, but all their Council were summoned to appear, Acts 22.30. and of the Council each man had liberty to speak at his pleasure: and at such public trials there is a great din, murmurs, and mutterings; so that the speaker is not always discernible, whiles many may speak at once, and some louder than others.  
Secondly, while S. Paul earnestly beheld, not the high priest only, but the Council, 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 hear: and yet not know, in such a confused noise, which of those his many Judges spoke them: and in likelihood thought, that such an unjust sentence could not proceed out of the high priests mouth: but to the author 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 sorry 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. Paul's trial (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 cloak 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 diverse 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 spoke these words concerning me.  
And thus, I hope, this difficulty is cleared. I will only add this, That diverse ancient Fathers from S. Paul's example, in this place, prove his modesty, moderation, and undisturbed passions, by his sudden, wise, settled answers: And, That I hold this paraphrase probable, as if S. Paul had said, If I had witted, 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 that is sought out, and drawn into judgement, and answereth (as he ought to do) truly, without mental reservation, modestly, and as befitteth him to answer unto his superiors: if he receive no satisfaction in his conscience, and his Judge's doom him worthy to die; what shall he now do? Shall he be overruled by his superiors, both spiritual and temporal, doing as they do, and thinking as they think? shall he go against the dictates of his own conscience? or shall he adventure his blood and life?  
What myself would do, by God's grace, I will prescribe unto another. First, before I would sacrifice my life, I would once more recollect my former thoughts for humbleness; and diligently consider, whether the matters for which I am to suffer death, be abstruse depths, beyond my reach or capacity. If they be very intricate, I have cause to think, that I am an unfit man to judge of things which I know not, and cannot comprehend, 2. Cor. 10 13, etc. Secondly, I would in this case, before expense of blood, bring my intentions to the touchstone; call to mind, that good intentions alone cannot excuse me before God, but good intentions well grounded and regulated. S. Paul with good intentions persecuted the Church, and was injurious: but he did it ignorantly, in unbelief, 1. Tim. 1.13. where an ill belief, though meaning well, is counted unbelief. In a good intention S. Peter would have dissuaded our Saviour from death, but he was called Satan for it, Matth. 16.23. though Christ had blessed him before, and promised him excellent gifts, vers. 17, etc. I cannot think, but they who offered their children unto Moloch, did think they served God rightly, though indeed they served the Devil: yet God saith, Levit. 20.3. I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people. The priests of Baal, who cut themselves after their manner with knives, and lancers, till the blood gushed out upon them, 1. King. 18.28. did they not follow the ill guide of a misled conscience? did they not think they were in the right? do not millions of Turks, Jews, and of Pagans go to the Devil, though they persuade themselves they be in the only true way? do not many think that to be constancy, which in truth is obstinacy? and that to be knowledge, which is ignorant self-love? There is great resemblance, and manifold likely hood between some truth and some error, and the mistake is easy; and there is a great difference between opinion and sound belief. Thirdly, I would endeavour to think humbly of myself, and, as the Apostle adviseth, to prefer others before me. I would ruminate on that which the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 13.3. Though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. And, showing what he meaneth by charity, addeth, Charity suffereth long, and is kind: charity envieth not: charity is not rash, or, vaunteth not itself: is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly. So that he who behaveth himself unseemly, who is puffed up, who vaunteth himself, or is rash, who envieth, and is unkind, and hasty, hath not charity: And, though he give his body to be burned, his death profiteth him nothing, saith the Apostle. Examine therefore, and again I say, examine thine own heart: if thou find any one of these sins beforenamed reigning in thee, then know there is a spot in the sacrifice. And till that be washed away, razed out, or reform; thou must suspect thyself, and mayest well be dubious. Self-conceit is a branch of pride: pride never agreed with charity: and no death profiteth a man any thing, who hath not charity.  
Oh, but this enfeebleth the resolution of confessors, and stoopeth down the constancy of martyrs to pendulousnesse: it maketh them draw their hands back from the plough, and to look backward to Sodom, with lots wife. No no, my discourse intends only to dull the edge of singularity, to stop the mouths of pridie undertakers, and ignorant praters, to put a bridle into the teeth of such as revile Magistracy, to reduce people to humbleness, and such thoughts as these, If many may be deceived; how much easier may I? If the more learned be awry; how shall I be sure I am right? They have souls to answer, as well as I: and charity bids me think, they would not damn their own souls by damning mine: have I alone a sound rectified conscience? self-denial is a better schoolmaster to true knowledge, than presumption. An acceptable martyr is a reasonable sacrifice, and an acceptable sacrifice is a reasonable martyr. A conscience not founded on good causes, not strengthened with understanding, is like a fair house built on the sands, a very apple of Sodom, a painted sepulchre, which appears beautiful outward, but is within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness, Matth. 23.27. My cautions are not remoraes, of staying or withdrawing any man, so fare as his knowledge can or doth aspire unto; (for so fare I allow them a judgement of discretion) but necessary preparatives to the true, perfect, and glorious martyrdom. He shall be no martyr in my estimate, who without great motives runneth to death, and posteth rashly to destruction. But when pride with all her children, singularity, self-love, vaunting, rashness, unseemly behaviour, is cast out of the soul; and the contrary graces, the children of charity, possess it: then, if thy conscience can no way be convicted; if thou knowest thy cause to be good, and the contrary to be apparently amiss; follow not the multitude, conform not thyself to the world, keep thy conscience untainted, pour out thy blood unto death, offer thy life and body as a reasonable sacrifice; die, and be a martyr; be a martyr, and be crowned; crowned, I say, not only with glory and immortality, but with those gifts and aureolae, which are prepared above others for true martyrs. In this sort, Whosoever shall confess Christ before men, him will Christ confess also before his Father which is in heaven; Matth. 10.32.  
The judgement of jurisdiction, which is in superiors having authority; and the judgement of direction, which is in Pastors by way of eminency, forbidden not in this case the judgement of discretion, which is and aught to be in every private man, so fare as he hath discretion and knowledge or immediate inspirations: of all which I would not have a man too presumptuous.  
That which our Divines do term the judgement of discretion, is, in the words of 
z Contra Marcionem 4. post medium pag. 269.  Tertullian, Clavis Agnitionis: He must never contrary this; for this must he die. What he knoweth, let him, as a good witness, seal with his blood, if need be. But in things beyond a simple man's capacity, I will say once more, with 
a Serm. 20. de verbis Apostoli.  Augustine, 
b Melior est fidelis ignorantia quàm temeraria scientia.  A faithful ignorance is better than a rash knowledge. In such things is he to be guided by his Pastors. The easy things any man may judge of: in the more abstruse, the voice of the Pastors is to be followed. 
c Quam clavem habebant Legis Dectores, nisi interpretationem legis?  What key had the Doctors of the law, (saith Tertullian in the same place) but the interpretation of the law? So the key of interpretation rests in the ministry, 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 Ecclesiastical: And we will subdivide them into the Wilfully blind, and the Purblind.  
Of the first were some Bishops, and Nobles, and Gentry in Queen Mary's days; who hunted after blood, even the blood of innocents; and strained their authority to the highest. Such is now the Inquisition, falsely called the holy house, with all the chief officers thereof: such in the days of Christ, were diverse Scribes, Pharisees, Sadduces, and some Rulers of the people; who knowing the truth to be on Christ's side, by his doing such miracles as no man ever did before, did choke and strangle their belief, made shipwreck of their consciences, resisted the holy Spirit; who would neither go into the kingdom of heaven, nor suffer others that were entering, to go in: against whom Christ pronounced woe upon woe, Matth. 23.13. etc. For they took away the key of knowledge, Luke 11.52. and purposely kept the people ignorant and blind. According to their demerits, there are reserved for them intima inferni, the depths of hell, blackness of darkness, and the greatest torments thereof, without repentance.  
The next tribe, or sort, are the purblind Magistracy, either Secular, or Clergy. Such were diverse in the days of Queen Mary; who had learning enough, to know that all went not right; yet did not vehemently oppose the truth, but did swim with the stream, & made the time their stern; the whole Church turning and returning three or four times in one age. These were seduced, as well as seducers. Such also at this day are diverse in the Papacy; more moderate, less 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 capacity to understand, if they would; and therefore are faulty. Such also were diverse 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 wots 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 blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch: 
d In foveam peecati & inferni.  Into the ditch of sin 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 craggy cliffs, the flock must needs fall headlong and break their necks, saith Gregory. 
f Deuces, praeceptores; fovea, infernus.  The guides are the teachers, and the ditch is hell, saith Faber Stapulensis, on the place. So much of the purblind Magistracy, clerical or Laical, 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 several ranks and files.  
In the general, 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 wind and tide: and because they will be found fault withal by the fewest, they will do as the most do. Timorous hypocrites they are; fearing persecution, loss of goods, liberty, and life, more than 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 public: these despise government, are presumptuous, selfwilled, 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 errors in their intellect, perverseness 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 blood: 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 trodden under foot, the thrice-blessed sacrament of the body and blood 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 natural Sovereign, Henry the fourth of France. He followed his conscience; but his conscience had ill guides. When he had outfaced tortures, and death itself (though he thought that he died a martyr) if he died unrepentant, the powers of hell got hold upon him.  
Such manner of people were those Jews, who in most desperate fashion said, His blood 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, meddled 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 to mind the miracles of Christ, and born witness to his innocency, rather than to set themselves forward in things beyond their reach and knowledge.  
Philip de 
h Lib. 8. cap. 19  Commines telleth of two Franciscans, who offered themselves to the fire, to prove Savanorola to be an heretic, and not to have had revelations divine: and an other Friar, a Jacobin, presented himself also to the fire, to uphold Savanorola, though Savanorola did not then expose himself to that purgation by fire. Which intendments of theirs seem rather to be the fruits of evil then of Christian fortitude. For, 
i Mater martyri est fides Catholica, in qua illustres Athletae sanguine suo subscripserunt.  The mother of martyrdom is the Catholic faith, to which those famous champions have subscribed with their blood, saith Aquin, out of Maximus. But those bravadoes of the Friars savoured of the transalpine and cisalpine factions: some inclining to the French king, with his adherents, the other to the Pope and Venetians, and their partakers.  
Some drew death upon them, when they needed not, in the Primitive Church; and the holy Fathers, and Counsels, have disliked them for it. The Elibertine Council, chap. 60. 
k Si quis idola fregerit, & ibidem fuerit occisus; quia in Evangelio non est scriptum, neque invenitur ab Apostolis unquam factum, placuit in vumerum eum non recipi martyrum.  If any one break idols, and be killed in the act, we think it not fit that he be received into the number of martyrs, because for his so doing he had neither warrant of Scripture, nor example of the Apostles. The Cicumcellions thrust themselves into the mouth of dangers: ambitious of martyrdom to that height of infatuation, that if no body would kill them, they would murder and massacre themselves.  
There were also certain women, who to keep their chastity hastened their own deaths. Sophconia killed herself, lest the Emperor Maximinus should abuse her, saith Eusebius. Pelagia fling herself headlong into a river, lest a soldier should violate her. Such things ought not to be done, and are sinful, and unlawful to be done. And yet because the Church hath accounted them martyrs, we must conclude that the Church did think, they had divine inspirations directly animating them to that course, as Samson had in the Old Testament. 
l Cùm Deus jubet, séque jubere sive ullis ambagibus intimat; quis obedientiam in erimen vocet?  When God commands, and plainly intimates that it is his command; who can blame him that obeyeth? saith 
m De Civit. 1.26.  S. Augustine.  
Aquinas 2.2. Quaest. 124. Artic. 1. in the third objection, hath these words, 
n Non est laudabile quòd aliquis martyrio se ingerat, sed magìs videtur esse praesumptuosum & periculosum.  It is not commendable for a man to offer himself to martyrdom, but seems rather to be presumptuous and dangerous. And in the answer he intimateth, That a man ought not to seek death; and saith expressly, 
o Non debet homo occasionem dare alteri injustè agendi: sed si alius injustè egerit, ipse moderatè tolerare debet.  A man ought not to give occasion of doing unjustly: but if another do unjustly, he ought to endure it patiently.  
The third and last sort of learned men, in a Church and State full of errors, are thus qualified;  
They are pious towards God, charitable towards men, zealous, according to their knowledge, knowing so much as they can well learn, mourners for sick and dead in Zion, signing their cheeks with tears for the backsliding of the people, having cornea genua, knees hardened like horn by their frequent bend at prayers, that God would show mercy to the misguided; singing to God in their hearts when danger stoppeth their mouths; not petulant, or immodest against the Magistrates; no prompt, proterve undertakers; no railers, censurers, or rash damners of others; no factionists, or disturbers of Commonweals; avoiding the storms of persecution, so fare as conveniently and conscionably they may; keeping the unity of truth, as much as is possible, in the bond of peace; thus fare flexible and pliable, that they would willingly exchange any old error (if such be settled in them) for apparent truth; thus fare constant and irremoveable, that they prefer the naked truth above their lives, and can in all humbleness and patience write the confession of their faith with their own blood. Such a life may I live, such a death may I die: greater glory than such shall have, I desire not. This is the true character of a martyr, so perfect as usually flesh and blood affords.  
The last point concerneth unlearned men, who live in a defiled Church. Shall these be ruled by their Pastors, leaving the dictates of their own consciences, unpractised, unbelieved? I answer, There is not the simplest of the people, to whom I will deny a judgement of discretion: which he is bound to follow, even unto death, according to his conscience. And among the unlearned, there are some of excellent wits, quick capacities, and some endowments, both of nature and grace, surpassing diverse learned men. Yet let every one of these take this advice from me; let them learn to be Christi-formes, conformable to Christ, (which is a point that the godly and learned Cardinal Cusanus often and excellently inculcateth) and let them labour to be every way equal to that famous martyr▪ whom immediately before I characterized and described. By how much the less they have of knowledge, let them have the more of humility and conformableness. Lastly, let them ponder, how merciful the Lord is to such as sin of ignorance: and on the contrary, that not only diverse of the unlearned, but such as have had a fair competency of knowledge, have been transported with self-love; and treading out paths of singularity, have run headlong into damnation. Witness diverse Arians, burnt in the days of Queen Elisabeth: witness Hacket, seduced by the Devil under a show of long, extemporary prayers, and extraordinary holiness; till at the end he grew blasphemous, and in the heat of it died. Let him think of Sir John Oldcastle; who intimated, not only a possibility, but a likelihood of his rising again the third day after his hanging and burning, if Stow's chronicles had sufficient ground to write to that effect. If I should repeat the like monsters in other Churches and Commonwealths, I might much more enlarge this discourse, which is too long already. I conclude: The simple unlearned good man, who is bound up in invincible ignorance, and is misled by his Pastors, to whose guidance he hath subjected his conscience, is less sinful, by many degrees, than he who casteth himself violently, singularly, and proudly, into the same errors, or as bad. And if it be dangerous to take from the people their discerning power, in any cause, as some imagine; let them ponder, whether it be not more dangerous, to let every one of them to run lose, like the unbridled Circumcellions, to choose their own ways, (which is the guise of Separatists) and to be their own judges, and judges of whatsoever their Pastors preach, (which is the practice of ill taught zealots in our Church) and by necessary consequence, judges of things of Faith, of Controversies, and of Scripture itself: And so the supremest Tribunal, for interpretation of matters religious, to be the conscience of an unlearned brain. But thou, O Man of God, flee these extremes; and, O blessed God and man, O Saviour of mankind, Jesus Christ, keep us in the mean, and bring us by holiness to the truth, and by thy truth unto thy glory. So be it, Lord Jesus, 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 prophetical riddles. But in these days of Libertinisme the simplest presume, they can sound these deeps, and find out the riddle, though they blow not with Samsons heifer. Hence are these innumerable springs of errors, 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 diverse interpretations of Scripture that now are, if we will keep the unity of the faith, that we receive the decrees of Counsels, and flee to them. The place of Augustine is common, and in every man's mouth, 
q Ego Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiae Catholicae authoritas commoveret.  I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic 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 Pastors 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 Pastors, who translated the word of God into our mother tongue; and some translations are more imperfect than 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 than 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 add, 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 material 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 unless the expositor 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 professors, 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 rejoice that we have received the reformation of religion. I will only 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 add, that words of diverse other languages are part of the sacred Text. The Egyptian Abrech, Genes. 41.43. the Arabic Lehhem, Job 6.7. and Totaphoth, Exod. 13.16. a compound of Egyptian and African languages, and the like. Yea one verse, and one only 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 read their own language. I would tell you of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 final being placed in the middle of a word of the Text, and of diverse other difficulties, which in part I pass over, and in part thus contract, in the observations following.  
Secondly, that Hebrew words without points may have four 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 mechanic, 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, than they are pronounced.  
Fourthly, that many are written with more letters, than they are pronounced.  
Fifthly, that diverse 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 allegeth, 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 turncoat, because he came forth of the Jewish synagogue to pray with us in our temples: yet that odious name ought to have been spared, unless 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 signify not only 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 Christ's 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, Bless God. None hitherto hath infallibly expounded it. Yet my Laic 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 unskilful in the Dutch language should say, when he heard a Germane 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, try 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, etc. verse 5. But (saith the frantic Libertine) I am a man spiritual: But he that is spiritual 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 spoke 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 privilege 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 herself a Prophetess, to teach and seduce God's 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 believed, but laughed at, controlled, and censured by the private spirit of unlearned people? Are not the spirits of the Prophet's 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 sin, sick of error, sick of scruples, be its own helper? shall it understand without a guide? be cleansed of its leprosy without a Priest? Hierome in his Preface to the Commentary upon the epistle to the Eph. thus, From my youth I never ceased to read, or to ask of learned men what I knew not. I never was mine own Master, or taught myself: and of late I journeyed purposely to Alexandria, unto Didymus, that he might satisfy me in all the doubts which I had found in the Scripture. Now adays many a one is wiser than his Teachers; not by supernal illumination, but by infernal 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 than Cardinal Ascanius his parrot, which would prate the Creed all over) they vilify the opinions of the most learned, and their private spirit of seduction will bear 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 years 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 Apostolic 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 men's 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 confess his own ignorance, though he was the most accomplished that ever writ since the days of the Apostles? It was a wise observation of Scaliger, That some words and passages in Plato 
y Plus sapiunt authore.  are wiser than their author: and many excellent conceits are collected from Homer and Aristotle, which they never dreamt 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 find, 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 find.  
I confess I have dwelled too long on this point; but it is to vindicate the authority of our Church from the singular fancies of private unskilful, unlearned, and censorious men and women, and to show the madness 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; whilst they flee from the chairs of the Universities, and from the representative Church of our kingdom, 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 immediately divine, and infallible revelation, there is none at all; or, if any be, it is in some of those learned ones, who are lawfully called to be the members of our Church representative. And if any defects be in learned men, there are more in unlearned. But of this point otherwhere.  
8 Another observation there is, That kings and supreme Officers do represent the people committed to their charge. And here I will tell you, in honour of the Royal Majesty, what 
z Lib. 2. contra Appionem.  Flavius Jose phus saith, We offer daily sacrifices for the Emperors, and that not only on ordinary days of the common cost of all the Jews, but also when we offer no other sacrifices of the common charge, no not for our children. We give this high honour to the Emperor's only, which we do not give to any other man. This he saith they practised in the behalf of heathen Emperors, different from them in Religion: how much more ought we, by all lawful means, exceed them in the honouring of our Kings?  
Espencaeus calleth a Prince columbam Dei, God's dove: Saul is termed the beauty of Israel, 2. Sam. 1.19. David is styled the light, candle, or lamp of Israel, 2. Sam. 21.17. Josiah was the breath of our nostrils, saith Jeremy, Lament. 4.20. Are not these two latter phrases ideal? are their persons, themselves only? Again, is not Saul called the head of the Tribes of Israel? 1. Sam. 15.17. and David the head over Nations? 2. Sam. 22.44. 
a Hom. 2. ad popul. Antioch.  Chrysostom entitled Theodosius, The head and supreme over all men on earth. And therefore, as the people reap benefits extraordinary by their Kings; (for Saul clothed you in scarlet, with other delights; he put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel, saith David, 2. Sam. 1.24.) so for their King's offences they justly may be punished, 2. Sam. 24.17. Lo, I have sinned (saith David;) but these sheep, what have they done? Yet the pestilence, worse than the bane or rot, fell upon those sheep.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
that is, Apollo being incensed against the King Agamemnon, sent an evil disease upon his army; and the people perished. The story is memorable, of Saul, 1. Sam. 14.24, etc. He took a foolish and rash oath, hurtful to his own soldiers, profitable for the enemy. Neither Jonathan, nor the Captains, nor the people did swear with him, but in him, and by him, and through his oath: yet it bond both the people and himself; yea tied aswell Jonathan, who heard it not, and knew it not, as those who were present, and heard it: for the lot from God drew Jonathan out, as faulty, and punishable for his father's adjuration; who swore expressly, by name, the death of Jonathan (if he were faulty) vers. 39 yet the love of the people delivered him; and (as I think) the father did not much care to break his oath. In this fact saul's person represented the whole army; and the people, for their own particular, held themselves wrapped up to obedience in his oath.  
But what do I instance in slighter matters, when a proof is pregnant, That the chief governor's oaths bind the whole nation & their posterity for evermore, while their Polity lasted? Joshua unadvisedly, without counselling with God, made peace and league with the Gibeonites, (the descendants of Canaan, that servant of servants) to let them live in the lowest rank of slaves: and the Princes of the congregation swore unto them, Josh. 9.15. And though all the congregation murmured against the Princes, vers. 18. (from whence I conclude, that the people consented not to the treaty, much less were sworn to it) yet the Princes resolved justly and conscionably, We have sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel: now therefore we may not touch them, vers. 19 And vers. 20. thus, We will even let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath which we swore unto them. And accordingly Joshua freed them from the intended slaughter of the angry Israelites, vers. 26. That this oath concerned not the people then living only, but reached also unto posterity, is apparent, 2. Sam. 21.1, etc. When for the breach of this oath, committed about four hundred years after, the Lord himself taxeth Saul and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites; and therefore sent purposely a triennial famine upon the land; and God's wrath was not satisfied, till the Gibeonites were appeased by the death of saul's posterity. And these 5 things are yet observable. First, Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites, in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah, v. 2. Secondly, God commanded Moses to destroy all the inhabitants of the land, whereof the Gibeonites were part, as they themselves confessed, Josh. 9.24. Thirdly, what was the oath of the Princes only, is said to be the oath of the children of Israel, (as it is, 2. Sam. 21.2.) because it concerned them for ever. Fourthly, after the punishment, for this cause inflicted, God was entreated for the land. Fifthly, it was about four hundred years after the oath of Joshua and the Princes, when God thus severely vindicated the breach thereof by Saul, upon saul's posterity.  
9 Lastly, let us diligently consider how much Christ Jesus our blessed Saviour hath done for us, representing, as it were, our persons; and what we perform and shall obtain in him, and by him.  
Isa 53.4. Surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows: which is applied to him, Matth. 8.19. The force of which words is expressed by the Apostle, 1 Peter 2.24. Christ his own  bore our sins in his own body on the tree, (or, to the tree, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and by his stripes ye were healed. S. Paul saith, Christ died for our sins, 1. Corinth. 15.3. Christ tasted death for every man, Heb. 2.9. Christ died for us, Rom. 5.8. And in the next verse, We be justified by his blood, and, We shall be saved from wrath by him. He hath blotted out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary unto us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross, Coloss. 2.14. And, By him God hath made peace, through the blood of his cross, and reconciled all things unto himself by Christ, Coloss. 1. vers. 20. He hath reconciled you in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable, and unreprovable in his sight, vers. 22. He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4.25. Ye are buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him: and you being dead he hath quickened with him, as it is most divinely expressed, Coloss. 2.12.13. In Christ we are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit, Ephes. 2.22. Our life is hid with Christ in God, Coloss. 3.3. And in the verse following, Christ is our life. Ye be risen with Christ, Coloss. 3.1. God hath quickened us together with Christ, and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, Ephes. 2.5, 6. Our conversation is in heaven, Philip. 3.20. From which positive proofs, and doctrine, that Christ stood in our stead, and that almost all (if not all) his actions and passions, as he was the Mediator between God and man, were representative of us, let us descend to the comparative, and show, that Christ hath done, and will do more good unto us, than Adam hath done harm. Which point I have more enlarged in my Sermon (at the readmitting into our Church, of a penitent Christian from Turkism) being one of the two, entitled, A return from Argier: where these five reasons are enlarged. First, that Adam conveyed to us only one sin: but Christ giveth diversities of grace, and many virtues, which Adam and his posterity should never have had; as patience, virginity, repentance, compassion, fraternal correction, martyrdom. Secondly, Adam's sin was the sin of a mere man only: but the Son of God merited for us. Thirdly, by Adam's offence we are likened to beasts; by the grace of Christ our nature is exalted above all Angels. Fourthly, Adam's disobedience could not infect Christ: Christ's merit cleansed Adam, saving his soul and body. Fifthly, as by the first Adam goodness was destroyed; so by the second Adam greater goodness is restored, and all punishments, yea all our own sins turned to our further good.  
To which I will annex these things following. By Adam's sin we were easily separated from God: Satan, the woman, and an apple were the only means: But I am persuaded, (saith the Apostle, Rom. 8.38.) that neither death, nor life, nor Angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God. Again, Rom. 5.13, etc. the Apostle seemeth to divide the whole of time in this world, into three parts, under three laws; the law of Nature▪ of Moses, of Christ. In the first section of time, sin was in the world:— Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, saith the Apostle. In the law of Moses, though death was in the world, yet sin chief reigned, and the rather for the law: Nitimur in vetitum semper, cupimúsque negatum: This the Apostle confirmeth often, especially Rom. 7.8. Sin taking occasion, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. The third part of times division is in the days of grace, under Christ: and now, not so much death, not so much sin, as righteousness and life do reign, or rather we in them, by Christ; and the power of both the other is diminished, and shall be wholly demolished.  
If Adam hurt all mankind one way or other, Christ hath helped all mankind many ways. In this life he giveth many blessings unto the reprobate: his sun shineth on all, his rain falleth both upon good and bad: and I do not think, that there ever was the man, at least within the verge of the Church, but had at some time or other such a portion of God's favour, and such sweet inspirations put into his heart, that, if he had not quenched by his natural forwardness the holy motions of the Spirit, God would have added more grace, even enough to have brought him to salvation. For God is rich in mercy, Ephes. 2.4. The Father of mercies, 2. Corinth. 1.3. Thou lovest all things that are, and abhorrest nothing that thou hast made: for never wouldst thou have made any thing, if thou hadst hated it, Wisd. 11.24. What thou dost abhor or hate, thou dost wish not to be; what thou dost make, thou dost desire it should be, saith Holcot on the place. In our Common-prayer-book, toward the end of the Commination, this is the acknowledgement of our Church, O merciful God, which hast compassion of all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, which wouldst not the death of a sinner, but that he should rather turn from sin, and be saved, etc. God is entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Amator animarum, A lover of souls, Wisd. 11.26. Holcot on the place confirmeth it by Ezek. 18.4. All souls are mine, saith God. Men commonly love the bodies, saith Holcot, but God the souls. 
b Amat Deus animas, non singulariter, sic, quòd non corpora amet; sed privilegialiter, quia eas ad se in perpetuum fruendum praeparavit.  God loveth the souls; not only, as if he did not love the bodies; but principally, because he hath fitted them for the eternal fruition of himself. It is not the best applied distinction: for whose soever souls shall enjoy God, their bodies also shall, and that immortally for ever. If he had said, that God had loved humane souls privilegialiter, because man had nothing to do in their creation or preservation; he had spoken more to the purpose. Nor think I, that God forsaketh any, but such as forsake him: but, Froward thoughts separate from God— (Wisd. 1.3 etc.) For into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter, nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin. For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding. Concerning the souls of infants, dying without the ordinary antidotes to original sin, baptism and the pale of the Church; though they may most justly be condemned, yet who knoweth how easy their punishment may be, at least comparatively, as some imagine? For, that some drops of mercy may extraordinarily distil upon them, they cannot deny who say, That the rebellious spirits of actually sinful men and Angels, are punished citra condignum. But to leave these speculations, I dare boldly affirm, that if there be any mitigation of torments in any of them, it is not without reference to Christ.  
Moreover the redeeming of man was of more power, than the very creation: for this was performed by a calm Fiat; but the redemption was accomplished by the agony, passion, and death of the Son of God. 
c Aug. in Joan. Tractatu 72. post medium.  Augustine on those words, John 14.12. Greater works then these shall he do, saith thus, It is a greater work, to make a wicked man just, then to create heaven and earth: Therefore much more doth Christ's merit surmount the fault of Adam.  
In the first Adam we only had posse non peccare, posse non mori, A possibility of not sinning, a possibility of not dying; (We should have been changed, though we had not died) posse bonum non deserere, A possibility of not forsaking goodness: and should, by his integrity and our endeavours, have attained, at the utmost, but bene agere, & beatificari, To do well, and be blessed. By Christ we have not only remission of sins, and his righteousness imputed; but rich grace, abundance of joy, and royal gifts; (Not a more joyful, but a more powerful grace, saith 
d Non laetiorem, sed potentiorem gratiam. Aug. de Correp. & Gratia cap. 11.  Augustine) and we shall have non posse peccare, non posse mori, An impossibility of sinning or dying, An unchangeable and immortal life, Non posse deserere bonum, vel adhaerere malo, An impossibility of forsaking goodness, and cleaving to evil; and not only beatitudinem & gloriam, but coronam gloriae, Not only blessedness and glory, but a crown of glory, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, An immarcescible crown of glory, 1. Peter 5.4.  
Lastly, if we go to the numbering of them that were hurt by Adam, and the number of those who receive benefit by Christ; the greatest number is on Christ's side. I would be loath to say, what the 
e Apud Sleidan pag. 293.  Franciscane preached publicly at the Council of Trent, 
f Eos, qui nullam haberent Christi cognitionem, & alioqui vitam egissent honestè, salute●● esse consecutos.  That they who had no knowledge of Christ, and yet had lived honestly, had obtained salvation. Nor will I conclude with others, that Aristides, Cato, yea Julius Cesar himself is saved; though, according to the fertility of the Italian wits, diverse of them have found acquaint passages and conceits tending that way. Nay, in these days of presumption, (wherein, by all likelihood, a thousand surfeit and perish in the hope of mercy, in comparison of one soul ship-wracked on the rock of despair) I am afraid to confirm what Coelius secundus Curio hath writ, in his books de Amplitudine regni Christi; or Marsilius Andreasius of Mantua, de Amplitudine misericordiae Christi, before him; who maintaineth, That fare more are saved by Christ, then are condemned. For though Christ saith, Matth. 7.13. Enter ye in at the straight gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: and vers. 14. Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it: and though diverse other passages of Scripture (by the little flock, and few labourers, with the like phrases) seem to import the paucity of humane souls saved, in comparison of the many condemned: yet he restraineth all those places to the days of Christ; when indeed few believed, in respect of the unbelievers: and the emphasis may accordingly be set upon that word YE; Enter YE. And, perhaps, the antithesis is observable, Many there be which GO in to the wide gate, and broad way; but it is not said, Few SHALL go in at the narrow gate; nor, Few SHALL enter in: but, Few there BE that find it. And it may be expounded, Few there be that find it; by themselves, or by their own natural power, without patefaction divine. But what they cannot find without a guide, they may find by a guide: and many may enter in at Christ the Door, and many may walk in Christ the Way. Where sin abounded, grace may much more abound. As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one may many be made righteous. Concerning which places, with the precedent verses, Rom. 5. we shall treat by and by. But I return to their answer, That respect was had to the primitive days of Christ's Church; and, That we are to consider, that when Christ likened the Kingdom of God to a grain of mustard seed, which waxed a great tree; and to leaven, which leavened the whole lump, Luke 13.18, etc. he spoke not without reference to his own days, in which they were generally persuaded, (as the Papists are now) that many were easily saved in their Church: whereupon one wondering at Christ's doctrine, of the hardly obtaining of heaven, and that by few, saith (Luke 13.23.) Lord, are there few that be saved? And Christ answereth, not without respect to those times, Strive to enter in at the straight gate: for many will seek to enter in, and shall not be able: because they sought awry, and refused the right way offered. Yet many might be saved, and more in aftertimes then at that present time; more by fare in the Church of Christ growing and increasing, then in the Church of the Jews, waning and decreasing. Yea, at this present, though a diligent computer shall not find much fault with me, for saying, that, if the world were divided, for places and people, into thirty parts, Nineteen thereof are Infidels, six of the Mahometan Religion, and five of the Christian, the Roman Church and the Reformed Churches making but one part of the five; (so that the Greek Churches may more brag of their Catholicisme, than the Roman; and the scabbed petite flock, and schismatical parlour-full, yea scarce handful of Separatists of Amsterdam, may cease to claim themselves to be the only Church, by their paucity; which the least number of the never-agreeing, and subdivided Brethren may appropriate to themselves; excluding by that argument all the Churches of the world beside, yea even their own fellow-schismaticks) yet this I will be bold to say, that many places of the Prophets in the old Testament, and many in the New, did and do foresignify, that great abundance of men, women, and children of all nations, of all places, shall be saved by Christ; that there shall be (as it were) Mundus hominum electorum, A world of elect men, a great multitude of men, which no man could number, Rev. 7.9.  
Unto which number of humane souls, if we annex those thousand thousands of Angels, and ten thousand times ten thousand, Daniel 7.10. even that innumerable host also; we may confidently aver, what Elishah said of the blessed Angels in an other case, 2. Kings 6.16. They which be with us, are more than they that be with our enemies, or, more than our enemies. More in number enjoy eternal life by Christ, then are condemned to eternal death by Adam. For though Christ be not a Mediator of redemption unto the Angels; yet was he a Mediator of confirmation in grace; and whatsoever blessings they did, or do, or shall enjoy, they had it for and by the merit of Christ foreseen. For he is the head of the Church, and they be but members: and all the virtue or happiness in the body, or in any part of it, is derived from the head. All things visible and invisible, thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, were created by him, and for him, Coloss. 1.16. In him all fullness dwelleth, vers. 19 From him the whole body is fitly joined together, Ephes. 4.16. In him all the building fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy Temple, Ephes. 2.21. And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace, John 1.16. And not we alone, but the good Angels also were predestinated, created, confirmed, and glorified by his means, as Suarez well concludeth, in his Commentaries on the third part of Aquine his Sum, Tom. 1. pag. 656. 
g Dico Christum meruisse Angelu gratiam, & gloriam, quae illis data fuerat propter merita Christi praevisa.  I say, saith he, that Christ merited for the Angel's grace, and glory, which was given them for the merits of Christ foreseen. So Aquinas, Cajetan, Albertus, 
h Sentent. 3. Distinct. 13. Artic. 2.  Marsilius, 
i In illud, Psal. 102. BENEDICITE DOMINO OMNIA OPERA BIUS.  Jacobus de Valentia, 
k Lib de Regno Christi.  Melchior Flavius, 
l Theosophiae, 3.13.  Arboreus. And again, the same Suarez pag. 65.8. 
m Christus Dominus meruit sanctis Angelis omnia dona gratiae, exceptis iis quae ad remedium peccati pertinent: meruit iis electionem, praedestinationem, vocationem, auxilia omnia excitantia, adjuvantia, sufficientia, & efficacia; denique, omne meritum & augmentum gratiae & gloriae.  The Lord Christ hath merited for the holy Angels all gifts of grace, except those which belong to the remedy of sin. He hath merited for them election, predestination, vocation, all means exciting, helping, sufficient, and effectual: Lastly, all merit and increase of grace and glory. As the precious ointment, upon the head of Aaron, ran down upon his beard, and thence descended to the skirts of his garments, Psal. 133.2. so all virtue distilleth from Christ the Head, upon every member of his Church, Angelical, or Humane; Triumphant, or Militant: neither have they ought, but what they received, and from him only. In brief, we have exchanged, and bartered our brass for gold; 
n Periiss●mus, nisi periassemus.  We had perished, if we had not perished, as Themistocles said of old. 
o O felix culpa, quae tantum & talem meruit Redempterem!  O happy fault, that hath obtained so great and excellent a Redeemer! Christ hath done us more good, than Adam did himself or us hurt.  
If these my humble private speculations, or rather relations of other men's opinions, give not satisfaction; I desire you to have recourse unto the Apostle, who hath put the first and second Adam into the balances; and behold, the first Adam is found too light. In which comparative, being like in the genus, and unlike in the species, (as Origen sound and wittily observed) First let us see the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the things wherein they are like. Rom. 5.12. As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: the Apodosis is not expressed, but thus to be conceived, So by one man grace came into the world, and life by grace. See the same confirmed, v. 19, 20. Secondly, As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. The third thing wherein they were like, is set down in the 18. verse; of which hereafter.  
Concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the things wherein they differ, they are set down in the 15 verse, and so downward: Not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one, many be dead; much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. An other dissimilitude is in the 16 verse, And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgement was by one to condemnation; but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. And verse 17, If by one man's offence, death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. After this, he returneth to the third point of their comparison (the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the things wherein they differ, being involved in a Parenthesis) which indeed may seem at the first sight more strange, Therefore as by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life, vers. 18. But the true meaning is this, according to the way of S. Augustine: As none cometh to death, but by Adam; and none to Adam, but by death: so none cometh to life, but by Christ; nor to Christ, but by life. Thus the free gift came on all, as the offence came on all. As when we say, All entered into the house by one door; it is not intended or included, that all that ever were, fare or nigh, came thither, into the house; but that no man entered into the house, save by the door: So though the Apostle saith Omnes, in the application; he meaneth not, that all and every one are justified; but that all that are justified, are not otherwise justified then by Christ: and this is S. Augustine's exposition, against Julian the Pelagian, 6.12. As if he had said, Christ is the Α and Ω, the beginning, means, and end. There is none other name by which we must be saved, Acts 4.12. He perfecteth them for ever who are sanctified, Hebr. 10.14. And they are Christ's, and Christ is Gods, 1. Cor. 3.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He is my love & delight, said Ignatius. And I profess, I desire not heaven, or the blessedness of heaven without him, as I, undeserving, ill-deserving, poor I, hope to reign in life by him only, who giveth spiritual birth, life, and increase, till he bring us unto blessedness; even all them who are saved, even the universality of the chosen in Christ. The limitation of the word Omnis is frequent in Scriptures; not comprehending generally, or universally every one in all, and all with every one; but being put for a great number, for many: Luke 6.26. woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you: where All must not be tentered and stretched to its utmost extent; for all and every did never, do never, and never shall, speak well of them. So Acts 22.15. Thou shalt be witness unto all men, saith Ananias to S. Paul: which was not accomplished, if All have no restraint. Again, Titus 2.11. The grace of God which bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all men: and yet there were then, and now are many, who never saw or knew that salutiferous or saving grace. So here you are to reduce the word Omnes, to omnes sui; All that are in Christ, saith the Gloss. Again, why may not All be aswell taken for Many in this our 18 vers. as Many is taken for All in the 19 verse? where it is said, By one man's disobedience many were made sinners: when all and every one that descended ordinarily and naturally from Adam, sinned in him and by him, as is expressed, verse 12. and proved before, Genes. 17.4. Thou shalt be a father of many nations; which is repeated word for word, Rom. 4.17. and is thus varied, Genes. 22.18. In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed: and this is confirmed, Galat. 3.8. where Many and All differ not in sense and substance.  
By Omnes homines, All men, you may understand Humanum genus, Mankind; and because all mankind must be distinguished into two sorts, goats and sheep; and considered according to two estates, fallen and repaired; and their different receptacles, the two cities; the one the city of God, the other of the Devil; in the first member the word All must be interpreted generally, without restriction; because in it was speech of Adam, by whom death came upon all, without exception: but in the second and opposite member, All is not to be taken in the same amplitude, sed juxta rem subjectam, But according to the subject spoken of: All that have grace, and the gift of righteousness: Omnes vivificandi, All that are to be made alive, saith S. Augustine; All that are Christ's.  
So much in defence of those who by All understand genera singulorum, but not singula generum, Some of all kinds, but not all of every kind; restraining and imprisoning the word, yet, as it were, in libera custodia. The free gift came upon all men to the justification of life, that is, it came upon all, upon whom it did come, freely: and yet upon many, which were not of Christ's flock, it came not at all. If this seem harsh to any, there is a second interpretation, which came in my mind before ever I had heard or read, that any other thought so: and amongst a whole army of expounders, I never met with any who wholly agreeth with me; and never but one, whose opinion, in part, concurreth with mine: and he is Cardinal Tolet, who is found fault withal covertly, by Justinian the Jesuit, and by the learned Estius, under a general Quidam vir doctus, A certain learned man; and expressly by name by Cornelius à Lapide the Jesuit: whose judgement otherwise I had been ignorant of, as not having Tolets labours on the Romans. The words of S. Paul, Rom. 5.18. at the latter end, are these, By the righteousness of one, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. So it is read (according to the Vulgat) in our late Translation: the Bishop's Bible hath it, Good springeth upon all men to the righteousness of life: but it is certainly amiss; for they take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas there is great discrepancy between them: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is generally confessed to be (according to Philosophers) that virtue, or aggregation of virtue, which is named Justice general: or (according to Divinity) the virtue, or the habit of justice, the work of grace, sanctification, righteousness, or holiness inherent. Neither is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. for though I would be loath to say, as Beza doth on that place; I do not admit, saith he, 
Nè in anis quaedam argutia tribuatur Apostolo, id est, Spiritui sancto.  that these two are all one, for this reason among others, Lest some vain nicety should be attributed to the Apostle, that is, to the holy Ghost; (for if I did admit them to be all one, yet I would rather admire the depths of the holy Spirit, which I am not able to sound, then ascribe any empty or vain nicety to the perfection of divine Scripture; 
l Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem. Tert. lib. contra Hermog.  Whose plenitude I adore, that I may use Tertullians' phrase: whereas Beza intimateth, as if the infinite Spirit knew not to dictate what he could not understand) yet will I be bold to say, there is a main difference between them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly is rendered justificatio: For grant, that among Heathen writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be now and then expressed, A just cause, or The groundwork or foundation of a just cause, as 
l 1. de coelo.  Aristotle useth it. Grant we also, that in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used sometimes for the judgement of God, as Rom. 1.32. and Revel. 15.4; sometimes for the ordinances of God, as Luke 1.6. and Heb. 9.1, and 10 verses, and Rom. 2.26: yet most properly it is rendered Justificatio, and by it is meant the merit of Christ, and his righteousness imputed to us; and is in Christ, and not in us. Beza saith right in this, 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsam justificationis nostrae (ut ità dicam) materiam hîc declarat ab effecto, nempe illam Christi obedientiam, cujus imputatio nos juslos in ipso facit; quam paulò antè vocavit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quò Deus gratis eam nobit largiatur.  The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Justification, declareth (as I may say) the very matter of our justification from the effect, namely that obedience of Christ, the imputation whereof makes us righteous in him: which a little before he called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the free gift; because God gives it freely to us. Thus is the imputation of Christ's righteousness and our justification all one in effect, and only diverse in words to the same sense. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used both in the 16 verse, and in this present place: and thus Rev. 19.8. The fine linen is the righteousness of Saints: Not of themselves, not inherent: for to the Church was given, or granted, that she should be arrayed (ut cooperiat se, as some read it; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in fine linen, pure & white: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pure in itself; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, white to be seen by others. And since our Saviour, Revel. 19.13. was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood; which Blasius Viegas saith, is commonly interpreted of Christ's humanity begored with its own blood, by the Jews (which suffer me to term Meritum rubrum, as well as the Schoolmen style it Meritum udum) which was pointed at, Esai 63.1. Who is this that cometh from Edom, with died garments from Bozrah? and verse 2. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the wine-fat? which Tertullian wittily thus expounded, 
n Spiritus propheticus, veluti jam contemplans Dominum suum ad passionem venientem, carne scilicet vestitum, ut in ea passum, cruentum habitum carnis in vestimentorum rubore designat conculcatae & expressae vi passionis, tanquam de foro torcularis; quia exinde quasi cruentati homines de vini rubore descendunt. Contra Marcionem, 4.40.  The spirit of the Prophet contemplating, as it were, his Lord going to his passion, clothed with flesh, as suffering in it, describes by the redness of his garments the bloody habit of his flesh trodden and pressed by the force of his passion, as by a winepress; because men come out thence, as it were, all bloody with the redness of the wine: According to that prophesied of him, rather than of Judah; or of Judah, as a type of him, Gen. 49.11. He washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes. So that S. John may be thought to expound Esai, and Esai to reflect on that prophecy of Jacob; and all to design out our Saviour's passive obedience, by which (that I may so speak) our sins are most properly washed away, or not imputed. Upon proportionable semblance of reason, permit me to say, that the pure and white linen describeth Christ's active obedience, his fulfilling of the Law, in number, weight, and measure: (which the Schoolmen call Meritum siecum, a dry merit; and I, Meritum candidum, a white merit) which actions and performances of his, are as the fine linen with which the Saints are properly clothed and apparelled, when they are imputed to us. And thus, to return to my old matter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place of the Revelation is taken for the merits of Christ, clothing us with fine linen; as Jacob was with his elder brother's clothes, when he was to receive the blessing, Genes. 27.15. so we with his righteousness, which is ascribed unto us, as if it were our own; and now called ours, because it was given unto us by Him. Yet thirdly and lastly, besides these two words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Apostle useth another verbal, differing from both: and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which (under correction) I opine is not to be translated, either, with the Bishop's Bible, righteousness of life (for that is coincident with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) nor yet justification, or Christ's righteousness; for than it were all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was immediately before ascribed to Christ. But what is then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; & how is it to be translated? It is but twice used in the New Testament. First, Rom. 4.25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He was raised again for our justification. But some Greek Copies have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in that place; and then the sense altereth of itself. Beza saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the fifth to the Romans signifieth more than it doth in the fourth, and seemeth thus to difference it, That, in Romans the fourth, the passive obedience imputed is understood; and, in Romans the fifth, the active obedience imputed is meant. And though in both places he doth Latinize it, Justificatio; yet the new coined words of Justificamen, or Justificamentum, seem better in his judgement to express the sense in the latter place. In this he saith wittily, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this is the only argument of worth against the following opinion. Yet thus it may be answered, That though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be expounded damnation, or condemnation, or a sentence damnatorie, as Beza calleth it; yet Beza himself will not translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
p Sententia absolutoria, vel salvifica.  a sentence absolutorie, or saving. For there is no necessity, that a direct opposition, in all parts, should be between those terms; neither doth the nature of the antithesis necessarily require such an exact contradiction. But how doth Tolet render and interpret these words? 
q Putat justificationem vitae bîc appellari actionem & eperationem, quâ Deus, ex justitia & merito Christi, omnes homines, etiam reprobos, à morte suscitabit ad vit●m perpetuò duraturam.  He thinks (saith Cornelius à Lapide of him) that by the words jusTIFICATIO VITae, The justification of life, (which in the Vulgat is the exposition of our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is here meant that action or operation whereby God through the righteousness & merit of Christ will raise up all men, even the reprobate, from death to a life for ever to endure. And so the similitude between Adam & Christ is every way complete: for as by Adam's sin all & every one die; so by Christ's merit all & every one shall be made alive. And certainly for the truth of Tolets' opinion, it is a part of our Creed, & denied of none: & it is expressly avouched, even in the same comparative form, 1. Cor. 15.22. As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But my opinion herein differeth from Tolets, That I do make, not only God's power & the merits of Christ concurring to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but also make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is more commonly, then properly rendered justificatio) to be an act of man defending and pleading for himself, at the resurrection. As if the Apostle had thus balanced Adam and Christ: As by the offence of the one, judgement came upon all to condemnation: so by the righteousness of the other, the free gift came upon all, that they shall all, without exception, be raised up; to know the cause, why they deserve wrath; to excuse themselves, if they can; to plead in their own defence, if they can justify their lives, and free themselves from condemnation. (For God condemneth no man without reason, nor without suffering him to come to his answer, nor without letting him see and know the just cause of his condemnation.) The substantial truth whereof is confirmed, Rom. 14.10. We shall all stand before the judgement-seat of Christ, and every one of us shall give an account of himself to God, vers. 12. The end is specialized, 2. Corinth. 5.10, That every one may receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. As for the objection of our adversaries, and their demand, where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so used in Scripture: I first retort it thus; Let them prove the use of the word, in Scripture, as they apply it. Secondly, I say, It is iniquum postulatum, An unjust demand on either side; since the word is only once, only here, in the New Testament, without variation of reading, so fare as I remember. Thirdly, I think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, crosse-pleading, and all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 
* Apud Lysiam.  Suidas expounds it: and what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but causificatio, causae suae defensio, juris sui in medium prolatio? 2. Maccab. 4.44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They pleaded the cause before him. Yet nearer to the purpose, Psal. 43.1. Plead thou my cause, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Litiga litem meam, as it is in the Interlineary; Disceptando tuere causam meam, as Vatablus interprets it. And Psal. 35.23. Awake to my judgement, even unto my cause: The Septuagint have it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Symmachus readeth it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where David makes God a Judge and Umpire, between David himself pleading his own cause, and David's adversaries who pleaded against him, and opened their mouth wide against him, vers. 21. So that with Symmachus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is exactly the pleading of one's own cause, as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the defence of a man's thoughts, words, and deeds in this world, and may in a good sense be called a justification of his life. Moreover, it is said, Exod. 12.49. Lex una erit indigenae, & peregrino, One law shall be unto him that is home-born, and unto the stranger. Which is diversified, Levit. 24.22. Ye shall have one manner of law: Judicium unum erit vobis, as the Interlineary readeth it; it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, until he plead my cause. Why may not then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the pleading of one's cause? And why may not the meaning of our Apostle be, That as Adam was ostium mortis, The door 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 Christ's 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 apologise: And herein Adam and Christ to be like, That as every one was made guilty, by one, of condemnation: so every one, for Christ's 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 Professors 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 sin, from all sins, original and actual; since we are acquitted from eternal death, and have grace, and abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness, and shall have life eternal, and shall reign in life, by ones obedience, by one only Jesus Christ, who in his life, and on the altar of the cross merited all these things for us: it is no hard measure, no iniquity of God, if for Adam's sin and disobedience, when he sustained our persons, both himself and his posterity in his loins, implicitly consenting with him, be appointed to die. And thus much shall suffice for the first general 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 Catholic Church; from whose right judgement if I descent, 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 show 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 Jesus, art not able to help me, and to save my sinful soul; let me die comfortless, 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 happiness, than all our enemies could bring to misery. Hear me, for thy tender mercy's sake, and for thy glorious name, O great Mediator Jesus Christ. AMEN, AMEN.    

MISCELLANIES OF DIVINITY. THE SECOND BOOK.  

CHAP. I.  
Sect. 1. THe question propounded, and explained.  
2. Armenius, or rather his son 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 careless Christian died, and recovered life: lived an Anchorite twelve years: 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 stretched out, and yet their soul hath been within them; though diverse, for diverse days, and upon several sicknesses, have had neither heat, nor breathing discernible: but only 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 amiss, to propound to your view a few stories out of other authors. Theodoret, lib. 10. the 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 son of Armenius; He who only, 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 son, the twelfth day after he and others fell in the battle, 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 body, 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 openness 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 memorial of their passed life. But as for himself, being now come in fight, the judges bade him diligently hear 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 story 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 lightheaded: but he told us, that he was dead, and that he was again revived, and that his death, upon that sickness, was not altogether irrevocable: but that the messengers, who brought him to judgement, were sharply blamed by their governor's, 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 aver, that they died again. Neither doth Plato, Plutarch, or Theodoret doubt of it. As strange a story, though more remote from our subject, you shall find in Alexander ab Alexandro, Genialium dierum, 6.21.  
4 An other istance you shall find 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 body, after one hour, he returned again, and he desired Climachus, and the rest, to departed. Whereupon they walled up the cell, and he lived (as an Anchoret) within the cell, twelve years; 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 only, 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 death's door 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 only, 
b Nemo qui revera mortis memoriam agnoverit, peccare unquam poterit.  The serious remembrance of death will not consist with sin. The like story you may find in Venerable Bede.  
All these, if they lived again, died again, and rose not to life immortal. 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 eternal, through Jesus Christ our only Lord and Saviour. Amen.   

CHAP. II.  
1. A division of such as have been raised. They all died.  
2. The widow of Zarephath her son raised, yet died again: supposed to be Ionas the Prophet. The Shunammites son raised, not to an eternal, 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 diverse have been raised up, of whom there is not the like doubt, and answer in each kind to be made, I will therefore distribute them, in regard of their times, into three sorts:  
Such as were raised 

1. Before Christ's 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 son, 1. King. 17.22.  
2. The Shunammites son, 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 only on earth again as other men did, and then die again. Neither did I ever read any, who held these to arise to immortal 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 immortal glory 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 Ionas the Prophet: and S. Hierome, in his Prologue on Ionas, citeth their opinion, and dislikes it not. Tostatus also saith, Dïvers others think so. If Ionas were the widow of Zarephath her son, we know that Ionas 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 Authors, 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 eternal, but a temporary resurrection; and so to die again at their appointed times. And to this truth the Text itself 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 eternal, called also The holy resurrection in our book of Common Prayer, in the Epistle on the sixth Sunday after Trinity; though there is no substantial ground for the word holy, either in the Latin, 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 Christ's 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 eternal resurrection. He abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light, 2. Tim. 1.10. Life and immortality to light, which were before in darkness. 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, etc.) and, as a gift they received their dead raised to life again, to live with them according to their desire. But others were tortured, and would not accept deliverance, and cared not for the joys of this life, or the punishment unto death, nor temporary raising, that they might obtain the better resurrection: not to die again, as the others did; but to live for evermore.  
4 But as for the third, Tostatus saith, He lived a long time, and he was more healthy than he was before he died: And he giveth this sound reason; Because what things are done supernaturally, are fare more perfect than they that are done naturally. Never was there so good wine, as the water turned into wine: the choiceness whereof was so easily discerned, even when the palate was cloyed, when the taste was corrupted and dulled, towards the end of a feast, Joh. 2.10. Now as he lived a long time, so out of doubt in the end he died, tasting of mortality as truly as the Prophet did, whose bones before had raised him.  
O Blessed Jesus, I beg not at thy hands the reuniting of my soul unto my body, for a temporary life: but, if it be thy holy will, let the virtue of thy Passion raise me first, from the death of sin, to the life of righteousness; and from a righteous temporary life, to the life of immortal happiness. Grant this, for thy glorious Names sake, O holy Redeemer. Amen.   

CHAP. III.  
1. Whilst Christ lived, none raised any dead save himself only.  
2. The Ruler's daughter raised by Christ, died again.  
3. So did the young man whom Christ recalled to life.  
4. Many miracles in that miracle of Lazarus his resurrection.  
5. Christ gave perfect health to those, whom he healed or raised.  
6. Lazarus his holy life, and his second death.  
1. THe next place of my division leadeth me to treat of those whom Christ himself raised. For if Christ did give authority to his twelve Apostles to raise the dead, Matth. 10.8. though both in the old Interpreter and Theophylact these words are wanting, saith Beza: yet did they not, or the seventy, at their return to him, say they had raised any, (which he himself did so sparingly) though they healed the sick, Mark 6.13. and the devils were subject unto them through his name, Luk. 10.17. Neither did the Baptist, nor any in Christ's life-time raise up any, so fare as can be gathered. It was a work he appropriated to his own power, for the act thereof, whilst he lived; and which he maketh to be an infallible token and proof that he was the Messiah; as appeareth by the answer of the ambassage which Christ returned to the Baptist, Luk. 7.22. The dead are raised by me, or by my power: Therefore I am he that should come. For that is one member of his argument. And indeed (perhaps) he raised diverse, whom the Scripture hath not particularised: for he did very many things that are not written, Joh. 21.25. Yea, many signs truly did he in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, Joh. 20.30. and his Apostles after his death did actuate that power, which habitually in his life they received.  
2. But those that are mentioned to be raised by Christ, whilst he lived on earth, are likewise three: 

1. A Ruler's daughter, Matth. 9.25.  
2. A dead man, the only son of his mother, Luk. 7.15.  
3. Lazarus, his friend, Joh. 11.44.   And all these returned to do their offices, and follow their vocations in this life; and in the end paid their due to nature, and died again.  
In the first we observe, that she was a damsel of twelve years of age; and being dead, her spirit came again, Luk. 8.55. She arose and walked, Mark 5.42. and Christ commanded to give her meat, in the same place of Luke. And as the meat was commanded to be given her, that they might see she was to live such a life as before she lived: so, out of doubt, the commanded meat was offered unto her, and she did eat, and was strengthened by it: both living and dying afterwards, as other maids and men did, and no way rising to immortal life.  
3. As for the second, he was a young man, on whose mother Christ had compassion, Luk. 7.13. She was a widow, the youth her only son: and when Christ touched but the coffin, and said, Young man arise; (that you may see both his virtue and his voice had a piercing and quickening power) he that was dead sat up, and began to speak; and Christ delivered him to his mother, vers. 15. Now, these are evident signs of a natural life in a natural body, which must yield in the end to the stroke of death. And the raising of this young man being bruited abroad, was the especial motive why the Baptist sent two disciples with a message unto Christ, Luk. 7.17, etc.  
4. The third whom Christ raised was Lazarus, who had been buried four days ere Christ came unto him, Joh. 11.17. (that I may pass over the uncertain time from his death to his burial) 
d Foetens, & quairiduanut.  Stinking after four days, entering, saith S. Augustine: Yet when Jesus cried with a loud voice, Lazarus come forth; he that was dead came forth bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was bound about with a napkin: and Jesus saith unto them, Lose him, and let him go, Joh. 11.44. In which miracle I find four or five wrapped up and involved: That so suddenly his soul did come from its abode: That the stinking ill-organized body was so soon, so well prepared: That the soul was so quickly united; and no sooner united, then exercising her faculties on the body, which yielded such ready obedience: That he could see the way out of the grave (and, perchance, approach towards our Saviour) when his eyes were blinded: That he was able to go and walk before he was loosed by them, while his hands and his feet were bound with graveclothes. Yet that the miracle aimed not to raise him to an immortal life, appeareth, because he did not only go from his grave to Bethanie, to the house where his sisters, Mary and Martha were; but because he supped with our Saviour; he being one of them that sat at the table with Jesus, Joh. 12.2. where, out of doubt, he did eat as the rest did.  
There is an argument yet left, as undeniable, as unanswerable. That the then living did think Lazarus lived to die again: For, the chief Priests consulted that they might put Lazarus to death, as well as Christ, Joh. 12.10. which they would not, they could not have done, if he had not lived, and could not die like other men; if he had been raised to life immortal: and they knew he was once raised, Joh. 11.45, 47.  
5. Concerning the sick that were healed, and the dead raised by Christ, worthy Writers further agree, that Christ did integram corporis sanitatem confer, omni infirmitate rejectâ, Left no relics of sickness or infirmity when he healed. Christ never healed any one man twice, Joh. 7.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Totum hominem sanum feci, I made a man every whit whole; Healed a man wholly, say the Rhemists. Perhaps I may add, that Christ never healed the body of any, but he healed his soul likewise, at least for the instant time. I am sure Chrysostom, Augustine, and Beda to this purpose say, The same man was healed by Christ, Joh. 5.14. Qui foris ab infirmitate, ipse etiam intus salvavit à scelere: He saved the man from outward infirmity and inward sin: He healed (as I may comment on the words) his body at the pool of Bethesda, his soul in the Temple. Christ himself said, Totum hominem sanum feci, I have healed the whole man: and Beza on Joh. 7.23. saith, He was healed both soul and body: Corporaliter &▪ spiritualiter, Both bodily and ghostly, saith Hugo Cardinalis. Even he, who was impotent, and had an infirmity thirty eight years, upon Christ's command immediately was made whole, and took up his bed and walked, Joh. 5.9. and immediately, upon Christ's word, the blind received his sight, Mark 10.52. the deaf and ill-speaking man, after Christ had said, EPHPHATHA, his ears were straightway opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke plain, Mark 7.35. The fever immediately left Simons wives mother, after Christ took her by the hand, and lift her up: and she ministered unto them, Mark 1.31. Christ left no relic of any old disease; and whom he healed of any one infirmity, we never read that he complained of any other. So though Lazarus before his death, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Languens, longâ infirmitate fractus, actu aegrotus, Pining, feeble, sick, saith Salmeron: yet was he immediately and perfectly cured: and (as I imagine) he was upon his resuscitation, not only in latitudine sanitatis, Void of all weakness; so that no part was sick or mis-affected by any dyscrasy: but in perfectione salutis, In full complete health; and had obtained by Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The height and fullness of health; a constant, settled, habitual soundness in each part of his body. For as art is but the ape of nature, and natural things are fare more absolute and perfect then artificial: so things miraculous as much exceed things natural in perfection. So that no natural crasis, no temper or temperature, no health is so pure and exact, as that which is wrought immediately by a divine finger: In the vigour and strength whereof Lazarus might have lived, as Adam and Eve did, a long time.  
6. What do I speak of likelihoods, or possibilities, when we have good Authors which give us more light concerning Lazarus his life, and concerning his death? There is a manuscript of the English history in the Vatican at Rome, testifying, That about the 35 year of Christ (saith Baronius on the same year) Lazarus, Marie Magdalene, and Martha, with Marcelia their waiting-woman, with Maximinus their disciple, with Joseph of Arimathea their companion, 
e Imponebantur navi, absque remigio.  were put into a little sciph, or great boat, without oars or fit tackling, and so were in great danger at the sea: but by God's providence, 
f Massiliam appulerunt.  they arrived at Marsillis, a city of Provance in France. Tostatus upon 1. King. 17. saith, Lazarus was a Bishop, and an holy Martyr. Epiphanius in the catalogue of Manichaeus his assertions, saith he hath it by tradition, that Lazarus was thirty years old when he was raised up, and that he lived afterward other thirty years. See the same Epiphanius, Haeres. 66. Gregory the great, Dialog. lib. 4.28. addeth, that Lazarus never laughed after he was raised, and he did so tame himself with fastings, watchings, and labours, that his very conversation did seem to speak, (though he held his tongue) that he had seen the infernal torments. So fare Gregory. Yet, under his correction, he might as well, and as much bring his body under, and flee from the very inclination to sin, because he had tasted of the joys celestial, and peace unconceivable. Thus have you the life and death of Lazarus.  
O Thou who art the Resurrection and the Life, quicken me with thy Spirit, lead me by thy grace, and crown me with thy glory, for thy tender mercy, O my sweet Saviour, my joy and delight, the life of my soul, my Mediator and Advocate, Jesus Christ. Amen.   

CHAP. FOUR  
1. Tabytha died again.  
2. So did Eutychus.  
3. They who were raised about the Passion of Christ, died not again, as many ancient and late Writers do imagine. Mr. Montague is more reserved.  
1. NOw am I come to speak of those, who after Christ's ascension were raised. For though in his life time, none of Christ's inwardest disciples or friends raised any; (as Elisha's servant could not raise the Shunammites' son, but Elisha himself must do it, and did it, 2. King. 4.31, etc. And Elisha himself raised none, while his master Elijah lived, but Elijah himself did it, 1. King. 17.22.) yet after Christ's ascension, by his power communicated to them, the believer shall do the works that I do, and greater works than these shall he do, saith Christ, Joh. 14.12. One was raised by S. Peter, an other by S. Paul. You shall find the first, Act. 9.40. When Peter had kneeled and prayed, and turned him to Tabytha her body, and said, Tabytha, arise; she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter, she sat up. Yet was she dead before, and washed, and laid in an upper chamber, vers. 37.  
2. And for the other, the story is this, Act. 20.9. As Paul was long preaching, Eutychus sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead: perchance broken in some parts of his body; bruised certainly: him S. Paul raised, and they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted, vers. 12. Of these two, as well as of the rest, there is no doubt but that they lived again, again to die. So thinks Aquinas, 3. part. Summ. Quaest. 53. Artic. 3. and the whole School (following him) agree with us in this. So Suarez, Lorinus, who not? Take one of the ancients for all: Cyprian reckoneth up those who were raised in the Old Testament; and others raised by Christ's command; and saith of these, 
h Aliquo tempore beneficio vitae usi, iterum ad funera rediêre; Pag. 523. de Resur. Christi, paragr. 8.  They lived a while, and died again: and a little before of them in the Old Testament, 
i Ad mortem quam gustaverunt iterum redierunt.  They tasted of death the second time. And therefore it needs the less proof, because none denieth it: and the contrary needeth the less disproof, because none hath averred it.  
3. Now it is time to come to the third and last part of my main first division, and to speak of them who arose about the time that Christ died; for of them there is a deep and intricate question: and the history of them is set down at large by the Evangelist, Matth. 27.52, and 53 verses: The graves were opened, and many bodies of Saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. So fare the text. Of the various pointing of which words see more hereafter, opening two windows for two expositions. On which words, diverse worthy men, both modern and ancient, conclude, That those Saints died not again, 
k Sed apparuerunt multis, & etiam cum Christo, nunquam ultrà morituri, abierunt in coelum.  But appeared to many, and, with Christ, never after were to die, but went into heaven, saith Jacobus Faber Stapulensis. And Mr. Beza on this place opineth, that they did not rise, that again they might live among men, and die as Lazarus and others did: but that they might accompany Christ, by whose power they rose, into eternal life. The late Writers (saith Maldonate) think, that they went into heaven with Christ: and with them doth himself agree. So Pineda on Job 19.25. So Suarez a third Jesuit. So Anselm. So Aquinas on the place, and on the Sentences. So (if Suarez cite them truly) Origen in the first book to the Romans, about those words of the first chapter, By the resurrection of Jesus our Lord: and Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 6. and Justinus, Quaest. 85. Ambrose in his Enarration on the first Psalm; and Eusebius, Demonst. 4.12. and of modern Authors, and of our Church, Bishop Bilson in the effect of his Sermons touching the full redemption of mankind by the death and blood of Jesus Christ, pag. 217. So Baronius ad annum Christi 48. num. 24. concerning those Saints whom Christ piercing the heavens carried with himself on high, leading captivity captive, Ephes. 4.8. More reserved and moderate is Mr. Montague, that indefatigable Student, sometime my chamber-fellow, and Precedent in the King's College in Cambridge, now the Reverend Lord Bishop of Chichester, who in his answer to the Gag of the Protestants, pag. 209. saith of these Saints, They were Saints, indeed deceased, but restored to life, and peradventure unto eternal life, in bodies as well as souls.  
MOst clear Fountain of Wisdom inexhaustible, wash, I beseech thee, the spots of my soul, and in the midst of many puddles of error, cleanse my understanding, that I may know and embrace the truth through Jesus Christ. Amen.   

CHAP. V.  
1. Who were supposed to be the Saints which were raised, by such as maintain that they accompanied Christ into heaven.  
2. A strange story out of the Gospel of the Nazarens.  
3. Adam's soul was saved. Adam's body was raised about Christ's Passion, saith Pineda out of divers Fathers: Thus fare Pineda hath truth by him. That the sepulchre of Adam was on mount Calvarie: so say Athanasius, Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Euthymius, Anastasius Sinaita, Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople.  
4. It was applauded in the Church in Hieromes time.  
5. Theophylact thought Adam buried in Calvarie. Drusius unadvisedly taxeth the Fathers. Tertullian consenteth with other Fathers, and Nonnus, who is defended against Heinsius.  
6. At Jerusalem they now show the place where Adam his head was found. Moses Barcepha saith, that Sem after the flood buried the head of Adam.  
7. The Roman story of Tolus, and Capitolium, much resembling the story of Adam.  
1. TO the clearing of this cloud, and that we may carry the truth visibly before us, I think it fit to inquire, First, Who these Saints were which thus miraculously arose: and then secondly to determine, Whether their bodies were again deposited in the earth till the resurrection: or, Whether in their bodies with Christ they ascended into heaven.  
2. For the first, Hugo Cardinalis on Matth. 27.53. hath an old story: It is said (saith he) in the Evangelisme of the Nazarens, that two good and holy men, who were dead before about forty years, came into the Temple, and saying nothing, made signs to have pen, ink, and parchment; and wrote, That those who were in Limbus rejoiced upon Christ's descent, and that the devils sorrowed. Though the rest be fabulous, yet herein the Gospel of the Nazarens agreeth with our Gospel, That the names of the raised are not mentioned. Others have been bold to set down both the names and the order of them who arose.  
3. Augustine, Epist. 99 ad Euodium, thus, 
a De illo quidem primo homine, patre generis humani, quòd eum ibidem (Christus ad inserna descendens) solverit, Ecclesia ferè tota conseutit.  Almost the whole Church agreeth, That Christ descending into hell, freed the first Adam thence. That the Church believed this, non inaniter, not vainly, but upon some good ground, we are to believe; from whence soever the tradition came, though there be no express Scripture. If this be true of Adam's soul, yet is it nothing to our question of his bodily resuscitation. Proceed we therefore to those that think his very body was raised.  
Adam then arose, saith Athanasius in his Sermon of the Passion and the Cross: saith Origen in his 35 Tractate on Matthew: saith Augustine, 161 quest. on Genesis: and others also, if Pineda on the forecited place wrong them not. And he giveth this congruentiall reason, That Adam, who heard the sentence of death, should presently also be partaker of the resurrection by Christ, and with him, who had expiated his sin by death. To which may be added, That (as S. Hierom reports) the Jews have a tradition, that the ram was slain on mount Calvarie in stead of Isaac; as also Augustine (Serm. 71. de Tempore) ratifieth. And to this day they say they have there the altar of Melchisedech. So Athanasius reports from the Jewish Doctors, that in Golgotha was the sepulchre of Adam. This is true; but it is not certain that Adam was raised; and not true, that he ascended bodily into heaven.  
Mr. Broughton, in his observations of the first ten Fathers, saith thus: Rambam recordeth that which no reason can deny, how the Jews ever held by Tradition, that Adam, Abel, and Cain offered, where Abraham offered Isaac, where both Temples were built, on which mountain Christ taught, and died. And as the place was called Calvaria, because the head or skull of a man was there found, and found bare without hair, and depilated, saith Basil; so diverse Fathers have concluded, that Adam was there buried, and that it was his head. See Origen, tractat. 35. on Matth. Cyprian in his sermon on the resurrection; Ambrose in his tenth book of his commentaries on Luk. 23. Basil on the fifth of Esay; Epiphanius contra Haeres. lib. 1. Chrysostome Homil. 84. in Joannem; Augustine Serm. 71. de Tempore, and de Civitat. 16.32. Euthymius on Matth. So Athanasius Sinaita, lib. 6. in Hexam. in Tom. 1. Bibliothecae Patrum; and Sanctus Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople, in Theoria rerum Ecclesiast. as you may see in Tom. 6. Biblioth. Patrum; besides abundance of new writers, with whose names I delight not to load my page.  
4 Hierom on these words, Ephes. 5.14. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, etc. telleth, how he heard one disputing in the Church, of this place, thus: This testimony is spoken to Adam buried in Calvarie, where Christ was crucified. Which place was called Calvarie, because there was placed Caput antiqui hominis, Adam's skull. Therefore at that time, when Christ, being crucified, did hang over his sepulchre, this prophecy was accomplished, saying, Arise Adam, that sleepest, and stand up from the dead; and not as we read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ shall give thee light; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ shall touch thee because by the touch of his blood, and of his body hanging over him, he might be enlivened, and rise. Now though Hierom himself saith, that this sense agreeth not with the context; yet he leaves it to the Reader to judge, whether the thing be true, or no; and confesseth, that the words were pleasingly entertained by the people, and 
b Quodam plausu & tripudio sunt accepta.  approved with applause extraordinary both of hand and foot. And 
c Haeres. 46. contra Tatian. in fine.  Epiphanius expressly affirmeth, that Adam was buried in Calvarie, and that the mountain was so called from Adam's head there found; adding, 
d In quo crucifixus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per aquam & sanguinem, qui fluxit ab ipso, per compunctum ipsius latus, in aenigmate ostendit salutem nostram ab initio massae, primi bominis reliquias respergere auspicatus.  Where our crucified Lord Jesus Christ, by water and blood which flowed from his pierced side, figuratively showed our salvation from the primitive lump, whilst auspiciously he sprinkled the relics of the first man.— Therefore, Now was fulfilled, saith he, Surge qui dormis, Arise thou that sleepest, etc. Ambrose and Paulinus seem to have read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Augustine on these words, Psal. 3.5. The Lord sustained me, citeth this place thus: 
e Surge qui dormis, & exurge a mortui●, & continget te Christus.  Arise who sleepest, and stand up from the dead, and Christ shall touch thee: which reading was used also by others in Hieromes time.  
5. Theophylact on Matth. thus: They that hold Traditions, say, Adam was buried in Calvarie. It is a Tradition (saith he, on Mark) from the ancient Fathers: adding this, Therefore Christ, who healed the fault and death of Adam, was there buried; that where was the beginning, there should be the end, and destruction of death. On Luke he allegeth this reason, 
f Vbi per lignum casus, illic per lignum & resurrectio.  Where the fall was by the tree, there by the tree also should be the rising again. Now as this reason is but weak, so his words on John are worthy remembrance: That the Tradition is Ecclesiastical, not Judaical; that it was published by Noah after the flood. Whence we may justly tax Drusius in his first commentary ad voces novi Testamenti, on the word Golgotha, who ascribeth the finding of Adam's skull, and his burial on Golgotha, to the too much credulity of the Fathers, in believing the Jews. It rather makes against the Jews, and the Jews gain nothing (in my opinion) by that report. Certain old verses fathered on Tertullian, prove directly, that in the same place that Adam died Christ died also; and of Golgotha, and Calvaria in particular, thus run the verses, 

Hîc hominem primum suscepimus esse sepultum;  
Hîc patitur Christus; sic sanguine terra madescit,  
Pulvis Adae ut veteris possit cum sanguine Christi  
Commistus, stillantis aquae virtute lavari.   

The first man here, they say, was buried;  
The earth was here with Christ's blood watered:  
That Adam's dust commixed with Christ his blood,  
Might so be bathed as in a sovereign flood.    
Tertullians' Latin verses may be seconded with Nonnus his Greek verses on John 19.17. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Which are thus translated, 
Donec in locum venit nominati cranii,  
Adam prisci nomen ferentem ambitu capitis.  
Until he came toth' place (as goes the fame)  
Which from old Adam's skull did take its name.  Where Nonnus concludeth, (as many other more ancient did before him) that it was called the place of a skull, from the first Adam's head. The learned Heinsius (Exercit. sacr. pag. 196.) contradicting saith, The Evangelist did not think the place was so called from Adam's skull, nor that the word SKULL inclines to that sense: nor is it called ADAM'S SKULL, but THE PLACE OF A SKULL.— And whereas Epiphanius saith, that Adam's skull was found in that place, (which gave occasion to the words of Nonnus) I marvel that they who were conversant in books of the Hellenists, found not the beginning of that fable. For in them, the word ADAM is taken Collective, after the Hebrew manner. So in the Latin, 1. Sam. 7.9. 
g The words are in 2. Sam 7.19. This is the law of men, saith Heinsius, not of Adam. Our translation hath it, This is the manner of man, without restraining it to the first Adam.  Ista est lex Adam, hoc est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Moreover Symmachus interpreteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Humane nature. So where Josiah (2. King. 23.20.) is said combussisse ossa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to have burnt the bones of Adam, the seventy have it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He burned the bones of men on it. Because therefore in this place were the skulls of Adam, that is, of men, the place is called so. And whereas ADAM should be taken for MEN, Nonnus by signing out the first Adam hath increased the absurdity of this error. To this effect Heinsius on that place. In this my defence of Nonnus, I give but a touch at the slip 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Septuagint have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answerable to the Hebrew; & at the other slip of citing 1. Sam. 7.9. in stead of 2. Sam. 7.19. and, granting that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken sometimes Collectiuè both in Scriptures and some Hellenists, do desire to know how it is applied to this place. For, though there be mention of Adam in Nonnus, yet there is none in the Text; which might give the hint to the error of Nonnus, as Heinsius mistermeth it. And when Heinsius produceth one Hellenist expounding Golgotha, and there using 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Collectiué, he shall say something. But saith the worthy Heinsius, it is not called Cranium Adami, The skull of Adam; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The place of a skull. I answer, Neither are the words Crania Adam, The skulls of men, as Heinsius understandeth it. For Luke 23.33. it is said expressly, The place is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other three Evangelists have it also, all and every of them, in the singular number, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, the place of a skull, Mark 15.22. Called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, as it is Matth. 27.33. or as it is varied by S. John, He went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew, Golgotha, John 19.17. Even in the Hebrew, 
* GOLGOTHA Syrum est, non Hebraeum.  GOLGOTHA is a Syriack word, not an Hebrew one, saith Hierom on the word, in his exposition of the Hebrew names, used by S. Matthew. He is seconded by 
h De verbo D●i 2.4.  Bellarmine, who is confident, that the vulgar tongue, spoken, and written in the Apostles days, was the Syriack, and not the pure and sacred Hebrew; instancing in Golgotha. The truth is, though the termination be Syriack, yet it is an Hebrew word of the radix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Circuire, To compass: from whence comes GALGAL, Sphaera, An orb, and GULGULETH, or GOLGOLETH (which the Chaldeans and Syrians express by addition of Aleph) Caput, ob ejus rotunditatem, An head, for its roundness. Mercer and Cevallerius add in the Italic letters, The skull is properly so called: 
i Pars pro toto, imò & pro toto homine dicitur, ut cùm Latinè dicimus, Per capita.  Part is taken for the whole; and not for the whole body only, but for the whole man: as when after the Latin guise, we say, By the heads; meaning, By the people. So also in the common proverb, 
k Quot capita tot sententiae.  So many heads (that is, men) so many minds. From Golgoleth cometh Golgoltha, or Golgotha, the letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being taken away by Syncope, 
l Ex consuetudine illius temporis.  As was then usual, saith Drusius: yea, and 
m Euphoniae gratiâ.  for a sweet and pleasant sound sake, saith Lucas Brugensis. For as the Syriack omits the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reading it Gogultha, or, according to Drusius, Gagultha; (though Mercer and Cevallerius say it is Golgolta in the Syriack tongue) so the Greek and the Latin leave out the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and read it Golgotha. Now since none of the Evangelists have the exact Syriack word, and S. John saith, The place is called Golgotha in Hebrew; let Golgotha pass, not for a Syriack, but an Hebrew word, especially since the Syrians have an other word, by which they signify a skull, viz. Karkaphto; and let us come up close to Heinsius.  
If he could prove, that Cranion, a skull (being the word which all the Evangelists insist upon) is taken collectiué, for many skulls, in the Hebrew, Syriack, or by the Hellenists; if one skull could belong to many men; I would say his proof were sharp, and pointed: but since it is harsh to conceive, or to write, or say (not the places, but the place; not of skulls, but of a skull) the place of a skull of men (it being a very Solecism in the Hebrew, and the Syriack, in the Greek, whether sacred or profane, and indeed in all languages) I must take liberty to say, Heinsius his argument is too weak and blunt, to hurt Nonnus; though we add this his other exception, 
n Quia in isto loco crania fuerunt Adam, hoc est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ità dictus est locus.  The place was called a skull, because men's skulls were there. I answer, Though many were there buried, and many other skulls were there extant; (as in other Polyandriis, or Ossaries, Churchyards, or Charnell-houses) yet since Adam was there buried also, how followeth it, that the place was called so from the ignoble many, rather than from the first Adam.  
To speak truly, Golgotha was not an ordinary dormitory; there were no caves for burial, there were no places of sepulchers. All malefactors, even amongst them at that time, were not there executed; only some, for some offences: and all that there were executed, were not there interred; but some were removed to their private buriall-places. If from the multitude there congested, the place had its denomination; the three Evangelists (who have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The place of a skull) might most easily, and, in likelihood, one of them would have varied it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The place of skulls: but because the Scripture is express, it was one single skull, from which the place was so called; and constant Tradition hath delivered, that Adam was there buried; and diverse Ancients, besides Epiphanius, have both believed, and written, that Adam's skull was there found; Nonnus had reason, in his paraphrase, to apply the Text unto Adam: neither is it a fable, error, or absurdity. The Scripture saith, The place of a skull; Nonnus saith, with Antiquity, The place of Adam's skull; Heinsius saith, It was called Golgotha, or the place of a skull, from the skulls of many men there buried. Who hath most likelihood? Nonnus, or Heinsius?  
6. Mr George Sands, in the relation of his journey, pag. 163. reporteth, that on the left side of an altar, in mount Calvarie, there is a cleft in the rock, in the which they say, that the head of Adam was found, and (as they will have it) there buried, (others say in Hebron) that his bones might be sprinkled with the real blood of our Saviour; which he knew should be shed in that place, by a prophetical foreknowledge. And in the next page, he picturing out the chapels, and several monuments, hath honoured that cleft, where they say the head of Adam was found, with a local delineation.  
Now because it may be thought, that the flood did overthrow sepulchers, houses, and monuments, and adam's among the rest; Moses Barcepha, in his book de Paradiso, excellently secondeth Theophylact, and saith, That Noah, foreknowing the flood, took into the ark with him, the bones of Adam; And (having tripartitely divided the world unto his three sons, saith Epiphanius in Anchorato, near the end; all Asia even to Egypt, unto Sem; Africa unto Cham; Europe to Japhet) he gave to Sem, the head or skull of Adam, who, burying it in the old grave, called the place Calvaria.  
Not fare from the beginning of the first book Oraculorum Sibyllinorum, Sibylla Babylonica saith, She was with her husband in the ark, at the general undage, or cataclysme, which some do thus expound; that by Sibylla, is meant the Kabala; which is nothing else, but the constant belief, and knowledge of the Fathers, delivered by Tradition: so Kabala, or Sibylla might be in the ark at the universal inundation, and, in a sort, may be said to be married to Noah, or to Sem, with whom there remained (out of doubt) the most certain agraphall Traditions: and among those, this might be one, of the grave of Adam, and his head there, after the flood, buried. See Baronius ad Annum Christi 34. numero 112. & sequent. Lastly, S. Hierome is fully and exactly for us, Epist. 17 ad Marcellum.  
7. The Romans have a story somewhat resembling this. Suffer a digression not unworthy your reading.  
In Rome there was an hill, called first, Mons Saturninus, from Saturn who dwelled there, saith Terentius Varro, Dionysius, and Festus. Afterwards A duce Tarpeio mons est cognomen adeptus, saith Propertius, lib. 4. ante medium: and was called Mons Tarpeius, from Tarpeia, a traitorous maid there killed, and (as it were) buried under the spoils. See Pliny, lib. 19.1. Propertius there intimateth, that she expected marriage with Tatius, and specializeth his reply in disdain, 
Nube, ait, & regni scande cubile mei.  
Dixit, & ingestis comitum superobruit armis.  
Haec, virgo, officiis, does erat apta tuis.  
Whilst she both wife and Queen did look to be,  
He smothered her with armour thrown upon her:  
And said, Virgin, this dowry fitteth thee,  
Being for thy ill offices the meetest honour.   
But Livy, confessing that by their armour she was smothered, reporteth two different relations. First, that she compounding with them to have what they wore on their left arms, (which were, according to the present fashion, bracelets of pure gold) they thought their promise quitted, by throwing to her, and on her, their targets. Others secondly say, she demanded their principal armour of defence, and thereupon suspecting that her intent was to deceive, they paid her in her own kind, and by them killed her.  
Thirdly, upon this accident it received its surname of Mons Capitolinus: Ludovicus Vives, on Augustine de Civit. 4.10. citeth Dionysius saying that it was called CAPITOLINUS, Ab humano capite in fundamentis reperto, From a man's head found in the foundation of it. Livius, towards the end of his first book, saith, That in the foundation of the temple there appeared a man's head, and his whole face sound and uncorrupt. Arnobius, contra Gentes lib. 6. almost in the beginning, instructeth us at large, whose head this was: and from the ancient authorities of Sammonicus, Granius, Valerianus, and Fabius, declareth to the Romans themselves, as well as to the other Gentiles, That there was one Tolus, slain by his brother's servant: that his head was cut off, and carefully hid for good luck's sake: that his grave or sepulchre was the Capitol: that the composition of the name, made the thing to be known: and that the city of Rome, being to dedicate and name the temple, was not ashamed to call it, ex Toli capite, CAPITOLIUM; rather then after Jupiter's own name. And perhaps, upon a relation of the head found on mount Calvarie, Adrian might cause Jerusalem to be called not only Aelia-Adria, but also Capitolina, with reference to their hill and the head there buried also.  
O Righteous Saviour, which didst shed thy most precious blood on the Cross, to purify thy Church; let one drop of thy blood distil upon my soul; that it may be presented blameless at the Throne of Grace, and avoid the second death, which, without thee, is due unto me. Grant this (I humbly beseech thee) for thine own Merit and Mercy. Amen.   

CHAP. VI  
1. Hierom saith, Adam was not buried on mount Calvarie. Both Hierom, Andrichomius, and Zimenes say, he was buried in Hebron. Hierom censured, for doubling in this point, by Bellarmine.  
2. Hieroms' arguments answered.  
3. The Original defended against Hierom in Josh. 14.15. ADAM there is not a proper name, but an appellative. Arba is there a proper name of a man. Adrichomius erreth in Kiriath-Arbee; and the words signify not Civitas quatuor virorum, The city of four men. New expositions of Kiriath-Arbee.  
4. It may signify as well Civitas quatuor rerum, The city of four things: as, Quatuor hominum, Of four men. The memorable monuments about Hebron.  
5. It may be interpreted Civitas quadrata, quadrilatera, quadrimembris, quadricollis; A city foursquare, of four sides, of four parts, of four hills.  
6. If Kiriath-Arba doth signify the city of four men, yet they might be other men, besides the four Patriarches.  
7. If it had its denomination from four Patriarches, and from their burial there, yet Adam is none of them.  
8. Augustine peremptory for Adam's burial in Calvarie; and Paula and Eustochium, or rather Hierom.  
9 An other objection answered. The Jews never shown extraordinary honour to Adam, or Noah; but to Abraham, and others after him. Drusius preferreth the reading used by our late Translation, Hos. 6.7. before the Genevean and Tremellian.  
1. ON the other side, and for the contrary opinion, the same Hierom, on Matth. 27.33. saith, Calvaria signifieth not the sepulchre of the first man (Adam) but the place of those that were beheaded. Secondly, Adam was buried by Hebron, and Arbee, saith Hierom. Thirdly, the accurate Adrichomius, in verbo HEBRON, pag. 49. saith, Hebron or Chebron was first called Arbee, and Mambre, and Cariath-Arbee, the city of four men, because the four Patriarches, Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob there dwelled, and were buried. Franciscus Zimenes Archbishop of Toledo, and many others accord with him. S. Hierom led them all the way; though awry: Hierom, in lib. de locis Hebraicis, on the word ARBOCH, thus, 
a Corruptè in nostris codicibus Arboch scribitur, cùm in Hebraeo legatur Arbee, id est quatuor: ●ò quòd ibi quatuor Patriarchae, Abraham, Isaac & Jacob sepulti sunt, & Adam magnus, ut in Jesus libro scriptum est; licèt eum quidam conditum in loco Calvariae suspicentur.  It is corruptly written in our copies ARBOCH; since in the Hebrew it is read ARBEE, that is, Four: because there the four Patriarches, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were buried, and the great Adam, as it is written in the book of Joshua; though some suppose Adam to be buried in Calvarie. The same Adrichomius, pag. 46. describeth a double cave in the tribe of Judah; which cave, with the ground and trees, Abraham bought of the sons of Heth, in which were buried Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah, which Mausoleum continued till the time of S. Hierom. Now this place was close by Hebron; and Hebron and this sepulchre fare from mount Calvarie; 250 stadia, or . Lastly, saith Hierom, If any will strive that Christ was crucified in Calvarie, that his blood might distil on the tomb of Adam; I will ask him, why others, even thiefs were there crucified? The force of these authorities, or reasons, is not such, as to remove me from the common opinion, that Adam was buried in Golgotha. And thus I answer the Objections in order.  
Bellarmine, de Amissione gratiae, & statu peccati, 3.12. bringeth Hierom against Hierom, and wondereth at his doubling: and he refuteth Hieroms' arguments; and produceth many strange proofs, that Adam was buried in mount Calvarie. But I descend to the particulars.  
2. The first is, a mistaken imputation of S. Hierom. For who saith, or ever said, that the word Calvaria signified the sepulchre of the first man? Neither can any man primarily argue from the names of Golgotha, or Calvaria, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Calvariae locus, The place of a skull, that Adam was there buried: nor yet doth Calvaria signify locum decollatorum, though Hierom would have it so. But since Calvaria, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, properly and natively, is truly translated a skull, the skull of a man; and GOLGOTHA, the place of a skull, Matth. 27.33. not of skulls, or beheaded men, in the plural number, (for it is in the singular, in every of the Evangelists) and constant Tradition hath delivered, that Adam was there buried; we may conclude, not from the name to Adam's burial; but from the received opinion of Adam's burial in that place, unto the name; and may say, with diverse Fathers, more than probably, It was termed Golgotha, or the place of a skull, with reference to Adam's burial, or his skull.  
3. Secondly, S. Hierom groundeth his second reason on the sands, and offereth violence to the place of Scripture. Thus he readeth it, Josh. 14.15. Nomen Hebron antè vocabatur Cariath-Arbee; Adam maximus ibi inter Enacim situs est: Hebron was before called Cariath-Arbee; The first Adam was there placed among the Anakims'. Whence he concludeth, That Adam was buried by Hebron and Arbee, and so not on mount Calvarie: for they were many miles distant each from other.  
I answer, that neither the Seventy nor Hebrew have, Ibi situs est. Secondly, what had Adam our Protoplast to do, or to be buried among the Anakims'? Wiser Baronius in the place above-cited, misliking Hierom, makes the giant's name in that place of Joshua, to be Adam: and not the first Adam to be one of the giants, or to be buried with them. Thirdly, both Hierom and Baronius are deceived, in thinking that Adam in that place is a proper name; for the words may, yea must run thus according to the Hebrew, and is seconded by our later translation; The name of Hebron before, Kirjath-Arba, who was (or which Arba) was a great man, among the Anakims'. Now it were nonsense to say, The name of Hebron, was the city of four, who was a great man among the Anakims': and as senseless were it, Josh. 15.13. to read it, Caleb had the city of four, the father of Anak: But taking Arba, for the proper name of a man, and the city so called of him; the sense, reason, and truth are all apparent. A great man, of whom the city was so called, saith Tremellius: Arba was the name of a great man among the giants, saith Aben Ezra: Homo maximus, saith Andrew Masius: The greatest and chiefest among the giants, saith Vatablus in his commentary, and Emmanuel Sa in his notes on the place. This Arba was the father of Anak, Josh. 21.11. And the sons of Anak were giants, and came of giants; and we were, (say the Israelites) in their and in our own sight as grasshoppers, Num. 13.33. And this also reflects an answer upon the third objection of Adrichomius, who though he be most accurate in other things, yet here he is asleep. For though Arbee signify four, when Arbee is not a proper name; and Kiriath-arbee may be rendered, The city of four; yet it may also signify The city of one Arba, or Arbee: and so Kiriath-Arbee in Hebrew is no more, than Arbepolis in Greek; so called of one Arbee, who was a man, The father of Anak, Josh. 21.11. as I proved before: as Persepolis, Adrianopolis, Constantinopolis, Alexandrinopolis in India (as Appian Alexandrinus hath it in his book of the Roman wars with the Syrians) and Alexandropolis, a city of Parthia, as Plinius 6.25. varieth it. So Magnopolis, as Appian calleth one city, in his book of the Roman wars with Mithridates; and Pompeiopolis, a city of Cilicia: both of these so styled of Pompey the great: though the latter lost its name, and was after (at the best of the empire, and at its greatest growth) called TRAjANOPOLIS, because Trajan died there, saith Solinus. So Claudiopolis, a city of Cappadocia, Plin. 5.24. and Philippipolis, a city in Arabia, so called of Philip the Emperor. All these cities, & many other (if it were worth the labour to recite them) had their denomination from men: likewise might Arbepolis be the city of Arba. But why do I stand on potentials, or may-bees, when Joshua at the chap. 15.13. calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Septuagint translates it? and Josh. 20.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where it is in the Hebrew, Arba. Sara died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Genes. 23.2. The city of Arbock: where both Hebrew and English have Kiriath-Arba; and the Vulgat, In civitate Arbae, which is impossible to be rendered The city of four, in reference to the four Patriarches burial: for both Abraham and Isaac were not buried, but alive then, and Jacob was not as yet born: yea the city of Arba is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Josh. 14.15. And they gave them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Josh. 21.11. she being the mother-city; and therefore the villages about Kariath-Arbee, are called her daughters, Neh. 11.25.  
4. Secondly, let us grant ex superabundanti, More than we need, that it is to be expounded in this place, Civitas quatuor, The city of four; yet it may be called the city of four memorable things that were there: as Kiriath-jearim, Josh. 15.60. or Kariath-jarim, as Adrichomius reads it, is, urbs sylvarum, a city of woods; for so he expounds it pag. 22. and Cariath-sepher, Josh. 15.15. that is, (saith he on that word Dabir, pag. 133.) 
b Civitas literarum dicta, s●●Vniversitas & Academia Palestinae.  A city of learning, an University of Palestine. And he addeth, It was 
c Valida & regia urbs data sacerdeti●us.  A strong and royal city given to the priests. The name of KARIATH-jARIM, signifieth a city of woods, saith Masius, on Josh. 9.17. and KARIATH-SEPHER is 
d Literarum vel librerum urbs.  A city of Records, or Libraries: and so called, in all probability, saith the said Masius, on Josh. 15.15. See his conjectures on the place. Yea, the other name of Kariath-sepher, to wit, Kariath-senna, is either so called, à spinis, from the thorns (which may grow among the woods) as most do think; or if the letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was set for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than the word hath reference to the disputations of learned men, as it is Deuter. 6.7. saith Masius. And the Seventy render it, in both places, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The city of writings or letters. Howsoever, as one of the cities was so called from the woods, or thorns; the other, from the Academy there flourishing, or from the monuments and records there kept, as Masius would have it: So might Kariath-Arbee be so named, from some other four eminent things. For many excellent monuments, most famous in their kinds, were thereabouts: from some four of which it might be named Kiriath-Arbee, Civitas quatuor rerum, The city of four things. The first was the Altar that Abram built there, Genes. 13.18. Which perchance made Absalon feign a vow, to sacrifice in Hebron, at the altar of Abram, 2. Sam. 15.8. So the Seventy and Vatablus expound it. The second may be that famous tree, which some call Ilex, An holm: others Quercus, An oak, which is favoured by the Original, Gen. 18.1. and 8. vers. Hierom, Terebinthus, The Turpentine tree: Under which, saith Adrichomius, Abraham ministered to the Angels; which continued till the time of Hierom; yea, saith Saligniacus, 
e Ostenditur adhuc hodie ilex illa, ante ostium tabernaculi Abrahae.  The holm is yet to be seen, before the entrance of the Tabernacle of Abraham. The old being dried, an other sprung out of its root. Now this Saligniacus lived but a while since. Besides, the Quercus Mambre, The oak of Mambre was so renowned, that Adrichomius, in his map of the Tribe of Judah, hath the resemblance, and picture of an oak there growing. And Constantine appointed a fair Church to be built at the oak of Mambre, saith Eusebius in vita Constantini, 3.5. S. Hierom, de locis Hebraicis, thus, 
f Quercus Abraham; quae & Mambre, usque ad Constantii Regis imperium monstrabatur: & Mausolcum ejus in praesentiari● cernitur. Cúmque à nobis jam ibidem Ecclesia aedificata sit, à cunctis in circuitu gentibus, Terebinthus superstitiosè colitur, (or as others better read it, Terebinthi locus colitur) eò quòd Abraham sub ea Angelos hospitio susceperit.  The oak of Abraham, called also the oak of Mambre, continued to the Empire of Constantine: and its monument is yet seen: And since we have built a Church in that place, all nations do reverence the place of the Turpentine tree, because under that did Abraham entertain Angels. The third may well be Spelunca Adam, the cave where Adam mourned. Fourthly, the very plot of ground, where Abel was slain, which is showed to this day. Fifthly, the monument of Caleb. Sixthly, the field of Damascus, where the red earth lieth, of which they report Adam was form; which earth is tough, and may be wrought like wax, and lieth close by Hebron; all the other things also being in the circuit near that place. Seventhly, the Montana Hebron, Josh. 11.21. and the Vallis Hebron, Genes. 37.14. and the Convallis Mambre, as the Vulgat hath it significantly, Gen. 14.13. Convallis Mambre, quae est in Hebron, The dale of Mambre, surrounded with hills, which is in Hebron, Genes. 13.18. The unparallelled eminencies of which hills and dales, for profit and pleasure, (the two main loadstones of the world's desires) you may discern by what Mr George Sands saith (if he do not poetize, or hyperbolise) in the third book of the relation of his journey, pag. 150. We passed this day (saith he) through the most pregnant and pleasant valley that ever eye beheld: on the right hand, a ridge of high hills, whereon stands Hebron, (oh how delicately situated!) on the left hand, the Mediterranean sea, bordered with continual hills, beset with variety of fruits: the champion between, about twenty miles over, full of flowery hills, ascending leisurely, and not much surmounting their ranker valleys: with groves of Olives, and other fruits dispersedly adorned. Eighthly and lastly, there were other things of singular note; Abraham's Churchyard, the field of Machpela, consecrated from heathenish profanation, to holier uses; and the cave, which was the place of his sepulchre. From some four of these most reverend monuments, or the like, being but a little distant from Hebron, might the place be called Kariath-arbee, Civitas quatuor rerum, The city of four things.  
5. Again, if that city of Hebron were quadrata, as many cities than were, and now are, and with us Bristol amongst the rest (built of old by Brennus, as I have read in a manuscript of Edward the fourth his time) and renowned Rome (as some say, varying from Livy) which was first founded on the four hills, Palatine, Capitoline, Esquiline, Aventine, (though afterward Servius Tullus enlarged it on the other three hills, Coelian, Viminal, and Quirinal) and answerable to which Romulus left (as they say) but four gates, Carmentalis, Romana, Pandana, Janualis: though afterward there were many more gates belonging to that city. You may find this in a map of Rosinus, Antiq. Roman. lib. 1. cap. 13. describing the city of Rome as it was built by Romulus; and afterwards made more great and capacious by the Kings. And Livy himself saith, That when Romulus divided the tribes or wards of the city into four parts, he did it answerable to the quarters and hills of the city. It being (I say) probable, that the city of Hebron was quadrata, it might be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Kiriath-arbee, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, RABA, quadravit: from whence cometh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, RABUA, or RABUANG, quadratum & quadrum; cujus latera quatuor longitudine & latitudine sunt aequalia, Whose four sides are equal in length and latitude. As Exod. 27.1. Altar erit quadratum, The Altar shall be fouresquare: from whence also cometh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ARBA, quatuor. So from the fouresquare building of the city, it may be called Kiriath-arbee; as old Jerusalem, which was built fouresquare on the four hills, mount Zion, mount Moria, mount Acra, and mount Bezetha, saith the Translator of the travels of the holy Patriarches. As the new Jerusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quadrangularis sita est, vel, In quadro posita est, Lieth fouresquare, Apoc. 21.16. So that Kiriath-arbee, Civitas quatuor, may be expounded, Civitas quadrilatera, quadrimembris, quadricollis, A city of four sides, four parts, four hills: for even so Rome is called Septicollis, The city of seven hills. And Douza of late, and ancienter Nicetas, call Constantinople also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vrbem septicollem, The city of seven hills. And indeed, the same Translator in his Itinerarium totius Sacrae Scripturae, pag. 85. thus reporteth, Others there are that say, the city Hebron, being divided into four parts, was therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ARBA signifieth a quaternion, from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, RABA, Fouresquare.  
6. But grant we further, that Kiriath-arbee doth here signify the city of four men: yet it followeth not, it was so called because Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were these four men. For Heth, the son of that cursed Canaan, whose posterity (the Hittites) inhabited in it, first built the city, saith he ibid. in his Itinerar. and Heth might be one of these four men. Secondly, it is said Gen. 35.27. Jacob came unto Mambre, unto the city of Arbee, which is Hebron. Whence we may conclude, that the city had three other names, of three other distinct men, viz. of Mambre, who was Abraham's friend and confederate, Genes. 14.13. of Arbee, a great giant (as I proved before) of Hebron, one of Calebs' sons so called, 1. Chron. 2.42. But how in jacob's time (or perhaps in Moses time, who wrote the book of Genesis) it might be called Hebron of Calebs' unborn son, is difficult to conceive, unless by prophetical anticipation. Howsoever, Adrichomius saith word for word out of Hierom, 
g Hebron, ab uno filiorum caleb, sortita est vocabulum.  Hebron was so called from one of the sons of Caleb. I should rather think, Caleb himself, well known to Moses, might be the fourth man, of whom the city might be called Civitas quatuor hominum, The city of four men, if from men it had its denomination of Kiriatharba: For Josuah gave unto Caleb, Hebron for an inheritance, Josh. 14.13. and because he drove thence the three famous giants, the grandchildren of Arba, the sons of Anak; Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmi, Josh. 15.14. for conquerors left their names unto the cities which they overcame, 2. Sam. 12.28. Neither is it unlikely, but Caleb might call his son Hebron, after the name of the city bequeathed him, rather than the city, after his son's name, especially, since there is mention of a city Hebron before there is any mention of a man Hebron, or of Caleb himself.  
Moreover, I read of an other exposition given by Solomo Trecensis, that it might be called Civitas quatuor virorum, The city of four men, from Anak and his three monstrous before-recited sons, who dwelled there. For both cities and lands have been called after the names of giants: as Ashtarosh, alias Hashtaroth, Aseroth, and Astaroth-Carnaim, and Carnaim-Astradoth in the confines of the land of Hus was a great city, inhabited by giants called Carnaim, or Rephaim (and the place, saith Adrichomius, was called TERRA GIGANTUM) whom Chedorlaomer killed when in the time of Abraham he led an army, and fought against the king of Sodom, Genes. 14.5. And there was a valley of giants not fare from the cave of Adullam, saith Vatablus on 2. Sam. 23.13. and the seventy read in that place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In the cave or den of giants: and so both the interlineary and Genevans have it in the margin, which others read in valle Rephaim. So much be said to show it might be called Kiriath-arbee, from other four men, and not from the four Patriarches, if from four men it had its appellation.  
7. Grant we yet once again, more than we need, that it was called Kiriath-arbee from four Patriarches, yea and from the burial of four Patriarches in that place (which can never be proved;) yet it is not evinced, nor will follow necessarily, that Adam was one of these four Patriarches there buried. S. Hierom, in Epitaph. sanct. Paulae, saith, Kiriath-arbee was 
h Oppidum quatuor virorum.  The town of four men, of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the great Adam, whom the Jews say to be there buried, according to the book of Joshua; Though (saith he) 
i Plerique Caleb quartum putant, cujus ex latere, memoria monstratur.  most think Caleb was the fourth man, whose rib is a memorial. And Adrichomius himself makes the sepulchre of Caleb not fare from Hebron. The opinion of Adam's being there buried, is fathered on the Jews: the common Tenet was, that Caleb was the fourth man. Probability also consorteth therewith: for if Adam had been there buried; as Abraham could not have been ignorant thereof, so he would, in that regard, have the rather bought that place, and perhaps would have given intimation of it to the children of Heth. But as it should seem, Abraham stood indifferent at the first, and said only, Give me a possession of a burying-place with you, Genes. 23.4. And when they offered him any of their sepulchers, he chose the cave of Machpelah. To conclude, the objection of Adrichomius is thus answered: Kiriath-Arbee may signify the city of Arbee; or the city of four things noted and memorable; or the city of four angles, sides, or parts; the city sited on four hills; and if it be to be interpreted, Civitas quatuor hominum, A city of four men, the four men may be, Heth, Mambre, Arbe, and Caleb; or Anak and his three monstrous sons. Howsoever, the word proves not, that four men were there buried: and if it proved so much, yet Adam was none of these four; for Adam was not buried in Hebron, but in mount Calvarie, as I proved before to the full, and yet shall add more by and by.  
8. To the last and fourth objection of S. Hierom, being a demand, why others even thiefs were there buried? I answer, Though Adam were there buried, yet what hindered, but it might be a fit place for malefactors to be executed, especially being on high, and without the walls of the city? and both thiefs might there suffer as in a place appointed for such use by the Magistrate; and Christ might there die, as appointed by the secret providence of God, beyond the reach of man, that the blood of the second Adam might fall on the sepulchre of the first Adam, and other sinners: to signify, that the water and blood flowing from Christ, did purge even the greatest malefactors, Adam, and the notorious sons of Adam. Divinely saith S. Augustine, Serm. 72. detempore, 
k Et verè fratres non incongruè creditur, quia ibi erectus sit Medicus, ubi jacebat Aegrotus: & diguum erat, ubi occiderat humana superbia, ibi se inclinaret divina Misericordia; ut sanguis ille pretiosus, etiam corporaliter puiverem antiqui peccatoris dum diguatur stillando contingere, redemisse credatur.  Truly, brethren, with good reason we believe, that there the Physician was lifted up where the sick man lay: and it was well worthy that divine mercy should there stoop, where humane pride fell; that Christ's precious blood vouchsafing corporally to touch and moisten the ashes of old Adam, may be believed to redeem him.  
To conclude, either the two learned women, Paula and Eustochium, or Hierom rather himself (whose style it seems to be) in Epist. 17. ad Marcellam, saith, 
l In hoc tunc loco, & habitâsse dicitur, & mortuus esse Adam: unde & locus, in quo crucifixus est Dominus noster, CALVARIA appellatur; quòd ibi sit antiqui hominis Calvaria condita, ut secundi Adam, id est, Christi sanguis, de Cruse stillans, primi Adam & jacentis Protoplasti peccata dilueret.  In this place then Adam both dwelled and died: From whence that place where our Lord was crucified is called CALVARIA; because there was buried the head of the old Adam, that the blood of the second Adam, namely Christ, distilling from the cross, might blot out the sins of the first-formed Adam, thereunder lying.  
9 An objection more, Franciscus Lucas Brugensis toucheth at, against this opinion: namely, that if the Jews had known that Adam's sepulchre was on that mount Calvarie, they would have had the place in fare greater esteem; they would have decked it with some stately monument; and never have suffered the malefactors inordinately there to be executed. The former part of which objection, as I do strengthen by Matth. 23.29. Ye build the tombs of the Prophets, and garnish the tombs of the righteous, saith Christ to the Scribes and Pharisees: so to it I answer thus; That there is not the least touch in Scripture, nor in any Author, that I remember, that the Jews ever regarded or honoured Adam, or held him righteous, or gloried in him above others: nay, they thought ill of him, 2. Esdr. 3.21. etc. and 2. Esdr. 4.30. and find fault with him 2. Esdr. 7.48. O thou Adam, what hast thou done? for though it was thou that sinned, thou art not fallen alone, but we all that come of thee. And a little before, namely verse 46. This is my first and last saying, that it had been better not to have given the earth unto Adam; or else when it was given him, to have restrained him from sinning. Mark also the Antithesis used Ecclesiasticus 49.16. Sem and Seth were in great honour among men; and so was Adam above every living thing in the creation: where he remarkably extolleth Sem and Seth; but praiseth Adam's excellency only at the creation: And so Vatablus expounds it. Howsoever, after his fall he was not so highly esteemed as others were. No more did the multitude show any extraordinary estimate of Noah, though as Adam was the fruitful root, the protoplast; so Noah was the restorer of mankind, under God: For these were the founders as well of Gentiles as Jews. But Abraham, and the Patriarches, and the Prophets since them, they reverenced above measure, for the extraordinary blessings vouchsafed by God unto the Jews above the Gentiles for their sakes, and in them, and by them. Now to such indeed their posterity builded tombs, Matth. 23.30. though their fathers had killed some of them.  
To the second part of the objection, Why they did suffer malefactors to be there punished; I answer, that it is a doubt undecided, whether the ordinary delinquents were put to death on mount Calvarie, before the Romans overcame the Jews. If not, than patience perforce; they could not remedy it, if the other appointed it. If so, yet the Jews might be ignorant of Adam's sepulchre: and how could they grace and beautify his tomb, when they knew not where he lay? Again, what if I say, That like as God's eternal decree and determinate counsel being, that Christ should die for our sins, the Jews and Gentiles, Priests, Scribes and Pharisees, yea the devils themselves were, for a while and a time, blinded, that they knew not, or would not know Christ to be the Messiah, though they had more evident miraculous proofs of his working, then could be of a buriall-place, so long forepassed, as adam's was; but put him to death, Act. 2.23. and chap. 3.17. So Gods eternal decree, that Christ should be crucified in the execution-place of malefactors, and in the place of Adam's sepulchre, being (perhaps) to this end, to manifest, that Christ's blood did wash and purge sin original, sin actual; Adam and notorious offenders, with all and all manner of persons; and all, and all kind of sins; the people were also blinded, that either they did not know, or not respect the place of Adam's burial; especially since God often casts in their teeth Adam's disobedience, and compared their sins to his; They, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant, Hos. 6.7. Where Drusius preferreth this reading with us, with Hierom, with Pagnine, and with Rabbi Solomon, the ordinary Interpreter of the Hebrews, before the reading of Junius and Tremellius, and the Genevans. And Jerem. 32.19. God's eyes were open to all the ways of the sons of Adam. Which is also confirmed, Isa. 43.27. 2. Esdr. 7.11. Thus much in love of truth, against all opposites, with Pineda, for the common opinion of the Fathers, that Adam was buried on Golgotha. I add, that if any of the Patriarches arose bodily, Adam was one. For, upon other reasons hereafter to be shown, I dare not be so assertive, as the Liturgies of diverse Churches, and as diverse Fathers, who are express, that Adam was raised from his grave. See them cited by the learned James Usher, Bishop of Meath, in his answer to a challenge made by a Jesuit, pag. 324.— which is the next point to be handled.  
O Light inaccessible, O Ancient of days, O Fullness of knowledge, govern me walking in the paths of darkness, in things of old, in ambiguities and uncertainties of opinion, and keep me from singularity of self-presuming; that I may keep the unity of truth in the bond of peace, through him, who is both our Truth and our Peace, even Jesus Christ the Righteous. Amen.   

CHAP. VII.  
1. Though Adam was buried on Calvarie, as Pineda saith, yet his proofs are weak, that Adam was raised with Christ, and went bodily into heaven with him. The cited place of Athanasius proveth only Adam's burial there. Origen, in the place cited, is against Pineda. Augustine is palpably falsified.  
2. Adam's skull shown lately at Jerusalem.  
3. Dionysius Carthusianus saith, Eve then arose. His opinion is without proof.  
4. Nor Abraham then arose.  
5. Nor Isaac then arose, whatsoever Pineda affirmeth.  
1. BUt the second part of Pineda his opinion, on Job the 19.25. I cannot like, though he laboureth to prove it, partly by authority, partly by reason; That those many, who arose about the time of Christ's Passion, ascended bodily into heaven with him. As Authors, he citeth Athanasius in his Sermon on the Passion and the Cross, Origen, etc. That Adam was buried on Golgotha, Athanasius saith; but that Adam arose not long after Christ's resurrection, I cannot find in him, or cited by any other out of him. As for Origen his second Author, in the same Tractate cited by Pineda, he maketh directly against him: for he maintaineth from Tradition, that the first Adam was buried where Christ was crucified: that as in Adam all die, so in Christ all should be made alive: that in the place of a skull, the head of mankind (namely Adam) Resurrectionem inveniat cum populo universo, Should partake of the general resurrection, by the resurrection of our Lord and Saviour, who there suffered and rose again. But the last and best Author, the divine S. Augustine, is palpably and apparently falsified: for he hath no such word in the quoted place. Lastly, the reason that Pineda allegeth is shallow, That Adam who heard the sentence of death, should presently be partaker of the resurrection by him, and with him, who had satisfied for the sin. What likelihood is there of inference or coherence? I dare say, not one of the Fathers cited at large by Baronius, Salianus, and Maldonate, to prove that Adam was buried in Golgotha, do give the least touch at this reason of Pineda; but many other ends of Adam's being there buried do they muster up.  
2. And the Jesuit Pineda, either knew it not, or forgot it, or sleeked it over, as little imagining we should have notice that the cheating priests, who kept the sepulchre, and the Church built over it, at Jerusalem, did show to the devout Christians a skull, which they said was the skull of Adam: of which, they said also, the mountain was called Golgotha, as saith the eye and earwitness, Mr. Fines Morison, in his first part, 3. book, 2. chap. pag. 230. and pag. 233. Thus, according to them, Adam either arose not hitherto; or arose without a head, at least without his skull; or with an other man's head: which three latter ways destroy the truth of the resurrection. Therefore he arose not at all as yet. Lastly, should we grant that Adam did bodily arise with Christ; yet hath Pineda neither Author 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 authority, nor produceth any reason, or probability: and therefore I pass it over the more slightly; adding only this, that in the Original it is not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be understood, either no women arose, or more than one or two; though Pineda mentioneth not one woman; and Carthusian, but only and solely Eve. But why Eve should rather arise, than Sarah, or the mother of Moses, who were singled out for famous Heroinae, Hebr. 11. or other Prophetesses, in the Old and New Testament, as old Anna, and the like, I see no reason: or that Eve in her raised body, 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 mixed with men, so far as any likelihood could present itself 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 rejoiced to see Christ's day, and saw it, and was glad, John 8.56. I answer, Whatsoever is meant by these words of the Text, My day: either Christ's Godhead; which Abraham saw, 
a Quia mysterium Trinitatis agnovit.  Because he acknowledged the mystery of the Trinity, saith S. Augustine: Or the day of Christ's nativity; which Abraham might have notice of in his life time, by supernatural inspirations; and then did remember, being dead; and desired that day (for, separated souls have both remembrance and appetite intellectual, as I shall evidence hereafter:) Or it may be, Abraham being in bliss, might first know it, by divine illumination, so soon as the day came; and thereupon rejoiced, 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 only Angels were the heavenly host, it might have been only said, The Angels: or only, 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 only be mentioned. If so; humane souls were part of that choir: and then Abraham, in likelihood, was one of them. Now, as the chief Angel, like a chanter, began the Evangelisme of Christ's 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 Christ's resurrection.  
Some there are, who interpret My day, of the time of Christ's passion; whom Maldonate justly misliketh, because (saith he) it is added, ABRAHAM SAW IT, AND REJOICED: but then, when Christ said these words, Abraham could not see Christ's 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 Christ's resurrection: for, Christ speaketh of the day that was past, he did see it, he was glad, and rejoiced: so that day was ended, when Christ said this: but Christ's resurrection was not accomplished, when he uttered these words: therefore they cannot be understood of Christ's 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 joined, in this controversy:) but, Abraham rejoiced, he saw it, and was glad: which words differ fare 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 punto 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 passed (he being dead one thousand seven hundred years before) should just now be recompensed, and recompensed by being raised to a temporal life? which was a poor reward, if he ascended not into heaven: which Pineda proveth not, nor can prove. Lastly, though it be truth itself, that Jacob swore 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 especial 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 voluntary condescent, and free-will-offering, he might be a type of Christ, who laid 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 rathe 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 diverse others: for, not Isaac his fright, or Jacob his piety, 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 myself, and live to thee; through him, whom the Fathers looked for, and whose day Abraham rejoiced to see, even Jesus Christ, thy only Son, my alone Saviour. Amen.   

CHAP. VIII.  
1. Pineda his fancy, that Jacob then was raised.  
2. The reason, why the Patriarches 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 difficulty of Act. 7.16. propounded. Two answers disliked. The original is not corrupt.  
5. Beza taxed for imputing corruption to the original, on Mat. 13.35. and on Luk 22.20. and on Matth. 27.9. All these places defended, and the sacred Majesty of Scripture, vindicated from criticism. Many good answers to Matth. 27.9. Erasmus faulty with Beza.  
6. S. Augustine and Cyrill against them.  
7. Masius and Junius prefer the Arabic and Syriack before the Greek. Junius recanteth. A little error may (perhaps) be ascribed to the Transcribers. A general error in Greek and Latin may not be admitted in all copies of Scriptures.  
1. JAcob then also arose, saith Pineda in the same place; since he had a great care of translating his bones, out of Egypt, into the land of Canaan, Genes. 49.29. By the same reason, the Jesuit might have argued, that Joseph then also arose: for he had the like care of his bones, Genes. 50.25. yea a greater care: for he took a strict oath (Exod. 13.19.) of the children of Israel, for the performance of his desire; whereas Jacob put Joseph only to the oath; and concerning the rest of his children, it was but a fatherly command. Yet Pineda skippeth over Joseph, who was a lively parable and figure of Christ in most things; as being the best beloved of his father; as being sent to look to his brethren; as hated of them and sold by them, and put into the pit; as thrust into the dungeon; as being innocent, and falsely accused; as being taken out of the pit, Genes. 37.28. and out of the dungeon, Genes. 41.14. as raised, and raised to be next to Pharaoh himself; as being worshipped by his brethren; as having the double portion of the firstborn; as a mediator for his brethren, and a preserver of them in the time of need.  
2. But the truth is, neither Jacob, nor Joseph ever desired the removal of their bones, in that regard, which Pineda aimeth at: and never any (that I could read) but he, and the Author of the scholastical history, Quaest. 100 in Genes. aver so much: it being against reason; for then the Patriarches would have caused their bones to have been translated to Jerusalem, being the right way from Hebron to Calvarie; or to mount Calvarie itself. But Jacob was buried by Hebron, thirty miles, or thereabout, from Golgotha; and Joseph was buried in the Tribe of Ephraim, and not of Judah. Now as they were to pass from the land of Goshen to Sychem, they must pass not fare from Hebron; and from thence near to Jerusalem; and leaving Jerusalem, and mount Calvarie but a little, the way was to Sychem, in the Tribe of Ephraim. Therefore, if they desired to be translated, in hope of such a resurrection with Christ, (as Pineda wildly imagineth) they would never have carried their bones close by mount Calvarie, and so beyond it; but there would have deposited them: nor would have transported them to Sychem, which was about as fare beyond the sepulchre of the first and second Adam, as Hebron, the buriall-place of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was short of mount Calvarie. Their aim was to be buried in the land of Canaan, as the land of promise, as the figure of heaven, as the ground which their Fathers bought and paid for, and were interred in. I will lie with my Fathers, and thou shalt carry me out of Egypt, and bury me in their burying-place, saith Jacob, Genes. 47.30. and bury me with my Fathers, Genes. 49.29. saith the same Jacob. Besides, if with reference to Christ his resurrection, and in hope to be then and there raised by him and with him, they removed their bones into Canaan; it was to be near to Christ's rising-place, and to save part of the long journey from Goshen to Golgotha. But this can be no reason; for Job arose, saith Pineda: but he was buried in the land of Hus, in Arabia, not near unto Calvarie, though not so fare indeed as Goshen. And Moses died in the wilderness; and Daniel in the captivity of Babylon; which was farther off, than the land of Goshen, from Christ's sepulchre, by almost five hundred miles; and yet Daniel and Moses arose also, saith Pineda. And Noah died hard by mount Ararat in Armenia, 600 miles Northward from Jerusalem, or thereabout: yet Noah also arose, saith Pineda. Now, why could not Jacob and Joseph be raised, and come a shorter way, from Goshen to Jerusalem, than Daniel or Noah could a longer way? And to beat Pineda with his own words, 
a Nunquid lassitudine viae deterrerentur & fatigarentur, qui immortali vitâ potiebantur; ut venire ex regione longin qua opportunè non possent?  Were they terrified or wearied with the tediousness of the way, who enjoyed an immortal life; that they could not come fitly from so remote a region? Or, can they be truelier said to come into a place, into the holy city, that come from near, than they that come from fare? This Pineda allegeth, to prove that the graves of Saints opened afar off, as well as at Jerusalem: Therefore say I, What need they care to have their bones brought near to Golgotha, to that end and purpose?  
3 Concerning Joseph, he was first buried on an high ground, upon a little branch of Nilus, in a city now called EL-FIUM (saith John Leo, upon report, in his eighth book of the history of Africa) and Moses digged up his bones. Secondly, it is said expressly, Josh. 24.32. the children of Israel buried his bones in Sychem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hemor, the father of Sychem, for an hundred pieces of silver; and it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph. On which place, Masius enquiring, why holy men should so earnestly contend to be buried in Canaan, answereth himself, 
b  apud sucrum popularium animos, fidem promissis Dei firmarent, qualem nè mors quidem cripere potuisset.  To confirm their countrie-mens' minds by the promises of God, with such a faith, as death should not take away. Whereunto I add the place of the Apostle, Heb. 11.22. By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones; making the removing of his bones, and the memorial thereof, a divine prognostic, that they should come forth of the Egyptian captivity or slavery, and enjoy the land, promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; of which their bones, and their wives bones, beforehand did, and Joseph his bones should take seizen and possession. Kimki saith (and Masius likes it) that Jacob gave to Joseph that place of burial, because he being, as it were, the Parent, Monitour, and Guide of his brethren, should be wholly alienated from Egyptian affairs, to think of the land of promise. And since Masius taxeth the Jews for thinking, that they who were buried in Canaan should first arise; he would have laughed at Pineda, if he had read in him, that a Patriarch caused his bones to be translated, in hope to be raised within a while of Christ's resurrection. 
c Solenne autem fuit priscis illis Patribus, ut quisque in suam inferreretur possessionem.  Each of those Fathers were solemnly brought into their own possession (saith the same Masius:) which is thus confirmed, because Abraham did bury Sara in his own possession, Genes. 23.19, 20. Isaac and Ishmael buried Abraham in the field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth, Genes. 25.9, 10. And to sum up the rest, In the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, (the purchased cave and field) which is before Mambre, was buried Abraham and Sara, Isaac and Rebeka, Jacob and Lea, Genes. 49.30, 31. The distance of which cave or field from Calvarie, I gathered before, from Adrichomius, to be 250 Stadia; which, upon allowance of eight Stadia to one Mile, amounteth to one and thirty miles, and a quarter: from which account S. Augustine differeth but little, considering the various reckoning of miles, with the divers measurings of beginnings and end: for, Augustine, Quaest. sup. Genes. lib. 1. quaest. 161. thus reporteth, 
d Dicunt, ab eo loco, quod ABRAHEMIUM vocatur, ubi sunt ista corpora, abesse locum, ubi crucifixus est Dominus, ferè triginta milliaribus.  From the place called Abrahemium, or Abraham's churchyard, where are these bodies, (namely of Abraham and Sara, Isaac and Rebeka, Jacob and Leah) to the place where our Lord was crucified, there is almost thirty mile's distance. Now, as the sepulchre of the three Patriarches was thus fare from Jerusalem, South-west-ward; so Sychem, where Joseph his bones were buried, was farther from Jerusalem, toward the North.  
4 One difficulty more there is, and a great one: I may not pass it; for the length will be recompensed by the sweetness. Acts 7.15, 16. Jacob, and our fathers died, and were carried over unto Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emor the father of Sychem. Which passage seemeth to contradict what out of other parts of Scripture I proved concerning the Patriarches sepulchre.  
That this is a knot hard to be untied, all confess: S. Hierom promised in his 101 Epist. to clear it, saith Lorinus: And in his Questions on Genes. saith Beza: but he hath not performed his promise, say both of them, on Acts 7. Nodum nectit Hieronimus, nec eum dissolvit, saith Erasmus: And I only propound it, saith he, that the studious reader may be stirred up to discuss it. But this is a shallow slur, unfit for so great a Critic; for many had done so much before, and more than so. I come to the point.  
That there are invented many ways, and means of answering, cannot be denied: but some are vast and improbable; some more fair and expedite. The absurd answers are two. The first, That the Original is there corrupt; and that, for Abraham, Jacob is to be written and read; I say, not meant, expounded, or interpreted, but exchanged, and intruded into the Text; and that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should be expunged, as needless; it being with equal ignorance and boldness, added by one or other, saith Andrew Masius on Josh. 24.32. With Masius agreeth Beza in this, that the name of Abraham is crept into the Text; adding, that the erring, in notes of number, or proper names, must not be ascribed to the Authors; but to the ignorant transcribers. But I say, that the erring in a proper name, or notes of number, may breed as great and unsufferable confusion, unlikelihood, inconvenience, yea untruth, as the error in any other common word. And why the errors in proper names should be ascribed to ignorant transcribers, rather than errors in other words; or that the holy Spirit doth privilege other words, and not proper names, or numbers, from being mistaken, misplaced, misadded, or superadded in the Text, I see not.  
Aretius' bluntly blundereth it out, that you must understand Jacob for Abraham: yet by what example, or for what reason, he mentioneth not: but stumbleth on a truth; of which hereafter.  
Drusius, Praeterit. lib. 5. on the words Quod emit Abraham, hath yet some show of reason. It seemeth (saith he) it was sometimes written, EMIT IPSE, that is JACOB, into whose place the name of ABRAHAM is crept.  
5. Beza defends it by two parallels: the first out of Hierom, who in his book de optimo genere interpretandi, ad Pammachium, noteth, that the name of Isaiah was crept into many copies, on Matth. 13.35. that afterward, the name of Asaph was substituted for Isaiah; and now neither of them is there read.  
I answer to the misapplied instances of Beza, that I cannot abide to hunt after errors in the Scripture, and to cast aspersions on it. To question the corruption of the Canon, to pass our judgements, whether the square or rule be right or crooked, to put into the Text, or to take from it, as some Philologizing Neotericks' endeavour in their super-nice criticism, is to tear up the very foundation of religion. Whilst other answers may be found, though but probable, I should not have such a thought, as Beza had, on Luk. 24.13. where he acknowledgeth, both the Syriack, and all our Copies have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sexaginta, Threescore; and the exact truth is accordant to that reading: for Emaus is seven miles from Jerusalem, as Mr Sands (who road from Jerusalem to Emaus) witnesseth, pag. 174. and threescore Stadia (allowing eight Stadia to a mile) make seven miles and an half; which halfe-mile, upon diversity of measures, or the beginning of measuring, or ends thereof, maketh small difference. Yet Beza saith, Aut hîc peccatum est in numero, aut apud Josephum, de Bello Judaico 7.27. non rectè scribuntur stadia triginta. The more favourable phrase should have been by Beza ascribed rather to the Scripture, then to Josephus. Or can we think, that all Copies do err? He maketh us fight upon the ice, and to have no firm footing. Why should he use the first part of the disjunction, when he might better distinguish, and so reconcile all? Likewise Beza, on Luke 22.20. confessing the uniformity of reading, both in the Syriack, and all the Greek Copies which he had seen; yet addeth boldly, Aut manifestum est soloecophanes,— aut potiùs, cùm haec essent ad marginem annotata ex Matthaeo, & Marco, postea in Contextum irrepserunt. Now, though he would sleek it over afterwards, saying, Potest excusari soloecismus, etc. yet the wound, which he gave to the Word of Truth is too deep, to be so healed; and the very plaster is offensive: for he committed a solecism, who looking on the earth, cried out, O Coelum! and casting his eyes up to heaven; cried, O Terra! Had the Reverend Beza no handsomer word for his plaster? might he not have defended it, by the Hebrew Idiotism, without calling it a Solecism? Soloecophanes might have well been spared: but Soloecismus is not to be endured.  
Much more might be said: but I dwell unwillingly on this point; and return to the first place of Matth. 13.35. and say, Who ever denied, but that some Copies have been corrupted? and in some of them, some words foisted in? but all Greek, all Latin Copies, with the Arabic and Syriack translations, read Abraham, and not Jacob: Whereas some Copies were always perfect, in that place of Matthew. Now, if you grant corruption in any point, or title, in all the Greek, and all the Latin Copies; how will you prove any part or word of the New Testament to be uncorrupt? Which razeth up the very Cornerstone of our Faith.  
Mr Beza again objecteth, that the name of Jeremy is written for Zacharie, Matth. 27.9. I answer, that the Author of the book of Maccabees, giveth us to understand, that Jeremy wrote other things, which now we have not, 2. Maccab. 2.1. and so did diverse 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 Apocryphal book of Jeremy, in which he found this testimony, word for word; and this book was called APOCRYPHA, or OCCULTA JEREMIAE, The Apocryphals or hid writings of Jeremy, saith Erasmus on Matth. 27. As what S. Paul saith of Jannes and Jambres, 2. Tim. 3.8. and what S. Judas saith of Michael the Archangel, striving with the Devil, is thought to be taken out of the books Apocryphal: so might this testimony be cited also out of Jeremy's Apocryphals. Thirdly, Erasmus supposeth, that Zacharie had two names, and was called both Zacharie and Jeremy; and so no inconvenience followeth. Fourthly, not only the Syriack leaves out the name of Jeremy, but even in Augustine's time, the name of Jeremy was not in many Latin Copies, as Augustine himself testifieth, de Consensu Evangelistarum lib. 3. cap. 7. The ordinary gloss also saith, that in some editions, it is only thus, By the Prophet, and the name of Jeremy is left unmentioned. Fifthly, Augustine in the last recited place of his, resolveth, that the Divine providence purposely set down Jeremy for Zacharie; and what the holy Spirit did dictate, S. Matthew did truly write. And one reason why the Spirit of God confounded the names of Jeremy 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 believe that 
e Quacunque per eos Sp●itus Sanctus dixit, & singula esse omnium, & omnia singulorum.  What the holy Ghost spoke by them is not to be appropriated unto any one, but to all and every of them. What was said by Jeremy, was as well Zacharies', as Jeremies; and what was said by Zacharie, was as well Jeremies as Zacharies'. God spoke, 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 Prophecy of Amos, is called The book of the Prophets, Acts 7.42. and the Word of God, which in diverse places is called, in the plural number, Scriptures, (as John 5.39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Search the Scriptures) is also oftentimes called, in the singular number, The Scripture: as John 2.22. they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. Belief was to rest, as well on his Word only, without Scripture, as on Scripture, though he had said nothing: and the word Scripture is not to be restrained only to that place of Scripture before pointed at; but to the whole Word of God written, which they believed. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, Gal. 3.22. where not one single place only, but either common places of that point, or the whole body of the Scripture is to be understood. A few words of a Psalm 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 only 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 only, 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 four: 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 truly spoken) but contained in the Scripture, with relation to the unity and consent of the Penmen. Lastly, the words of the Evangelist are these, Matth. 27.9. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Prophet Jeremy, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, effatum Jeremiae, dicentis, That which was spoken by Jeremy, saying, etc. 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 Jeremy did teach, preach, prophesy, 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 Jeremy into his own Prophecy (which S. Matthew denieth not) as Baruch wrote diverse things which he had heard from Jeremy; as Agur collected some Proverbs of Solomon. Again, there was no necessity that all things whatsoever Jeremy, as a Prophet, did speak, 
g Jerem. 36.2.  he himself or Baruch should write, much less presently: since there were many years between Jeremy his speaking and his writing; for Enoch prophesied, as it is in the 14. verse of the Epist. of S. Judas; but he prophesied, Saying, etc. as it is there written: for writing was none, till God set the Copy 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 spoke them; or they might be part of the words which Christ himself spoke unto S. Paul: for there is no certainty, 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 spoke it, but wrote it not. Jeremy might speak this, and not write it; or writ 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 did think no man should be so morose, nosy, and stern, as thence to question the authority of the whole Scriptures. But his opinion is justly exploded as hypercritically nice, and Julius Scaligers whip here fetcheth blood of Erasmus, Maximus esse potuisset, si minor esse voluisset: He diminisheth himself, by taking upon him to be a censor of the Scripture. Nihil parturiens, continuò parit omnia, saith a Papist of Erasmus.  
6. Wiser S. Augustine, in Epist. 19 ad Hieronymum, thus; 
h Ego solis cis Scripturarum libris, qui jam Canonici appellantur, timorem hunc, & honorem didici defer, ut nullum corum autorem scribendo aliquid errâsse firmissimè credam.  I have learned to give that reverence and honour only to those books of Scripture which are called Canonical, that I most fully believe, no writer thereof erred any jota. But if there were a fail of their memory, they did somewhat err, whatsoever Erasmus should seem to suggest; who would have taken it in fume, if the Friars his opposites had said, there had been in his books lapsus memoriae, A fail of memory. S. Augustine is constant to himself, and to the truth: for again he saith, concerning the Evangelists, 
i Omnem falsitatem abesse ab iis decet, non solum eam quae mentiendo promitur, sed eam etiam quae obliviscendo.  The Evangelists must be so fare from lying, that they must not fall into an untruth of forgetfulness. S. Cyril. lib. 6. in Levitic. toward the end of his book, ascending from one particular, saith of the whole Scripture, divinely inspired, 
k Quid dicemus? Oblivionem dabimus in verbis Spiritus Sancti?  What shall we say? shall we grant forgetfulness in the words of the holy Ghost? And he answereth his own question, in general, 
l Non audeo hoc de sacred sentire sermonibus.  I dare not think so of the sacred Text.  
7. Yea, but saith Masius, The Syriack translation proves, that this place is faulty: for the Syriack Copies have it thus, Jacob was translated into Sychem, and laid in the grave that Abraham bought for money of the sons of Hemor. Junius his Syriack accordeth with Masius; and on that place Junius thus, The Syriack Interpreter either used a divers Copy, or his own judgement and authority. Lastly, the Arabic translation, as it is set out by Junius, readeth it correspondently to the Syriack: and Junius on the Text, in the Arabic translation, preferreth the Arabic and Syriack reading before the Greek; and the meaning of the Arabic and Syriack is this, That Jacob being dead, was carried into the field of the Sychemites; the Egyptians accompanying Joseph, and the Israelites; where septemdialis luctus, Seven days mourning was made; and after the mourning he was carried again from Sychem to Hebron, to be buried with Abraham. This is wittily invented, (saith Beza) yet not to be admitted. And indeed, Junius himself in his Parallels retracts it: and chorography showeth, it is no witty invention. For Hebron lieth between Goshen and Sychem: now that they should carry him from Goshen, even almost through Hebron, it is not likely. Wherefore, to conclude, neither be the Arabic or Syriack Copies of authority enough to confront the Greek (for the Greek was not translated out of them, but they out of the Greek) neither may we yield, that either the Evangelists did labi memoriâ, fail in their memories; or that generally, in any place, all the Greek and Latin Copies are corrupted. If it had been a literal error (as Genes. 3.15. the Vulgat readeth ipsa, for ipse or ipsum; or Dei, for diëi, in Epist. Judas, vers. 6. or lapides seculi, for lapides sacculi, Proverb. 16.11. or viduam ejus, for victum ejus, Psal. 132.15. or fontem, for fortem, Psal. 42.2.) we would yield it was the fault of the transcriber: but to admit such a corruption, wherein is no similitude of letters, and in all Copies, both Greek and Latin, I cannot like, though more Authors, than Masius, Beza, Drusius, or Erasmus, did join hand in hand to justify it.  
O Infinite Spirit, unsearchable, yet searching all things; Omnipotent, yet unable to lie or be untrue; who never didst lead into error thy holy Instruments, nor suffered'st the Penmen of thy sacred Scripture to take thy Dictates amiss; I humbly beseech thee to inspire me with knowledge and zeal, to vindicate thy heavenly Word, and the most blessed Writers thereof, from imputed corruption, mistaking, or obliviousnesse. Grant this, at the Mediation of my only Lord and Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Amen.   

CHAP. IX.  
1. The second answer disliked. Melchior Canus censured for saying, S. Steven his memory failed him. His like proof from Jephthah his mistaking, answered.  
2. An other argument of his, from Matth. 2.6. answered.  
3. Heinsius touched at, Cusanus rejected, for holding that Adam could have understood all languages now in use. The manner of the confusion of tongues at Babel.  
4. The Oriental languages, a goodly ornament, and necessary in some places. The Syriack enlightening the Greek.  
5. The Jewish excommunications. Donations to Religious houses sealed up with curses to the infringers. Mr. Selden in part defended, though his History of Tithes hath done hurt. Maran-atha. The amphibology of Act. 3.21. cleared by the Syriack. Ubiquitaries with Illyricus taxed. Heavens, and Heaven, taken for God.  
6. Heinsius strictly examined, and rejected.  
7. Things granted: viz. The inspirations and conceptions of holy Penmen were under one or other language: in which conceptions they could not err; nor could they err in writing.  
8. Questions handled at large: Whether it were necessary that the Scripture should be written: Whether the sacred writers wrote casually: Whether they were commanded to write: Whether they were compelled to write: Whether they understood all that they wrote: Whether they did read profane Authors: Whether they studied the things beforehand.  
9 Conclusions against Heinsius. 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. We are not to have recourse to the thoughts of S. John, rather than his words. They had no liberty left them, to put in their own conceits, or in writing to add or blot out what they had done. They had no liberty to  their inward apprehensions with words of their own. They did not conceive in one language, and write in another.  
1 THus then, the constant and uniform accordance of the Greek and Latin Copies being held for Authentical and Canonical, and all manner of corruption and general aberration in any one letter being wholly removed; there is invented a second way of answer, gross and absurd; which I dislike as ill, if not worse than the former. A defender of it is Melchior Canus, de Locis Theologicis, lib. 2. cap. 18. toward the end of that book and chapter. For he would seem to gather from Beda and Rabanus, That it happened to Steven, as to other common people; namely, that in a long narration, especially if it be sudden, he hath mingled and confounded some things, 
a In quibusdam etiam memoriâ lapsus fuerit.  And forgot himself in some things, to wit, in such things as belonged little or nothing to the purpose: for he was busily musing, and intent upon the main matter. But (saith he) S. Luke writing the history, changed not one jot, but writ as Steven spoke. Now we need not defend Steven from all error and fault (saith he) but we must quit the Evangelist. For only the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, did never labi memoriâ, or err in any matter, great or small; other men did. His proofs are these.  
Jephthah in Judges 11.26. pretendeth 300 year's possession, when they were not so many: and the divine Penman or Historiographer, writeth as Jephthah pretended; and established not the truth of the thing itself.  
I answer, that Salianus, in his Annals, Anno Mundi 2849, maketh one account, wherein the time of the Israelites coming out of Egypt, to the instant of Jephthahs' arguing, is 377 years: and from the death of Sihon king of the Amorites, 337 years. But the truth is, (if we will hit the exact number) both Salianus and Tremellius, and many others say, That from the coming out of Egypt, and from the giving of the Law, unto this present controversy of Jephthah with the King of the Amorites, there were 305, or 306 years expired. And Tremellius well observeth, that Jephthah began his narration from their coming forth of Egypt, vers. 16. Therefore thence beginneth the number, and the reckoning. Now the shortening of an account, is an usual Ellipsis, both in Scripture, and in other Authors. The 70 Interpreters are cited for 72. Among the Romans, the Centum-viri consisted of one hundred and five men. Judges 20.46. all which fell of Benjamin that day, were 25000. yet there fell that day 100 more, vers. 35. So 2. Sam. 5.5. the account is shortened by six months less than was set down in the precedent verse; it being 
b Synecdoche frequent, ad rotunditatem numeri.  A frequent Synecdoche, to make a round and smooth reckoning, saith Tremellius. If any shall yet contend, that Jephthah saith expressly, v. 26. Israel dwelled in Heshbon and her towns; and in Aroer and her towns; and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, 300 years; Peter Martyr on the place answereth, That the Scripture-account often followeth the greater number. Now because the years from Sihons' death, were nearer 300. then 200. Jephthah reckoneth not the refract, but the whole number; and accounteth them 300 years, as inclining to the greater number. For Sihon was overcome, and slain the last year of Moses his life; being to the present debate, 266 years, saith Abulensis; 267, saith Lyranus; 270 years, saith Peter Martyr. If Peter Martyrs answer be slighted, I add, that the perfection of Scriptures stands not so strictly on exactness of number, but that it puts a certain number for an uncertain. Instances are obvious. So, while we plead too much for number, we shall, as S. Augustine saith, forget, or neglect, both weight and measure. Lastly, grant that Jephthah either mistake, or mispleaded the years, in a braving fashion; and say, that the holy Ghost hath penned, not what was truth in itself, but what Jephthah alleged erroneously, or covetously, for his prescription (for Jephthah had more than one error:) yet, it followeth not, that S. Steven was deceived; for he was full of the holy Ghost, when he spoke this, Act. 7.55. and before he spoke this, he was full of faith, and of the holy Ghost, Act. 6.5. Full of faith and power, vers. 8. and they that disputed with Steven, were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit, by which he spoke, v. 10. Therefore he spoke wisely, truly, and by the Spirit, as well as S. Luke wrote by the Spirit; and neither of them could in this passage err, though Jephthah be held a man of imperfections.  
2. Secondly, saith Canus, the Evangelist hath it, Matth. 2.6. That IT IS WRITTEN BY THE PROPHET, AND THOU BETHLEHEM, IN THE LAND OF JUDAH, ART NOT THE LEAST AMONG THE PRINCES OF JUDAH, when it is not so written by the prophet; who saith, Micah 5.2. BUT THOU BETHLEHEM EUPHRATA, THOUGH THOU BE LITTLE AMONG THE THOUSANDS OF JUDAH; the sense being very different, almost contrary. In which place S. Matthew reports the words, not as they are in Micah; but as the chief Priests and Scribes recited them to Herod. 
c Quod testimonium nec Hebraico textui, nec 70 Interpretibus convenire, me quoque tacente, perspicuum est.  Which testimony (saith Hierome on Micah 5.2.) agreeth neither with the Hebrew, nor the seventy; as is plain, though I say nothing. Then followeth his opinion, 
d Arbitror, Matthaeum volentem arguere Scribarum & Sacerdotum erga divinae Scripturae lectionem negligentiam, sic etiam posuisse, ut ab iis dictum est.  I think that S. Matthew being willing to reprove the negligence of the Scribes and Priests, toward the reading of holy Scriptures, related the words, as they were cited by them. So that though the Scribes and Pharisees were blind, and, seeing the Prophet through a vail, took one thing for an other; and though the Evangelist purposely reciteth their mistaking, that we might discern the fault of these ill guides, and ignorant teachers, yet it no way followeth, that S. Steven did err, or was mistaken, or that S. Luke misreported the words of S. Steven. But enough of this, to testify my dislike of the second opinion, and of such, who excusing the Greek Text from corruption, (wherein I wonderfully applaud them) do impute an error and slip unto the holy, powerful, graceful, truth-speaking, and dying Protomartyr, S. Steven (which I cannot endure in them.) And certes, both these former rejected opinions are built on a false ground, and idly do presuppose, that there is no real historical truth in the words, as they are in the Greek, and in the Latin Text. But truth there is, and though truth lie deep hid, as in a well (said he of old;) yet, by God's help, we shall wind her up, and draw her above ground, that every eye may see her, though we have many turnings.  
3. Which that I may the better accomplish, I must straggle awhile after two most learned men, Cardinal Cusanus, and Daniel Heinsius; especially Heinsius; whom when I have overtaken, and wrung and won from him some holds, which are offensive to the majesty of sacred Scripture, then shall I return, and descend to the most difficult place of Acts 7.16, etc.  
The learned worthy Heinsius (whom I name not without honour, though I descent from him) in his Exercitations upon Nonnus, and in the Prolegomena, beats out certain paths, which never any on the earth trod upon, before him; pag. 27. making the Hellenisticall language to be the best interpreter of the Hebrew and Chaldee; and the Hebrew and Chaldee, interchangeably, the best interpreters of it.  
Before all his words or my answer be recited, I think fit to premise these things:  
First, If Heinsius mean only to extol 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 spoke audibly) and of Angels, unto men, than I will. Yet the purest gold may be overvalued, and the very shekel of the Sanctuary thought heavier than it is. And indeed I should be loath to say, what the most learned Cardinal Cusanus hath written in his Compendium, cap. 3. pag. 240. 
e Nec absurdum videtur, si creditur, primam dicendi artem adeò fuisse copiosam, ex multis Synonymis, quòd omnes postea linguae divisae in ipsa continebantur. 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 idem 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 believe, 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 Adam's language. And as there is not a tongue which man understandeth not; so even Adam (who was no other than 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 fare Cusanus.  
That there is no language under heaven, but hath some words retaining the footsteps of the Hebrew, I believe; 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. etc. the language of all the earth, he did it to this end, that they might not understand one another's speech. The confusion was not of inventing of new letters, vowels, and consonants; for they are still the same: and if there were seventy two languages, as say the Ancient, Hierom, Augustine, Prosper, Epiphanius; or but fifty five, (as our Modern writers conjecture) answerable to their families, Genes. 10. yea two thousand four hundred languages more; they might all be uttered by the first two and twenty letters: Nor was it only 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 family understood themselves, as we may dumb men. But the confusion consisted in this, That God took away from all, save the family of Heber, the habitual, or actual 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 universal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or oblivion, he had drowned or blotted out all former conceptions; he prompted readily unto them new forms, and furnished their intellectuals 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 Latins, an hog: as Cornelius à Lapide hath observed. Nor think I, that Noah (who lived at the confusion of Babel; and was born within sevenscore years of Adam's death) could understand all their languages, without much commerce, study, 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 coin new names:  it was lawful, and is yet,— dabitúrque licentia sumpta pudenter, It shall be lawful, so it be done modestly without enforcement, saith Horace, De arte Poetica. And though there were but few years, about half a man's age, between the first and second Punic war; yet the articles of peace made at the end of the first war, were hardly understood at the second, as may be gathered from Polybius. What speak I of words, when new languages have sprung up, more than ever were at the confusion of Babel? If God at the overthrow of Babel coined 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, etc. (the derivatives from it, as Verstegan and others will have it) then in use? If the Latin was framed in Babel; was it the first old blunt Latin, or the refined? If the refined; was the Valachian, Italian, Spanish, French, (the Provincial tongues of Rome, if I may so call them) at that time spoken? I could be plentiful herein. But I pass 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 diverse 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 spoke.  
I confess 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 diverse descents: so that many languages now in use may acknowledge other mothers; though even those mothers were grandchildren, or daughters of the Hebrew: neither of which, by reason of the long tract of time, and the insensible degrees of their growing, could know one another, if they could meet.  
Object. 3. As there is no language but some man understandeth, so there is no language but Adam, who signifieth a man, could understand if he heard.  
I answer, The word Adam is homonymous, and the similitude unlike, and disjointed.  
Object. 4. But Adam imposed names on all things: therefore no man else originally invented any other name.  
I answer, He saith true, if he confine his meaning to the Hebrew, to that Origo originans. But that Adam called Cheese, Coise; or Cattles, Catalla; or a Chapel, Capella; a learned man should not think.  
Object. 5. Oh, but some, by God's gift, had the knowledge of all tongues: then wonder not if Adam had.  
I answer, They had the gift of all tongues then necessary to be spoken or understood; perchance of all tongues then in being: that as when people inclined to idolatry, the diversity of tongues was introduced; so when they were to be reconciled to Christ, the cloven tongues sitting on the Apostles, might find a remedy for that diversity, by the gift of languages. Yet saith Aquinas, 2a. 2ae. quaest. 176. art. 1. ad 1. 
f Instructi fuerunt divinitus in linguit omnium gentium, quantum requirebatur ad fidei doctrinam, etc.  The Apostles were taught from heaven the languages of all nations, so fare forth as was requisite for the doctrine of faith; but for points of elegancy, the Apostles were only skilful in their own tongue. As in wisdom and knowledge they were sufficiently instructed, so fare as the doctrine of faith required; but they were not furnished (saith he) with acquisite knowledge, or conclusions Arithmetical, or Geometrical. Thus fare Aquinas. But that they understood or spoke tongues which since have sprung up, is not likely: no more did Adam.  
That Adam could have done it by God's miraculous power, I confess: that he could out-weather any mere man by his natural gifts, I believe: what he could have done by labour or study in a little time, if he had heard or read any language, I will not question; since man hath found out the language of Hieroglyphics; and the tongue of characters hath been read; and if you place constantly several things in the room of several letters, a dog for A, a tooth for B, a lion for C, and the like; a little practice will discover the true meaning. But my controversy with Cusanus is, What Adam could do suddenly, naturally, and ordinarily, if he heard our mongrel Neoterick languages. He is for the affirmative, That Adam understood them, or could understand them. I am for the negative.  
4. But I must return to Heinsius, with whom I will acknowledge, that the Oriental languages are of infinite worth, most necessary to be studied, exacting as much labour and pains before they be gained, as they afford delight and profit spiritual when they are obtained; yea, I hearty wish, that even the learned would not presume to interpret the harder places of Scripture, unless they be furnished with knowledge in the Eastern tongues: much less should the ignorant Laics expound it. Those beasts ought not to touch this mountain.  
That I may omit many memorable passages concerning the Old Testament; I say, that an unusual splendour from the Syriack, hath fully enlightened many places of the New Testament, which lay in darkness. View two instances.  
5. What was the meaning of Anathema Maranatha, 1. Cor. 16.22. was long unknown, long sought after in vain; as being impossible to be found in the Greek or Latin languages, how copious soever: in the end, it was traced to be an Idiotism of the Syriack; and a phrase borrowed from the usance and practice of the Jews: for their polity had three sorts of Excommunication. The first called Niddui, which regularly was a separation for thirty days: during which time, the excommunicated person must keep himself four cubits aloof from all men and women in all places. The Evangelist seemeth to touch at this, when he recordeth the Constitution of the Jews; that, if any confessed Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, extra Synagogam fieret, He should be put out of the Synagogue, as the last Translation well expounds it, Joh. 9.22.  
The second, and heavier degree was called Cherem; in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Latin, by the Livian phrase, Devotorius; by the Cesarean, Devotus. It were easy to mention some, who have vowed-away themselves, as that resolute young Roman Knight, Marcus Curtius, (see it in Livy lib. 6.) and the soldurii (from whence in likelihood cometh the name of soldiers) in Caesar's commentaries conditionally devoted.  
— Deciique caput fatale voventes;  
And the Decii vowing their own destruction.  
Also, at several times and places, divers others, both captives and natives, have been dedicated to the infernal deities. To which, in the spiritual censure of Christian Excommunication, there is some allusion, where S. Paul delivered Hymeneus and Alexander unto Satan, 1. Tim. 1.20. and 1. Cor. 5.5. where he likewise decreed the like sentence against the incestuous Corinthian.  
The third and highest step in this Excommunication, is called Anathema Maranatha, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so some read it in the Greek; also most of the Latin Bibles make it all one word, Maranatha; others, Maranata, saith Cornelius à Lapide. What it did signify, 
g Diu doctos Theolegos torsit.  the learned Divines long and much endeavoured to know: and all much laboured to find the fountain and origination of that Anathema, saith Bertram in the Preface on his comparison of the Hebrew and Aramean Grammar. Elias, in Thisb. saith, MARA signifieth DOMINUS; and so the letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is paragogicall: And it may be read, DOMINUS VENIT, The Lord cometh, saith Peter Martyr. Likewise for the language, Some (saith he) think it is 
h una dictio Syriaca.  one Syriack word. 
i Vox Hebraeo-Syriaca.  Half Hebrew half Syriack, as Cornelius à Lapide hath it. 
k Magis Syrum est quàm Hebraeum.  It is more Syriack then Hebrew, saith Hierom, Epist. 137. ad Marcel. 
l Tametsi ex confinio utrarumque linguarum aliquid & Hebraeum sonnet  Though. (as he addeth) it somewhat sounds like Hebrew, by the nearness and proximity of those languages. In the perfect Hebrew, Marenuatha, is, Dominus noster venit, Our Lord cometh. ATHA is used Deut. 33.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et venit. That MARTINO, MARA, or MARAN, is used for Dominus, till after the Babylonish captivity, I read not. What in the Hebrew is MORE, in the Chaldee is MARTINO; MARTINO Dominus; MARA or MARIA, Domina. Some Christians of the East at this day call their Prelates MAR-ABRAHAM, MAR-JOSEPH, saith Cornelius à Lapide. Yea, the whole sentence is Chaldaick (if ye believe the learned Estius:) at large, MARANA-ATHA; contracted, MARAN-ATHA. He also hath a witty relation, That the Jews, before Christ's coming, were wont ordinarily to have this word in their mouths, Maran, in expectancy of Christ the Lord; and on every occasion with reference to him, MARAN, Our Lord, He will come, he cometh; MARAN, MARAN. But after Christ was born indeed, and God took on him our nature, and many Jews believed; whensoever the unbelieving brethren still cried their old MARAN, as if the Messiah were not come; the believers answered, ATHA, to their MARAN; MARAN-ATHA, Our Lord is come: which because the other would not believe, they were called Marani, and Maranitae, from their iterated Maran, and rejecting of Maran-atha.  
Baronius in fine Anni 775. reporteth from Mariana, in his Spanish story, 7.6. That a gift was given to a Monastery; and the violatour of that donation, jubetur esse Anathema, Marrano, & Excommunicatus. Where the word is not taken (as some suspect) à Mauris, from the Moors; because most of them (in Italy) renounced their Christianity in the days of Frederick Enobarbus; for he reigned 360 years, and more, after that gift: but rather, it is to be borrowed from the Syriack, MARAN-ATHA, saith Mariana, commended by Baronius.  
The consideration of which curse and excommunication, strikes horror to my soul, in compassion of those who have raised their houses out of the ruins of things sacred with such dreadful imprecations, and feed themselves fat with revenues properly belonging to the Altar. If man had not cursed such sacrilegious infringers, God would: but Founders have blasted them with lightning and thunder from heaven. What saith King Stephen in confirmation of his gift to the Priory of Eye in Suffolk, cited by M. Selden in his History of Tithes, cap. 11. pag. 350? 
l Quicunque aliquid de his quae in hac charta continentur, auferre, aut minuere, aut disturbare scienter voluerit; autoritate Domini Omnipetentis, Patris, & Filii, & Spiritûs Sancti, & sanctorum Apostolorum, & omnium Sanctorum, sit excommunicatus, anathematizatus, & à consortio Domini, & liminibus Sanctae Ecclesiae sequestratus, donec resipiscat.  Whosoever shall willingly and wittingly take away, diminish, or disturb any one of all these things which are contained in this Charter: By the authority of God Omnipotent, the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, and of all the Apostles and Saints, let him be excommunicated and anathematised, and sequestered from the company of the Lord, and not be admitted into the Church till he repent. By which words he intended to terrify succession, and to keep them from sacrilege. Let the world know that there are many, and, as it falleth out now, too many such direful execrations annexed by holy Benefactors, to eternize their gifts: And as that good King said of himself, That he was 
m Volens partem habere cum iis qui felici commercio coelestia pro terrenis commutant.  Willing to partake with them who by an happy commerce exchange earth for heaven: So I fear, that the sacrilegious Usurpers have indeed exchanged Heaven for Mammon; and I pray to God that such devout and deliberate maledictions hang not over their posterity to this day, nor may extend beyond the first Atheistical cormorants.  
The same M. Selden in his book called Marmora Arundelliana, pag. 65. mentioneth a Christian inscription which (as he conjectureth) both prayed to the most holy Mother of God for such as were Benefactors to a Monastery; and cursed them who did it any damage, with the imprecations of diverse holy men; wishing, that whosoever did so, might in the day of judgement have against him for an adversary the same most holy Mother of God. These things I have related out of that most learned Antiquary, my worthy friend M. Selden, rather than the like out of other Authors; because I would not have either Clergy or Laity conceit of him (as full many do) that he intended as great a devastation to our tithes consecrated by God and to God, by a double Jus divinum, as ever the Black-smiths son brought upon Religious houses; or that he was the instrument of ungracious Politicians; or his book the trumpet to animate the armies of the destroyers against the pitiful poor remnants of our Church, not enough (forsooth) as yet reform; that is, not enough beggarly: though some poison in that book hath already wrought so piercingly upon us, that our hair is fallen from our heads, and our nails from our fingers, as needing no more paring; and in the cases of our tithes we are shaved and cut worse than the messengers of peace, 2. Sam. 10.4. Yet saith M. Selden himself in his Review, pag. 471. The many execrations annexed to the deeds of conveyance of them, and poured forth against such as should divert them to profane uses, should be also thought on: Not only thought on, say I, but trembled at, till the hour of restitution. And let them remember also who saith, That it is a destruction for a man to devour what is consecrated, Prov. 20.25. which destruction is damnation; not cared for by our devouring Esau's, if they may fill their bellies with our hallowed morsels; as appeared in those whirl-winde-dayes of Henry the eighth, and would have appeared since, if God had not ruled the heart of religious King James, of most happy memory, and of our sacred Sovereign (to whom we of the Clergy do more especially pray God to send all happiness, equal to his desires on earth, and a more glorious estate among blessed Saints, than he hath now among men) to keep the commandments of their and our God, above any worldly benefit.  
I must return back to Maran-atha; whose composition is thus, as Martyr opineth. The first part of it, is the Noun MARA: the second is an affix of the possessive Pronoun, of the first person, with the number of multitude, making MARA to be MARAN: the third particle and the close is the Verb ATHA, venit. Moreover, concerning the tense of the Verb there is question. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact read it in tempore praeterito, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Our Lord is come; with whom agree Hierom and Estius: others will have it to be the present tense; speaking as if he did come presently, because he shall come certainly; and because none can say, he shall not come at this present. This tense Cornelius à Lapide approveth, on this consideration, because the Jews condemning any were wont to do so, under the commination and contestation of the instant divine judgement, as Psal. 9.19. Arise, O Lord,— let the heathen be judged in thy sight: or rather, saith Lapide, it may be in the Optative, MARAN-ATHA, Veniat Dominus: howsoever he is peremptory, that it is a cold exposition which applieth the words to the Preterperfect tense, and the meaning to the first coming of Christ.  
Let me add, that whether the word be read in the Present tense in the Indicative, or in the Optative mood, Venit, or, veniat; He cometh, or let him come; it pointeth not at the past, but at the future coming of Christ. Yea, Judas 14. (where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used) our Translation hath it, 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 delivery of the Law; and neither Mara nor Maran is mentioned; but rather by the semblance of words we may think Moses alluded to the prophecy of Enoch, which long after this S. Judas citeth expressly, 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 Tormentor, by the judgement of the Lord himself. Answerable it is in sense, to the words in the 17. Chapter of the 6. Council of Toledo; 
l Perpetuò Anathemate damnetur.  May he be perpetually anathematised: and Chapter 18. 
m Anathemate divino perculsus, absque vilo remedii loco habeatur damnatus aeterno judicio.  Being stricken through with the divine curse, without all hope of remedy let him be esteemed damned by the eternal judgement. Therefore indeed foolish were they, who thought Anathema Maran-atha, to be a kind 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 eternal 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 apostasy are Synonymaes: yet for all these things, by himself avouched, saith expressly, 
* Non sunt verba excommunicantis.  They are not words of one that excommunicateth. But indeed they are words of an excommunication, taken from the minatory prophecy of Enoch, recited by S. Judas, 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 seeth 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 less 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 Apocryphal 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 entire Anathema, Maran-atha: as from the beginnings of writs, or from the principal 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 enoch's prophesy, because S. Judas 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 natural sequel of the words: and not only when Enoch spoke it, but when S. Judas 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 Ecclesiastical discipline. So much of that.  
An other instance is in Act. 3.21. What is in the Latin and Greek full of amphibology, diversely, at diverse editions, rendered by Beza and others, is plain, & radiant in the Syriack; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quem oportet quidem coelum recipere, saith the vulgat; The sentence is altogether doubtful both in Greek and Latin, 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 skilful Linguist Bertram; Quem oportet coelum ut capiat, saith the Arabic; 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 glory, reign, and majesty 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 Alwise 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 Saviour's 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 only the word Coeli, in the plural 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 dowry 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, alum & regam te.  Be thou a wife to me according to the law of Moses and Israel: and I according to God's 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 only that the Jew did promise to govern his wife, which we leave out: which is also consonant to the authentic 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 historical 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 baptism 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 than 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 pass from this point.  
6. The second thing, fit to be premised, is this. If Heinsius mean only, that there are diverse words, phrases, and sentences in the Greek Testament, which never were coined, 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 easy and delightful, 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 withal 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 general; so some Jews there were, who, being wondrously 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 only 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 only have wished to see his proofs.  
Fourthly, if Heinsius mean, that the Hellenists only, 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 add, 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: unless among the Jews there might be such a case, as was of Lord Michael de Mountaigne, who (as himself relateth in his Essays, 1.25.) being born a French man, yet never heard French, till he was above six years old; nor understood any word of his mother-tongue, no more than he did Arabic; because he was brought up, where he heard no other language spoken, than Latin only: and therefore long after, when he usually spoke nothing, but his Perigordin or French; yet upon great sudden exigents, his conceits were first shaped in Latin; and his words broke forth, ere he was ware, in Latin, 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 dainty Critic, he will reduce the judgement of all Divinity to Scriptures; of all Scriptures to Criticism; I will not contradict it, if we confine this judiciary Censorship and Criticism to men skilful 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 winked men, as is recorded in the history of the council 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 powerful impression upon the minds of the Prelates: because it was said Grammarians would assume to themselves authority 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 Critics; whom they scornfully term petty 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 darkness, then suffering some places, used by Popes and Schoolmen, to be questioned and cleared: and it was a just indignation of the Friars against the Fathers, in the council of Trent, because they were so prompt to define Articles, and pronounce Anathemaes, when they did not well understand, and were loath to be taught the things themselves, as it is in the History of the council of Trent, lib. 6. pag. 481.  
But since he saith of the Evangelist S. John, 
x Perpetuò ad Targumistas respexit.  He always 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, diverse languages, pag. 373. though they differ not so much as some Dialects, (besides his jerk at Nonnus for his Grecanick, rather than Greek) adding to this effect, Prolegom. pag. 93. Many have known superficially the Hellenisticall tongue, but few the depth of it. Since he resteth not at this, saying, It much mattereth to know, whether an Hellenist express the Hebrew, or the Syriack in Greek; and whether he hath an eye to the Hebrew Text, or to the interpretations of the Grecians; but addeth, 
a Quae nisi omnia distinguat, operam necesse est interpres ludat.  All which unless the Interpreter distinguish, he must needs lose his labour. And he hath little knowledge, and no conscience (as Heinsius censureth) 
b Qui transferre sacra audet, & de his non cogitavit.  who dares translate the Scripture, and thought not on these things, Pag. 53. Prolegom. Whereby all the Primitive-Church, the Schoolmen, and late Writers, Interpreters or Translatours, who knew not Hebrew from Syriack, are censured as unconscionable ignorants. Since he proceedeth, avouching, The knowledge of the New Testament 
c Frustra petas ex Graecis, quia ad Hebraeam aut Syriacam d● dictio & voces exigendae sunt.  in vain shall you seek from the Grecians, because both words and phrases wind up to the Hebrew or Syriack. And again, The Greek Fathers 
d Omni eruditione ad stuporem omnium instructi.  amazing the world with their abundant learning, have given document, that other things without the Hebrew are little worth: Whence may be inferred, that the knowledge of the Greek in the New Testament is not to be found in the Greek Fathers, and that their labours have been of little worth: though some Greek Fathers knew the Eastern tongues better than Heinsius; as Origen, Theodoret, and others; and the most learned of them all in those Eastern languages, to wit, Origen, was the worst of them all in the interpretation of Scriptures. Since he proclaimeth in his Prolegomena, Cùm plurima in novo foedere à summis maximísque hominibus sunt praestita, potissima pars superesse videtur: Which is as much as if he had said, All the world have not expounded the Greek Testament half well enough: or, not half of it well enough to this day: or, the choicest, learnedest men have laboured much; but the best or chiefest things have they not cleared: as if they who well interpreted Hebrew with her Dialects in the Old Testament, had been faulty in their interpretations of the New Testament, because they understood not, or reflected not up to the same Hebrew and her Dialects.  
I say, in all these regards we must sever from Heinsius; and leaving him to his singularity, hold ourselves to the general expositions which Fathers, Counsels, and the Church of God hath made of Scripture; till this more than Doctor subtilis, or Doctor Seraphicus (for they are by him rejected, as being wholly ignorant of the Hebrew, Syriack, or Hellenistick Greek) give us better and more light. All which things I pass by with a touch only, because he hath one strain of fare more both difficulty and moment. In which one point many are involved, and some of those seldom or never handled.  
His words are these in his Prolegomena, pag. 52. 
e Si quis ex me quaerat, Quanam lingu● scripserit Evangelista noster S. Joannes; Hellenisticâ scripsisse dicam: Si quis quâ conceperit, quae scripsit; Syriacam fuisse dicam: Ad came autem, quod est Hellenistis proprinm, & voces & sermonen deflexisse Graecum. Quare ad allusiones, non quae extant, sed quas animo conceperat, eundum est.  If one ask of me, In what language S. John wrote; I will say, He wrote as an Hellenist: If one inquire in what language he conceived the things which he wrote; I will say, He conceived them in the Syriack tongue, and that he did bend the Greek, and wind up to the Syriack both the words and the sayings, as is proper to the Hellenists. Wherefore we must not have recourse to the allusions which now are, but we must look to them which S. John then conceived in his mind. Yea, Proleg. pag. 49. he saith in general, 
f Novi foederis Scriptores linguâ conceperunt aliâ, quae scriberent; aliâ scripserunt, quae conceperant.  The Penmen of the New Testament conceived in one language what they wrote, and wrote in another what they conceived. So he.  
Such is the power and virtue of naked truth, that if we could see her as she is in herself, Admirabiles sui amores excitaret, She would make men wonderfully enamoured on her: and such is the ugliness of error and untruth, that they dare not appear without masks, vizors, colours, fucuses; but go commonly trooping in the company of truth or likelihoods. And so it fareth in these words of Heinsius; in which there are some truths mingled and shuffled together with some errors; which will easier be distinguished by their several ranks and files, if we consider and handle three Lemmata, or Postulata, Reasonable axioms or demands, which I account as granted: seven Questions and five Conclusions directly opposing Heinsius.  
7. The first Postulatum is this, That the inspirations and conceptions of the sacred Penmen, were divinely delivered under one or other language.  
S. Basil in Psal. 28. said remarkably, that the intellectual and inward conceits of the inspired were after a wonderful manner, as it were, figured and characterized. S. Augustine, de Genes. ad literam, 12.26. saith thus of the kind of prophesying by spiritual vision: 
g Si ab ipsis similitudinibus rapiatur, ut in illam quasi regionem intellectualium & intelligibilium subvebatur, ●●t sine ulla similitudine perspicua veritas cernitur, nullis opinionum falsarum nebulis obfuscatur; ibi virtutes animae non sunt operosae: ibi videtur claritas Domini, non per visionem significantem, sive corporalem, ut visa est in monte Sina, sive spiritualem, ut vidit Isaias, & Joannes in Apocalypsi; sed per speciem, non per aenigmata; quantum ea capere mens humana potest, secundum assumentis Dei gratiam, ut os ad os loquatur ei, quem dignum tali Deus colloquio fecerit; non os corporis, sed os mentis.  If the soul be rapted from and above the phantasms, so that it is elevated and carried, as it were, into that region of things intellectual and intelligible, where without any phantasm or similitude apparent truth is seen, no clouds of opinion dimming it; there the faculties and powers of the soul are not turmoiled or painfully busied: there the brightness or excellency of the Lord is seen, not by any typical or corporal vision, as it was seen in mount Sina; or spiritual, as I saiah saw, and S. John in the Revelation: but plainly and directly, not darkly or in riddles, so fare as the mind of man can conceive, according to the grace of the indulgent Lord, so lifting up the soul, that he speaks face to face to him whom the Lord makes worthy of such a conference: Understand the face or mouth, not of the body, but of the mind.  
Dionysius, coelestis Hierarch. cap. 1. somewhat 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 variety of sacred vails and cover. For humane understanding cannot conceive the very bare and naked intelligible truth herself, without conversion to the Phantasmata; therefore things propounded to men by God or Angels, are propounded under sensible similitudes, and resemblances not merely incorporeal: 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 Gregory, Dialog. 4, 5. 
k In hoc mundo visibili nihil, nisi per creaturam invisibilem; dispovi 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 intellectual 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 air: but since the intellective soul hath its proper kind of ears 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 kinds 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 enlightening, 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 intellectual loquitur of the Spirit to our inward man; and it attempereth and mouldeth itself to the capacity, ability, and habitual 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 kind of word, is above conceit. God himself cannot be conceived by men, but by similitudes of things corporeal; and, perhaps, even Angels cannot conceive of him but under some shadow: for a finite thing cannot comprehend an infinite essence, but only according to its model. An infinite thing only can comprehend infinity as it is in itself.  
When the Spirit of God immediately speaketh to the spirits of men, though the irradiation be spiritual and intellectual, yet it is shaped to the habits of knowledge acquired. Infused notions must be proportionable to acquired; actual, to habitual; all homogeneal, not heterogeneal; having affinity, 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 faculty of the receiver, is a true ground, and sound maxim, as well in Divinity as in Philosophy.  
There is not an higher illumination than 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 sign, voice, or species. 2. Cor. 12.4. I heard unspeakable words, (yet words spoken) which it was not lawful (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 litter 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 spoke to Moses face to face, when Moses said, ostend mihi temetipsum, Show me thyself: 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 nearly 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, etc.  by such a species, by which God is whatsoever is: howsoever the mind of man which is not as God, cannot conceive him without body or bodily similitude: where still he maketh a kind of not-speaking speech, or of speaking non-speech, according to the capacity of man.  
The second Lemma is this, That the holy Actuaries, or Writers of the Divine Scripture, could not err in their conceptions.  
Augustine, de Genes. ad litter 12.25. proveth daintily in general, that our outward and inward senses may be deceived; when only the intellectual 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 air is enlightened by the resplendent rays of the sun, so was their intellect by supernal, bright, unfailing irradiation; which beam of divine light wrought these two effects: First, that they knew certainly it was God who spoke 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 joyful sound, the light of God's 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 intellectual sun: Sapor, a savour or taste; which Monica could not express by words, as her son relateth, Confess. 6.13. Intimus sapor, saith Gregory, Dialog. 4.4. Intimus sapor & experimentalis illuminatio, A most inward relish, and experimental illumination, as Gerson styleth it: Columna ignis, A pillar of fire, Exod. 13.21. Stella Magos in Oriente antecedens, The star 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 son. The quenching of this Spirit against the clear light of his own convicted conscience, made the old Prophet more inexcusable than the other officious lying Prophet, who deceived him, 1. Kings 13.16, etc. Nor did an Angel speak unto the seducer by the word of the Lord, vers. 18. Samuel being but a child 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 delivery: 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 privilege from mistaking of God: as perhaps, lest Satan might outstretch his Commission from God, when he gave Job into his hands, God said restrainingly, Only save his life, Job 2.6. And S. Augustine, de cura pro mortuis gerenda, cap. 12. telleth an admirable story of two men, each called Curma; to wit, How Curma the Countryman lay almost dead many days: only, a little steam of breath coming from him, they kept him from burial, 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 prophetical which he had; because he was a wicked man: Dispensatiuè 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 ass and Caiaphas spoke they knew not what. The prophecy was transitory, saith S. Augustine. Wherefore I conclude, as before, That wicked men may be punished with mistake 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 authentic 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 err in writing.  
If they could, what difference is there between their Writings, and other profane Authors?  
And to what end had they infallibility of understanding, if what they understood they could express erroneously?  
A ready, perfect, and quick scribe writeth not falsely; but, My tongue is the pen of a ready 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 ready, 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 error in writing? Or, had God care that the Apostles should not miss of the truth in their Speeches, and yet miss in their Writings?  
If the Prophets could not err, no more could the Evangelists or Apostles: for, if there were any superiority in privilege, we are rather to ascribe it to these latter, then to those former; in regard that the Law of Christ and of Grace, is fare above the Law of Moses, as the Apostle doth demonstrate to the Hebrews themselves. But that the Prophets could not err 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 err. A perfect rule is not to be tried by an imperfect one. Prophets writ their Prophecies, and fastened them to the gates of the Temple, and other public places, to be read: and were rather judged by their Prophecies written, then by them as inspired or uttered by mouth.  
The Gnomon of the Sundial, which our late Hieroglyphical Poetaster doth make to signify 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 Churchmen; with whom Christ hath promised his Spirit shall be to the end of the world) then by the rude masons, or rather the senseless stones and mortar of the walls, (I mean the ignorant people) who have plucked down not only the Weathercock (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 fantastic stateth not the question aright, when he is so magisterially peremptory; saying, That the Clergy 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: Verity will vouch itself in spite of lying Poets) as some call them, or Traditions contradictory to the written Word: Which contradictory Traditions do much differ from unwritten Verities, howsoever the Poet confusedly joineth them. For, who of us ever taught that the Clergy may teach any thing against the Scriptures? when we profess with him, that the Church ought to subject itself to be directed by the Scriptures. But that fabling rymer may say any thing, who in his Sarcasmos and Frontispiece is suffered thus to rave, No wonder that the Clergy would be Kings: whereas we the now unprivileged Clergy, do humbly pray to God to uphold our declining estates from the hands of those Atheists, and turbulent Antiepiscopall, anti-monarchical Reformists; perhaps Pensioners of the forcin enemies of our State, who, under the pretence of Religion, labour to pluck down our Church and Ecclesiastic Hierarchy; and upon the ruins thereof to arise to the depluming of the Eagle; to the bearding of the Lion; not only to the paring of the royal prerogative, but also the removing the very sceptre and crown from the Anointed of the Lord, (whom God always mightily defend!) and to the bringing in of popular government: for, No Bishop, no King, said the learned, wise, and pious King James, most truly.  
I return to retort the Church-reforming Poet's words upon himself: In his solary he saith, That the dial is the Written Word, which is of itself dead and unprofitable, without further illumination; since none of the Philosophers, nor Solomon himself, by the mere strength of Nature, could from thence draw saving knowledge without saving grace. The question is not, Whether the Scripture or Church shall be Judge; but, Whether the Clergy or Laity shall be Interpreters of this dead word, and unprofitable without further illumination. We bid not the people to pluck out their eyes, that they may be led by us, as the Jesuits and Popish Priests do; neither do we like the other extreme of the people, presuming that they can give better answer then the Ephod, the Urim and the Thummim; and oversee the Seers, who ought (by the express commandment of God himself) to have the oversight of them, Heb. 13.7. But they are to rest contented with the general Commission given to the Ministry, He that heareth you, heareth me; especially in things (as most things are) above their capacity. But the people will expound Scriptures, contradict their Pastors, censure their labours, judge their Judges, even in matters of such speculation as they may most safely be ignorant of; and, under pretence of desire to have their consciences well informed, will not be informed at all in any thing against their humours and fancy; but monopolise the Spirit to themselves, and yield no more in this point to the ordinance of God, who hath committed to us the word of reconciliation, then to the very devils, whom they are bound to believe and follow, in all things wherein their consciences are well informed.  
My former task recalleth me. Bezaleel and Aholiab both did and could work all manner of work for the service of the Sanctuary, according to all that the Lord had commanded, Exod. 36.1. Had God more care of his Sanctuary, then of the Church of Christ? Or could God command an untruth, when he guided the Apostles and Evangelists as powerfully, if not more than ever he did the workmen of his Sanctuary? Or had the Penmen less grace or goodness then the workmen? Certainly they had, if they swarved in writing from what was commanded by God. Moses was admonished of God, when he was about to make the Tabernacle; See (saith God) that thou makest all things according to the pattern shown thee in the mount, Hebr. 8.5. which the Apostle borrowed from Exod. 25.8, etc. where God giveth this charge, Let them make me a Sanctuary— according to all that I show thee, after the pattern of the Tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it. So, and no otherwise; not so much as a little nail or peg shall make any difference. And shall we think, that the Evangelists and Apostles might swarve in writing from what was delivered unto them?  
That Christ himself could and did read, is proved Luk. 4.16. That he could and did write is plain, John 8.6, etc. That he ever wrote any part of his doctrine, of the Law of Grace, of our Scripture, is not evident: for though Baronius, ad annum Christi 31. saith, That many of the Ancients believed that our blesved Saviour wrote an epistle unto Abagarus, or Abgarus, Prince of Edessa; yet since Salianus wholly balketh this story, (which he would not have done, if there had been either truth or likelihood in the matter; because of the miracles mentioned by Baronius, wrought by the image of our Saviour's face, which himself sent to the same Prince) let us esteem it as a thing unworthy of belief. That whatsoever Christ did, he did both well and conveniently; and whatsoever he omitted, he also omitted well and conveniently, I take for most certain: and yet, if he had done something which he omitted, I dare say he had also done well and conveniently: and I should be afraid to say, That it was not convenient for Christ to write any part of Scripture therefore, because personally he wrote none. It was convenient for others, and not for Christ himself, to write his own doctrine (saith Aquin. 3. part. quaest. 42. art. 4.) for the excellency both of the Teacher, and of the doctrine; which he confirmeth thus, The most excellent way was, to imprint his doctrine in their hearts: So did Christ teach, As HAVING POWER, Matth. 7.29. and Pythagoras and Socrates, the excellentest teachers among the Gentiles, would write nothing. For the Scripture is ordained to imprint doctrine in the hearts, as to an end. Moreover, if Christ had written his own doctrine, 
q Nihil altiùs de ejus doctrina bomines aestimarent, quàm quod Scriptura contineret.  men would never have had an higher esteem of his doctrine, then of that which might arise from things contained in Scripture. Those are the words of Aquin. Much of this is but mere froth, and the shadow of reason, unfitting the pen of so Angelical a Doctor; who remembered not that God himself wrote the Law; and that God did write the Law in some men's hearts, as well as in stone, Hebr. 8.10. and so might Christ in both, if he had pleased. As for Pythagoras and Socrates, if they wrote nothing, yet their words made no deeper impression upon the hearts of their auditors, than the writings of many other men have done upon the hearts of their readers. Moreover, some have thought that Pythagoras and Socrates were not the excellentest teachers among the Gentiles; Aristotle and Plato are esteemed their equals; and some have preferred Hermes Trismegistus and Homer before both of them. Indeed the Scripture was ordained to imprint doctrine in the heart; was it therefore inconvenient that Christ himself should write? His speech was ordained to imprint his doctrine in their hearts, as to an end; yet was not his speech inconvenient: no more inconvenient had been his writing; yea rather more convenient (if so it had pleased him) because many of his words reached but to a few; but his writings might have reached to many millions of places and persons more, and might have been everlasting. To conclude, If the Jews looked through the vails, types, and shadows of Moses Law, to the more spiritual things of Christ; then certainly, if Christ had writ his doctrine, we would not esteem of him according to the letter only of that doctrine; but we would think (as we ought) that either he wrote not all, or wrote only such things as were fit for us to know, or as we could understand; reserving more secret, deep, and divine things to himself. For reasons best known to himself, he baptised not any, no not his own Apostles. For reasons best known to himself, he wrote not immediately any part of Scripture. To say it was not convenient because Christ did it not, inferreth that Christ was bound to do all things convenient; yea, and which man judgeth convenient; and what he did not do was not convenient.  
God might have bettered, and may yet better some of his own works, though they be very good: Shall we conclude, that because he did not, therefore it was not fit he should have done so? God did not say at the end of the second days work particularly and expressly, It was good, or God saw that it was good; as he did at all and every of the other five days creation: Was it therefore not good? Yes verily; for Gen. 1.31. God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good.  
John 14.16, etc. The Comforter shall abide with you for ever: even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seethe him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him: for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. And verse 26. The Comforter shall teach you all things: Therefore he shall teach them to write truly: the Spirit of truth will not suffer them to write falsely whilst he dwelleth with them, and in them; as he did when they wrote.  
Inspiration was ordained as a cause, and as a means of right conceiving: conceiving or apprehension was appointed as a cause and a means of right expression: expression was either by word or writing. Many words were prophetically and most divinely spoken, which were not written; not so many were written, as were first spoken: The vocal expression was more transient and transitory; perhaps, concerning some few, and those only of those times: the expression permanent, and by writing, was and is directory to mankind to the end of the world. Inspiration, apprehension, and much expression by voice, were all as means to this main end, that there might be a Scripture. Shall the means be certain, unerring, and inerrable; and shall the end be dubious, crooked and erring? The perfect use of the right means leads on infallibly to an undeceiving and exact end: If the Divine Penmen could not err or be misled in the former, which sometimes vanished, leaving no footsteps behind them; it is not possible that they should err in writing, which is the masterpiece of that divine work, lasting for ever; the absolute square, and judge, and canon of all men's thoughts, words, and deeds; unless you say, God had less care to preserve from corruption divine records filled up on eviternitie, and necessary at all times, for all persons, in all places (as the Scriptures now are) than he had of inspirations: which ended only in the apprehension, if they were not expressed; or turned into air, and vanished almost with the breath, if they were only spoken.  
Nor let any man say that writing is further removed from the divine operation, than inspiration was, and so more subject to error: for it shall appear ere long, that the same Spirit which began by inspiration, sat, still moving on the waters, not leaving his own work till there was a perfect production, till the end was accomplished, and the will of God was written in words and letters of truth; so that not one jota or tittle had any error. Yea, let me go one step further, and say, that when the Apostles did dictate to their scribes, actuaries, or secretaries, not only not themselves, but not their notaries could err.  
And yet I have read of two mad stories cross to my opinion: the one in Sixtus Senensis, Bibliothecae sanctae, 2. pag. 120. on the name Tertius: who recordeth out of Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus, that this Tertius, being no excellent speaker nor writer, made the obscure Epistle of S. Paul to the Romans to be more obscure, whilst he laboured to express S. Paul's thoughts and sense, by more confused and unabsolute sentences, and transposed explications. As if S. Paul could not write sufficiently himself: though he said (in humbleness) Rudis sermone sum, I am rude in speech, 2. Cor. 11.6. yet was he powerful in writing, 2. Cor. 10.10: As if he had not diverse most sufficient scribes by him: As if he would permit the writing of so divine, super-divine an Epistle to an Ignaro, a silly fellow: As if Tertius himself wrote not this Epistle in the Lord, that is, by divine authority, or (as Cajetan thinketh) these words, In the Lord, are added to show that he did not write it as an hireling: which sense is made good by some authorities, according to the diversity of punctation: As if the Spirit who inspired Paul dictating, ruled not the hand of Tertius writing: As if S. Paul would make so blockheaded a disciple as Tertius is feigned to be, to be his scribe, and that in his most majestical and obscurest Epistle: Or if Tertius were so, that he should be thought worthy to be Iconii Episcopus, and have that extraordinary grace to be crowned with Martyrdom; as Ecclesiastical history recordeth of him: As if S. Peter (whom Paul withstood for a smaller matter to the face, Gal. 2.11.) when he said that there were in all S. Paul's Epistles some things hard to be understood, would have commended his fellow-Apostles wisdom, as he did, 2. Pet. 3.15. and not rather have found fault with his folly, and the manner of his writing, if not with the matter also, if Tertius had been so absurd as Diodorus imagined; especially seeing S. Peter saith, that the unlearned and unstable wrest some of those writings unto their own destruction: which in all likelihood should justly rather swallow up S. Paul for his carelessness of inditing, and Tertius for his supineness, or rather blasphemous forgery of divine truths by mis-writing them, if any fault could have been truly imputed to either of them. But of this we shall speak (by God's help) more at large in the next section save one.  
The second mad story followeth. Because some were wont to forge Epistles in S. Paul's name, (as is apparent 2. Thess. 2.2. where he beseecheth them, Not to be shaken in mind, or to be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as from us) therefore he always subscribed his own name to all his Epistles, 
f Vbicunque sciebat falsos adesse doctores.  Wheresoever he knew that there were false teachers, saith Hierom on Gal. 6.11. On which place he also relateth, that a very learned man of those times said, S. Paul being an Hebrew knew not Greek letters: and because necessity required that he should subscribe with his own hand to the Epistle, 
t Contra consuetudinem curvos tramites literarum vix magnis apicibus exprimebat.  He wrote, though in ill-shaped, unhandsome, very great letters: showing this testimony of a kind affection, that he would endeavour to do for the Galatians what indeed he could not do. Whereby he concludeth, that S. Paul could not write Greek, at least, not in a legible good hand. S. Hierom wondered at the ridiculousness of his exposition (as well he might) because the Apostle used to subscribe to diverse of his Epistles, and here he wrote this whole Epistle with his own hand: and yet S. Hieroms' exposition is almost as forced as the former: 
u Grandibus Paulus literis scripsit, quia sensus erat grandis in literis, & Spiritu Dei vivi, non atrameuto & calamo fuerat exaratus.  S. Paul (saith he) wrote in large long characters or letters, because the sense was great in the words, and was written by the Spirit of the living God, and not with pen 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 signify quantity; though S. Paul wrote in great letters and characters, yet it might be a very good and fair hand: as there are few fairer writings than 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 necessary appendent, give them the power to write well those languages; especially since their writings were to benefit more than their voices could reach unto. We never read that the holy Apostles, Peter, James, or John, were learned; or could read 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 than 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 deformedness of the characters, or at the grand-greatnesse of them; but at the length or prolixity 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 whilst we have time, especially to the household of faith; I say, I myself have not been weary in writing this Epistle, though it be long: and whilst 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 hearty love, that I wrote all this Epistle myself: 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 necessary that Scripture should be written for men's instruction?  
That it was not absolutely necessary, must be confessed: for God might have used other means. He is liberrimum agens, the freest agent; or rather ipsa libertas, liberty itself, not chained to fate, nor bound in with nature or second causes. Necessity, freedom of our will, or indifferency to either side, and contingency, are the issues of his will.  
Yea, God did use other means in the law of nature; for above 2450 years the Patriarches were nourished with agraphall Tradition only. No word was ever written till God wrote the Law; the two first Tables, the work of the onely-wise Almighty; 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 spoke all the words of the Decalogue, Exod. 20.1. etc. 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 flood, were either fictions, or antedated. The prophecy 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, Judas 14. As the prophecy 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 only viuâ voce, by word of mouth, saith Irenaeus, 3.4. and Augustine de Fide & Oper. cap. 9 and Ruffinus on the Creed, and diverse others: so is it likely, that enoch's prophecy was not written; or rather was written long after it was spoken: for writing was not so necessary for the Patriarches: First, because they were purer in mind, 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 Patriarches supplied the room of writing: for Methusalah, who lived 240 years 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 odd years with Sem, and Sem lived 50 years in jacob's time, by the calculation of Helvicus; and there were not 200 years from jacob's death to the writing of the Law. Thirdly, besides such aged venerable Prophets as were Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham (who was an eminent instructor with authority, and, as it were, with a Praetorian power: Gen. 18.19. I know that Abraham will command his sons and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord) other Patriarches knew the will of God by immediate revelation, by dreams and visions; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, At sundry times, and in diverse manners, Heb. 1.1. God's speech was in stead of writing. But when men grew more impure, and upon the increase of sin man's days 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 stony hearts; God himself wrote the Moral Law in two Tables of stone: and Gods own handie-work being broken by the occasion of their sin, to show that the Moral 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 extremes about the written word are here to be avoided: The first is of the Papists, who too much disgrace the Scripture, at least comparatively; 
x Putáne piures baeres●● & sectas exerituras fuisse, fi nuila p●nitus S●riptura extitisset, quàm nunc cùm Scritura mortalibus à coelo data est? Ego certè propior sum existimanti, pauciore● fuisse futuras.  Do you think that more sects and heresies would have bubbled up, if there had been no Scripture at all, then now are, when God hath sent us the holy Writ? I rather incline to that side, who think there would have been fewer divisions, saith Gretser in his defence of Bellarm. de Verb. Dei, 4.4. Pighius de Eccles. Hierarch. 1.2. saith 
y Apostolos quaedam scripsisse, non ut scripta illa praeossent Fidei & Religion's nostrae; s●d ut su●essent potiús.  That the Apostles wrote some things, not that they might rule over our Faith and Religion, but be subject rather: and concludeth, that the Church is not only not inferior, nor only equal, but in a sort superior to the Scriptures. The Carmelite Antonius Marinarus, in the second book of the History of the Council of T●ent, pag. 118. is confident, 
z Ecclesiam fuisse perf●ctissimam, prius ●uam Sanctorum Apostolorii ullas s●ripsisset: neq Ecclesiam Christi perfecti●●e ullá carituram, etiamsi nihil unquam scripto fuisset mandatum.  That the Church was most perfect before any Apostle wrote, and that the Church of Christ had never wanted perfection, though never any thing had been written. Majoranus Clip. 2.28. thus, 
a Vnus Ecclesiae consensus, qui nunquam caruit Spiritu Dei, pluris apud nos esse debet, quàm omnes e●ingues & muti codices, & quoiqu●t sunt & crunt unquam s●ripta volumina; quae hominum ingemis semper materiam contentionis praebuerunt.  The uniform consent of the Church, which never was destitute of God's Spirit, aught more to be esteemed by us, than all the dumb writings and volumes which are or shall be written: which have ministered matter of debate to the wits of men. These are accursed errors, and easily confuted; because traditions are inconstant, and their number was never yet determined by themselves; but the Scripture is certain, and our Saviour both rebuketh the Pharisees for holding of traditions, Mark. 7.8, etc. Luk. 11.39. Matth. 23.18. and commandeth them to search the Scriptures, John 5.39. and referreth himself, and the whole course of his life and death to be examined by Scripture, Luke 24.25, etc.  
The other extreme is of such, who neglect or deride the Church and the very name thereof, because they have the written word: and these do as much glory in it, as the Jews did in the material Temple of Solomon; when, in truth, their contempt of the Church and its power, turns to their damnation, without repentance; and if the frequent, divine, immediate revelation had been imparted by God to us, as it was to the Patriarches, it had been better for us: for in that illumination there was no error, no mistaking, no doubtfulness, but an impossibility of being deceived. So that my discourse endeth in the point in which it began, The Scripture was not absolutely necessary to be written; but ex hypothesi, conditionally, and supposing the divine decree, it was necessary; yea upon corruption of manners and doctrine, it was not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, convenient, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, necessary: not only the most convenient way, but the most necessary means. Otherwise, God would never have written it. It is necessary, if not as a cause, yet as a concause; The word as a cause, the writing as a concause, saith Trelcatius. The Scriptures are not simply necessary ad esse Eclesiae, to the being of a Church, whatsoever Scharpius saith; but ad bene esse, to the well-being: for nothing was written of the New Testament in Christ's life-time, nor in some years after. Away with the Popish vilifying of Scripture; 
c Materia litis, non vox judicis.  Matter of strife (say they) and not the voice of the judge. Away with the Puritanical cut, disdaining the Church, and the interpreters thereof (to wit, their thrice-reverend Bishops and Priests) and priding themselves in their own senseless private Spirit.  
The second question followeth; viz. Whether the holy Penmen or Actuaries wrote the Scripture casually?  
I answer, If we take casually for fortè fortunâ, for sole chance, or only bare contingency, they wrote not casually: Te facimus, Fortuna, deam, coelóque locamus: Men think they make Fortune a goddess (a giddy one like the people themselves) but indeed God worketh that which we call Fortune amongst men. Augustine lib. 80. quaest. quaest. 24. divinely reasoneth in this sort, What is done by chance, is done suddenly, or rashly: what is so done, is not done providently; but whilst providence administereth all things, nothing falls by chance in this world; if through it we look up to God, as to the universal cause by his providence: For nothing falls under our senses, but was commanded or permitted from the invisible and intelligible Hall of the highest Emperor, saith Augustine, de Trin. 3.4.  
1. Kings 22.34. A certain man drew a bow at a venture (or, in his simplicity) and smote the King of Israel between the joints of the harness. What the 32 Captains of the King of Aram could not accomplish, though this were their Commission, Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the King of Israel, vers. 13. that this roving arrow did by chance accomplish, and slew the bloody Ahab: yet so by chance, as the hand of the Lord did guide it,— Nec erranti Deus abfuit:— and it might have been written on the shaft, before it was drawn out of the quiver, Deus Achabo; more certainly than what was written on the arrow that struck out the eye of Philip of Macedon, Astur Philippo.  
A wealthy merchant sendeth two of his Factours, one to the East Indies, the other to the West; each of them not knowing the others employments: after certain years he appointeth each of them to be at such a port on such a month and day, if they so can: They both meet, both wonder, both at the first hold it a strange chance; when the deep wisdom of their master providently determined all this. There is no chance where providence reigneth.  
If we take casually as importing counsel merely humane led by opportunity only, and excluding inspiration; as men consilium capiunt ex tempore, & pro re nata, Advise according to the fresh occurrences: or, as bonae leges ex malis moribus oriuntur, Good laws are made upon former mis-behaviour: thus the holy Prophet●, Evangelists, and Apostles wrote not casually; for as the Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2. Pet. 1.21. so both for the Old and New Testament, S. Paul saith, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, 2. Tim. 3.16. Is that casual?  
If we conceive the matter thus, The holy penmen wrote casually, that is, Upon 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 casualty 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: Clear the terms by the former distinction, and the question is ended.  
No part of Jeremy is in Chaldee, but one verse only; and upon what occasion was that? The Chaldee Paraphrast thus relateth it, saith Vatablus; Jeremy wrote to the Elders in the Captivity; 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 interlineary, 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 withholding of things consecrated, ministered occasion to the holy Spirit, both to impart the knowledge of their sacrilege to S. Peter, and to inspire into him that particular prophecy, 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 years; nor did any one Evangelist or Apostle singly write, till the Church was pestered with Schismatics, Who troubled them with words, subverting their souls, Act. 15.24. To remedy which discord, a Council 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 Council of Trent, part. 1. pag. 32. though others descent from him. I will only say, If that schism had not been, that Council had not been gathered, that Epistle had not been written. Briefly thus: Eusebius in the second and third book of his history, specializeth the causes and grounds why each of the four Evangelists did write; which is exemplified by Chemnitius in the place before cited, even to satiety; whilst 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 Penmen 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 read the Scripture, may think this question idle and impertinent: but who hath been conversant in the thorny paths of controversies, shall find 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 expressly either that they should write, or not write. To the place alleged by Bellarmine, I answer: They are not there commanded Praedicare, but his very 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, predicate, preach, used Mark 16.15. doth not necessarily imply only the Apostolical preaching viuâ voce in suggesto, aloud in a pulpit; but doth signify a publication in general: not only 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 Apostolical writings, than ever were by their preachings in their own times.  
I answer again: He saith, It is false. To prove a falsehood a man must have express truth, which he confesseth he hath not: and how lamely followeth this? Because we now read it not, Ergò, they were not commanded. He would have laughed 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 read 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 internal command binds as much as the external; divine suggestions oft times have the force of an express 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 diverse 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, Writ, Blessed are they which are called to the marriage-supper of the Lamb. 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, etc. and Luk. 14.16. And a voice from heaven said, Revel. 14.13. Writ, 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 morality 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 general words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ye shall be witnesses; and they bare witness by writing: Joh. 21.24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true; not only he himself, but Peter and the rest, WE know that his testimony is true: what testimony but his writings? 
d Toti operi suo fidem vult conciliare.  He would have all his works or writings believed, 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, Writ them not, Revel. 10.4. The Apostles forwardness or proneness to write, argueth not necessarily that he was not commanded first to write; but rather presupposeth it: and this present inhibition, Writ not, may serve as an exception to a former general command that he might have to write.  
Indeed there is no express record that all and every of the Apostles were enjoined to write: nor is it likely they were; for than they would have obeyed; whereas not the one half of the Apostles committed any thing to pen, ink, and paper, for aught 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, Writ this for a memorial 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, etc. and S. John was commanded eleven or twelve times to write: and thence it is more than probable, that the rest of the Apostles which wrote were commanded to write; they might be expressly 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 real proof of truth positive, which Bellarmine wanteth: and the falsity may justly be retorted home to the Cardinal himself, from the authority 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 shown and spoke 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 read 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 SPOKE BY THE MOUTH OF HIS HOLY PROPHETS, per LOQUENDI verbum, SCRIPTIONEM quoque comprehendit: so what I propound of Prophetical, Evangelicall, and Apostolical 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 mixed.  
Proper, when a man is forced (as we say) in spite of his teeth, against his will; as some who have been drawn to punishment. Thus were they not compelled.  
Mixed, when a man doth that which he would not do, unless he feared a greater loss; as when a Merchant or Mariner cast their goods into the sea to save their lives; which hath in it part of the voluntary, and part of the involuntary: 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 God's ambassador 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 fearful rather then unwilling; but when they were confirmed, they readily and boldly did their duties. So fare 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 Us? (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 voluntary and arbitrary 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 freedom of their will. 
e Acti à Spiritu sancto loqunti sunt à Deo afflati; compositos tamen intellige bos motus; non quales fuere profavorum vatum.  They who were led by the holy Ghost, spoke, being inspired by God: yet know that their motions and inspirations were settled and composed; unlike to the profane heathen priests or prophets (for they were wild, senseless, not knowing what they did or said) saith Tremellius. 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 fare 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 gloss, 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 enforced: 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 ways:  
1. We cannot but speak, that is, Non possumus convenienter tacere, It is unreasonable that we should be silent. Can the children of the Bride-chamber 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 than 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 spoke I with my tongue, Psal. 39.3.  
4. We cannot but speak; that is, We speak not of ourselves, 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 fixed are not so soon moved as things in motion: so the Apostles were silent before; but when the Spirit enlightened their understanding and framed their words, could they hold their tongues? themselves answer, We cannot but speak.  
I sum it up all thus: It was inconvenient not to speak; It was sinful not to speak; It proceeded from the habits of grace and goodness that they were so prone to speak; It proceeded from the celestial suggestion, actuating their hearts and tongues: Therefore (say they) We cannot but speak: And yet away with all coaction.  
Others may yet allege the 1. Cor. 9.16. Necessity 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 necessity 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 Arabic: 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 add 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, than necessity.  
The other part of the words, against my will, evinceth not compulsion, but backwardness, slowness, and ill ends. If I preach WILLINGLY; that is, for the love of Christ, of myself, of my brethren's souls, for God's honour and glory, and at his command, I HAVE MY REWARD: But if AGAINST MY WILL, that is, Unwillingly, or in an unwilling manner: (
i Si solo timore servili praedico.  If for only servile fear I preach, saith Aquinas) if for fear of woe 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 run 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 fashion's sake. I will conclude this answer with the exposition of the Arabic and Syriack Translatours: 
k Si facio hoc ex proposito mentis meae, voluntate meâ, est mihi merces; si autem, cùm facio, ingratum est mihi, etc.  If I do this purposely, with a full will, I have my reward: if when I do it, it is harsh, unpleasant, and sour, etc. 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 diversely expounded: Vrget nos, Urgeth 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 binds 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 joined to voluntariness; when injunction is interposed between both precedent and subsequent willingness. 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 kindness on his part, nor thankworthy on their part, if he were compelled.  
No man dares write in a Prince's name, without his command: S. John was spoke to, advised, commanded twelve times to write: that he was compelled I read not.  
The second of John's 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. Judas gave all diligence to write, vers. 3. so fare was he from coaction; And it was needful for me to write, saith he in the same place: It was not absolutely necessary; he saith not that he was compelled.  
Divers followers of Solomon wrote his Proverbs; who coacted them?  
S. Paul wrote according to the wisdom 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 than I say: which words imply, he would not have writ if he had thought Philemon would have been obstinate, or refractory, 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 Timothy, in Lois, and Eunice, was the reason of S. Paul's 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 enforced to the act of willing, saith Scotus. The will may be compelled by God or by the creature, quantum ad actus imperatos, so fare as belongeth to the commanded acts in which the body is passive. Joh. 21.18. Another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldst 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 spoke or wrote, they did freely and willingly, void of compulsion.  
The fifth question followeth, viz. Whether the holy Penmen understood all that they wrote?  
Christopher Castrus on the smaller Prophets, lib. 3. de vera futurorum cognition, cap. 12. handleth this point at large; and to him I owe a great part of these authorities. Montanus held that the Patriarches and Prophets spoke in an ecstasy, not knowing what they said; as Epiphanius, Haeres. 48. contra Montanistas, relateth. But he was an heretic for it. The devil so moveth the tongues of the rapted or ecstatical 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 Prophetesses Prisca and Maximilla; and among the heathen the Pythonists; and diverse orders of religious irreligion this day among the Turks, especially the Dervishes. But our Prophets, saith the worthy Estius, did speak and write, prophetical light being infused into them, and the knowledge of the mysteries inspired, and with the free motion of their will. The Fathers run in full streams to this depth.  
Origen, Homil. 6. in cap. 16. Ezekielis, 
n Non excidebant ment Prophetae.  The Prophets were in their right minds. And Tom. 6. in Joan. 
o Fatendum est, quae proprio ore protulerunt Prophetae, eos intellexisse, inque labiis gestâsse animi candorem.  We must confess that the Prophets understood what they spoke, and carried in their lips the courteous grace of their mind. 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 mind.  
Basil in Prooemio Isaiae, 
q Sunt qui dicunt eos extra se raptos, prophetare, humanâ ment 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 ment 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 prophesy, their humane soul being swallowed up of the Spirit. But it abhorreth from the professed truth, and goodness 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 wisdom should be made most like to a mad man? Rather light stirreth up the visive faculty naturally: nor doth light breed blindness, nor the Spirit infuse darkness into the minds 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. Gregory, Moral. 11.12. All aim at this mark.  
That they were rapti, or in an ecstasy, none denieth: but there is a double ecstasy. The first either from outward and inward senses, the mind remaining more enlightened and free and perfect: Thus were they sometimes in an ecstasy. Secondly, there is an ecstasy from the mind itself, when it understandeth not: Thus they were never in an ecstasy. 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 always necessary 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 enlightened; 
s  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 ministered unto them to pray oftener 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 spoke, and knew the literal meaning of every word: but the spiritual 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 spoke unto me, saying, This is, etc. See the like in the 13 and 14 verses.  
Pharaoh, Nabuchodonosor, and Caiaphas did apprehend, but not understand things divine: Prophets understood almost always, saith Castrus: Always, 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 body of the Article. His Quaere is, Vtrùm Prophetae semper cognoscant ea quae prophetant? Whether the Prophets always understand all things which they prophesy? and at first he resolveth, 
t Non oportet Prophetas quaeeunque praedicun● cognoscere.  It is not necessary that they should know whatsoever they foretell. I confess there is no absolute necessity 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 spoke a prophetical sentence, no more than Balaams' ass was a man, because he once discoursed more wisely than his master. Aquinas addeth, and that truly, That the Spirit moved the minds of the soldiers to part Christ's garments; but they knew not what it signified. But this is fare from our question: for neither were they Prophets, nor spoke any prophetical sentence; but only 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, vondum erat prophetia. Sed ea quae intelliguntur, non possunt esse incognita: Ergò Propheta non ignorat ea quae prophetat.  Who saw by the Spirit heavenly visions in and by the glass of bodily resemblances, unless there were added also the use, employment, and offices of the mind, 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 prophecy, than the light of natural reason: But by natural reason we are not ignorant of those things which we know: Therefore whosoever is inspired with the spirit of prophecy, 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 GALJOINOSO LOCO. Sed nihil potest alios illuminare, nisi in se sit illuminatum: Ergò videtur quòd Propheta prius illuminetur, ad cognoscendum ea quae aliis enuntiat.  Prophecy is ordained as a means to instruct and enlighten men's understandings: whereupon it is said, 2. Pet. 1.19. WE HAVE A MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHECY, 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 itself: Therefore it seems that a Prophet is first enlightened himself, to know those things which he fore-divineth to others. His only answer to the objections is, that the three reasons speak of true Prophets, whose mind is from heaven perfectly enlightened: Which is wholly my conclusion, except he differ from me in this, That the minds of the true Prophets are not perfectly enlightened in the things which they do prophesy: 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; Prophecy 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 prophecy, as present colours are discerned lumine naturali, by the light of nature: But that prophecy 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 spoke or writ, I say also of all other Penmen of holy Scripture; They knew what they spoke, they knew what they wrote; even S. Paul that heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful 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 diverse 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 several 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 woman's coming to him, 2. King. 4.27. and till the minstrel played, the hand of the Lord came not on him, 2. King. 3.15. but the same Elisha knew, not only things to come, but also things contingent, and which did never come to pass: Whereas Joas smote but thrice upon the ground, Elisha knew by the spirit of prophecy, 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 prophecies, I will not.  
Object. 2. Ambrose, de Abraham, 1.8. saith, Abraham prophesied he knew not what, when he spoke to his young men, Gen. 22.5. Abide you here with the ass, 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 general, 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 plural might be used for the singular; or he might think reservedly, If God will, If we both live. Either of these ways is better than that of Canus. But the truth is, The father of the faithful 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 intent faithfully to sacrifice his son. And who knoweth but he might be divinely and extraordinarily assured, that his child should return with him?  
The third Objection consisteth of these parcels: 1. Pet. 5.12. By Silvanus a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose. 2. Cor. 11.5. I suppose I was not a whit behind 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 itself 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 only 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 contradictory: for opinion is framed on likelihood, as knowledge is upon truth. Where opinion or supposal is, there is not certain knowledge: But our Apostles did think or suppose: Therefore they had not immediate divine revelation or certainty 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 Apostolical 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 supposal makes him neither to be, nor seem to be ever a whit the less 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 supposal of his soul, did dictate unto S. Peter (what the blessed Spirit knew better than S. Peter) these words. The supposal of the Apostle inferreth not a supposal of the Spirit; The Spirit was most certain when the Apostle might be dubious: The holy Ghost spoke (if I may so say) representing Peter, and in Peter's person; which might be subject to a supposal, 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 behind 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 once self is lawful: 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Unto me who am less than 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 privilege in every degree, as he had in this. S. Peter was Doctor Judaeorum, the Doctor of the Jews; S. Paul Doctor Gentium, the Doctor of the Gentiles: yet no man can speak more modestly then S. Paul doth of himself: Less than the least of the Apostles, had been much; but less than the least of all Saints, is the depth, the heart, the soul of humility: which yet is further evidenced, in that he saith not, this grace was given when he was a persecuter, and so indeed worse than any Saint, yea almost worse than any man; but to me even now when I am called, now when I am turned; to me now less than the least of all Saints, is this grace given. Less than the least is contrary to the rules of Grammar, which admit not a comparative above a superlative; contrary to common sense; contrary to the literal truth of the things themselves: for he was a chosen vessel, a chief Apostle; few (if any) more chief: though he should boast more of his authority, he should not be ashamed, 2. Cor. 10.8. No whit inferior 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the very chiefest Apostles, 2. Cor. 12.11. A Minister of Christ more than others, 2. Cor. 11.23: Now though S. Paul used terminis diminuentibus, and spoke sparingly and modestly in some places concerning himself; yet otherwhere he revealeth the whole truth; he knew the certainty of things, to wit, that he was not less than 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: Whilst he speaketh the less, 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 Oriental Idiotism; 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 qualify the Hyperbole, and speak within truth which is allowed, rather than beyond truth which is disallowable: I suppose, rather than I know.  
Secondly, I answer more punctually; If the holy Spirit did leave S. Paul nescient, whether he were rapt in body, yea or no; and Paul did know his own nesciency, 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 testimony 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 spoke and writ of the day of judgement, and other secret visions, whose depths were never sounded by mere man; but sealed and reserved, perchance from Angels, till the general 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 spoke or wrote they knew, and knew much more than ever they spoke or wrote.  
The sixth question followeth, viz. Whether the holy Penmen did read profane authors?  
Upon the premisall of six points, the answer will be most expedite.  
The first is this, That divers Prophets and Penmen of the Old Testament, were Noblemen, Rulers, or Kings, cannot be denied by him, who thinketh of Isaiahs' birth of royal lineage, saith Hierom in the Prologue on him; and Lyranus from the Rabbins; or on David, Solomon, and others.  
Secondly, That divers also were learned before their calling to public place, is most apparent. Thus Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds, Act. 7.22. and this before he was called to his public charge. Thus was Job skilled in Astronomy, as his words declare; and Solomon the best Philosopher (as I think) that ever was, except Christ and Adam; though Solomon's great learning was rather infused then acquired.  
The third punto 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 blood-royal. S. Hierom in his Epistle to Principia the Virgin, saith, S. John was Noble, and for his Nobility known to the high Priest. I answer, that he was very near 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 nobility 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 mighty, 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 peremptory, 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, powerful, 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 Publicans: and them he instructed, lest he might seem to have drawn men unto him by worldly wisdom, or to have redeemed them by wealth, or to have alured them to his side and to the participation of his grace, by the reconciling authority of power and nobility.  
The 1. Cor. 4.11. the Apostle speaketh in the person of all his fellows, thus, Even to this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place; and labour, working with our own hands, etc. 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 read not that the gift of tongues was given to these two. Concerning S. Matthew, though there may be some probability that he was learned before his vocation, because he sat at the receipt of custom, Matth. 9.9. for few unlearned men were gatherers of Caesar's customs or tributes: and though Publicans were vilely esteemed of among the Jews, yet diverse passages of Cicero do show, that they were of good account among the Romans: 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 company of Publicans 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 poor man might make a great feast for joy of his extraordinary calling. See what the young, perhaps, poor ploughman 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 years of age went and heard the Doctors, and asked them questions; and belike, when they could not answer, he did; or else, 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. We know this man whence he is, say the Jews. As if one be eminent among us, we usually inquire of his parents, of his breeding, and whole course of life: so in likelihood they did of Christ: They knew his breeding in the city of Nazareth; Where from his childhood he used a mechanical 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, Allege the words of the Law. They did not admire his doctrine (say Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact) nor believed 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 wisdom 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 poor 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 poverty 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 offered to follow him, or Scribe, Priest, or Pharisee, to be any one of his Apostles; that Apostolical learning might be rather Divine, then Humane: in which regard also, perhaps, he chose none of the Doctors with whom he argued: sure I am, S. Augustine saith, for this very cause Nathanael was not numbered among the twelve Apostles, Quia doctus erat in lege, Because he was a learned Lawyer; though otherwise Nathanael was a most accomplished men. Act. 4.13. it is said, That the high Priests, Rulers, and Elders perceived that Peter and John were unlearned and ignorant men: Unlearned in the knowledge of things themselves; ignorant in skilful speaking: simple men both for matter and manner. And this the Jews perceived, that is, by disquisition found out, saith Lorinus.  
Augustine, de Verb. Domini, Serm. 59 Tom. 10. 
d Magna artificis misericordia: sciebat enim, quòd si eligeret Senatorem, diceret Senator, Dignitas mea electa est: si Oratorem, Eloquentia mea: si Philosophum, Sapientia mea electa est. Da mihi istum piscatorem: veni tu pauper; nihil habes, nihil nôsti; sequere me. Tam largo fonti vas inane admovendum est. Leguntur modò verba piscatorum, & subduntur colla Oratorum.  Great was the mercy of Christ: He knew if he had chosen a Senator, the Senator would have said, I was chosen for my place and dignity: If an Orator, he would have pleaded, My eloquence hath made me regarded: If a Philosopher, My wisdom caused me to be chosen. Give me the Fisherman: Come thou poor man; thou hast nothing, knowest nothing; follow me. Put me an empty vessel where is so great a spring. The words of Fishermen are read only, and the necks of Orators are subject unto them. Or (as Athanasius, the Incarnate. & Sacrament. cap. 9 hath it) 
e Verba Philosophorum excludit simplex veritas piscatorum.  The plain downright truth of Fishermen, hath thrust out of doors the oratory of Philosophers.  
Lorinus, on Act. 1.26. relateth the opinion of Antoninus, thus, That Christ whilst he lived chose rude and illiterate men, lest the conversion of the world should be attributed to humane industry and wisdom: yet the Apostles chose the learned Mathias, to insinuate unto the succeeding Churches, That not idiots, but skilful men were to be chosen Governors of souls; Yea, even Christ himself from heaven, vocally called the learned S. Paul. And so I shake hands with this point.  
The fifth followeth, viz. That it was lawful for them, and is for others, to read, or seek profane Authors.  
The arts are as handmaids to Divinity. Clemens Alexandrinus, primo Stromat. saith, 
f Non minùs literas illas Gentilibus ad Christum paedagogi vice, quàm legem Judaeis esse  The arts are as a Schoolmaster to bring the Gentiles to Christ, as the Law was to the Jews. Though the Apostle saith, Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy, (Col. 2.8.) yet it is that Philosophy which is joined with vain deceit. True Philosophy is a branch plucked from the eternal Verity (saith Clemens in the same place) and is the child of rectified reason. But 
g Recta ratio est lex summi Jovis.  even Jupiter is ruled by good reason, saith Cicero: and Tertullian, more African-like, 
h Res D●i Ratio.  God and reason are at one. When any Fathers tax Philosophy, it is because it cometh too nigh the Mountain, and intermingleth with Divinity: otherwise, it is lawful to use it, or any other profane authority. See it proved by Nicephorus, 10.26. Gregory Nazianzen defendeth S. Basil for his learning in Ethnics, and censureth those that condemn it, saying; The air, the earth, are not to be contemned, because some have abused them. Fire, meat, iron, & other things, 
i Per se sunt neque utilia neque noxia.  of themselves are neither profitable nor harmful, but as they are used. As we make theriacal medicaments of creeping things: so let us choose the good things out of them, and contemn the bad; 
k Sanctificantes profana & facientes occlestastica.  making the profane things to be sanctified and ecclesiastical, saith Origen, Homil. 31. in Luc. Hierom well observeth in the beginning of his Commentaries on Daniel, and in his Preface on Job, That, if you look over all the books of Philosophy, you must needs find in them 
l Aliquam partem vasorum Dei.  some part of the chosen truths of God. In Plato, God to be the Architect of the world: in the Stoical Zeno, Hell, and the immortality of souls. We are to vindicate their good things from them, as from unjust possessors, and to transfer the spoils of Egypt to ourselves, as Augustine sweetly alludeth, the doctr. Christ. 2.40. When Ruffinus accused Hierom for using in his letters humane learning, Hierom Epist. 8. answereth, That that is to kill Goliath with his own sword, 1. Sam. 17.51. Let Philosophy submit herself, as Agar to Sara, saith Clemens ibid. Let the captive woman's head be shaved, and her nails pared, Deut. 21.12. If the handmaid be obstinate, Cast out this bondwoman and her son, Gen. 21.10. 
m Quomodo repudiamus secularia studia, sine quibus divina esse non possunt?  Why do we refuse secular learning, without which we cannot comprehend things divine? saith Tertullian, the Idololat. And Aquinas most divinely in his disputed questions the side, Art. 10. 
n Rationi naturali verae nunquam contrariatur Theologia; sed eam excedit saepe, & sic videtur repugnare.  Divinity is never contrary to true natural reason, but often excelleth it; and so going beyond it, doth seem to thwart it. And so this fifth point, That it was and is lawful to read profane Authors, is the rather concluded, because it shall be confirmed by the sixth,  
The holy Penmen did cite Poets or profane Authors.  
Titus 1.12. One of themselves, even a Prophet of their own, said, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Cretenses semper mendaces, malae bestiae, ventres pigri:  
The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.   
Epimenides the Cretian in his book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, de Oraculis, hath the whole Hexameter: Callimachus came after him, and from him took the Hemistich: But the whole verse was not taken by S. Paul from Callimachus, because the whole verse was not entire in Callimachus: Besides, Callimachus was of Cyrene, not of Crect. The learned Estius is my author.  
The same S. Paul cities this (as it is Act. 17.28, 29.) In him we live, move, and have our being, as certain also of your own Poets have said: For we are also his offspring. In which discourse S. Paul insists in the writings of divers of their Prophets. First, vers. 24. God made the world, and all things therein; which almost all Heathen acknowledged, and many have published: vers. 26. He hath made of one blood all nations of men: Orpheus comprised both of them before in few words, Vnus perfectus per se; ex uno omnia facta: He is one and 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 else 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 offspring; they are the very words of Aratus in the beginning almost of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ipsius enim genus sumus, We are his offspring. 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 offspring; 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 Ecclesiastical. Socrates, 3.40. and out of him Nicephorus 10.26. say, It is borrowed from Euripides. Hierom, Peter Martyr, and many more report it to be Senarius Menandri, an Hexameter of Menander. I reconcile them thus, That it is in both of the Poets. Justinian the Jesuit relateth, that Photius, apud Oecumenium, saith, Some such thing is in the Prophet Isaiah; But I could never find it, saith the Jesuit. 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 Jesuit might find the same Isa. 22.13. And so Athanasius, on the place of the Apostle (or rather Theophylact, if we believe Bellarmine, de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, ad annum 340. in Athanasio) saith, Those words were taken from Isaiah.  
Acts 20.28. Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock; Attendite vobis, etc. 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 Prelate's intimation (for indeed at the utmost it is no more) that Paul alluded to that saying of Thales, is a conjecture fare 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 Apocryphal, or not Canonical writings.  
S. Paul knew the names of Pharaoh his Magicians, 2. Tim. 3.8. Jannes and Jambres, as we read 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 cities 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 Apocryphal 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 only immediately from heaven assured, that these were the names of the Magicians; or whether he had read their names also in some Apocryphal book now perished, or in the Talmud.  James 1.17. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  
Every good gift, and every perfect gift is from above: Which words I have both heard and read alleged for the lawful use of humane literature; though I, for my part, cannot guess whence the Apostle took them.  
That S. Judas had the history of the strife between Michael and the devil, about the body of Moses (the 9 of Judas) in part from Deuteronomie, and in part from an Apocryphal 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. Judas might also have read the book of Henoch and his prophecy, I will not deny: for he citeth some words of it, vers. 14. So think Hierom in Catalogo, and in his Commentary on Titus 1. Augustine de Civitat. 15.23. & ibid. 18.38. and Beda on the place. But the book of Henoch is Apocryphal.  
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 confessed, 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 read other books, Talmudists, Targumists, Hellenists, Apocryphal 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 Corollary 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 read profane authors, 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 treasury 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 believe, that if Plato, or Aristotle, Tully, or Varro had lived after Christ's days, 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 beforehand?  
That both Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, were filled with holy thoughts, and heavenly meditations, we certainly believe and know. Psal. 45.1. My heart is enditing of a good matter; or (as it is in our margin) boileth, or bubbleth up a good matter: Eructavit cor meum verbum bonum, saith the Vulgat; Verily good thoughts were in my heart: The like I say of all, and every of them. Psal. 39.2. I was dumb with silence, I held my peace even from good, and my sorrow was stirred: and vers. 3. My heart was hot within me, while I was musing the fire burned; then spoke I with my tongue: and vers. 4. Lord, make me to know mine end. From whence appeareth, that David was premeditating, as other people do: and at the last, as other men's, his thoughts broke forth. The similitude is taken from sorrow and grief, which being for a while suppressed, groweth greater; or from fire, which being smothered, or half quenched with water, upon recovery of its strength, groweth fare more violent. The answer is, that David relateth what course he took when he could not exonerate and alleviate his soul by conference with men, whose ways he liked not: He poured out his complaints and prayers unto God: So Musculus. And this no doubt did the Spirit of God stir him up to do. It pleased the holy Ghost to make those thoughts of David, which before were pure and divine, yet private, now to be divine, public, and canonical.  
Again, That they might conceive and understand by the Spirit, a great deal more than the holy Ghost would have to be written, I deny not: and on such things they might muse.  
Yet I conjecture, that what they wrote in holy Scripture, they studied not beforehand (the Spirit hath no need of man's study or learning) and I do remove from every part of it, all humane premeditation; and maintain, that the Spirit did frame both matter and words (as by God's grace shall anon appear) pro re nata, as occasion offered itself.  
One chief reason may be this, That nature, which is the right hand of God, hath greatest care of greatest matters, and less of least, and equal care of things equal. If the Apostolical and Evangelicall writings are not (consideratis considerandis, weighing one thing with an other) of more esteem than their words were; yet let them go as equivalent: Then Christ will have as much care of their writings as of their speaking: But their speeches were without premeditation, and were commanded so to be: Therefore all their writings. Matth. 10.19. Take no thought how, or what ye shall speak: you see both the matter and manner is not to be from them. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you, vers. 20. Not they, there is the negative; but the Spirit, there is the positive. Likewise, Mark 13.11. Take no thought beforehand,— neither do ye premeditate: An absolute inhibition; and it had been a great sin to transgress it, and a distrust of the holy Ghost. The like I say concerning all their writings.  
They might have indeed in their meditation beforehand diverse of those things which afterwards they wrote: but when they thought on them, they knew not they should write them; and when they did write, they wrote them not as copies or extracts of former conceits out of the womb of their own memories; but as freshly and newly inspired, apprehended, indicted, and dictated unto them.  
There is one kind of knowledge proceeding from principles known by the natural light of the intellect: as Arithmetic, Geometry, etc. Others proceed out of principles known by light of an higher knowledge: as Perspective, from the principles evinced by Geometry; and Music, from principles known by Arithmetic: So is the Scripture believed by an higher light, even by the revelation of God, saith Aquin. part. 1. quaest. 1. art. 2. and not believed only; but the matter, and manner, and words proceeded from a diviner understanding, then humane conceit could reach unto; and were written by an higher and better hand than the hand of man. All was the holy Spirits doing, even the leading of their hands whilst they wrote, that they could not err.  
Cornelius Cornelii à Lapide, on 2. Tim. 3.16. thus, The Spirit did not dictate all Scripture after one manner. The Law and the Prophecies are revealed and dictated to a word; the Histories and Moral exercitations, which before by sight, hearing, reading, or meditation the holy Writers had learned, there was no necessity to be inspired, or dictated from the Spirit; since they knew them already: So John 19.35. He that saw it, bare record: and Luk. 1.3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order: Then doth he mince, modify, and qualify his former saying, in this manner; But the holy Spirit may be said to have dictated even the latter also: First, because 
q Astitit scribentibus nè vel in puncto à veritate aberrarent.  he was present whilst they wrote, that they could not go one jot from the truth: Secondly, because it stirred them up, and suggested that they should write this rather than that: 
r Conceptum ergò, & memoriam corum quae sciebant, non iis ingessit Spiritus Sanctus.  Therefore the conceptions and remembrance of such things as they knew, the Spirit did not inspire into them. Thirdly, saith he, The Spirit did order, direct, and methodise all their conceits, that they might put this in the first, that in the second, another in the third place. In which words of his three things deserve censure, even the strict censure of the Inquisition.  
First, That the Spirit did not dictate all Scripture after one manner.  
I answer, Then all is not of a like dignity: that which is after the divinest manner, is to be held best: that wherein there is a medley of divine and humane knowledge and wisdom, is of an inferior sort. But this may not be granted; for, All Scripture is of divine inspiration. Excellently saith Doctor Estius on 2. Tim. 3.16. Rightly and most truly from hence do we conclude, that all the sacred Canonical Scripture was written by the dictate of the holy Spirit; (not in that manner, say I, that he left the Penmen to their own memories and knowledge, which as humane were weak and imperfect) but 
f Ità nimirum, ut non solùm sententiae, sed & verba singula, & verborum ordo, ac tota dispositio sit à Deo, tanquam per semetipsum loquente aut scribente.  so, that not only the sentences, but every word, and the order, placing, and the whole disposing of the words was from God, as speaking or writing by himself. But God (I dare say) hath no need of their memories; nor his writing or speech, of their hearing, reading, sight, or premeditation.  
Secondly, he is to be taxed for saying, there was no necessity that things Moral and Historical should be inspired.  
I say, there was a necessity that histories and moralities should be inspired, if they are to be parts of the sacred Writ: otherwise, this knowledge and writing are only parcels of humane learning. Though S. John bare record to what he saw, his bearing record without the Spirit, had been but an ordinary testimony. Not his saying, but the inspiration makes the record divine: and his testimony from the Spirit, That he saw, is of more force than his testimony 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 notify the pleasing of his own fancy, 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 error. But the knowledge issued out from the light divine; and therefore is there termed perfect understanding; like God's gifts, James 1.17. All other guides are somewhat imperfect.  
Thirdly, the Jesuit is justly  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 than before they knew: what they knew humanely, they now know divinely.  
I will not discuss 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 only the tables written by Gods own finger, were laid up in the Ark itself; 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 peremptory, 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 than a copulative Preposition. For none will imagine that the skilful 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: Jeremy 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, ready 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 deny: 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 equal the Penmen of the New Law to those of the Old in this point, That they wrote in the selfsame tongue in which they conceived.  
Besides, it will be hard to prove, that Jeremy 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 pronunciation and of writing. So that Jeremy 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 error 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 mind.  
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 Sun of the Gospel, as Dionysius termed him: This Sun is in eclipse, and we have not, cannot have his true and perfect light, if we must not look to his rays and shine, which are his words; but to his thoughts, that is, the light which is in himself; to his internal and substantial light, and not to the external.  
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 ways 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 diverse, 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 conceived more by the boundless power of the divine inspiration, than we can possibly reach unto: and there was never place of Scripture so, since the Apostles days, expounded, (if before) that I dare say, The Spirit aimed at nothing else, and all is known. All known good expositions may be said to be of the Spirit, but the Spirit hath many depths which never yet were searched. Therefore our anchorhold must be on the words; or else we shall float in the wide vast sea of imagination and fancy, without sail, oar, or rudder, without card or compass; by having recourse to the Non entes, or Non extantes allusiones, Vnextant allusions, which were in the thoughts of our blessed Apostle. It is no rule or canon which is not extant. Non Ens is an ill guide to Ens.  
Besides, the Syriack now much differeth from that in the Apostles days: how then can we find out, what the Apostle conceived? For the Syriack and Arabic now in use (except perhaps the Gospel of S. Matthew, and the Epistle to the Hebrews) were translated out of the Greek, and not the Greek out of these. Had we exactly the identical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, first original manuscripts, in which S. Matthew wrote his Gospel, and S. Paul his Epistle to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew or Syriack; had we the true selfsame paper or parchment, in which the Evangelists and Apostles or their amanuensis wrote the divine dictates; we might better guess at their thoughts and the allusions to which they bended themselves. But now Heinsius would have us to shoot at rovers; or rather to no steady mark at all, at the then thoughts of our Apostle.  
Lastly, the worthy Heinsius doth a little interfere, when he counselleth us to go to the allusions which were in the thoughts of the Apostles, and not to the allusions which are extant: For suppose I grant that he hath found whatsoever the Apostle alluded to in his mind; is not this now extant? Or can a thing be found which is not extant?  
The third conclusion trenching upon Heinsius is this, They had no liberty left unto them to put in their own conceits, or in writing to add or blot out what they had done.  
This point concerneth the matter which is written.  
Peter Moulin in his third Epistle to Bishop Andrews, as it is in the 182 page of the said Bishops Opuscula, wrote thus; 
a Quae ad salutem & fidem pertinent, ab Apostolis statuta sunt afflatu divino; in caeteris, saepe usi sunt suâ prudentiâ, ut innuit Pavius.  What things soever concern faith or salvation, they were determined by the Apostles under the guidance of divine inspirations. In other things they often used their own discretion and prudence, as S. Paul intimateth, 1. Cor. 7.25. The grave and profound Oracle thus answereth him, pag. 193. 
b Parciùs ista, de Apostolis, prudentiâ suâ ufis: periculose enim vel dicitur, vel scribitur, Apostolos in Quibusdam asslatu divino, in reliquis suâ prudentiâ saepe usos; idque in iis quae scripta reperiuntur. Atqui vel illium ipsum locum, ubi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cis ità concludi, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ità ut vel illius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, à Spiritu Dei dictamen suum habuerit.  I pray you speak more sparingly of this point, viz. That the Apostles used their own wisdom or prudence: for it is dangerous to say or write, that the Apostles were in some things inspired from heaven; in the rest often used their own counsel and prudence, and that in matters which are found written in the Scripture. But you know it is concluded immediately after these words, ACCORDING TO MY OPINION, or judgement; AND I THINK ALSO THAT I HAVE THE SPIRIT OF GOD, 1. Cor. 7.40. So that his very opinion or judgement, had its dictate from the Spirit of God. Again, If the place cited were not inspired, but written in humane prudence; we must note it as Apocryphal. Then let us make an expurgatory index of the New Testament. For we must separate that which is precious from that which is vile. Things of humane wisdom will never stand mixed with things divinely inspired. So fare he. Enough indeed for an Epistle; but I could have wished that the most learned walking-librarie had more fully answered all the objections which do most forcibly arietate the truth; especially such as are couched in the same chapter, which is cited by Peter Moulin. If I come upon the stage after Roscius, I look not for praise, but pardon. Let us muster up all their forces together: and since that famous Bishop hath withstood the utmost of their strength in the first brunt; the rest will (like the French fury in war) be the easier answered.  
The first objection is, 1. Cor. 7.6. I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.  
The second objection is, vers. 10. Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord: as if he had said, A common man may speak, and both deceive, and be deceived; but I say these things being taught of God.  
The third objection is, vers. 12. To the rest speak I, not the Lord.  
The fourth objection, vers. 25. Concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgement, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.  
The fifth objection, vers. 40. She is happier, if she so abide, after my judgement: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.  
To the first I thus answer, The Apostle meaneth not, that he was permitted only to write or speak some things, and commanded to write other things: nor touched it any part of his thought, to permit a little sin, that a greater might be avoided, as some hence maintain; 
c Dum tribuit veniam, denotat culpam.  Whilst he forgiveth them, he granteth they were faulty, saith Augustine concerning these words, in lib. de peccat. Orig. cap. 38. Again, de bono Conjugali, cap. 10. 
d Quis ambigat, absurdissimè dici, non eos peccâsse, quibus venia datur?  It is most absurd to say, They sinned not whom pardon absolveth. Again, in Ench●r. cap. 78. 
c Quis esse peccatum neget, cùm dari veniam facientibus Apostoliea authoritas fateatur?  Who can deny there is a fault, where the Apostle confesseth that the doers thereof were forgiven? I answer, Erasmus saith, some Copies have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, secundum indulgentiam, as Augustine and others read: and then the sense is, I tell you my opinion, or This is my advice; I leave you to yourselves, I do not command it; God maketh not it a matter of precept, but thus I advise or counsel: and then it soundeth all one with that in the 25. verse, where the Apostle saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sontentiam do; and verse 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
f Liberum interim faciens hac in re suum cuique judicium.  Leaving every man to his own liberty in this point, saith Erasmus.  
Secondly, I wonder that that holy Father could think S. Paul would permit the least sin, 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 Arabic expounds it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, By my concession: 
g Non dico ut in decreto decisivo.  Nor speak I it as a sinal sentence or binding decision, as Beza hath it. The Arabic of Junius hath it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, With mutual 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● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Whereas I say, One may departed 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 Arabic 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 expressly, 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 company of each other for a time. 
i Nomen VENIAE perperam torquetur ab Augustino.  Augustine's PARDON is fare fetched and forced too much, saith Beza: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a candid interpretation upon good reason; and doth not always 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 equal, and qualifieth the rigour of the law, which otherwise is extreme injury.— Even in the same sort could I deal with one whom I saw to fast, or to study too much; that he might sometime refresh himself. Which I would not say imperiously, but by way of counsel grounded on equity. Neither doth it therefore follow, that to study hard, or to fast holily is a sin. So fare Peter Martyr; who might as well have insisted in S. Paul's advice to his scholar, 1. Tim. 5.23. Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake, and thine often infirmities. The Syriack in Junius hath it answerable to the Arabic; 
m Hoc dico ego, tanquam 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 dependence upon the temporary abstemiousnesse, upon just occasion touched at in the fifth verse?  
Concerning the second objection, vers. 10. Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord. I answer, First, that those forms of speech are not simply exclusive, much less contradictory; and denote not so much a simple negation as a kind of comparison sometime: I, yet not I And we have other places of Scripture to be ranked in the same parallel: John 7.16. My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. As therefore it was most true, that Christ's 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 truly Christ's doctrine; as conceived and preached by him who is God, the Fountain of truth, yea Truth itself. 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 scientifical 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 ordinary 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 man's work, that it is not also Gods, that is not good; since the Author of goodness is excluded.  
Secondly I answer, The place doth rather expressly say, that whatsoever S. Paul wrote or spoke as an Apostle, they were not his words or writings, but the words of God (for his commands were not his, but the Lords) than any way imply that he could write any thing as an Apostle, without the Spirit, or by the dictate of his own natural prudence only.  
Thirdly, 
o Praecipio non ego ex mea sententia, sed Dominus in Evangelio, etc.  I command not according to mine opinion, but the Lord in the Gospel doth, That a man may not departed 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 total or final departure of man and wife by bill of divorcement or separation: for of this Christ spoke expressly, 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 carry it clear 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 spoke and wrote something by humane wisdom, which the Lord bid him not. First, I answer with Peter Martyr, S. Paul saith thus, because before he had reference to Christ's speech in the Gospel, of not easily dissolving matrimony: 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 contrary side, we may as truly say even in this place, and to S. Paul's proper sense, with the words inverted, The Lord speaks, not I: Not I, of myself; 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 spoke not whilst Christ lived on earth; something that is not registered 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 dictum à ' Domino sicut illud superius.  I speak, not the Lord: Did not the Lord speak by him? Yes. But therefore he said that himself spoke 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 believing man should put away, or dwell from an unbelieving 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 sin. 
q Noluit Deus de virginitate & coelibatu praecipere, quia visus fuisset damnare nuptias  Christ would give no command concerning single life or virginity, 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 mercy of the Lord to be faithful: and a faithful steward will not distribute more or less than his Lord appointeth.  
The unjust steward made them write less than was due: the usurer makes them write more: the good and faithful man followeth his masters will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, foot by foot. So this place proveth not that the Apostle as an Apostle wrote or spoke by humane wisdom 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. Doctor Estius goeth further: 
r Satìs autem insinuat hic sermo, Praecipio non ego, sed Dominus, Apostolos & eorum successores posse quaedam 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 successors can command something which Christ himself by himself commanded not. Both of them run awry in one extreme. Doctor Fulk answereth to that place of the Rhemists; The Apostles had not particular precepts for every case; but they had general rules in Christ's doctrine, which they were bound to follow in their precepts and counsels. I think he approacheth too nigh unto them; unless 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 necessary: especially concerning the whole Church. And their general 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 Expositors 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 than he spoke; 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 myself; the Spirit of God speaketh in me: 
t Futo non dubietatem significat.  The word I THINK is not wrapped about with doubtfulness. Peter Martyr thinks it is an Irony against the false Apostles, who traduced S. Paul as unworthy to be an Apostle. And then the Irony hath as full force, as if he had peremptorily avouched, The Spirit of the Lord is in me, and by it I writ what I writ.  
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 only humane wisdom, but humane infirmity 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 myself know the contrary.  
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 levitical.  
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 wisdom 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 fit perhaps to be delivered face to face, and not concerning posterity.  
If I knew any more opposite arguments, I would endeavour their answer. The positive proofs I refer to the last point of all; it being the very main hinge of the controversy. Only consider this one thing, The Scripture hath a privilege 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 wisdom 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 liberty left them to put in their own conceits; or in writing to add or blot out what they had done: whereby all humane literature and wisdom is removed from sharing part in the holy Writ.  
The fourth conclusion followeth, concerning the manner of writing: viz. They had no liberty to cloth their inward apprehensions with words of their own. Either all the Penmen had the liberty, 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 liberty: (for the very words were dictated unto some of them) Ergò etc.  
Either every Penman did apparel his understanding with words of his own throughout all and every of his own writings, or it was practised in some places only. If so, then again I inquire what places they were; and why those had an especial privilege 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 general 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 lofty 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 express 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 capacity of man comprehend the depth of God? God forbade the linsey-wolsey; 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 mouths? And is the Law of Grace of less worth than the Law of Moses? God forbidden. But whosoever readeth the Prophet Amos, and the rest that are undervalved, shall find more in Amos, than Amos; more in him then in one among the herdsmen of Tekoa, Amos 1.1. and shall hear the piercing language of the Spirit in others: sometimes perhaps attempering itself to the party writing, and making both words and matter easy; but at other times it rapteth him above himself, and maketh him (as it were) to prink it in lofty and almost undiscernible towering; by infusing things, phrasing sentences, and dictating words above what was agreeable to the meanness of his former calling.  
That the holy Ghost can and hath suggested the very words very often, I think none will deny. That ever he permitted them a liberty 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. Else what can his meaning be, when he saith, S. John saw the Chaldee Paraphrase, and Hellenists, and had often reference to them; and that diverse things were taken from the Targummim? 
x Ad Targumistas semper respicit Evangelista.  The Evangelist always 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 fare as my remembrance now beareth) that the holy Spirit had guided S. John to those Authors 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 Authors; he derogateth (in mine opinion) from the majesty of the holy Writ; whilst he would seem to have aught of it taken from humane reading or wisdom, though of an Apostle; unless 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 sanctify 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 overspreadeth and over-ruleth the hand of his scholar, and writeth what copy 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 Authors; yet it doth not necessarily evince, that the holy Actuaries or Notaries did oversee, read, hear, or transcribe those things out of their knowledge from the said Authors: but both the names of those Authors, 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, Writ, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage-supper of the Lamb. 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, etc. was he commanded to write his conceits and thoughts apprehended in Syriack, and translate them into Hellenisticall Greek? or did the heavenly voice suggest only an holy inspiration into him, and left him to coin 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 pass to the fifth and last Conclusion, in which we must descent 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 groundwork is sandy, slippery, and false: And this I hope to evince by Scripture, Authority, and Reason. All which shall be squared to that Cornerstone, which more than once before I hewed upon more roughly, and now (by God's grace) intent 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 add or diminish; or to express by their own words their internal irradiation: but in the language which they conceived, they also wrote their heavenly dictates.  
2. Pet. 1.21. The Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke 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 only divine thoughts, but sacred words were also given them.  
1. Cor. 2.13. S. Paul spoke 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 only 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 only of God, and the words of Men; but the sayings of God.  
Exod. 34.27. Writ thou these words: for after the tenor 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. Writ 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 spoke 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 ministry 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 Timothy 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 only, 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 believe 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, showeth the manner. I read his own handwriting, etc. They are done by his hand; the very writing itself 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 Almighty, and setteth it down in writing: Shall the prayer be held as Divine as Scriptures? Then may Manasses his Apocryphal prayer, immediately before the books of Maccabees (as it is in our last translation) be no longer Apocryphal, 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 add what words they pleased. 
f Titutabit fides, si Scripturarum vacillat authoritas.  Our faith will stumble, if the authority of the Scripture be shaken never so little, saith Augustine, de doctr. Christian. 1.37. But the Scriptures authority shaketh, if God give only the matter, and men the words.  
Thirdly, the Prophets and Apostles wrote not always all their own things themselves; but sometimes used the ministry of diverse others. A Scribe and a Prophet were two distinct persons and offices, Jer. 36.26.  
Jeremy had Baruch: Jer. 36.4. Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the Lord: so than 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, etc. Which Jeremy 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 jewel or chain, nor hanging together in any settled 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 spoke all, though they were penned by several 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 salvations: 2. Thessal. 3.17, 18. The salvation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every Epistle: so I writ, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. So that we may sound 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 general 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, etc. 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 show that he wrote not for money, saith Cajetan. Questionless, Paul dictated, and Tertius wrote the Epistle, saith Estius. Even those words themselves are not Tertius his own, inserted as a private man's 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 mind 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 thought in language spiritual, 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 ipsum scripsisse Hebraicè, caeterùm Lucam argumentum Epistolae, quam memoriâ tenebat, suis explicuisse verbis, quantum valeat, viderint alii.  What some do affirm, THAT S. PAUL HIMSELF WRITTEN IN HEBREW, BUT S. LUKE DID EXPRESS IN HIS OWN WORDS THE ARGUMENT OF THE EPISTLE WHICH 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 Critic? Sure this drop might have fallen from your pen, That such manner of writing had savoured no more of the Spirit, than any ordinary writing where a skilful scribe doth amplify 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 fortieth 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 shows Fabers opinion to be, That some writers of Scripture had power to use such words as they pleased: and used some amiss, even such as he found fault withal. O novel criticism! Wilt thou set thyself no bounds till thou reachest up to heaven, and tramplest on the word of God? The holy amanuensis 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 Romans was larger than 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. Paul's own hand. For than his own writing had not been so great a testimony 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 salvation.  
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 seldom with their own hands, but did dictate and subscribe: which they prove by S. Peter, 1. Pet. 5.12. By Silvanus a faithful 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 Council at Jerusalem, 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 joined in Commission with others, to carry it.  
Concerning which Penmen this is my opinion, That even they were led by the holy Ghost, both to conceive what the Apostles spoke, and to write exactly what they dictated: so that they did not, they could not err 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, kiss them, and in Tertullians' phrase, I would adore the plenitude of them. They would prove an Antidote against many heresies, a correctory of more false opinions which have sprung up from the variation of Copies, and the uncertainty what reading is best.  
By this opinion, I am sure, one firm anchorhold is established; That humane wisdom and skill is excluded from having part in any parcel 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 weakness, to swim through this sea, to go through this wilderness, in paths untrodden: Lord, I beseech thee, by thine infinite mercies, be merciful to my soul; prepare me throughly for my departure; and in the hour of death and judgement, good Christ deliver me. Amen. Amen.   

CHAP. X.  
1. Real truth in the Greek and Latin texts of Act. 7.16. The place expounded thus, The Fathers were not Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; but the twelve sons 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. Four 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 sons of Hemor.  
Fourthly, that this Hemor was the father of Sychem, as our last Translation hath it very truly.  
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 son of Zohar, Gen. 23.8.  
Fourthly, that Hemor was the son 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 Patriarches indeed were Fathers, and so called: Abraham is our Father, say the Jews, Joh. 8.39. and, Art thou greater than 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 Patriarches were Patres majorum gentium, Fathers of the highest rank: if I may accommodate the Roman distinction unto the Jewish Governors. And whereas David is called, Act. 2.29. according both to the Greek and Latin, a Patriarch; there by the Arabic Translator 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 Patriarches are not to be understood: but the Patres minorum gentium, Fathers of a lower degree; only Joseph and the other sons 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 else? 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 aught behind might be occasioned to return into Egypt. And Isaac was never in Egypt; therefore could not die there. Jacob died, and his bones were removed to the same sepulchre where his father and grandfather lay; which was not in Sychem, but in Hebron: Therefore the word Fathers cannot be fitted in this place to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob; but to the twelve Patriarches (as S. Stephen calleth them) the sons of Jacob. For both Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah, were buried in the cave that is in the field of Machpelah by Hebron, Gen. 49.31. but Joseph his bones were buried in Sychem, Josh. 24.32. Lastly, the rest of the Fathers the brethren of Joseph were buried in Sychem, as well as Joseph: for S. Hierom proveth it by their sepulchers extant at Sychem, and visited, as their sepulchers, in his days; who is to be believed, and was an eyewitness, saith Beza: So that the first-seeming contradiction is salved up: Joseph and his brethren, the twelve Patriarches, were those Fathers which died after Jacob, and were translated into Sychem, and there buried: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not those Fathers: for only one of them died in Egypt, and all three were buried by Hebron, and needed not to be, nor were translated to Sychem.  
2. The semblance of the second opposite proposition, enforceth me to handle this point, Whether the brethren of Joseph, the twelve Patriarches, were buried in the sepulchre of Abraham at Hebron, which he bought, and where himself was buried. Josephus, Antiq. 2.8. saith, All the sons of Jacob were buried in Hebron, except Joseph, who was buried in Sychem. Yea the words of S. Stephen are very punctual, That the Fathers were laid in the sepulchre which Abraham bought. On the contrary, we proved before, that the sons of Jacob were buried in Sychem. Some do answer, Positi sunt in sepulchro, They were laid in the grave, is to be referred to Jacob only; and that the Scripture useth the plural number sometimes, when in exactness it belongeth to one only; positi for positus, more buried, for one buried. But this is forced, and the great difficulty remaineth, concerning the names of them that sold the ground.  
The maker of the School-historie, Carthusian, and Gagneius, say, The twelve Patriarches dying in Egypt, were buried in Sychem, and then translated to Hebron; and the monuments of their sepulchers might be in both places. And so all may be true, what S. Stephen, Josephus, and Hierom say. Of this translation of their bodies (which I approve not) more hereafter.  
3. The true way of answering even to this point, will be found in the atoning of the third different proposition. Abraham bought the sepulchre of the sons of Hemor, saith S. Stephen: Abraham bought the sepulchre of Ephron the son of Zohar, saith Moses, Gen. 23.8. etc. Some say the ground was twice bought, once by Abraham, once by Jacob: others say, the ground and the men had each of them several names, and that Ephron was called Hemor. Others say, with some likelihood, that the father of Ephron, of whom Abraham bought the ground and the cave, had two names; the one was Zohar, Genes. 23.8. the other Hemor, and so called by S. Stephen. Neither can I say aught against these expositions, save this, That I see nothing to prove them but conjecture.  
But others, who no way can digest that the twelve Patriarches were buried in Sychem, and thence translated to Hebron, but say that their bones, bodies, and sepulchers remained at Sychem, are driven to fly unto this strong hold, That Abraham bought not the sepulchre of the sons of Hemor, nor did S. Stephen mean so; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abraham, is taken patronymicé: for the father's name is often used for the child or children; as Israel, Edom, Moab, for their offspring. So Genes. 11.12. Arphaxad begat Salah: Where Arphaxad is set for his son: for Arphaxad begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Salah, Luk. 3.36. Likewise, 1. King. 12.16. What portion have we in David? (say the revolting Israelites) neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse; to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. By Israel he meaneth the people of Israel: or his descendants after many generations are called himself, by the name of Israel. By David and the son of Jesse, you must not understand the person of David himself, or Solomon his son, but Jesse his great grandchild, David his grandchild, the son of Solomon, Rehoboam; exactly parallelling our instance. Again, Abraham is said to be Levi his father, Heb. 7.10. but Jacob was Levi his immediate father: so even there Abraham in some sort supplieth the room of Jacob; and Abraham is taken for Jacob. Yea, I may boldly and truly proceed yet further, and say, that David is called the father of Ezekiah, Isa. 38.5. though there were twelve generations from David to him: and David is called the son of Abraham, Matth. 1.1. though there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, Matth. 1.17. If predecessors so many descents removed be called Fathers; the grandchild may be called by the grandfather's name. The sum is, Abraham is not here the proper name of the Father of the faithful; but it must be expounded of Jacob the grandchild of Abraham. For indeed Jacob the grandchild of Abraham, bought the ground of the sons of Hemor the father of Sychem, Josh. 24.32. To confirm this, that Abraham should be more handsomely taken for his son's son Jacob, I found it in a margin-note of Drusius, Praeteritor. lib. 5. thus, Abraham, that is, the son of Abraham: where he makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abraham to be the Genitive case, and filius to be understood. So Vatablus doth: and Martinus Cantapretensis is express, that Abraham is the Genitive case: and Gasparus Sanctius likes it, who saith, that among the Hebrews the parent's names are put in the Obliqne case; and in them their sons are understood: as Luke 3.24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna. This is a witty exposition, and most excellent, if any copy of the Greek had read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or any Latin copy had it filius Abraham: for filius Abraham might extend, not only to Isaac, but to Jacob himself, and lower; for, in Scripture phrase you shall find the woman healed by Christ, Luk. 13.16. called a daughter of Abraham: and Christ himself saith to the Jews, Joh. 8.56. Your father Abraham rejoiced. So much for the reconciling of the second and third Propositions; all being cleared by taking Abraham for a patronymick, for Jacob.  
4. The fourth difference is, That in the Latin translations it is read à filiis Hemor filii Sychem. But Hemor was the father of Sychem, Josh. 24.32. as is also proved Judg. 9.28. where Gaal the son of Ebed persuaded the Sychemites to serve those that descended from Hamor and Sychem, rather than Abimelech; as Vatablus collecteth. Peter Martyr saith, Gaals' argument runneth thus, Serve rather those who were ancient lords of this city; and if we served not them, shall we serve Abimelech? Where Gaal said, Who is Abimelech? and who is Sychem? The Septuagint have it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Who is the son of Sychem? But whether there were at this present in the reign of Abimelech one Sychem living, and in high account, descended from the ancient Sychem, who was pointed at in these words, Who is Sychem? or whether any of Sychem his posterity (otherwise named) are here called Shechem; or whether Gaal made this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, augmentation, Who is Abimelech? yea, Who was Shechem himself (for the word will bear it in the Original) that we should serve him? Which way soever it be, the place proveth, that Hamor was the father of Shechem: for so run the words afterwards in the same verse, Serve the men of Hamor the father of Shechem. Again, if the words may be thus translated, Quis est Abimelech, & quae est Shechem? as both the interlineary and Tremellius read it; the sense may be, Abimelech is not so great, and the city of Shechem is not so dejected, so forgetful of its old liberty, as to serve Abimelech. Our old Bishops Bibles read it, What is Abimelech, and what is Sychem?— Serve such as come of Hemor the father of Sychem: and in the margin is set, Genes. 34.24.  
Moreover, Junius in his Arabic translation on the Acts, chap. 7. observeth, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sychem, is neither in the Arabic, nor Syriack, nor some Greek copies: and Beda in his Commentaries cited by Lorinus saith, that for filii Sychem, it is read in some copies, qui fuit in Sychem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who was in, or of Sychem: accordingly Junius in his notes on the Syriack, Act. 7. saith thus, What is read in the Greek, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may fitly be expounded by an Hebraism; and the name of the Prince of that city may be understood; as if he had said, Which he bought of the sons of Hemor the Prince of Sychem. Beza indeed saith, It may be read with the Vulgat, the sons of Sychem; because the Greek Ellipsis useth to be so supplied: but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may as well be interpreted, Patris Sychem, The father of Sychem. You have the like instance, Luk. 24.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Marry the mother of James, as the Syriack there expresseth it. Another proof of the like kind, is Mark 15.40. So I expound it here, The sons of Hamor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the father of Sychem. Thus much for the fourth couplet of Propositions, and the knitting up of that seeming opposition in a real accordance, That Hemor or Hamor was the father of Sychem, as above all denial is proved from Josh. 24.32. though the Greek word used by S. Stephen be amphibolous. And now it is time to leave the several answers to each particular doubt, and to render the sense of the words together.  
5. One of these two ways is (in my opinion) necessary to be embraced:  
First, that the twelve Patriarches the sons of Jacob were carried out of Egypt into Sychem, and afterwards out of Sychem into the sepulchre of Abraham: And then behold these three difficulties: First, their father of whom Abraham bought the ground, must have two names. Secondly, it is hard and harsh to believe, that in the removal of the Patriarches bones the Israelites would carry them over to Sychem, and so pass by Hebron close to the Abrahemium, or the cave where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with their wives, were buried; and afterwards remove the bones back again from Sychem unto the sepulchre which Abraham bought, which is sixscore miles (if not more) if we measure from Hebron to Sychem, and so backward from Sychem to Hebron. Calvarie and the city of Jerusalem lay almost even in the way from Goshen to Sychem, and from Sychem back to Hebron: And on Calvarie or there about, certainly they would have deposed their bones, if they desired the translation of them to rise with Christ. Thirdly, this exposition implieth, since Joseph was one of the Fathers, that Joseph was also buried in the sepulchre of Abraham; which is disproved by Josh. 24.32. And yet, that we may make this Exposition passable and probable, let us consider the answers. The first difficulty is cleared by saying, It is an usual thing in the Scripture for the same man to have two names; as Solomon is called Jedidiah, 2. Sam. 12.25. and the like. To the second difficulty this answer may be shaped, That though we could see no reason, nor could imagine any end, why they should carry and recarry these bones; yet reasons and just motives might then lead them, which we now may be ignorant of. But I take it as evident, that the Israelites sooner and more quickly possessed the tribe of Ephraim, and the city of Sychem (and therefore there might they leave their bones for a time) than Hebron or Jerusalem. For Joshuah in his time called a Parliament or a Diet at Sychem, Josh. 24.1. and the Ephraimites peaceably enjoyed their inheritance in Joshuah his days, and the Canaanites served under tribute unto them, Josh. 16.10. But after Joshuah his death, they won Jerusalem and Hebron, Judg. 1.8, 10. and then they might recarry the bones of the Fathers to the Abrahemium by Hebron. The third knot is loosed, if we may say, that all the Fathers were carried into Abraham's cave, who had not a distinct buriall-place of their own, as Joseph had; who accordingly was not buried by Hebron, but by Sychem.  
6. The second way of expounding S. Stephen, according as the words lie in the Greek and Latin copies, is this; That the other Patriarches the sons of Jacob were buried by Sychem, as Joseph was; and their bones brought up with his, when the Israelites came out of Egypt, and laid in the sepulchre which Jacob the grandchild of Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Hemor the father of Sychem, as is expressly said, Josh. 24.32. Which latter way, for the accordance of words and names both in the Old and New Testament, I do most willingly embrace. For it representeth not unto us so many or so great difficulties; yea none at all, since it was not so strange that the word Abraham should be a patronymick, and used for Jacob; especially when Rehoboam is called David, and the son of Jesse; and Abraham is said to be the father of Levi, which Jacob was; and the Israelites are termed Joseph, Psal. 81.5. though most of them descended not from him; and they who ascended out of Egypt, issued from Joseph after diverse generations. In two of which places most punctually, as well as here, the grandfathers names are put for the grandchilds. Especially let this be throughly considered, that the grandchild himself is distinctly described in other places of the divine story, to have bought the same ground of the sons of Hemor, about Sychem, for an hundred pieces of money, Gen. 33.19. and the grandfather Abraham not to have bought that, but an other piece of ground, at an other time, in an other place, for 
* Genes. 23.16, etc.  four hundred shekels of silver of Ephron the Hittite, near Hebron, which was fare distant from Sychem. Which sale of Ephron, and purchase of Abraham, is ratified by the witness of truth, in the mouth of Jacob himself, and dying Jacob, Genes. 49.29, etc. 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 satisfy 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 poor weak labours in points obscure, may receive strength from thy strength, light from thy light; that thy most blessed, holy, and alwise Word may be a lantern and light, not only to my paths, but to my understanding: that so I may know thee, love thee, and always 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 Christ's 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. David's 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 Christ's Passion, besides Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? He hath already 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 needless If? The Scripture saith expressly, he died, Deut. 34.5. and he was an hundred and twenty years old when he died, vers. 7. and he was buried, vers. 6. If he died not, yet than first was he partaker of celestial blessedness, saith Pineda, after Christ was risen. But in Christ's life (say I) Moses and Elias appeared in glory, and spoke of his decease, Luk. 9.30, 31. They were not only glorified, but they did appear 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 glory, 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 confess with the divine S. Augustine, that if any did arise to the eternal glory both of their souls and bodies, David may be thought to be one (neither than will I exclude Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and other Patriarches under the law of Nature) but Augustine in the same 99 Epistle ad Euod. cited by Pineda, proveth by diverse reasons, that they who arose out of their graves, arose not then to an eternal happiness.  
3. Yea, but Sophronius in his Sermon of the most blessed Virgin's Assumption, evinceth (saith Pineda) that David did then arise; because S. Peter, speaking of the death of David, Act. 2.20. saith not, His body 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 SEPULCHRE is with us; as if he durst not say, Whose BODY is with us. Bishop Bilson in the place , is either for us, or dubious, in the rear or end; although he be peremptory and adverse to us in the front and beginning: for he holdeth, That it would somewhat impeach the power of Christ's 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 Christ's resurrection, unless the facto the raised Saints be now alive in their bodies, (which is his intent;) any indifferent reader will say he is amiss, and ought not to square the power of Christ's resurrection to his own fancy. Yea, but saith he, The whole fact will seem rather an apparition, than a true resurrection. I answer, If he take apparition for a fantastical vision, and mere 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 spoke before. One eternal: Such was Christ's; Christ dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over him, Rom. 6.9. and, He hath the keys 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 Christ's, at his coming, saith the Apostle, 1. Cor. 15.23. The very time is expressed. S. Paul wrote this after Christ's first coming; yea after his resurrection many years: and therefore you must needs interpret it of his second coming, as is most evident by the context: Therefore either those Saints are not Christ's, or they shall arise at his last coming; and therefore have not risen to an eternal resurrection. The other true resurrection is temporary: 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 than other: so if any of them had died within three or four days, yea within an hour or two after that their resurrection; yet had it not been an apparition only, but a true temporary resurrection. As, if a child 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 glory of the Creator.  
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 Bishop's words are too large to be transcribed; you may read them, pag. 217. and 218. I will only single out such passages, as show 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 David's body 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 testimony to Christ's 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 witness of Christ's resurrection; but only such were chosen, as were known to the persons then living in Jerusalem. So fare Bishop Bilson.  
Before I come to press 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 Christ's 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 Lamb; 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 Christ's resurrection? or will it not seem an apparition, rather than a true resurrection, as you before reasoned?) or they were placed in Paradise, or David was none of those who were raised to bear witness of Christ's resurrection. You see now his resolution is come down; but S. Augustine's argument is sound, that David was not excluded from that privilege, which other ancient Fathers and Patriarches 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 David's body 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 bliss, is out of doubt: that they were in some mansion of heaven, is probable: that they were comforted and made happier by Christ's exaltation, may be believed: But that either the souls of the Patriarches, 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 Lamb wheresoever he now is, but are in a paradise out of heaven; seems strange divinity, somewhat touching on the error 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 eternal 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 eternal life: so that if David arose not, none may be thought of them so to arise, as to ascend in their immortal bodies to heaven; since he had greater gifts or privileges 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 only, 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 body, 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 body was not incinerated, neither was his flesh corrupted, as david's 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 David's confession.  
Note first the force of the Antithesis. Secondly, observe that S. Peter spoke this after Christ's ascension into heaven; whereas if any arose to incorruptible glory, they arose or ascended with Christ; and so, by just consequent, before this time when S. Peter spoke 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 body or soul. They dare not say, He ascended not in soul: and therefore we may boldly say, He ascended not in body; unless they will show us some third nature in David that might ascend, which thwarteth both Philosophy and Divinity.  
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 questionless respect the sepulchre, as containing the body, 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 merciful Saviour, the son of David, the Lord of David; who haste supereminently the Key of David; and openest and no man shutteth, and shutest and no man openeth: when in all contritest humility I cast myself down to the gates of hell, I beg, and call, and cry unto thee, that thou wouldst shut them; And open unto me (I beseech thee) the gates of heaven, and lift up for me those everlasting doors, that I may come in to thee the King of glory, and sit at the feet of thy servants in those celestial mansions. Grant this, O most Blessed Jesus, for thine own sweet name sake, and for the merit of thy death and passion. Amen.   

CHAP. XII.  
1. Pineda doubteth whether Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, were raised at Christ's Passion; because there now are said to be some relics of them; some at Rome, and some at Venice, saith Lorinus.  
2. Other relics. The table at which Christ ate with his Apostles. Some hairs, said to be the hairs of our glorious Saviour: others, of his all-gracious mother. A bone of Philip's. A sandal of S. Peter's.  
3. S. Peter's chain miraculous, as they report.  
4. Mr. Montague, now the reverend Bishop of Chichester, defended.  
5. S. Paul's chain also miraculous, from Gregory and Bellarmine.  
6. False relics taxed by Erasmus and Calvin. John the Baptist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, supposed to have three heads at the least. Three or four prepuces of Christ.  
7. Relics before Christ's time. The ark. The holy oil. The rod of Moses and Aaron. The throne of Eternity fancied by the Jews. The horns of Moses. One finger of the holy Ghost. The Papists faults in forging of false relics.  
8. All Relics are not false. What respects are to be denied to true Relics:  
9 What are to be given.  
10. No likelihood of the raising up of Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, about Christ's passion.  
THe same Pineda is a little more reserved in the persons following; for he only addeth this, I would say that Ananias, Azarias, and Misael did now arise also; but that their relics are said to remain this day amongst men. Part at Rome, part at Venice, saith Lorinus on Act. 2.29. I marvel that neither Christ, nor any of his Apostles ever went to visit them; that none of the primitive Church went ever on pilgrimage to them; and that none of the ancient Fathers ever mentioned them. And certes, I did think, till of late, that the Papists had no relics beyond the days of the Apostles, or the birth of Christ. From that time they say (whatsoever they think) that they have store of them. That I may not reckon among them, the very same table whereat Christ sat with his blessed Apostles; which was at Toledo, saith Joannes Leo, in his first book of the history of Africa; which Table being covered with pure gold, and adorned with great store of precious stones, was esteemed to be worth half a million of ducats; and was at the sack of Toledo transported into Africa. They expose sometimes to show, three hairs of the beard of Christ, saith Mr. Morison. pag. 38. And, part of the hairs of the most glorious mother of our Lord, and a bone of Philip the Apostle, to be seen at Venice, saith the same author. Pererius himself, Disput. 45. in primum cap. Joannis Evang. saith, They show the sandal of S. Peter in the Church of Oniedo in Spain. And Baronius saith, They have the chain with which S. Peter was tied at Jerusalem, when the Angel delivered him. Of which they have, even to a wonder, strange and different relations.  
3. For that chain being sent by Eudocia to her daughter Eudoxia to Rome (for the other chain and S. Peter's sword were kept still at Constantinople) by divine miracle was conjoined to that other chain, wherewith S. Peter was bound in Rome under Nero, whilst he was in prison. Here Baronius himself, ad annum Christi 439 num. 7. 
a Habent tabulae Ecclesiasticae, ambas has catenas simul collatas, ejusdem generis & artis inventas, sibi invicem miraculo copulatas, junctásque, ac simul unitas, ex duabus unam effectam esse.  Ecclesiastical records have it, that these two chains being compared together, are found to be of the same kind, art, or fashion: and by miracle were coupled one to the other: and being joined or united together, of two chains were made one. In memory of which chain, the kalends of August were made an holiday by the Bishop of Rome, and a Church dedicated to God, according to the name, Sancti Petri ad vincula.  
4. Let me a little digress in defence of my ancient friend and chamber-fellow Mr. Montague, now the reverend Bishop of Chichester: who is not rigidly to be expounded, as he is by the furious Papists and Puritans: for though in his answer to the Gag, pag. 235. he saith, Baronius observeth S. Peter's chain was not found till Augustine was dead: yet that learned Antiquary could not be ignorant, that Baronius proveth, and proveth probably enough, the manner how it was kept by some of Herod's ministers, and so downward. But he meaneth, as I expound him candidly, It was not found in the Church as a public relic. For it was not brought unto Constantinople, till Chrysostom was dead, saith Baronius, num. 5. And in the days of Proclus there was a translation of those two chains of S. Peter from Jerusalem, or where they were kept, unto Constantinople; and shortly after, one of them was sent to Rome, as I said at first. And yet (that you may see great Papists agreeing like harp and harrow) observe that Petrus Thyraeus a learned Jesuit, de locis infestis, part. 3. cap. 67. citeth a Sermon of S. Chrysostoms', the Adoratione catenarum S. Petri.  
5. I return from my digression, and will make Bellarmine also shake his chains. Bellarmine, de reliq. Sanct. 2.3. tells out of S. Gregory a strange story of S. Paul's chains. Gregory promised to send unto Constantia the Empress some of the filings of the chains of S. Paul, if at least any part could be filled away: For the chains had this condition, that if a worthy party desired them, part of them would presently be filled away; if the party desiring were unworthy, though one took great pains with all his strength to file, yet he could file away nothing. A tough smith with a good file, would (in some men's judgement) confute this miracle.  
6. Other Papists in other places do show the prepuce of Christ, which, being a doubtful thing, they worship more than whole Christ, saith Erasmus. If one should question, How is Christ risen? circumcised, or uncircumcised? perchance it would puzzle them.  
But why say I so? when Tolet on Luk. 2. gathereth from Titus Bostrenus on the same place, Antiquam concertationem extitisse de praeputio Christi, That there was an old controversy concerning the prepuce of Christ. But I answer, That the Commentary on Luke ascribed to Titus, is spurious and of latter times, as Bellarmine, de Scriptor. Ecclesiast. pag. 130. ad annum Christi 365. proveth. Yea, even Chrysostom himself, and Cyrillus Alexandrinus, and Feleusiota (whom the supposed Titus doth often cite) were but children when the true Titus Bostrenus died, saith Bellarmine. Thirdly, both Titus and Theophylact say, That Christ resumed the circumcised part at his resurrection. If they had but one author of that antiquity, that Christ left it on earth as a relic of his; how would they triumph? After this, Innocentius the third, somewhat above 400 years since, enquiring whether Christ did arise with his foreskin, saith, Some believe it to be kept at S. John's of Lateran's: others say, Charles the great translated it to Aquisgrane; and afterwards it was left at Carosium; and determineth nothing but this, 
b Melius est, totum Deo committere, quàm aliquid temerè definire.  It is better to refer all unto God, then rashly to determine any thing. Yet in the sixth book of the revelation of S. Bridget, cap. 112. it is said, That the glorious mother of our Lord, kept it about her wheresoever she went.  
I yet do question, (if it were so) Who kept it till Brigets days? and, Which is the true prepuce? that at Rome? or that which Charles the great received from an Angel, and left in Germany, not at Rome? But these books of revelations may want credit with us; when the learned Francis Collius, de sanguine Christi, lib. 5. disput. 8. cap. 5. saith thus of a revelation in the very chapter, 
c Etsi ea sit maximi ponderis, tamen non tanti, támque efficacis censenda est, ut ab ea discedere impium & irreligiosum fuerit.  Though it be of most especial moment, yet it is not to be so thought of, as that it is impious or irreligious to differ from it. If it be maximi ponderis, of chiefest account, and of greatest weight, it is impious and irreligious to departed from it. But since he departs from one Legend, we may from the other.  
After this the prepuce of Christ was stolen, buried, lost, found, torn in two pieces; and is now in high esteem, if Cardinal Tolet on Luk. 2. may be believed. The sum of his narration is this, That 1527, when Rome was sacked by the soldiers of the Duke of Bourbon; one of them stole away, among other relics, the prepuce of Christ, and buried it in a cellar; and, as he was dying, revealed what he had done. Pope Clement the seventh caused it to be searched for; yet it was not found. Thirty years after a Priest finds it, carrieth it to the landlady of the place: she thrice trieth to untie the things wherewith it was covered; and thrice by a miracle is inhibited. Clarix a young virgin her daughter untieth all; and puts the prepuce first in a silver basin, then in a silver casket: Thus it is placed in the Church of Calcata; then removed into the Chancel. Miracles are wrought. The Pope sends Commissioners to search the truth. One of the Priests, ere he was ware, tore the prepuce in two pieces; (Is it still eadem numero membrana, the same numerical skin, O learned Collius?) the Commissioners certify it was the true relic of Christ; and it is kept at this day at Calcata, in the temple of S. Cornelius, and Cyrian, where God daily works miracles.  
In the year 1584., at a woman's request, Sixtus quintus granted plenary indulgence for ten years, in the same Church of Calcata upon the day of our Lord's Circumcision. Thus fare Tolet.  
You may observe, that from 1527 (when it was stolen by the soldier) to 1584., or perhaps, so long as the indulgences lasted, the prepuce of Christ was not in S. John of Lateran's: and so, besides the prepuce at Caresium, there are two other foreskinnes of Christ on the earth; One at Calcata, 20 miles from Rome, kept to this day, saith Tolet, commenting on Luke: And the book was printed 1611. Of the other, Collius the Milanese, de sanguine Christi, lib. 5. disput. 7. cap. 2. saith, It is now kept at S. John of Lateran's, in that place of the Church which is called THE HOLY OF HOLIES, as Innocent the third and the Cardinal S. Petri ad vincula, and Carthagena, and all and every of the writers of this age who have handled this point do say. Collius might have excepted Tolet, whose preceding narrative checketh him. The same Collius, ibid. thinks it very credible, 
d Salvatoris pr●putium non resurrexisse idem numero quod in circumcisione ceciderat; sed divinâ virtute aliud suisse comproductum.  That Christ rose not with that self same foreskin which was cut off at his circumcision, but by a divine virtue another new one was comproduced, Christ being in heaven uncircumcised: but yet he upholdeth the gainful vanity of Impostors, who deserve to be branded; yea, to be burnt to ashes, for feigning two or three foreskinnes on earth of our Saviour.  
I cannot forget their vaunts, That they have intimam vestem, the smock, or at least the petticoat of the most graceful Virgin, and her milk, honoured almost as Christ his consecrated body: The breeches of Joseph: The comb of S. Anne (and her very head, saith Sleidan, Comment. 15. fol. 170.) And so many pieces of the cross, as would almost lad a ship of burden, saith Erasmus on Matth. 23.5. Calvin, de inventor. reliquiarum, proveth some of the Romish Saints to have three heads; some three bodies shown in several places. The Rhemists on Matth. 14. annot. 2. say, Honour is now done to the Baptists head at Amiens in France: Fulk addeth, The same part that is at Amiens, is at S. Angely; the rest of his head, from his forehead to his neck, is at Malta; yet the hinder part of his skull is at Nemours; his brain at Novium Rastroviense; another part of his head is at Jean-Morien; his jawbone at Vesalium, at the Church of S. John the greater; another part at Paris; a piece of his ear at S. Floride; his forehead and hairs in Spain at S. Salvadores; another piece of his head at Naion; another at Luke in Italy: and yet for all these pieces, his whole head is at S. Sylvesters Abbey at Rome, to be seen and worshipped. Half of S. Peter's body is at S. Peter's at Rome; half at S. Paul's: yet he hath an head at S. John Lateran's; and his nether-jaw with the beard upon it, is in France at poitiers; at Triers are many of his bones, at Geneva was part of his brain, saith Fulk in Rom. 16. annot. 1. See Sleidan Comment. 15. pag. 169. summing up a book of Calvins' to the same purpose.  
I could make you laugh in disdain at what a chief printer at Paris hath written in his preface to the defence of Herodotus, touching these horrible impostures, and the sudden quick-cousening wits of the Friars: as how a strange feather was promised to be shown for a holy relic, as being one of an Archangel's feathers: and when a cunning hand had stolen it away, and placed a coal in the room of it; the nimble juggling Friar persuaded his besotted auditory, that they were unworthy to see so great a relic as an Archangel's feather; but God had sent, in stead of it, one of the very coals with which S. Laurence was broiled to death; and thereupon shown them the coal which was foisted in.  
7. He that would rake this sink, might have his nose full. I must ascend somewhat higher, and whereas I imagined no relics were found beyond Christ, now Salianus, annal. tom. 6. pag. 34. saith from report, that the heads of the seven brethren martyrs, 2. Macc. 7.1. etc. are in a Nunnery at Cullein, in a Church of the Maccabees so called 400 years since. And Pineda tells us, that the relics of Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, are reported to remain: and not those only; for Lorinus on Act. 7.44. saith, The Scholastical history reporteth, that the Ark was carried in triumph at Rome; and is kept in the Church of Lateran. Lorinus indeed disliketh that opinion: but it may pass as well as this, That unto Lewis the eleventh were brought the holy oil, and the rod of Moses and Aaron; as the French history hath it at the end of his life. How miss they a piece of Noah's Ark? (for I take it, that the Scholastical history speaketh of the Arca Testamenti) and the fruit of some of the trees of Paradise? A parcel of the Tohu-Bohu had been an excellent relic; as the primitive and ancientest remainder of the unformed lump and mass of the first immediate creation. For a piece of that Nothing out of which the Tohu-Bohu was made, cannot be had, since Nothing hath no parts.  
If the Papists did think with the Jews, that Solium Aeternitatis, The Throne of Eternity, was one of those things, which was made before the grand creation (as Mr. Calvin relateth concerning the Jews, on Micah 5.2.) some of the Papists perhaps would outstrip the Jews, and say, that they had a relic even of that Throne.  
In no foolery have the Papists prejudiced themselves, more than in this; yea, they are not only come to that degree of infatuation, as to feign that they can show the horns of Moses (which were merely non entia, none at all; growing only in the imagination of the deceivers, and deceived) but they are carried even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to that height of madness, that they say, they have had (horresco referens, I quake to write it) one of the fingers of the holy Ghost; which was a most blasphemous imposture, I had almost said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, above and beyond pardon. See Mr. Sheldon in his book concerning the miracles of Antichrist, pag. 335. Sleidan, Comment. 4. fol. 37. ad annum Dom. 1624. saith, That among other things it was decreed in an assembly of the Helvetians at Lucerna, thus; 
e Qui sancti Spiritûs, Mariae virgins, divi Antonii circumferunt reliquias, à nemine rideantur.  Let not them be laughed at, who carry about the relics of the holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary, of S. Antony. And yet the same Sleidan, Comment. 12. fol. 129. makes it to be a part of the very pretended reformation, to be made even by the Papists themselves, That they who carry about the relics of S. Antony, are to be put down; because they lead the people into superstition, and cousin them. Their own learned Valla and Vives reproved this mercenary juggling; and long before them, Glaber Rodulphus Cluniacensis Monachus, in Historia sui temporis, lib. 4. cap. 3. tells strange stories of Leger de la main about relics, and of their working of miracles, which he ascribeth to devils, or humane errors. Likewise, the moderate ingenuous, unsiding, learned George Cassander, Consult. art. 21. hath branded them, and giveth some advice concerning them, especially against the false relics.  
8. I speak not unreverently of any true relic; and I think many both Oriental and Occidental relics were and are true; and fully believe, that diverse holy relics were in this last age torn down, and buried in ruins, by those sacrilegious hot-brains in the giddy whirl; or by those Turkish acquists, which in a whirlwind regarded more the benefit of sinful men, than the good of souls, or glory of God in the beauty of his Churches.  
If I could see one undoubted ancient relic of the best sort, (for they do much differ) I would reverence, though not worship it. 
f Venerandi sunt martyrs, non adorandi ut Deus.  The martyrs are to be very highly esteemed, yet not to be adored as God, saith Ludovicus Vives on Augustine de Civit. Dei, 8.27. and establisheth it out of Hierom. The same say I of relics: and thus expound myself in particulars; First, negatively; Secondly, positively. I would not kneel unto any relic, much less pray unto it; nor say (as the Papists do) to the Sudarium Christi, 
g Sanctum sudarium ora pro nobis, & libera nos à peste.  Holy napkin pray for us, and free us from the plague. Or to the linen handkerchief of Veronica, 
h Salve sancta facies, impressa panni●ulo; nos ab omni macula purga vitiorum.  All hail holy face, printed or stamped on this handkerchief; cleanse us from all the blots of our sins. Nor to any part of the cross, or to all of it, if I saw it entire, would I cry, 
i O crux, ave; salva nos.  God speed, O cross; do thou save us. Yet such idolatry Scharpius imputeth to the Papists. I would not light lights before the bones or ashes of a martyr; which Hierom condemneth as the dotage of superstitious women, who have zeal, but not knowledge. I would not erect altars, temples, or appoint holy days, or form a prayer to worship them; but to God for them. All these are derogatory to the honour of the Almighty.  
If I were sure to have help if I prayed unto a relic, I would not pray, and would refuse that help. I would not dig up the body, or any part of the body of the greatest Saint buried; unless it were buried in unseemly and unfit places: then would I not worship it, but translate it to a decent sepulchre. The bodies of the Patriarches, Jacob and Joseph, were not taken up to be kept as relics, but to be translated to their several sepulchers: and David caused the bones of his dearest Jonathan, when they had been carried from Gilboah to the street of Beth-shan, from Beth-shan to Jabesh-Gilead, to be buried in Zelah of Benjamin, in the sepulchre of Kish, 2. Sam. 21.12, etc. He kept them not for relics, nor worshipped them.  
I would not give so much reverence to any relic, as I would to the Saint himself, if I were divinely ascertained that the Saints soul presented itself in a shape unto me: and yet I would not fall down to worship that Saint; and should I to his relic? I would not religiosè venerari, religiously worship, (as Petrus Thyraeus, de locis infested. part. 1. cap. 67. Thesi 4. confesseth the Papists do:) But what saith sober S. Augustine on Psal. 98.5. 
k Anceps factus sum: timeo adorare terram, nè damnet me qui fecit coelum & terram: fluctuans converto me ad Christum, quia ipsum quaero hîc, & invenio, quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra.  I am in a doubt: I am afraid to adore earth, lest he damn me, who made both heaven and earth. In this hesitancy or pendulousnesse I turn myself to Christ: and here I seek and find, how without impiety earth may be worshipped: As if no earthly thing should be adored, but his body only.  
I would not say or think, that any relic or relics have in themselves, or from themselves power to expel devils, or to work wonders: for a spiritual power (as Thyraeus well observeth, though it wound himself) is not within a thing corporeal: and a bodily power cannot drive away devils; or, work miracles, say I. The great works of healing, etc. which have been done at the tombs of Martyrs, (read S. Augustine de civitat. Dei, 22.8.) might in those days, extraordinarily, be done by the Martyrs; or by the Angels 
l Suscipientes personam Martyrum.  in assumed bodies like to the Martyrs, as Augustine phraseth it, in lib. de cura pro mortuis gerenda, cap. 16.  
The relics have no virtue in themselves, to effectuate or actuate such miracles: yea, the very Angels or Martyrs themselves, were but the agents, instruments, and the right hand of the Almighty, who only worketh great wonders by his power independent.  
I would put no trust, no confidence in the relic of any Saint or Martyr whosoever, or whatsoever, for help either of soul or body: For this also is a wrong offered unto him in whose name our help standeth: Our help cometh from the Lord, which made heaven and earth, Psal. 121.2. And my God shall supply all our need, according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus, Philip. 4.19.  
9 What would I then do? or how would I behave myself toward a true, unquestioned, choice relic? I would (which is the positive part by me promised) with Chrysostom, Hom. 5. in Job, tom. 1. honourably esteem of it, kiss it, and reverently both touch it, and behold it, and think of it; and charily lay it up: I would show it to others not mercenarily, but with joyful and comfortable remembrance of him whose relic it was: I would esteem of it above silver, gold, or precious stones: I would make it my remembrancer of things past; as a motive stirring me up to the imitation of that Saints virtues and actions, which is their best relic: I would use it as a bridle to curb evil in me, and as a spur to goodness. If any instrument of Satan should debase it, and say that it is vilissimus pulvis; I would scorn his scorn, and esteem it as a most especial instrument of the most High; and would say to the caviller, or rather to his master Lucifer the Father of lies and detraction, 
m Saepe hoc vilissimo tortus es pulvere.  Even this which thou callest most vile dust, hath often tormented thee, as S. Hierom said of old. Lastly, till of itself it decayed, and by its imperfection or rottenness called for interment, I would not bury it: but commend it to be kept even in Churches and other holy places; except idolatry were committed with it, or people in their profane religion adored it: And then would I also bury it.  
10. Much more might be said, but I must take manum de tabula, or make a quick end; and, returning to Pineda, say, That if Ananias, Azarias, and Misael have no relic now remaining, which Lorinus reports from report; if they did arise, or intent to arise with Christ; they having a fare longer journey from the place of their captivity to the sepulchre of Christ, than Jacob had to the land of Goshen, would or should have had as great a care as Jacob, of translating their bones, if Jacob translated his in hope to arise with Christ, as Pineda intimateth.  
O Gracious God, who art to be loved by me for thine own self only, Grant, I beseech thee, that no worldly thought may nestle and breed in me, nor that I may fasten any respect on any creature, which may be derogatory to the devotion due to thee my Creator, for Jesus Christ his sake, in whom only thou art well pleased. Amen.   

CHAP. XIII.  
1. Pineda saith, Ionas arose then, and Noah. His reasons very shallow.  
2. Daniel arose, saith Pineda from Nicetas. If Daniel arose, he arose but with one leg: the other leg is yet showed at Vercellis.  
3. Job arose now, saith Pineda. His proof lame. Jobs Epitaph poetical. His sepulchral pyramid made of imagination.  
4. Job shall arise at the general judgement. Pineda wrincheth the Scripture.  
5. The end of Jobs book, according to some Greek copies: a double exposition of the words.  
6. Jobs body supposed to be translated to Constantinople.  
7. Bartholomaeus Sibylla saith, S. Hierom is express, that the holy mother of our Lord, and John the Evangelist, are bodily ascended. The like cited from Aquinas. And Holcot saith, That the glorious virgin's body was not to be incinerated. Her supposed day of Assumption, most honoured among the Papists: and yet there is monstrous disagreeing among them who favour her Assumption. The last instances concern not our question.  
8. Pineda presumed too fare upon uncertainties. Lorinus dareth not name any particularly that were raised. It cannot be known certainly.  
NOw also arose Jonah, saith Pineda. That Ionas was a lively type of Christ's resurrection, appeareth Matth. 27.40. But if every lively type of Christ arose, than Samson, Samuel, Joshuah, Gedeon, Melchizedech, Aaron, Solomon, than hundreds of others arose, whom Pineda mentioneth not. 
a Tandem resurrexit Noah.  At last Noah arose, saith Pineda. Why AT LAST? since he was living before other, and great in God's favour: who was saved and delivered from the common destruction of all mortal men. This last reason as well holdeth, That every one that was in the Ark arose also: For they were delivered, as well as Noah, from the inundation of waters; and especially Sem, who was an holy man, and was great in God's favour.  
2. And Daniel arose, who was brought out of the lion's den, saith Pineda; and he proves it by Nicetas. But neither he; nor Nicetas proves it by any reason. He might as well argue, that Jeremy arose with Christ: Because he being cast into the dungeon where he sunk in the mire, was afterwards drawn out of the dungeon, Jerem. 38.6. and 13. And if Daniel arose, he arose but with one leg: for 
b Crus Danielis asservatur Vercellis, etc.  A leg of Daniel is kept at Vercellis, a city of Liguria, saith Lorinus on Act. 2.29. Daniel died in Babylon, saith Sixtus Senensis concerning him. Of relics he makes no mention, nor of his rising again with Christ: but allegeth the last of Daniel, the last verse: Which words may prove that he arose not with Christ; or, if he did, that he died again. For the Spirit saith to him, Go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest and stand in the lot at the end of the days, IN FINE DIERUM. Which words are applied by Vatablus, to the resurrection of the last judgement; which was mentioned, Dan. 12.2. And lest any should interpret the rising out of the dust, vers. 2. (as Porphyry did) for their creeping out of the holes and caverns, in the time of the Maccabees, Lyra expressly contradicteth it, and saith, it is to be understood 
c De resurrectione vera in fine mundi.  of the true resurrection in the end of the world; implying, that Daniel shall then arise, as he arose not, saith Lyra, at the time of the Maccabees, nor at the opening of the graves, before Christ's resurrection.  

d Ergò & resurrexit Job sanctissimus.  Therefore most holy Job arose also, saith Pineda, equalling Noah, Daniel, and Job, in this privilege. But the consequence is lame; for Ezechiel doth not mention the equal privileges of these three, in their resurrection, (though perhaps this latter is figured out) but only the delivery from famine, or death by famine, (Ezech. 14.13, etc.) of Noah, Daniel, and Job; or rather of other holy men also, designed out by their names, and like them in their several virtues: Noah overcoming the world, Daniel the flesh, and Job the devil.  
Concerning Pineda his other proof, That Gregory Nissen, in his third Oration of the resurrection, saith, That the day of their resurrection who arose out of the graves, was much more joyful to them, than the day of the general resurrection: If I should grant, that he said so, and that he said so truly: yet it followeth not necessarily (scarce probably) that they went with their bodies into heaven. The day of the general resurrection is not yet come, and could not be rejoiced at but in hope.  
More especially concerning Job, though Salianus, ad ann. mundi 1544. num. 783. makes Jobs tombstone speak thus, 
e Clausit, viator, hoc marmor aliquando mortuum, emis itque gloriosum eum Principe Messia resurgentem Jobum  This stone, O wayfaring man, kept under it dead Job, and sent forth also Job in glory arising from the dead with Messiah our Prince: though Pineda, his fellow-Jesuite, in the end of his Commentaries on Job, saith, That Jobs sepulchral pyramid, and kingly monument, was made for him by his seven sons and three daughters, and was framed and erected 
f Ad pietatis memoriam sempiternä, spémque resurrectionis cum Redemptore certissimain.  for an eternal memorial of piety, and most certain hope of his resurrection with our Redeemer: yet none is ignorant that these are tricks of wit, panegyrics Eulogies, poetical Epitaphs, even a little thwarting one another, rather than divine truths, or historical relations.  
4. And further it is evident that Job spoke of the general resurrection, when he said, Job 19.25. etc. I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God. By which latter, or last day, we may fitly expound, not the last day of judgement, saith Pineda; but the state of the Evangelicall Law, and of Christ's suffering and rising; ending (by his death and resurrection) the former times, and beginning to appoint a new: for he is THE FATHER OF THE WORLD TO COME, Isa. 9.6. Did ever man thus delude Scripture, and make it a nose of wax? It is scarcely worse used by our unlearned lay-Rabbies, the Doctors of Doctors. Who ever dreamt, that Dies novissimus should signify so unlikely a matter? and if it did, how vain is his proof? The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pater aeternitatis, The father of eternity, as the interlineary Bible reads it, and Vatablus with it, expounding the words, 
g author vitae aeternae  The author of eternal life, (which hath no reference to Pineda's wild Comment) or, the everlasting Father, as we translate it.  
5. The seventy indeed, and the Book of Job thus, Job died, being old, and full of days: so fare also goeth the Hebrew: and it is added in the Greek, But it is written, that he shall again be raised up with those whom the Lord shall raise. These words are not in the Original, nor in Aquila, nor in Symmachus, nor in the seventy used by Vatablus: but Theodotion so reads it, and the Vatican Edition of Sixtus so acknowledgeth it, and Origen in his epistle to Africanus confirmeth it, and Clemens Romanus, cap. 5. lib. 6. approveth it. Two ways there are of expounding the word Rursus, Again. Francis Turrian the Jesuit, on the place of Clement, collecteth that Job shall not only be raised up in the last day, at the general resurrection: but that he should be first raised when Christ arose; and afterward, at the last day. Nicetas saith better, The word AGAIN, was therefore put that his first resurrection might be understood to have been, when he was delivered from his troubles. Which way soever you follow, we have it, That Job shall be raised at the last day of the world: And therefore he arose not with Christ: or died again, and so went not into the eternal happiness of body and soul; for glorified bodies shall not be raised.  
6. Lastly, there is an opinion even to this day, among the Turks, grounded no doubt on some old Tradition. That Jobs body was removed from the place of his burial, to that city and place which is now called Constantinople, as Mr. Fines Morison in the first part of his Itinerary, pag. 243. witnesseth. These are all that ever I read of by name, that are thought by Pineda, or others, both to rise with Christ, and to partake with him at that time of the eternal happiness both in soul and body.  
7. Bartholomaeus Sibylla, Peregrinarum quaestionum decade 1. cap. 3. quaest. 7. dubio 3. citeth Henricus de Assia as Author, that, Perhaps, not only Enoch and Elias are kept in Paradise, to preach against Antichrist; but both John the Evangelist, and those that rose with Christ. Observe, saith Sibylla, the word PERHAPS: for S. Hierom saith formerly, concerning S. John, WE DOUBT BUT BOTH S. JOHN THE EVANGELIST, AND THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARIE, DO REJOICE IN THEIR GLORIFIED FLESH WITH CHRIST. And Aquin. in 4. sentent. distinct. 43. artic. 3. cited by Sibylla, saith, It is a point of faith holily to be believed concerning the blessed Virgin Marie, and S. John the Evangelist, that their resurrection is not deferred to the end of the world.  
Also Holcot saith, on Wisdom, cap. 2.2. 
h Corpus benedictae Virginis non fuit resolvendum in cineres, quia in ca foams extiuctus extitit.  The body of the blessed Virgin was not to be turned into ashes, because in her was no fountain of ill: from whence her asportation into heaven may seem to be confirmed. The feast-day of her assumption is greater and more festival than any other holiday for her, saith Durandus, Rational. 7.24. Surely, I must needs say, we read nothing certain concerning her death; nor is her body or her tombstone found on earth; nor did S. John the Evangelist, who outlived her and the rest of the Apostles, by all men's consents, writ any thing of her death, much less of her assumption; though as Christ committed her to him, so he took her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to his own home, & was a son unto her, Joh. 19.26, 27.  
Amongst those who assent to her assumption, 
i Monstrosa quaedam discrepantia reperitur.  there is monstrous diversity, saith Baronius, Anno Christi 48. num. 4. Which words I wonder he would let drop from his pen, or that others of their side would suffer to be printed. Of the former instances I say the less, because if all which was supposed were granted, and if they had this privilege to prevent others in their bodily glory; yet it was long after Christ's ascension; whereas my principal question was of those many that arose about Christ's Passion, Who in particular they were?  
8. The sum is, Pineda hath taken great pains to little purpose; hath presumed to name those whom the Scripture or any sound tradition hath left unnamed: his proofs have been so slender, as his conjectures have been bold. He convinceth not exactly, that any one of those whom he specializeth were raised; much less to eternal happiness: and I have demonstrated that some of those whom he nameth did not then arise to a glorious immortality. In the particular instancing in those who arose about Christ's death, his fellow-Jesuite dares not follow him; 
k Non ausim de ullo particulatim definire.  I dare not say peremptorily that any such an one was raised, saith Lorinus most modestly, on Act. 7.29. Yet still it must be confessed, that many bodies which slept arose, etc. though the book be clasped, the secret reserved, and no absolute knowledge can inform us who they were.  
O Lord who didst open the eyes of the blind, to thee do I confess the blindness of my understanding: open, I beseech thee, those eyes of my mind, dispel the clouds, leading me in the right way amidst by-paths and uncertainties; even for thine own sake, who art the only way to the true life. So be it, Lord Jesus; Amen, Amen.   

CHAP. XIIII.  
1. My conjecture, that none of the Patriarches or old Prophets were raised.  
2. An objection, concerning Peter's knowing of Moses and Elias on mount Tabor, answered.  
3. A conjecture that the Saints who lived in Christ's time, and died before him, were raised at his Passion: Who they were in most likelihood. When Joseph, the reputed father of Christ, did die.  
4. The end, why they were raised. To whom they appeared.  
5. A crotchet concerning the wives of dead men which have been raised.  
IF still you press the question, Who those MANY were? or, Who were some of those MANY? I answer with Lorinus, that part of truth lieth hid and covered. Amongst conjectures, I propound this mine own as probable. First negatively, That none of the ancient Patriarches, Prophets, or Types of Christ in the Old Testament, arose: for if one; Who is he? and why not others as well as he? and if they had risen, Who should have known them? or how could they induce the then living to believe that they were the same Patriarches or Prophets? They might have been as well thought to have been incarnate spirits: for the evil spirits also kept about the tombs and graves of the deceased: Unless you will multiply miracles upon miracles; and say, God by miracle did reveal these to be true Patriarches. Otherwise they could not prove it to those who lived 2000 years after them. And if there had been such miracles, the Evangelists would not have slipped them.  
2. Yea, but S. Peter knew Moses and Elias at Christ's transfiguration, though they were taken away from among men long before: And therefore the then living might know the dead Patriarches and holy men raised, though they died long before. I answer, That S. Peter, and the other Apostles James and John, might know by the conference between Christ and Moses and Elias, who they were: Whereas Christ never conversed or conferred with those that were raised, for aught that is recorded, or probably to be maintained. And it is a figment to say or imagine, that there was any third person, which knew both the then raised on the one side, and the living which never had been dead on the other side; or could give assurance that the raised were such and such Patriarches and Fathers. Nor were their testimonies to be taken one for another, since the denial or doubt concerning any one, draweth in the denial or doubt of all the rest: and upon supposal of one false apparition, any one and every one of the rest might be questioned. Secondly, S. Peter and S. John might know Moses and Elias by divine revelation, which to them was not unfrequent: as Christ's Divinity was revealed to Peter, Matth. 16.17. and Ananias his heart, Act. 5.3, etc. or as Luke knew by the Spirit that Peter wept bitterly, though Peter wept secretly: for he went out first, Luk. 22.62. and what he went out purposely to conceal, shall we think that he did purposely reveal? Now though the Apostles had supernal illumination guiding them into all truth; yet that by divine revelation extraordinary every one of them then living at Jerusalem knew every one of them who were raised and appeared unto them, is, unnecessarily to multiply many miracles. Now since they knew not the persons of the raised by Christ, nor any other third person, nor by heavenly instruction; they could no way know the raised Patriarches, unless by their pictures or statues: which of all other ways is most unprobable, as being a course not practised in those times and places.  
The argument now hath received its answer. Peter might many ways, and did some way know Moses and Elias: and yet I find not any way whereby the inhabitants of the holy city could personally know the Patriarches and Fathers, being before buried and incinerated: And therefore I probably conclude, Not any one of these were raised.  
3. Secondly, my positive probable conjecture is this, (which also seemeth more likely to Lucas Brugensis) That many of those Saints who lived in Christ's time, and believed in him; whose memory was fresh, and whose children, kindred, or acquaintance were yet living, and who were known to adhere to Christ (and to this opinion Bishop Bilson seemeth somewhat to incline) Many (I say) of those dead Saints now arose, and appeared unto many: as, it may be, John the Baptist (though the deceitful miracle-mongers show the false relics of that good Saints head in diverse places) and Zacharie and Elisabeth his parents; and those many, Luk. 1.66. and those shepherds, Luk. 2.8. and those wonderers, to whom the shepherds told our Saviour's nativity, Luk. 2.18. perhaps some would add those wisemen, who came to worship Christ, Matth. 2.2. and old Simeon, and Anna the Prophetess, and Joseph Christ's reputed father (though some think that Joseph lived after Christ's resurrection: and yet others say, he died the twelfth year of Christ's age; to whom Baronius rather inclineth: 
a Ad annum Christi 12.  Joseph being very aged, about 80 years old, when he was espoused to the holiest Virgin, as Epiphanius and others do guess. For my part, I embrace the mean, and tread in the middle path: Neither thinking that Joseph died the 12 year; for when Christ was twelve years old, Joseph went up to Jerusalem, Luk 2.42. and after Christ's descent to Nazareth, Christ was obedient to Joseph and the all-garacious Virgin, vers. 51. therefore Joseph could not be dead in the twelfth year of Christ; which the learned Baronius did supinely and sluggishly pass over, and not observe: Nor yet do I imagine on the other side, that he lived beyond Christ's resurrection, or till his death; since there is frequent mention of Christ's Apostles, of his holy mother, and of his cousins, and friends, men and women, yea of strangers; and no mention, nor intimation at all, 
See Salianus in his Annals in annum mundi 4065, at large on this point.  that Joseph lived till Christ began publicly to preach, and do miracles; much less after his death. So upon my supposal that he died between the thirteenth year of Christ and the twenty ninth, Joseph might very well be one of those who were raised at that time) and with him (perhaps) diverse, whom Christ had healed, or to whom he had preached (if they died before) and many others, with whom Christ conversed till he was thirty years old.  
4. And all these did prove and confirm unto the incredulous or wavering Saints, their friends or kindred, yea and to the very believers also, the truth of Christ's doctrine, of his death, of his resurrection: appearing not promiscuously to Grecians or to Romans, not to all, no not to all the Jews; but to many; but to fit persons, saith the interlineary Gloss, whether Jews, Grecians, or Romans then residing at Jerusalem; to such as knew them in their lives, and at their deaths. This conjecture may pass the more plausibly, if we consider that Christ himself appeared not to all indifferently, but only to some, and to some oftener times then to others: yet no where is said to have showed himself to any, but only to his followers and Disciples. And as the Apostles were confirmed by Christ's holy conference; so might many other then living believe, or the rather believe the Gospel of Christ upon proof made by the new raised, in many particulars strengthening their faith. They arose, 
b  Dominum ostenderent resurgentem.  To show that Christ was raised, saith S. Hierom on Matth. 27. 
c Cum eo debebant resurgere, ut ipsum ostenderent resurrexisse.  They ought to rise with Christ, that they might show he was risen, saith Ludolphus the Carthusian. That 
d Debebant.  they ought, savoureth of presumption. Dionysius the Carthusian hath more moderate terms: he, on the place, saith, They did testify that Jesus was the Christ, that he was truly risen, and had destroyed hell. Hierom, Tom. 3. fol. 50. in his answer to the eighth question of Hedibia, thus, 
e Non omnibus apparuerunt, sed multis qui resurgentem Dominum susceperunt.  They appeared not to all, but to many who received our Lord risen from the dead. And yet let me superadd (by his leave) If they had appeared to the Disciples and Apostles of Christ, who received Christ, I cannot think they would have concealed it.  
5. Among my other diversions and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or winde-abouts, let this be one, occasionally arising from the odd position which Estius hath, in 1. Cor. 7.39. 
f Rectè ex Apostoli verbis inferunt Aquinas & carthusianus, Non teneri mulierem ad recipiendum virum de morte resuscitatum.  Aquin and Carthusian conclude rightly (saith he) from the Apostle, that a woman is not bound to receive her husband newly raised, nor may she enjoy him without a new contract. What if I answer, That a woman is tied to her husband as long as he liveth? but he liveth afterward, though he had been dead: and when the Apostle speaketh of death, he speaketh of a complete death, not susceptible in this world of another life. For he opposeth the dead man to the living: as if one could not be dead, and then living; but first living, and then dead for ever till the general resurrection. Suppose we Lazarus was married; had not his wife been his lawful wife, bound to him by their first agreement, even after his resurrection? I doubt it not. Yet this might be the case of some of the many, who were raised; especially if they died but a while before. But I confess, the case differeth, and is more perplexed, if the party were dead, and the days of mourning past; and the woman married to another. Yet even here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
O Father most gracious, O Saviour most merciful, O holy Spirit most comfortable, I humbly beg thy grace, mercy, and comfort to be shed forth upon me in this life; that I may please thee in my vocation, and do thy will, and fulfil the business which thou hast appointed for me. And leave not off (I beseech thee) to guide me by thine enabling counsel here, till thou art ready to crown me with thy glory in the life to come. Amen, Lord Jesus, Amen.   

CHAP. XV.  
1. The raised Saints ascended not into heaven with Christ; as is proved by Scripture, and Reason. Suarez his shallow answer. Epiphanius strengthening my former positive conjectures.  
2. If the raised ascended bodily into heaven, the Patriarches should not be left behind.  
3. The ascending bodily of the Saints into heaven, not necessary or behooveful.  
4. Only Christ's body was seen ascending.  
5. In likelihood, Christ would have showed the Patriarches unto some of his Apostles.  
THat these raised Saints, who bare witness of Christ, settling many pendulous and doubting souls, strengthening many followers and Disciples of our Saviour, and (perhaps) converting some unbelievers, by teaching them that their expected Messiah was now come, that he did live among them, and had died for their sins, and risen again for their justification; That they (I say) after this office performed, again deposited their bodies in the earth, and ascended not corporally into heaven, you may behold proved by this first reason, drawn from Scripture. For Christ is compared to the high Priest, who alone entered the SANCTUM SANCTORUM, Hebr. 9.7. It is true indeed, that we enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, Heb. 10.19. but he only, 
* Hebr. 10.10.  by a new and living way, through the vail, that is to say, his flesh, 
* Hebr. 9.12.  entered in once into the holy place. His entering differing from others entering; and differing in this, That with his body he entered, others ascended not into heaven with him bodily. Secondly, if they had ascended into heaven, following Christ; their bodies must have been seen as well as Christ's: But their bodies were not seen ascending; for the Evangelists would not have omitted a matter of such moment. Suarez denieth this, because the Evangelists do describe such things as may be seen with bodily eyes, in which regard, neither the Angels, nor the souls of Saints are reported to have accompanied him, which yet diverse believe to have kept wing and way with him to heaven. I answer, Though Angels and the spirits of men be not specified, as not being seen, as not being to be seen without bodies; yet such Saints as arose with their bodies, and went into heaven with their bodies (as Suarez and others think all they who arose out of their graves did) might in likelihood be seen ascending with Christ, as well as Christ's body. And their bodies were as subject to be seen with bodily eyes, as Christ's was; yea, more visible, by how much Christ's body was more glorified than any of the Saints; if clarity, impassibility, agility, and subtility do make glorified bodies to be less visible: all which Christ had in an eminent degree above any other. An unglorified eye can see naturally a glorified body: though a glorified body can be seen or not seen, according as it pleaseth. See the Supplement of Aquin, part 3. quest. 85. artic. 2.3. Therefore my conclusion is firm, as his objection is impertinent. Thirdly, from Epiphanius in Ancorato, I gathered what before I only conjectured, That such only were raised as died a while before, who rising were known to such as then lived, that their testimony might, by their former familiarity, the rather be believed, and be void of exception; whereas if such were raised as died long before, they must first use arguments to prove that themselves had sometimes lived, and that they once died, that they were newly raised, and that they were the same persons whom they reported themselves to be.  
2. Now, that these should go into eternal happiness both of souls and bodies, and leave the Patriarches bodies in the dust, is in judgement improbable. Therefore if it were to be proved, that those who arose out of their graves after or upon Christ's Passion, did ascend into the most glorious happiness in heaven, both of body and soul: as, above other men, I should think and maintain, that Adam, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and all the rest before mentioned, and others unmentioned, holy Prophets and others, were they that did arise, and were they who were partakers with Christ of perfect immortality, and had more favours and privileges than other men: So since Epiphanius concludeth, That others of later times were raised; I will be bold to infer, that others ascended not into heaven before those holy Patriarches, but laid their bodies in the graves again.  
3. Again, if the end of their resurrection mho now arose, was to testify that Christ was risen; this duty they might fulfil, though they ascended not into heaven with him. If to testify that Jesus was the Christ, that he was just, that he was the Son of God (which was the collection of the Centurion, when he saw the graves open, and that many bodies arose, Matth. 27.54.) their ascension into heaven was not necessary to that certificate. If they say, They arose to be witnesses of his ascension into heaven: I answer, He had other witnesses of it, Act. 1.9. who would have been witnesses of their ascension also, if they had ascended with him. If you say, they arose to be companions of his ascension; I reply, that you do but beg the question, and hold a groundless conclusion.  
4. Moreover, Christ was seen of the Apostles forty days, and spoke of things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, Act. 1.3. and He shown himself alive after his Passion, by many infallible proofs, as is said immediately before: and they saw, when he ascended into heaven, vers. 9 But that Christ ever conversed with any of those that were raised; or was seen with them; or they with him; or they with the Apostles, or Disciples; or that any ascended into heaven, is no direct mention; as perhaps there would, if Adam and the rest of the holy Patriarches and Prophets had been raised, and had gone into heaven.  
5. Neither would Christ, who vouchsafed Peter, James, and John, to see him confer with Moses and Elias at the Transfiguration, have now denied Peter, James, and John, to see him confer with the same Moses and other Patriarches after his resurrection, if they had arose and conferred with him, as out of doubt, during the time of forty days that he conversed on earth, since their and his resurrection (if they arose) he often discoursed with them: for he did but about twelve times appear to the Apostles, and that most on the sabbath-days and then stayed not very long with them: and so I may probably think that he did employ some part of the rest of the time from his resurrection to his ascension, in conference with Moses and the Patriarches raised; especially if they were to ascend bodily into heaven with him: But none of these things are once pointed at: Therefore there is no likelihood that they were raised, much less that they ascended with Christ into heaven.  
O Glorious Saviour of mankind, who didst ascend bodily into heaven, to prepare a place for us amongst those many mansions filled with bliss, Open the gate to me who do knock, bid me enter into my master's joy; that I may praise thy name, and wait on thee my only stay, my delight, and the life of my soul, my Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ. So be it.   

CHAP. XVI.  
1. Angels taken for men. Angels representing men, are called men.  
2. The name JEHOVAH ascribed to an Angel representing JEHOVAH, say Estius and Thyraeus. Picking of faults in the Apocryphal Scriptures, to be abhorred.  
3. Drusius his poverty. The Apocrypha is too little esteemed. The Angel, who guided young Toby, defended.  
4. The great difference between Christ's manner of rising, and Lazarus his.  
INdeed it is said, Act. 1.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, whiles the Apostles were looking steadfastly into heaven after Christ; and they told them of his coming to the last judgement in the same manner as he ascended. Which two, certainly, might be men, and were men, saith the Text; yea (say some Expositors) were some of those Many, who arose out of their graves after Christ's resurrection. These were amicti vestibus albis, saith Erasmus: In albo vestitu, saith Beza: Now, the Saints are arrayed in white robes, Revel. 7.13. and whiteness of garments is a token of joy, Ecclesiastes 9.7, 8. and these had cause to joy. I first answer, with most of the Ancients, with the modern Beza, Sa, Montanus, and Sanctius, That these two men, so called, were Angels. For the Angels representing men's persons, are called according to their names or titles whom they represent. As in the vision which S. Paul saw by night, Act. 16.9. it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, There stood a man of Macedonia, etc. Now clear it is, this was not a Macedonian indeed; but an Angel bearing his person, in the shape of man calling him with the call of God: and what is said in truth of story, Joh. 20.12. Marie seethe two Angels in white, sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain, is said by representation, Luk. 24.4. Two men stood by them in shining garments; they took on them the shapes of two men, and stood in their places.  
2. If Angels represent the person of God, and do things, or say things as from him, and as for himself; they are called Gods, and the very name of JEHOV A is attributed to them: as the Angel appearing in the fiery bush to Moses; and other Angels, saith 
a De loci● infestis, part. 1. cap 23.  Thyraeus, and 
b Sentent. 2. Distinct. 8. Paragr. 8.  Estius. In the New Testament, another Angel is called Alpha and Omega, Revel. 22.13. which were blasphemy for any Angel to say or usurp, if the Representer might not be styled according to the dignity of the Represented. Which note I have the rather insisted upon, to lash the rash censure of such, who, under pretence to keep the Canonical Scripture at a great distance from the Apocryphal, pick unnecessary faults in the Apocryphal: such faults, and so small, as a man not prepossessed could not see, and a natural rational Philosopher would esteem but little, in comparison of greater doubts in semblance, arising from our undoubted Canonical. S. Hierom was the first that styled them Apocrypha, who never left any thing objected against him unanswered: yet being therefore taxed by Ruffinus, that therein he had rob the holy Ghost of his treasure, he made no reply. Thus some have been hurt with kissing, and the tenderness of the ape killeth those young ones whom she loveth best. And whilst they play the Critics in censuring the Apocrypha, they breed irreverence and irreligion toward the Canonical, by how much the doubts seem more, or greater; seem, but are not.  
3. The most painful and learned John Drusius, in his epistle to Joseph Scaliger; before his Commentary on the first book of the Maccabees, intimateth his fear of want, even of things necessary; and, in the very end of his castigations on Ecclesiasticus, prayeth to God to stir up the hearts of the Great ones and illustrious Lords to help him (may heaven and earth take notice, how miserable the estate of the learned is; when tithes the fixed honorary of the Priesthood by Divine right, are usurped by the Laics; and reward is measured not by true worth, or by the measure of the Sanctuary, which was full, running over, and double to the common and profane measures; but by the ignorant estimate of niggardly mechanics, their under agents:) yet he broke through all difficulties, and hath bestowed great pains in his notes on both these books. Scaliger, de emendat. tempor. lib. 5. saith, The first book of the Maccabees is 
c Opus eximium.  An excellent work. Again, 
d Tu praestantiam loujus libri jamdudum scis.  You knew long since full well the great worth of this book, saith he, in his epistle to Drusius. And Albericus Gentilis most exquisitely disputeth in defence of the first book of Maccabees (so little regarded in these times) and answereth every objection which is brought against it. I could say more in defence of other books Apocryphal; but I recall myself to handle that particular which caused this diversion. How many wide mouths have been made? how many scandals taken? how many aspersions of horrible untruth and lying have been fastened on that blessed Angel who guided Tobias the younger in his long and dangerous journey, because he said, (though he gave old Tobit a nick, for that he would inquire his name, immediately after) Tob. 5.12. I am Azarias, the son of Ananias the Great, and of thy brethren; whereas you may expound the words by this rule, That he who sustains another's person, may call himself, or be called according as the person himself. As the Angel, who appeared to S. John, Rev. 22.9. saying, I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the Prophets; and, perhaps, took one of their shapes at that time. Likewise in the undoubted Canonical, the Angel Gabriel is called The man Gabriel, Dan. 9.21. because he appeared in the similitude of a man. Thus may the place of Tobit be expounded: and, without such favourable interpretations, Familiaris & quotidianus sermo non cohaerebit, saith Cicero, Pro A. Caecinna. Secondly, you may expound the words thus, I AM AZARIAS, that is, the help of God: THE SON OF ANANIAS THE GREAT; NOW ANANIAS signifieth the grace, or the gift of God. And this is verified by the actions of the Angel, who helped indeed both the Tobiah'ss, by the especial grace of God. Add to this, that the Angels true name was Raphael, Tob. 12.15. which is by signification, the medicine, or physic of God: as indeed he did make whole young Toby his wife, and healed also old Toby, Tob. 12.3. All which being laid together, remove all inconvenience from the words, if we say, The Angel by those names of men, Azarias and Ananias, did signify, that the help which was to come from him to them, came to him from God. For even this way draweth nigh unto that Lexicall exposition, as 
d Bibliothecae sanct. 3.  Sixtus Senensis phraseth it; which I will not wholly exclude.  
Secondly I answer, If these were no Angels, but very men; and these some of those Many who arose out of their sepulchers: yet clear it is, they ascended not with Christ, nor ascended they at all, for aught that can be gathered; but upon the performance of this their last errand, their bodies might again embrace the dust.  
4. Lastly, this may have a place of a probable argument: As Elias, when he was rapt into heaven in a fiery chariot, by a whirlwind, (being even therein a type of the resurrection) let fall his mantle from him, 2. King. 2.13. perchance as a token that he needed it no more: so Christ, when he raised himself, left his grave-linen in the grave, the linen clothes by themselves, the napkin that was about his head wrapped together in a place by itself, John 20.7. out of doubt, to show that death should have no more dominion over him. In which regard also he arose, the tomb being shut, and the tombstone sealed, and observed narrowly with a watch: for the removing of the tombstone by the Angel, was not to help Christ to arise, who entered in to his disciples, januis clausis, the doors being shut, and came forth of the grave, sepulchro signato, the monument being sealed: but that the women might go in, and see that Christ was before raised, Mark 16.3. etc. (and the stone was not rolled away propter Christum, sed propter mulieres, for Christ, but for the women, saith Hierom ad Hedibiam) whereas contrarily, when Lazarus was raised, the tombstone was first removed, and Lazarus arose, tied with the graveclothes; and his face bound with a napkin: yea, came forth bound hand and foot with graveclothes, Joh. 11.44. by a new miracle, walking being bound, and bound with graveclothes; to show, that though he did live, he did live to die again. In which respect also, perhaps, the graves were opened at Christ's passion, when he yielded 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 add to thy Word, nor yet take from it, Grant (I beseech thee) that I may neither think thy certain true Scriptures to be doubtful, nor the uncertain to be Canonical: but possess me with awful and reverend thoughts concerning thy holy writ, that I adoring the fullness thereof, may avoid all hasty, supine, forced, and uncharitable expositions, and fetch my little light, and candle of knowledge, from that first shine, and prime rays of thee the only Light, my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.   

CHAP. XVII.  
1. The place of Matth. 27.53. is diversely pointed; and, according to the pointing, is the diversity 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 city, 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. Angelical assumed bodies were seen and heard; much rather should men's 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 city, (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 Christ's: which also is evidently foretold, Isaiah 26.19. (if the prophet prophesieth there of Christ, or speaketh in Christ's person) Thy dead men shall live; together with my dead body shall they arise, etc. For Christ's body ariseth not from the earth at the general resurrection; and therefore they punctually sign out the resurrection of other Saints with Christ, and with his dead body. But if Isaiah speaketh of his own resurrection, and not of Christ's; nor in Christ's person, but in his own: by these words and the words following he pointeth out the general 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 city. 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 city 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 city. 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 Christ's 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 Christ's passion and his resurrection, perhaps, the raised conferred with themselves; perchance, they communed with others without the city; 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 city.  
3. The sum is, These reliving Saints arose at Christ's passion, and before him; but none ever arose before him unto an eternal resurrection: for in that regard Christ was the first fruits of them that slept, 1. Corin. 15.20. and it is Christ's privilege, 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 eternal incorruption and immortality. Let me add, That as the sepulchers 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 general law, That all of us shall have glory and immortality together; for Hebr. 11.40. God hath prepared a better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. If you expound this of the Fathers of the Old Testament, and of the stola animae, the robe of honour for the mind; yet you shall find Revel. 6.11, that in regard even of stola corporis, the glorious garment of the body, the Saints themselves are commanded to rest yet for a little season, until their fellow-servants also, and their brethren (either then alive, or perchance not then born) that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.  
Now against this general rule you must not make a particular exception, without express warrant from the word of God: But there is no testimony at all from the word of God, either direct or inferentiall, that any of those Many who arose, arose to glory or immortality, or ascended into heaven: Therefore we may boldly conclude, They died again. This argument is of such force, that Suarez leaveth it unanswered, and untouched. Lastly, if the bodies of these Saints ascended into heaven; either they ascended after Christ, or before him, or with him. If after him; When and how long after? and why after him? They ascended not presently after him: for the Apostles who looked steadfastly toward heaven, even after he was taken out of their sight, might have then perceived their bodily ascent. If you say, So soon as the Apostles left their serious viewing, and harkened unto the Angels, than they ascended: I answer; I would say so also, if I saw any proof, or if I could think that God sent the Angels just at that moment, to hinder the Apostles from seeing the Saints mount up to heaven, which would have been so joyous a sight. Briefly, there is no reason to say they ascended long after Christ ascended; and certainly less reason is there to think they ascended before him.  
4. Moreover, Christ as man shall be Judge at the last day: and God hath given assurance of it to all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead, Act. 17.31. If any other were raised up in the same manner before him, or with him, to an eternal resurrection; what assurance doth God give by this place of S. Paul, that Christ shall be the Judge, rather than others? But indeed the raising of Christ was more than ordinary, was more than temporary: Let him have the preeminence in all things: Christ is the first-fruits of them that slept, 1. Cor. 15.20. The first-fruits of them that are raised, vers. 23. He is Primitiae mortuorum, Revel. 1.5. & resurgentium, Act. 26.23. Christ is the first who shall arise from the dead, viz. to an eternal resurrection: his body opening, as it were, the gates of heaven for our bodies; which if Enoch and Elias did by privilege especial anticipate (though these were not properly raised, but rather taken up;) yet, if more, if so many should before him arise to an everlasting resurrection; it destroyeth the nature of a general rule. 
b Gratia quae omnibus datur, non est gratia, sed natura; & privilegium gaudet paucitate.  Grace given alike to all, is no longer grace but nature: and a privilege is properly confined to a few. That they ascended not with Christ, I proved before: and for a Corollary do repeat this, That if assumed and Angelical bodies were to be seen, and were seen and heard at Christ's ascension; out of doubt the bodies of Saints had been visible, yea seen, if they had then ascended.  
5. If any desire to see more reasons, let him read S. Augustine, Epist. 99 ad Euodium; & de Mirabilibus Sacrae Scripturae; whose reasons 
c In tertia parte Summae, quaest. 53. artic. 3.  Aquinas preferreth, and subscribeth unto.  
You may now perceive that I am gently fallen upon the second head; in virtue of which I undertook to prove, That the Saints, who miraculously arose, and here arose, did not ascend into heaven, but died again: for the second head, was Authority. Among Authors you have already two of the chiefest for depth of learning, Augustine and Aquinas. Hierom is of their mind, on Matth. 27. Chrysostom, Hom. 89. on Matth. compareth those Saint's resurrection unto Lazarus his rising to a mortal life; though Beza directly contradicteth it. The same Hierom, Epist. 150. ad Hedibiam, again confirms it. To the same purpose, Theophylact on the place, and Euthymius, chap. 67. on Matth. so Prosper in his book de promissionibus & praedictionibus Dei. In the middle school, you have Soto, in 4. lib. Sentent. Distinct. 43. quaest. 2. artic. 1. Yea, even among Jesuits, Salmeron and Barradius are on this side; and Pererius on the 6 chapter of the Revelation, Disput. 24. and Gregory Valentian, Tom. 4. Disput. 2. Quaest. 5. where he sleighteth Cajetans' arguments, and saith that our is the more probable opinion, and that Aquin, from Augustine, doth most excellently confirm it. In the last place cometh that learned Franciscus Lucas Brugensis, who having set down the ends why these Many were raised (to wit, To be praecones, criers, or trumpeters of Christ's resurrection, which was experimentally evidenced by their own; and that Jesus was that Saviour, and that he ought thus to suffer, and thus to enter into his glory) closeth in these words, 
d Hoc officio quando isti defuncti fuerant, verisimile est cos iterum dormivisse, & in sepulchris suit quievisse, quemadmodum Aloses.  When they had performed this duty, it is likely that they slept again, and rested in their sepulchers like Moses. Yea, say I, much rather did they sleep in their graves, than Moses: for though he was buried, yet being raised, he appeared in glory, Luk. 9.31. which apparition being in body principally (for his soul was not seen) we may not imagine, that a glorified body is so subject to corruption, or a second dying: which Brugensis himself will not say of these raised Many; for he hath an odd crotchet, and singular conceit, That those Many were raised, neither to an immortal, nor to a mortal life; but to a middle and mean betwixt both; not to a perpetual one, nor yet to a terrene life; but heavenly, without the use of meats or drinks, without fear or pain of death.  
O Fountain of mercy inexhaustible, sweet Jesus, who being the Son of God, didst become Man, that we the sons of Men, might be the sons of God; who didst die, that we might live; suffering for our sins, and rising again for our justification; Have mercy, O, have mercy upon me; pass by my transgressions, I beseech thee, and present me blameless to the Throne of Grace, for thine own merit sake: to which I ascribe all power, and from which I expect all my glory. So be it.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
1. The arguments of the contrary opinion answered. Suarez, and especially Cajetan, censured.  
2. That by the holy City, Jerusalem below was meant, proved at large. Josephus and the Jews erring about the name of Jerusalem. Hierom uncertain.  
3. How the raised appeared. A difference between appearing as men, and appearing as newly raised men. Franciscus Lucas Brugensis rejected.  
4. An argument of Maldonat answered by the prodigious Legend of Christina, who died twice. No hurt is to man, if God will send his soul from an heavenly place, to live a while on earth again.  
5. No harm to die twice. The difference between death complete and incomplete.  
6. God can dispense with his own Laws.  
THus having beaten down the opposite authorities (if they were fully on that side) with weight and number; the third and last point, which I propounded to handle, was the answering of all their reasons and arguments. Some are so weak, that I need not to answer. For Suarez himself, who allegeth them, confesseth their weakness, and answereth them. These three proofs following he allegeth; but answereth not. First, It was decent and behooveful, DECUIT (saith Suarez) that Christ, who had both body and soul, should have companions of his glory, in their bodies as well as in their souls: For his delight is to be with the children of men, Proverb. 8.31. Which Suarez (it may be) took as an hint from Cajetan: for he, on Aquin. parte primâ, quaest. 53. art. 3. hath it thus, 
a Rationale videtur, quòd sucrexerint perfectè ad vitam penitus immortalem; ut beatitudo corporis in Christo haberet socios: minus enim corporalis felicitas aliquid habere videretur, it desit corporalis societas: est enim homo secundùm vitam corporcam animal sociale, etc.  It standeth with reason, that they arose perfectly to a life fully immortal, that the bodily blessedness of Christ might have some fellows: For the bodily happiness seems not perfect and complete, if bodily society and company be wanting: for man is, according to the corporeal life, a sociable creature, or good fellow: not only for want of necessaries unto life, as happeneth in this world; but for natural delight, consisting in bodily conversation, saith Cajetan, dissenting in this from the great Summist his master. I answer, that Cajetans' argument is ridiculous: for it holdeth chief in children, or babies, in fools and in striplings, who love play-mates; or in worldly factours, whom business forceth into society and commerce. But that the Saints in heaven, yea Christ himself, the all blessed Saviour of the world, both God and Man, should not have the full of delight, or have too little of bodily felicity, if other humane bodies be not present, savoureth rather of the Turkish Coranto and the Arabian school, then of the sacred Text: and that Christ in heaven, is animal sociale, naturally delighting in bodily conversation (for so much the application of that Axiom importeth, or else he saith nothing to the purpose) doth imply his brutish conceit of our most holy Redeemer. The sweet singer of Israel saith, Psal. 16.11. In thy presence is fullness of joy, at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore. If this befall other holy Saints; much more it belongeth to Christ, from whose fullness all the whole body of his Church receiveth comfortable influences. But grant we, that such bodily company might be desired by Christ: yet he needed not these Many; but he might have had Enoch and Elias, or Moses and Elias, with whom he conferred at his transfiguration.  
Secondly, unto Suarez his words Barradas his fellow-Jesuite answereth, Christ needeth not men endued with bodies now in heaven. As for the place of the Proverbs, the precedent words give light unto them, I rejoiced in the habitable parts of the earth, saith the Text: So his delights were with the sons of men in and upon the earth: but of his delight in them with their humane bodies in heaven Before the last resurrection, there is no inkling or intimation given. Suarez argueth thus secondly, 
b Animae gloriosae connaturale est, etc.  It is very natural for a glorified soul to be united unto an immortal and glorious body: But their souls were glorious: Therefore their bodies also: And the glory of a blessed soul, of its own nature redounds upon the body. I answer, It doth so naturally, if it be not hindered. But the blessed souls of these Many Saints were in bodies, not immortal, not blessed, not glorious, for a few days or hours, and that by miracle, saith Barradius.  
Besides, whilst Christ lived on earth, unless at his Transfiguration, or some such especial occasion, the glory of his most happy soul, which was then beatified as much as any of the souls of the Saints are now, and more, did not impart visible glory to his body: but it was passable and mortal; for it died. Then why may not these Saints have the glorious light of their souls eclipsed from their bodies?  
Again, the assumed bodies of blessed Angels ever did resolve into their first principles, when the ends why they assumed them, were fulfilled: the like might be in the Saints, whose souls were hindered from communicating incorruptible and glorious qualities to their bodies; and so they were partakers not of the perfection of the last eternal resurrection, but of the imperfections incident to the temporary and mortal resurrection.  
Thirdly, saith Suarez, Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, are in hell with their bodies: therefore some, to show God's mercy, must now be in heaven with their bodies: and therefore these Many. I answer, that both the sequences are lame, though we should grant the ground or antecedent of the Argument. For first, was not God's mercy seen in heaven, from the hour of Corah and his companies descent into hell, till these Many ascended? Then why may it not still be seen, though these ascended not? especially, since that Christ is there in a most blessed incorruptible body, as they are in hell in cursed bodies, which would take corruption for a favour. Lastly, why must these Many Saints be the counter-pattern in heaven, rather than Enoch, or Elias, or Moses, being the Magistrate against whom Corah and his complices combined themselves?  
2. Others there are who object, It is said, THEY ENTERED INTO THE HOLY CITY: But the holy city is the new Jerusalem, Jerusalem above, Revel. 21.2. Therefore they died not, but went into heaven. I answer, Jerusalem below, the material Jerusalem, the seat of the kings of Judah, because of God's worship there especially to be performed in that glorious Temple, was also called the holy city. GLORIOUS THINGS ARE SPOKEN OF THEE, THOU CITY OF GOD, Psal. 87.3. Amongst others, thou art styled holy. Rev. 11.2. The holy city shall the Gentiles tread under foot: but the Gentiles shall never trample on the new Jerusalem above. On the one side of a shekel of the Sanctuary, which once I saw, was stamped in Hebrew characters, Holy Jerusalem. Again, Tobit. 13.9. O Jerusalem, the holy city, he will scourge thee: but he will never scourge Jerusalem above, which is the Mother of us all: therefore Jerusalem below must needs be this holy City.  
Bellarmine himself, de Pontifice Romano, 3.13. accordeth with us, and interpreteth the strife of the two Witnesses against Antichrist, in Jerusalem below. And before him, Hierom in his answer to the eighth question of Hedibia, Tom. 3. fol. 50. saith, Of these words, THE SAINTS ENTERED INTO THE HOLY CITY, we must take THE HOLY CITY to be Jerusalem; 
b Ad distinctionem omnium civitatum, quae tunc idolis serviebant.  to distinguish that city from other cities, all which did then give themselves to idolatry: applying it to the material Jerusalem, which (saith he) from the time of Vespasian and Titus, was no more called THE HOLY CITY.  
Moreover, Paula and Eustochium, or rather Hierom in their names, ad Marcellam, Tom. 1. fol. 59 citing the place of Many Saints etc. add 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 celestial Jerusalem, as most have ridiculously interpreted this place; when it could be no sign 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 Jury be to this day called The holy Land, nor will have other estimate of diverse Nations, in some regards, till the world's end: then certainly the Metropolitical city thereof, the famous and eminent Jerusalem, might in those days be dignified with the title of The holy city, 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 Council-house in the city: and the words have a true reference to the city, as well as to the Temple; yea more, because the Temple was within the city, and not è contrá. Now their Council-house was distant a good way from any part of the Temple, and was built close by one wall of the city; and was called GASITH in Hebrew; wherein seventy Senators, or ordinary 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 city which before was called Solyma, was by Melchizedech named Hierosolyma, that is, The holy Solyma, saith Josephus, de bello Judaico. 7.18. Let Josephus justify 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 hotchpotch better to be digested, than the impious and sottish fable of other Jews, That Melchizedech having named the city 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 faithful, umpired the business, and of both their attributes, or appellations, compounded one word, or name, and calleth it thereafter, Jerusalem.  
Perhaps, S. Hierom can hardly prove what he saith in his epistle to Dardanus, de Terra promissionis Tom. 3.24. that the city was first called Jebus; and thencefrom Jerusalem, rather than 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 days 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 expel the Jebusites there commorant before him, or how they repossessed it till David's time, or indeed that the name was given as S. Hierom opineth, are matters only of conjecture, as not being backed 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 witness in heaven of Christ's resurrection: for the triumphant Saints need no such proof, or witnesses; their beatifical 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 fare as can be proved; if this going into the holy city be to be interpreted of the supernal Jerusalem. But that the words are to be expounded of Jerusalem below, the passage immediately following demonstrateth; They went into the holy city, 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 appear 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 only they appeared to Many; as Christ himself did appear Testibus praeordinatis à Deo, Unto witnesses chosen before of God, Act. 10.41. so did they, to such only 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 appear commonly to all men, and yet appear unto Many only, 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 only appear to Many, as persons raised of purpose for holy ends. And this opinion I hold to be more probable than that of Franciscus Lucas Brugensis on the place, That only unto some the raised did aliquando apparere, aliquando disparere, sicut Jesus, Sometime appear 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 always converse with the same men, but changed company: so if by it he understandeth a sudden vanishing from the sight of men, and implieth 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 parallel 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 mortal bodies, who had a taste of God's glory? surely they had been in worse condition, then if they never had been raised out of the bosom 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 mind the prodigious Legend, which diverse eminent men of their own side have recorded of one Christina, called by them, by way of eminency, 
e Mirabilis.  Wonderful. 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 dearest daughter. And then he telleth, That God gave her choice, either to stay with him, or to return unto her body, and by penitential works to satisfy for all the souls in purgatory, and to edify 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 body: And so she did: and because sinful men by their stench did too much afflict her, (O tender-nosed virgin!) she did fly, (or the Papists did lie) and sit on the top-boughes of trees, pinnacles, or turrets; (since noisome smells ascend, it had been her fare better course, to have crept into some dens, and caverns of the earth, or vaults and tombs, 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 Huguenots, Calvinists, Heretics; though none of us think, or say otherwise, than the good Pacianus did of old, in his first epistle to Sempronius, CHRISTIAN is my name, and CATHOLIC is my surname. The Turks indeed have some strange figments of this nature: but though the Mahometan priests have devised and feigned many superstitious miracles concerning their great Saintesse Nafissa, as is confessed by Joannes Leo in his African history, 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 guess) shortly after Christ's ascension, laid their bodies down to sleep again in the earth. Thirdly, what thinks Maldonat of Lazarus? Was not his soul in Abraham's bosom (as well as the other poor 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 deny 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 God's 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 believe, 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 joys, will esteem worse than dung, or salt that hath lost its savour, all the pleasures and profits of this life; though their several excellencies were distilled into one quintessence of perfection. So that, as Lorinus saith well in the place above cited, Whosoever hath once escaped the peril of damnation, he shall not come into the same danger again.  
5. The last objection that I have met withal 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 oftener; death is no punishment unto him; yea to pass seven times through hell, to come once and everlastingly to heaven, a despairing soul would hold to be a cheap blessedness. Secondly, Suarez himself saith, It is no punishment to die the second time, no more than it was to Moses, to die twice; as saith Augustine, de Mirabilib. Scripturae 3.10. though others descent 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 man's hurt, or loss, God be glorified; it is no injury to man. But in truth it is no hurt, or loss 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 settled 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 sickness is not unto death: Yet did he die; and besides the time intercedent between his death and his burial, he was four days buried. But his sickness was not 
d Ad mortem plenam, in qua Lazarus maneret.  to an entire 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 dead. So that we may shut up this point with this perclose, and with a distinction out of Peter Martyr, from S. Augustine; Death is so termed, either properly, or improperly; completely, or incompleatly. If you take death properly, and completely, for that separation of the soul, which cannot admit an other conjunction or union with the body till the general resurrection: then no man ever died but once, or was come ad plenam mortem, to that prefixed period and last hour of life; but their former death was only improper, preparatory, and abortive. Now if you take death improperly and incompleatly, for any manner of true separation, which indeed is the commonest acception; a man may die twice, and divers have died twice; yea, all they that ever were raised in the Old and New Testament (except our Saviour only, who cooperated to his own resurrection) all they, and every of them, died the second time.  
6. 
f Paucorum praerogativa non officit legi Naturae, ut aliquoties monet Origines.  The privilege of a few checketh not, offendeth not the law of nature, as Origen observeth more than once, saith Erasmus on the 1. Thessal. 4. or in Hieroms' phrase, 
g Singulorum privilegia legem efficere non possunt.  The prerogatives of singular men establish not a law: or, in the way of Augustine, 
h Privilegium paucorum universali legi non derogat.  The privilege of a few doth not derogate from the general law. Though it be ordinarily appointed for all men once to die, yet extraordinarily, some may not die at all, and some must die twice. For, 
i Potens est Deus cum statuto communi dispensare.  God may and can dispense with a common statute of his own, saith Holcot, on Wisdom the 2. His hands are free, who hath manacled the whole world by his laws: he is not tied by Stoical fatal necessity, who is Agens liberrimum, a most voluntary free agent.  
HOly, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts, I humbly implore thy favourable protection: strengthen me, O gracious God, against all mine enemies, bodily and ghostly; and when I have by thy power fought a good fight, when I have finished my course, take me, I beseech thee, from being a member of thy Church militant, in this Jerusalem below, to be partaker of blessedness with thy Church triumphant, in Jerusalem above, the Mother of us all: which petition I earnestly present unto thy Sacred Majesty, in the name and mediation of my only Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.   

CHAP. XIX.  
1. Strange conceits concerning Nero, from Suetonius, Tacitus, Hierom, Augustine. Nero supposed to be Antichrist.  
2. An other incredible relation of the Armenian, who is said to have lived at Christ's passion. The Armenians have their holy frauds.  
AS I began with two or three strange histories, having some relation to the propounded question: so I hold it not amiss, to end with two or three, which shall give some light to some other parts of this question, or at least by their strangeness shall afford delight; though I end in a fable.  
Suetonius, in Nerone cap. 27. toward the end, thus historifieth; 
a Non defuerunt quì per longum tempus vernis aestiuísque floribus tumulum Neronis ornarent; ac modò imagines praetextatas in rostris proferrent, modò edicta, quasi viventis, & magno inimicorum malo reversuri.— Denique, cùm post viginti annos, adolescente me, extitisset conditionis incertae, qui se Neronem esse jactaret; tam favorabile nomen ejus apud Parthos fuit, ut vebementer adjutus, & vix redditus sit.  There were some who for a long time did deck the tomb of Nero with flowers, both of the spring and summer: and sometimes did bring his statues and resemblances adorned with long purple embroidered robes, into the pleading places; now and then they would proclaim his Edicts, as if he had been alive, and would shortly return to the damage of his enemies. To conclude, After twenty years when I was but a youth, when there appeared on the stage an odd fellow, who bragged that he was Nero; so great respect was showed to his name and credit, that he had great helps and aids, and with much ado was delivered up. So fare Suetonius. Tacitus also, Histor. 2. reports, that many did believe Nero did live long after he was dead. S. Hierom to Algasia, de undecim quaest. quaest. ultimâ, makes Nero a forerunner of Antichrist, and he gives this sense to these words, 2. Thess. 2.7. 
b J●m mysterium operatur miquitatis: Multis malit & peccatis, quibus Nero impurissimus Caesarum mundum premit, Antichristi parturitur adventus. etc.  NOW THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY WORKETH: By those many harms and sins, (saith he) by which Nero, the worst of all the Caesar's, oppresseth the world, Antichrists' coming is breeding and ready to come to light: and what Antichrist shall do hereafter, Nero now in part accomplisheth. S. Augustine his relation goeth one step further, 
c Nonnulli illum resurrecturum, & futurum Antichristum suspicantur. etc. de Civit. 20.19  Some do suspect and imagine (saith he) that Nero shall rise again and be Antichrist: Others think that Nero was not slain, but was withdrawn, when they thought he was murdered; and that he lieth hid, living in the vigour of that age, wherein he was when they thought he was slain. Which story when I read, it recalled to my mind a more uncouth relation of an other dive-dopper. And this it is:  
2. In Matthew Paris, on the eleventh year of Henry the third, anno Christi 1228. in his greater history printed at London, pag. 470. it is said, That an Archbishop of Armenia came into England in pilgrimage; was entertained at S. Alban Abby: Being there asked touching that Joseph, of whom there was a common speech, that he was present when Christ suffered, and spoke with him, and that he yet liveth as a firm proof of the Christian faith; the Archbishop answered, That he knew Joseph well; and the Antiochian (who was the interpreter to the Archbishop) told the whole story thus to Henry Spigurnel his acquaintance, and the Abbot's servant, That before the Archbishop came out of Armenia, Joseph used to be at his table; that at the Passion when Christ was haled from before Pilate to the cross, the said Joseph (then called Cartaphilus) being usher of the Court, did most scornfully punch Christ on the back, as he went out of the door; and mocking said, Go faster Jesus: Go, Why stayest thou? But Christ looking back with a stern eye and countenance on him, said, I go indeed, but thou shalt expect, or stay till I come: As if he had said, The Son of Man goeth indeed, as it is written of him; and must be crucified, and die, and shall live again: but thou shalt abide, and not die, till my second coming.  
It is further added, that this Cartaphilus was, at the time of Christ's death, about thirty years old; and so often as he cometh to one hundred years, he is taken with a seeming incurable disease, and is as it were in an ecstasy: then growing better, redit redivivus, returneth young, lively and lusty, to the state of thirty years. After Christ's death he was baptised by Ananias (who baptised S. Paul) and was called Joseph: he is reputed to be a man of a most austere and continent life, humble, and patiented; and liveth in both the Armeniaes', among Clergy men. Thus fare Matthew Paris; who was a Monk of Saint Alban, at that time. And in the like words the story is reported by Thomas of Rudbourn, a Monk of Winchester, in his Chronicle, which is a manuscript; as the great searcher of antiquities Mr Selden, my very worthy friend, assured me.  
If this Joseph redit redivivus, he hath not died twice only, but very often.  
I have recounted these narrations for their pleasant varieties; perhaps (I may say) rarities: But as S. Augustine branded the former story, and the believers of it, saying, 
e Multùm mihi mira est hae● opinantium tanta praesumptio.  The great presumption of these opinionists makes me much marvel: So I will not be afraid to tax the latter of imposture: both because of the variety of Names, by which he is called, as you may find in the learned Mr Seldens' illustrations on Polyolbion, pag. 15. where he also citeth the incredible fable of Ruan, which is cousin-german to the relation of the Eastern Cartaphilus; and because the Armenians, as well as the Romans, have their holy frauds: as was seen by our men, laughed at by the Turks, and believed by the silly Laics of Armenia, whilst their Priests would strive to fetch false fire from Christ's sepulchre on Easter even. See Mr Sands in his third book, pag. 173.  
Lastly, if this story of the Armenian could be an undoubted truth; the Greek Church would ere this have produced him, to justify the practice and opinions of the Eastern Church against the Western, wherein they dissented: But no such thing was ever attempted: And therefore let this be cast into the number of fables.   
Soli DEO gloria.  
FINIS.   

MISCELLANIES OF DIVINITY. THE THIRD BOOK.  

CHAP. I.  
1. Many Papists are very peremptory, that all and every one must die. Melchior Canus is more moderate. The words are only indefinite, not universal.  
2. Objections brought to prove, that universally all shall die. Their answers. General rules have exception. Even many learned Papists have acknowledged so much. The point handled, especially against Bellarmine.  
3. Indefinites have not the force of universals. Even universals are restrained.  
4. Salmeron bringeth many objections to prove an absolute necessity that every one shall die. All his objections answered. Man's living in misery is a kind of death.  
THe third question is, Whether Adam and his children, all and every one of them, without privilege or exception, must and shall die? It ariseth also from the same fountain from which the two former questions did proceed: It is appointed unto men to die.  
The answer consisteth of three parts: That there may be an exception of some; That some have been excepted; That others shall be excepted. And so the answer is returned with the negative, thus, All and every one shall not die: For though it be appointed for men to die; yet the appointment may be, hath been, and shall be reversed.  
Neither fear I the saying of Aquinas, part. 3. quaest. 78. artic. 1. 
a Est communior & securior sententia Theologorum, Vnumquemque moriturum.  It is the more common and more safe opinion of the Divines, That every one must die. And this opinion is maintained with stiff and peremptory obstinacy, by our adversaries the Papists. Bosquier in his Terror orbis, Salmeron upon the 1. Thessaly. 4. Gregory de Valent. with others are resolute, That none can be dispensed withal, but all mankind, and every child of Adam must die. But Melchior Canus is more moderate; 
b Locorum Theologic. 7.2. Num. 3.  Though it be appointed for all men to die, (saith he) yet that one or two out of that general law by privilege be exempted, is not so against Scriptures, that it may not be questioned. And, Locor. Theol. 7.3. Numer. 9 he proveth that it is no way against Scripture, That the thrice-blessed mother of our Lord, may by singular privilege be exempted, (he had erred if he had said, Is privileged) from the universal law of all being born in sin; and further confirmeth it by this instance, Because the Scriptures say in general, Exod. 33.20. NO MAN SHALL SEE ME AND LIVE; and John 1.18. NO MAN HATH SEEN GOD AT ANY TIME: yet Moses and Paul saw God. And though ordinarily there is no return from death to life, and the Saints come not back again from heaven to dwell on earth; yet Augustine saith, in lib. de Cura pro mortuis, Cap. 15. 
c Mitti quoque ad vivos, aliquos ex mortuis, ut Mosem ad Christum: sicut è contrario, Paulus ex vivis in Paradisum rapius est, Divina Scriptura testatur.  The Scripture witnesseth that some from the dead have been sent to the living, as Moses to Christ: and on the other side, Paul being living was carried into Paradise.  
Again, I say the words of the Apostle are only indefinite, not general: it is not said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is appointed to all men: but, It is appointed unto men: whether all, or only some, is not here determined.  
Now because this place wants its strength and nerves, to prove that point; and neither in the Greek, nor Vulgat, nor Syriack, is the universal expressed; the Jesuits have amassed up together many places of Scripture to confirm their opinion.  
2. What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? Psal. 89.48. In Adam all die, 1. Corinth. 15.22. Death is the house appointed for all living, Job 30.23. Death passed upon all men, Rom. 5.12. He shall be brought to the grave, and remain in the tomb: The clods of the valley shall be sweet unto him, and every man shall draw after him, as there are innumerable before him, Job 21.32. MORTE MORIERIS, Thou shalt die the death (Gen. 2.17.) was threatened to Adam, and all his: and therefore God, who cannot lie, will see it accomplished.  
To the last place I answer first: It is well rendered and expounded, Mortalis eris, Obnoxius eris morti; Thou shalt be mortal, and subject to death, as Lyra and Vatablus have it. Beda on Genes. 2. Morti deputatus eris, Thou shalt be condemned to death. Chrysostom, on John, Homil. 27. 
d Adam mortuus est, si non Re, tamen Sententiâ.  Adam died by guilt and judgement, though execution was suspended. And to say truth, In the midst of life we are in death: Man is dying, till he be dead. Infirmities and sickness pursue men till they perish, Deuteronomie 28.22. The wicked shall find no ease nor rest, but shall have trembling hearts, failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind, verse 65. Thy life shall hang in doubt before thee, and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have no assurance of thy life, vers. 66.  
To all the other alleged places of Scripture, one answer fitly serveth: viz. That the holy Writ speaketh of the ordinary course of Nature, and hath no intent to limit God's power, or to bind the Lawmaker; but he may exempt from death whomsoever he pleaseth. For general rules are not without exceptions. It is most true, what Aristotle, de Histor. Animal. 7.10. generally avoucheth, 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  No child crieth in the mother's womb: and yet extraordinarily it may be true, what Libavius in lib. de vagitu uterino, and Albertus Magnus lib. 10. de Animalibus, and Solinus in his third chapter, report; to wit, Quosdam embriones plorâsse in utero, That some Embrioes' have wept and cried out in their mother's womb: As on the contrary, what Livy lib. 24. recordeth; namely, Infantem in utero matris IO TRIUMPHALE clamâsse, That an infant in the mother's womb sang the Outcry used in triumphs: And what Appian of Alexandr. de bellis civilibus Roman. lib. 4. almost in the beginning relateth, That a child spoke so soon as it was born: which was a prognostic of sorrow, against the erection of the TRIUMVIRS. Petrus Pomponatius, in lib. de incantationibus, cap. 10. goeth one step further: and though it be a little out of my way, yet suffer me to follow him: 
e Haly Aben-Ragel scientiâ syderum scivit praedicere, puerum natum statim prophetaturum, sicut refert Conciliator.  Haly Aben-Ragel (saith he) by Astrology knew and foretold that a new born child should presently prophesy; as Conciliator relateth. So the universal law of all men's dying, may stand in full force and virtue, and yet be abridged by some extraordinary exceptions, through the unlimited command of the most free Lawmaker. My proofs that universal propositions do not always exclude some particular contraries, shall be of such general rules as are limited by the Papists themselves: because the controversy now in agitation, is only against them.  
The great master of Controversies, Bellarmine himself, the Purgator●o 1.12. speaking of the taking up of the good thief into Paradise, saith, 
f Privilegia paucorum legem uon faciunt.  A few men's privileges establish not a law.  
Gerson, that learned Chancellor of Paris, in his Sermon on the birth of the thrice blessed Virgin, the third part, thus settleth; 
g Constat, Deum misericordiam salvationis suae non ità legibus communibus traditionis Christianae, non ità Sacramentis ipsis alligâsse; quin, absque praejudicio legis ejusdem, possit puero● nondum natos intus sanctificare, Gratiae suae baptismos vel virtute Spiritus sancti.  It is apparent, that God hath not tied his merciful salvation to the common laws of Christian verity: no not so to the Sacraments themselves, but, without prejudice of that law, he may sanctify children in the womb, with the baptism of his grace, or power of the holy Spirit.  
Mathias Felizius', pag. 184. acknowledgeth, that extraordinarily the souls of good and bad men do sometimes come out of heaven and hell: yet are there general statutes and the ordinary course opposite and contrary.  
By an argument drawn from special privilege, Petrus Thyraeus, de locis infestis, part. 1. cap. 9 maintaineth, That humane souls may return out of Purgatory; yea, out of Hell. 
h Bonum publicum Legislatori semper propositum est: hoc si, lege praeteritâ, obtineri potest, legis ratio magna non habetur.  The Lawmaker (saith he) hath an eye still aiming at a general good: which general good, if it take place and succeed without the law, it is no great detriment or wrong to the law.  
Cardinal Tolet, on John 1.3. 
i Aliquando solemus generatim loqui; ad mul●itudinem significandam; quamuìs non omnes partes multitudinis comprehendantur.  Sometimes we speak generally, to signify a numerous multitude: though we do not mean to comprise all and every parcel of that multitude. 1. Cor. 9.25. Every man that striveth for the mastery, is temperate in all things: But neither do all abstain, nor do they, who abstain, abstain from all things. Which truth in the mouth of Tolet, might be confirmed at large by the Fathers. Let S. Hierom only give in his verdict; Hierom, Tom. 3. Epist. ad Damasum, de Prodigo, thus, 
k Canon Scripturarum est, Omnia non ad totum referenda, sed ad maximam partem.  It is even a rule in Scripture, that the word ALL hath not reference to the whole (comprehending every singular particular) but to the greatest part. And as OMNIS, All, so likewise NULLUS, None, is restrained, 1. Kings 18.10. where the words No nation or kingdom, extend not through the whole world; but are to be reduced and confined to those Nations or Kingdoms which were Achabs' subjects or tributaries, to whom he might and could administer an oath: which he did not, could not do in the dominions of other absolute free Princes.  
I must yet come up closer to Bellarmine. Gen. 7.18. Repleverunt aquae Omnia in superficie terrae, as it is in their Vulgat: though it be not so, either in the Hebrew, or Greek. And, All the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered, vers. 19 Yet Bellarmine, in lib. de Gratia primi hominis, cap. 4. excepteth Paradise, which, being on earth, was not overflown.  
Genes. 7.21. All flesh died,— and every man: and vers. 22. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life— died: and vers. 23. Every living substance— both man and cattles, etc. Yet for all these generalities, Bellarmine, in the place cited, excepteth Enoch, who then lived upon earth, in Paradise, as he imagined.  
Rom. 5.12. Death passed upon all, for that all have sinned. But, 
l Praeventa fuit Maria singulari gratiâ & privilegio Dei, ut simul & esse & justa esse inciperet.  The Virgin Mary was prevented by God's special grace, so that she was free from sin so soon as she had any being, saith Bellarmine, Tom. 3. the amissione great. & statu peccat. 4.16. He exempteth her by special privilege from sin. Why may not we, by the force of his reason, exempt an other from death? Moreover, Enoch and Elias, at what time S. Paul wrote these words, were not dead; though the Apostle speaketh of things past: nor are dead yet, as the Papists hold. Gorran on the place answereth appositely, Death went over all, REATV, non ACTV; by way of guiltiness, not actually.  
1. Corinth. 15.51, etc. We shall all be changed at the last trump: Yet Bellarmine, de Romano Pontifice, 3.6. saith that Enoch and Elias shall die and rise again before the general resurrection: till which time the last trump bloweth not: And Christ was risen before; though the words be large: and not Christ alone; but (if Holcot be not deceived, on Wisd. 2.5.) 
m De Matre Christi benedicta, piè credit Ecclesia, quòd sit in ea resurrectio completa.  It is an holy belief of the Church, that the blessed mother of Christ hath obtained a full and perfect resurrection. Which words suffice to cross other Papists, who deny that any exception is to be made to the general axioms; though by us they are held as fables.  
3. Let us take a view of some indefinites, and we shall not find them to be universally applied.  
The Prophets are dead, John 8.53. yet Enoch was a Prophet, Judas vers. 14. and Elijah was chief among Prophets: Notwithstanding, these were not dead. Revel. 14.13. The dead rest from their labours; yet diverse have been raised from a true death, and have returned again into this world of labour. My very Text is fertile of more particulars to this purpose, It is appointed unto men to die 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, S●MEL; UNO TEMPORE, as it is in the Syriack, word for word: yet some have died twice. It is appointed unto men once to die, and after that cometh JUDGEMENT: but Christ was not judged after he died. That he was judged in the particular judgement of souls, cannot be; since himself is there the Judge. So shall he also be judge in the general judgement.  
But let us return to the universals. Matth. 26.33. Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended: yet was he a man: and if the words there be restrained to all Christ's Disciples or Apostles; yet Peter accounts himself none of that all; and exempts himself from the number of them that would be scandalised. 1. Corinth. 15.27. He hath put all things under his feet: But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him. Heb. 11.13. These All died in faith: Yet Aquinas truly there excepteth Enoch.  
Aquinas, in 4. lib. Sentent. dist. 43. artic. 4. thus, By the same reasons by which we shown that all should arise from the dead, may we show also, that all shall arise A CINERIBUS, in the general resurrection: unless by especial grace the contrary be granted to some; as the hastening of the resurrection is granted to some. Where Aquinas confesseth that some are dispensed withal, both for incineration, that their bodies should not be turned into dust; and some also shall have a speedier resurrection by an especial grace. Why then, by the especial grace of the same God, may not some be freed from the stroke of death?  
4. Salmeron tuggeth it out hard by the teeth, to uphold that none shall be acquitted from death; but, without exception, all must die. Harken to his reasons.  

n Si Christo & matri Christi mors non pepercit, cui parcet?  If death spared not Christ and his Mother, whom will death spare? I answer, Death spareth none; so that no one can say, I will not die. Death spareth none: but he that hath the power of death, may spare whom he pleaseth. Fire and water have no mercy: yet the three children were preserved in the fire, and S. Peter walked upon the sea. The rivers have divided themselves; yea, the Red sea gathered itself together, and was as a wall on the right hand and on the left, in the passage of the children of Israel toward Canaan. God, above the pitch of humane reason, may free whom he will from death; and shut up the mouth of the grave, that it shall not swallow some, as he did the mouths of the lions, when he saved Daniel.  
Again saith Salmeron, 
o Qui cum Christo mortui non sunt, non resurgent, nec erunt membra ejus.  Who die not with Christ, or as well as Christ, shall not arise, nor be members of his body. All the Jesuits in the earth cannot demonstrate that proposition. If they use S. Augustine's reason, 
p Resurrectio est solummodo mortuorum: At omnes resurgent: Ergòomnes morientur.  Only the dead shall arise: But all shall arise: Therefore all shall die: I answer with S. Augustine, and many more (what is handled at large in the third part) 
q Immutatio erit vice resurrectionis.  Change shall be a kind of resurrection: and in the proposition, The dead are not taken strictly; but largely, for any such as have changed their first life. But take we the dead properly and natively, for such only as indeed have died; the proposition is false, and must be denied; since we shall not all die, but some shall be changed; and yet both the one and the other sort shall be raised.  
Salmeron again, on 1. Cor. 15. thus objecteth; 
r Tardante Sponso, dormitaverunt omnes, & dormierunt.  While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept, Matth. 25.5. Did not Salmeron sleep, slumber, and dream, when he produceth these words to prove that all shall die? when the words have apparent reference to the supine security of their minds; and perhaps, if you will, to their bodily sluggishness, drowsiness, and sleep, if there were any reality in the parable. Death was never meant in these words: for Christ doth not there, that is, at the resurrection, tarry; but he that shall come will come, and will not tarry, Heb. 10.37. He continueth objecting thus; 
f Stulte, quod seminas non vivificatur nisi mortuum fuerit: Ergò Omnes mor●entur, quia Omnes vivificabuntur.  THOU FOOL, THAT WHICH THOU SO WEST IS NOT QUICKENED EXCEPT IT DIE, 1. Cor. 15.36. Therefore All shall die, because All shall be quickened. I answer, The Apostles drift in that place is, not to show whether any shall remain alive, or all die: but he only proveth by natural reason, that resurrection may grow out of putrefaction. Secondly, even they themselves who say All must die, cannot take the words exactly as they sound. For then as the seed hath time to rot, and rotteth ere it quicken: so the bodies of men should suffer corruption and putrefaction, as the seeds do; which they dare not say. Lastly, seeds do not die properly; there is no separation of a soul from a body: they die analogally and improperly: and so do even those who shall not die, but shall be changed.  
An other objection is, Genes. 3.19. Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Peter Martyr answereth, 
t Id est, Quamdiu orbis durare pergat, & nisi dies judicii cursum naturae intercipiat.  That is, whilst this world lasteth, and till the day of judgement break off the course of nature. But I say, that even such as maintain that every one must die, will not say they shall reverti in terram, Be incinerated and turned into dust and earth: for they allow a very short time, till the body's reunion.  
If any will still urge the generality, and press the extent of the words, and force of the decree, It is appointed unto men to die: I answer with Bellarmine himself, 
u Decreto satisfieri videtur, si omnes Adae posteri, morti obnoxi● sunt. Tom. 3. de amissione great. & stat. pec. 4.15.  The decree is performed, if all the posterity of Adam be obnoxious to death: Or as S. Augustine answered the Pelagians, concerning those which shall be alive at Christ's coming; 
x Satìs est, illos fuisse morti destinatos 〈◊〉 quae subsecuta esset, si seculum processisset. Quòd eximantur à morte, erit casus; neque privilegium paucorum universali causae derogat.  It sufficeth that they were appointed to die: and die they should if the world had endured. By casualty they are freed from death, nor doth the dispensation with some particular ones infringe the universal cause, as I vouched in the second book. And (as S. Augustine goeth on) when they have lived a life full of misery, and calamity; who can say, they have not tasted death? especially, since thirst, hunger, cold, heat, infirmities, crosses, sicknesses, are nothing else but a daily dying. In which regard the wise woman of Tekoa, in her subtle oration saith not, We shall all, and every one die; but 2. Sam. 14.14. We die (MORIENDO MORIMUR; so runneth the Hebrew) and are as water spilt on the ground; when immediately, both before and after, she had spoken of outward crosses. 
y Etiam dum crescimus vita decrescit.  Even whilst we are growing, our life decreaseth, saith Seneca: Which S. Augustine, in libro Soliloq. cap. 2. thus enlargeth, 
z Vita mea, quantò magìs crescit, tantò magìs decrescit; quantò magìs procedit, tantò magìs ad mortem accedit.  My life in going forward, groweth backward: and by how much it advanceth forward, by so much it maketh a nearer approach to death. As the fire itself consumes its fuel, and is nourished by the consumption of it: so man's age is fed and nourished by the consumption of his life, and of the age he liveth in. Man at the same time gins to live, and die: for LIFE is but the way tending to DEATH: 
a Nascendo morimur, imò longè ante nativitatem morimur.  In our birth we die; yea long before it. From the instant of the souls infusion, we begin to die. Lastly, I say, in that Christ died for all, Although some be extraordinarily dispensed withal, every one may be said to die; Christ by the grace of God tasted death for every man. Hebr. 2.9. Thus much shall serve for the first part of the answer.  
O Blessed Saviour, who art life in thyself, and the fountain of life unto others, Grant, I humbly beseech thee, that when I shall pass from this present world, from this dying life, or living death, I may evermore live by Thee, in Thee, and with Thee. Amen. Amen.   

CHAP. II.  
1. The third question resumed, Whether every one must die? The second part of the answer unto it, That some have been excepted, as Enoch and Elias. The controversy hath been exquisitely handled by King James, and Bishop Andrews.  
2. Bellarmine's third demonstration, that Antichrist is not yet come, propounded. The place of Malachi 4.5. expounded by Bishop Andrews: and enlarged by my additions. The Papists objection answered.  
3. The place of Ecclesiasticus 48.10. concerning Elias, examined.  
4. Another place of Ecclesiasticus, 44.16. concerning Enoch, handled at large against Bellarmine. Enoch was never any notorious sinner, in some men's opinions: Others, otherwise. Their arguments for both opinions are only probable; and answered. My opinion: and it confirmed. Some think E. noch died. Strange and various opinions concerning S. John the Evangelist, his living, death, and miraculous grave. More miracles, or else mistake, in the Temples, of Christ's Sepulchre, and of his Assumption, about Jerusalem. S. John did die. Enoch did not die, but is living. Mine own opinion of the place Genes. 5.24. Et non ipse: and it confirmed. A comparison between enoch's, Elijahs, and Christ's ascension. The posture and circumstances of Christ's ascending.  
5. Bellarmine and others say, Paradise is now extant: In the earth, or in the air, saith Lapide the Jesuit. The old translation censured. The heaven, into which Enoch and Elias were carried, was not Aërium, nor Coeleste; but Supercoeleste. The earthly Paradise is not extant, as it was. Salianus with others say truly, The material remaineth, not the formal: Superest quoad Essentiam, non quoad Ornatum: The Place is not removed, but the Pleasure, and amenity. Salianus his gross error, That Enoch and Elias are kept by Angels, within the bounds of old Paradise on earth.  
6. Enoch shall never die, as is proved from Hebr. 11.5. Three evasions in answer to that place, confuted. Melchizedech, and strange things of him. The East-Indian language hath great affinity with the Hebrew. An error of moment in Guilielmus Postellus Barentonius. Elias was not burnt by that fire which rapted him. Soul and body concur to make a man, saith Augustine from the great Marcus Varro. Vives taxed. Moses at the transsiguration, appeared in his own body. An idle conceit of Bellarmine, concerning Moses his face; and good observations of Origen upon that point. It is probable, that Elias was changed at his rapture, and had then a glorified body. An humane soul may possibly be in a mortal body in the third heaven. Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, are in their bodies in hell, properly so called; and alive in the hell of the damned. Ribera and Viegas confuted. Our Doctor Raynolds was not in the right in this matter. Some kind of proofs, That Enoch and Elias are in glorified bodies in heaven. The place of Revel. 11.7. concerning the two Witnesses, winnowed by Bishop Andrews. Enoch and Elias are not those two witnesses.  
THe main third question being, Whether all men, and every one must of necessity die? the first part of the answer was, That there was no absolute necessity, but there might be an exception. The second part of the answer touched at, was this; That some have been excepted, who never did die, nor shall die. If I be further demanded, Who they be? I will only insist in Enoch and Elias. The controversy concerning which two men, is so exquisitely handled by the most learned Monarch, our late Sovereign King James, in his monitory Preface; and by his Second, the reverend Bishop Andrews, in his answer to Bellarmine his Apology, cap. 11. that the most scrupulous inquisitor may be satisfied.  
After I have selected some matters of moment from that unanswerable Prelate, I will take leave to glean after the gathering of their of their full sheaves; and to discover a few clusters, after their plentiful vintage; and to bring to your taste some remarkable passages concerning Enoch and Elias, which (perhaps) they thought fit to omit, as affecting brevity, or tying themselves most strictly to the question; whilst the nature of my Miscellanies give me licence to travel fare and near.  
2. Bellarmine, Tom. 1 de Romano Pontifice 3.6. makes it his third Demonstration (as he calleth it) that Antichrist is not yet come, Because Enoch and Elias are not come; who yet do live, and must oppose Antichrist. Bellarmine's first place, is from Malach. 4.5, and sixth verses; Behold, I will send you Elijah the Prophet, etc. The Bishop, pag. 255. from Chrysostom well observeth, that most Greek and Latin 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 civet. 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 find 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 Spain's Bible's it is viciously and erroneously written, in the translation of the Septuagint, BEHOLD, I WILL SEND UNTO YOU ELIAS THE PROPHET: as if there had not been diversity of copies: and as if those copies which are most agreeable to the Original, were not to be preferred, or were ill and erroneous: as if we were to bring and bend the Original to the Septuagint; as Carafa professeth to reduce the 70 to the Vulgat.  
There is an error also, saith Bishop Andrews, 
b Cùm Graeci utrobique legant, ascendisse Eliam, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non In coelum, (quoth expressen tamen habetur in Hebraeo) sed, Quasi in coelum.  When the Grecians in both places read, that Elias ascended AS INTO HEAVEN; not INTO HEAVEN, (which is expressly 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 reads 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 read it, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not Quasi but Vsque: which reading affordeth no patrociny 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 prophecy was complete; That John did do what Malachi said Elias was to do. And because John came in the virtue 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 Christ's 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 Messiah; 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 add 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 ways: Yea, More than a Prophet, Matth. 11.9. S. Hierom, on Matth. 11. draweth out the parallels to more length: John came in the virtue and power of Elias; 
c Et eandem Spiritus sanc●●, vel gratiam habuit, vel mensuram: sed & vitae austeritas, vig●rque mentis, Heliae, & Joannis, pares sunt, etc.  Elias and John had both the same grace and measure of the holy Ghost, and were equal in austerity of life, and vigour of mind: Each lived in the wilderness: 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 confess; 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 Messiah, even the covenant of peace. Moreover, what offerings of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasant to the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years, Malach. 3.4? shall such offerings be after Christ's second coming? And, if such were; yet after all this, he saith, Mal. 3.5. Christ will come near to you to judgement; Shall we have an other judgement after the second, which the Spirit of God calleth the Eternal judgement, Heb. 6.2. and is the last judgement, by an universal agreement? Besides, as the last day may be called, and truly 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 rejoicing to them; though it be dismal to the wicked: So the day of Christ's first coming, though it was accompanied with good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people, Luke 2.10. yet was it also a dreadful day to the wicked and disobedient men; worse, then if he had never come: and it was doleful also to the evil spirits, whom he then vanquished, cast out, and tormented before their time, Matth. 8.29. triumphing over them in his own person, and trampling them down, and breaking them in pieces with his rod of iron, in their own kingdom: and therefore may justly be called, in respect of them, a terrible day. The Prophet's testimony reacheth home, for confirmation hereof, Isa. 61.2. He hath sent me to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all that mourn. Which Prophecy Christ himself (Luke 4.18, etc.) applieth to his first coming, and addeth remarkably (vers. 21) This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears. The day of vengeance (you see) is threatened in Christ's first coming: And is not the day of vengeance unto such, to whom vengeance passively belongeth, a terrible day? Which truth is also confirmed by that admirable similitude foreprophesied in the law of Moses, and applied to Christ in the law of Grace; concerning Christ's being, not only a chief cornerstone, 1. Pet. 2.6. and the head of the corner, Psal. 118.22. Elect and precious, saith S. Peter: a tried stone, a sure foundation, Isa. 28.16. and for a sanctuary, Isa. 8.14. and whosoever believeth on him, shall not be ashamed, Rom. 9.33: But also, Christ is compared to a stumbling stone, and a rock to make men fall, Rom. 9.32, 33: or, as Isaiah hath it, a stumbling stone, and as a rock to fall upon:— and as a snare, and as a net:— And many shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and snared, and taken, Isa. 8.14. etc. Whosoever shall fall on this stone, shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder, Matth. 21.44. And is not such a stone terrible to such as fall on it? or on whom it falleth? and is not that time terrible, when it falleth? This is prophesied of Christ's first coming; and so his first coming is truly said to be a terrible day unto some.  
Lastly, it is insinuated, that Christ, when he cometh, may smite the earth with a curse: which must be understood of his first coming: for after his second coming, after the day of judgement, the earth is not to be cursed, but rather blessed: For there shall be a new heaven, and a new earth; ●no sorrow, nor crying, nor pain, Revel. 21.1, 4. Upon which reasons, and others, I have wondered that the divine Drusius should be so caught with the Jewish fable, as to doubt whether Elias be come, or no. Drusius, in his castigations or notes on Ecclesiasticus 48.11. thus, 
a Hodie multorum ●pinio est, credentium istud Malachiae vaticinium ex parte tantùm in Joanne completum fuisse● High tenant, venturum abhuc Eliam in propria persona, sub adventum Domini, quem vocant alterum, sive secundum; hoc est, ante extremum judicium: Quae vera, an falsa sint, non decerno: H●c tantùm, Judaeos etiamnum, cum suo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, expectare Eliam, de quo hî● sermo est: unde dicunt, Cùm venerit Elias, ipse docebit nos omnia.  To this day many think and believe that this prophecy of Malachi was only by the Baptist in part fulfilled: and they hold that Eliah shall personally and bodily appear, toward the second coming of our Lord, before the last judgement. Whether these things be true or false, I determine not: This only I will say, The Jews do as yet, and to this hour look for Eliah to come with their Messiah: and of him they have this saying, WHEN ELIAH COMETH, HE SHALL TEACH US ALL THINGS. I reply; What part, what syllable in Malachi concerning Elias, was not fulfilled by John the Baptist? If many do now believe otherwise, they are such as are Jews, who neither believe the words of our Saviour, who said Elias was come; and therefore think Elias shall come, because they think their Messiah is not come at all: or at least they do Judäize in this point, whosoever they be that expect the personal coming of the Tishbite.  
Christopher Castrus the Jesuit, on Malach. 4.8. concludeth, That the true Elias shall yet come, because it was the voice of the Jews, and the expectation of the Scribes and Pharisees; who said in the same places, that Elias should come 
b Ante Christum gloriosum, ut super Matthaeum ass●rit H●eronymus.  before Christ's glorious appearing, as S. Hierom writeth on Matthew. First, I answer, that the Jews did expect the coming of their Messiah, to be glorious in all worldly pomp. Secondly, I call not now to mind, that the Scribes, Pharisees, or Jews, ever expected a second coming of their Messiah. Thirdly, whereas our Saviour saith, Matth. 17.11. Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things: though these words were spoken after John the Baptist was beheaded, yet Christ meaneth not, that Elias shall come corporally; but in answering his disciples, he propoundeth the objection of the Jews, which they before alleged more briefly, and speaketh according to their opinion: Elias indeed shall come; and then▪ in the verse following, Christ saith unto his disciples thus in effect, by way of correction, Whatsoever the Scribes say or affirm concerning Elias his bodily coming, is not literally to be understood; BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, THAT ELIAS IS COME ALREADY. And what he saith to his disciples here, he saith to the people, Matth. 11.14. If ye will receive it, This is Elias which was for to come. He fore-knew that some would not believe him; and therefore he said, If ye will receive it, This is Elias; This John, who then did live, this John is Elias; not which shall come (this is the exposition of the Jews:) but this John is that Elias which was to come, and now is come, and the prophesy fulfilled. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.  
The last words (as Hierom well observeth) do evince, that the former, to wit, If ye will receive it, This is Elias, are mystical, and hard to be understood; no plain sense, or manifest sentence. Whence I infer, that plain and easy it would have been to the Jews, if he would have said, as they did think, That Elias should come bodily; although the Baptist did resemble him in virtue and power, and was equal unto him. But here is the mystery, That Malachi never intended, that Elias should live on earth corporally, against Christ's second coming: but that the Baptist was prefigured in Elias; and whatsoever was prophesied by Malachi of Elias, was accomplished by the Baptist: and no other Elias to come, but the Baptist in virtue and power of Elias, and not according to the outward letter. Here is a mystery, here is depth, which the 
c Judaei, & Judaizantes haeretici.  Jews and Jewishly addicted heretics (as Hierom styleth them) will hardly believe.  
3. Bellarmine, de Rom. Pontif. 3.6. draweth the second and third part of his third demonstration from two places of Ecclesiasticus: The first is, Chap. 48. vers. 10. Who wast ordained for reproofs in their times, to pacify the wrath of the Lords judgement before it broke forth into fury, and to turn the heart of the father unto the son, and to restore (or establish) the tribes of Israel. First, I may answer, Ecclesiasticus is not held Canonical, but Apocryphal; even by such as, for the many divine and admirable things in that book, could wish (if it were no sin to wish) that it were truly Canonical: And Apocryphals are not held sufficient to settle a point of controversy. Secondly, it may be also said, that Jansenius maintaineth, this place evinceth not that Elias shall come personally; because Ecclesiasticus wrote according to the received opinion of those times, which, from the words of Malachi, believed that Elias was to come in his own proper person. Bellarmine's reply upon Jansenius, is shallow in this point, saying, 
d Si it à est, ut Jansenius dicit, sequitur Ecclesiasticum errâsse, & falsa scripsisse.  If Jansenius saith truth, it followeth that Ecclesiasticus hath erred, and writ some false things: as if he, who writeth the opinion of others, may not relate an error, and write false things; though he err not himself, nor believeth the false things. S. Matthew, chap. 2.6. wrote what the Jews said concerning the place of Christ's birth; the things were miscited, and yet no error or fault in S. Matthew. The Spirit of truth hath written, that The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Because the fool thought foolishly and untruly, God forbidden that we should turn fools also, and think that the holy Ghost did err, because he truly recordeth an untrue opinion, or an untrue thing, true only in the relation. This have I said, to defend both Jansenius and Ecclesiasticus, against Bellarmine. Thirdly, I might answer, Only these last words have the shadow of an argument, To restore, or to establish the tribes of Israel: which because John did not do, Elias must do hereafter. For indeed it is but a shadow; since as John the Baptist did turn the heart of the father unto the son, (as was before proved) so he may be also said, to establish, or restore the tribes of Israel; not to any temporal kingdom, which cannot be proved to be intended by Ecclesiasticus, (for in Malachi there is altum silentium, not a word spoken concerning this point:) but to the true service of God, from which they were fallen: for he preached unto some of all sorts; of the two tribes, of the ten tribes, yea of the Gentiles. There went out unto John, Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, Mat. 3.5. and Jordan divided Galilee from Judea: yea Christ himself came from Galilee to John to be baptised, Matth. 3.13. And he taught both Publicans and Soldiers, and Herod, and some of all sorts thereabouts, Luk. 3.13, 14. etc. and thus did he restore, or establish the tribes of Israel. The Bishop's Bible hath the controverted words thus; To set up the tribes of Israel. So Coverdale.  constitueres tribus Jacob, saith Tremellius; according to the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, translated also by the interlineary, ad constituendum: or as Vatablus, ad constituendas tribus Jacob, to establish the tribes of Israel. Many are the significations of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but no where doth it signify, to restore unto a dispersed people their lost kingdom; which is the hope of the Jews, or the exposition of the Jewishly affected: nor is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so expounded otherwhere, either in the Septuagint, or in the New Testament, or in any classical Author. It is rendered usually, by constituere; Restituere, is a black swan.  
But mine own opinion is, that Ecclesiasticus prophesieth not, what should be thereafter, viz. after the day of his writing, either concerning John, or Elias; but only relateth what was passed: and it is an Eulogy, and laudatorie of Elias his worth; as appeareth by the antecedent, and consequent narratives; where all runs in terms designing out times passed and gone, none touching at the present tense or time, much less at the future: and so it can be no prophecy concerning Elias personally to come hereafter; especially since there is never a passage in Ecclesiasticus concerning Elias, which Elias did not accomplish before his assumption: and more particularly, he reconciled God to his children the Israelites, and turned their hearts to him. Thus did he restore, or establish the tribes of Israel, in his time: for, 1. King. 18.21. Elias said unto all the people (that were gathered out of Israel) How long will ye halt between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him: And then by miracle under God, he established them, or restored the tribes to the right religion, from which they were fallen by idolatry, the fall of all falls foulest. Even Bellarmine himself expounds Restituerunt, they restored, by Converterunt, they converted, in this very chapter: thus fare truly proving, that Zuinglius and Luther were not the Enoch and Elias prophesied of; because Elias was to convert the Jews, and indeed converted many, (as I proved before) which neither Luther nor Zuinglius did, for aught that I have read.  
4. The second place insisted upon by Bellarmine, is Ecclesiasticus 44.16. Enoch was translated, being an example of repentance to all generations. The Septuagint have it thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Translatus est, exemplum poenitentiae generationibus, He was translated, being an example of repentance to following generations, saith the interlineary: Nationibus, to the nations, saith Vatablus:  det Gentibus sapientiam, that he may give wisdom to the Gentiles, saith the Vulgat edition, printed by Petrus Santandreanus, 1614; and it hath in the margin Poenitentiam, repentance. But to leave that variety: the Vulgat is not properly translated; for it is not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gentibus, to the Gentiles, as opposed to the Jews; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Posteris, or Generationibus, to future posterity. And if it were Gentibus, as Bellarmine readeth it; yet it maketh the more against him, who would have Enoch, and especially Elias, do greater things for the Jews, then for the Gentiles.  
Lastly, it is not so much as intended by any word of Ecclesiasticus, that Enoch shall hereafter appear in the flesh personally, and then die; and be an example of repentance to the Nations: for after he had so long pleased God and walked with God in this world, and after he was taken by God from amongst men (and no doubt, much more, then pleased God, and walked with God) if he should come again into this world, here to live; should he sinne again, that he might be an example of repentance? The conceit is vast, harsh, and improbable, if the supposal should have a certain accomplishment: but that this, and all other controverted points of moment, concerning Enoch, or Elias, may be the better cleared, let us examine these questions:  
1. Whether Enoch in his life-time, was ever any great sinner?  
2. Whether Enoch did ever die?  
3. Whether Enoch and Elias now live in and with their bodies, in Paradise?  
4. Whether ever they shall die; or do live with glorified bodies in the highest heavens?  
Concerning the first, Whether Enoch in his life-time was ever any grievous sinner? First, I answer and say, I speak not of the first Enoch, the son of Cain, the grandchild of Adam and Eve, in honour and memorial of whom, Cain built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch, Genes. 4.17. but of the second and younger Enoch, the son of Jared, Genes. 5.18. of the posterity of Seth.  
Secondly, I question not, but that this latter, best Enoch, was a sinner; and in his own estimate, a great sinner: and he might have said, and doubtless did say in effect, as David did, and as Adam, and all his offspring (except Christ) Have mercy upon me, O God, Psal. 51.1. and, Create in me a clean heart, O God, Psal. 51.10. O Lord pardon mine iniquity, for it is great, Psal. 25.11. And in the balance of God (setting aside mercy) he might have been weighed, found light, and accounted for a main delinquent. But this is the Quaere, Whether comparatively, and in respect of other men, even of such whose lives ends also pleased God, he was so notorious a sinner, that he alone was the fittest example of repentance to succeeding generations? My answer is negatively: for I am sure, Adam, and, as I think, Noah, and Lot, and diverse other holy Patriarches, might as well, yea rather, be an example of repentance to future times, then Enoch; especially, if we measure sins by the records of Scripture: for the holy Writ hath more amply insisted upon their sins, then upon enoch's; and no part of the Canonical Scripture toucheth at any thing that was extraordinarily offensive in Enoch; but magnifieth his goodness, Gen. 5.22. and his faith, Heb. 11.5. Yet, because the divine Writ might omit the offences of Enoch; and because I cannot think that Ecclesiasticus wrote without some ground; let us search what other Authors have conceited, or written, for, or against Enoch.  
Some think that Enoch, all the course of his conversation amongst men in this world, lived unblamably, and walked with God. Some Jews held, that Enoch was an incarnate Angel; 
e Vixit, dum vixit, laudabiliter.  Whilst he lived, he lived worthy of praise, saith Drusius. Others writ, that in his youth he was very wicked; but after repent, and turned hearty to God, redeeming the time. Drusius proveth, that Enoch was a good man still, by these arguments. Josephus, Antiq. 1.5. at the end saith, Seth was a virtuous man, and left 
f Nepotes sui similes.  issue like himself; and they were all good men: therefore Enoch was so. The posterity of Seth, according to the best Interpreters, are called Filii Dei, the sons of God, Genes. 5.2. 
g Filii Dei sunt, judicio Augustini, qui secunditm Deum vivunt.  Augustine accounteth that they were called the sons of God, who pleased God. Hischuni also, an Author cited by Drusius, saith, Because Enoch was just, the Scripture, 
h Honoris cau●â.  to dignify him, used a new phrase concerning him, saying, HE WAS NOT. And, It is a probable reason, that Enoch was not any time so ill, as some imagine; because he lived with Adam 308 years, and ministered so long unto him, as it is in libro JOH ASIN, saith Drusius.  
On the other side, 
i Sunt qui insimulan; eum levitatis & inconstantiae: nam aiunt modò justum, modò improbum fuisse. Id relatum in Genesi magno.  Some say he was light and inconstant: sometimes just, sometimes wicked; as is recorded in the great Genesis (a book called in Hebrew, BERESITH RABATH) made by one Ibbo: so relateth Drusius in his book called Henoch, chap. 5. If Ibbo had said, Henochum fuisse modò improbum, modò justum, That Enoch was now and then wicked, now and then just; I should fare rather have consented: for every just man, except Christ, was sometime wicked. But that Enoch, after he was once just, turned to be extraordinarily wicked, I can never believe. For the Spirit would never have given him this testimony, that he pleased God, and walked with him; if he had after returned as the dog to his vomit, or as the sow to her wallowing in the mire. Rabbi Levi the son of Gersom thus, 
k Enoch ambulavit in viis Domini, postquam genuit Methusalem, annos 300.  Enoch walked with God after he begat Methusalem, 300 years: whereby he intimateth that he walked, 
l Non in viis domini, sed in viis seculi sui.  Not in the narrow paths of the Lord, but in the high ways of the world: and by that account he might be wicked sixty fie years of his age, or thereabouts. The arguments of either side are but weak, and may be easily answered. Seths' posterity might do some notable wicked acts; and most hearty repent, and be both holy, and accounted the sons of God. The phrase used concerning his being taken out of this world, evinceth not, that all the former passages of his life were just. Thirdly, he might live in Adam's time, yet not near him: and he might live with him, and yet not minister unto him: and he might minister unto him, and yet be wicked before he ministered; yea, even for a time whilst he ministered unto Adam. Many godly parents have lived to see wicked ones of their offspring: and it may be that Adam converted him not, till after some time that he ministered unto Adam, and had seen evident signs of Adam's own great repentance and holiness.  
On the other side, Ibbo writeth like a fabler; and his words were before rejected, as improbable. Rabbi Levi, alleging nothing but conjecture, wanteth weight for an argument.  
Now, as there is nothing certain, either pro, or contra; so, if my opinion be asked, I shall manifest myself to think, that Enoch was sometimes a grievous sinner; and after, a most contrite repentant, and a most holy man. My reason is, Because I ascribe more to the books called Apocryphal, then to any humane Author: for they alone are, and have been many hundreds of years, joined with the Canonical Scripture, and read in all Churches, except the Jewish, at set times, as well as the Canonical; as no other writings of any other are. And if no part of them were divinely inspired: yet were the men that wrote them, both holy and learned; and the Churches of God have dignified them above all other writings.  
Now, though the undoubted Canon mentioneth not any evil act or acts of Enoch (as millions of millions of matters are omitted, both in the Old and New Testament;) yet some passages of the Apocryphals bend me to think, that Enoch was sometimes a great sinner: for he was an example of repentance unto posterity: therefore, in likelihood, his sin was exemplary, and his repentance proportioned in a sort unto it.  
When Christ said, John 13.15. I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you; the precedent actions demonstrate, that he shown great humility, and brotherly love, to which he exhorted them. When S. James saith, chap. 5.10. Take the Prophets for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience; it may be justly inferred, that they suffered great affliction, and were very patiented. So when Ecclesiasticus saith, Enoch was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is the same word, that is used in both the former places) an example of repentance; the resultance is fair; Enoch was a very great penitent; otherwise he was unfit to be an example unto others; since exemplary men and actions have always somewhat above ordinary in their kind, and are so excellent therein, that they are seldom or never outgone by any that follow them. As the picture (though taken to life, as they call it) cometh short of the lively body; and artificials of naturals: so doth the exempla. tum, the duplicate, or counterpain, of the exemplar, the pattern, or original. We attain not to that perfection which S. Paul had, though he commanded us to follow his example: nor he to the entire perfection of Christ, whom S. Paul set before himself, as the example to imitate.  
Let no man nicely insist, that exemplum and exemplar do differ. I profess, that I weigh not matters to scruples, or half-scruples; but, though I know some take exemplar for the man from whom the example was taken, yet I use the words promiscuously: Enoch was an example of repentance; therefore he was sometimes a great sinner: since as there needeth no repentance where is no sin; so he is Stoically mad, who thinketh that there needeth as great repentance for small sins, as for great. Degrees of sins ought to have proportionable degrees of repentance. The sacrifices were more chargeable for heinous crimes, then for little offences. Indeed one may charitably think, that Enoch was no chief delinquent; but did (as tender consciences will) repent much, even for smaller sins: and an inference may be thus made; If Enoch so much repent for a few motes, for sins not unto death; how fit is he to be an example of repentance to us, who have sinned a thousand times worse, and have beams upon beams in our eyes, and repent a thousand times less? But I rather think, according to the use of the phrase in other places, that his being an example of repentance, proveth, both primarily, that he was a chief penitent; and secondarily, that there was some proportion between his repentance and his sin. Which I rather embrace, because of another place, viz. Wisd. 4.10. He pleased God, and was beloved of him, so that living among sinners, he was translated: and vers. 11. Yea, speedily was he taken away, lest that wickedness should alter his understanding, or deceit beguile his soul: and ver. 13. He being made perfect (consummated or sanctified) in a short time, fulfilled a long time.  
My first observation is this, That these verses are meant of Enoch; since the Apostle seemeth to have alluded to the place, Heb. 11.5. which I marvel that the learned Holcot and Lyra did not so much as once touch at; but apply the words, with violence, to the generality; though the narration be in the passed time, not in the present, much less in the future.  
With mine opinion Drusius agreeth, expounding the words of Enoch: and the margin of Vatablus, and of the old Bishop's bibles, and of Coverdales', and of our last Translations, do design, and as it were with the finger point at the story of Enoch. The second point is in confesso, clear and evident, That Enoch was assumed whilst he was in an holy estate. The third, That he was sometimes wicked; as may be intimated from these passages:  
First, That he lived among sinners: which all men else did, as well as Enoch, unless the place be meant of notorious sinners: and though an Abraham may be in Ur; a Lot, in Sodom: yet even both of them in those places contracted some corruption. They who walk in the sun, are somewhat sunne-burnt. 
Noscitur ex socio, qui non cognoscitur ex se:  
Who by himself is hardly known,  
Is known by his companion.  David cried, Woe is me, that I sojourn in Mesech, and that I dwell in the tents of Kedar, Psal. 120.5. The Prophet justly complaineth, That he dwelled among a people of polluted lips, Isai. 6.5. If one scabbed sheep infect a whole flock, an unsound flock may infect one good sheep. Sin is like a gangrene, a leprosy, and the plague; of a spreading and infectious nature. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, 1. Cor. 5.6. Christ himself could not do the good which he would have done, where the people's unbelief was exceeding, Matth. 13.58. but he went otherwhere, Mark 6.6. There are as well popular sins, as epidemical diseases; and holy ones have been tainted in both kinds.  
Secondly, It is not said, He went out from among the wicked, he separated himself, or fled from their sight or company, which had been fitting in such dangerous places; but, God translated him: it was God's act, not his.  
Thirdly, saith the Text, He was speedily taken away: presuppose, as Lot was by the Angel pulled out of Sodom by the hand, Genes. 19.16. or Habakkuk by the hair of the head; or as the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, Act. 8.39.  
Fourthly, This was done, Lest that wickedness should alter his understanding, or deceit beguile his soul. 
m Voluntas hominis deambulatoria est usque ad mortem, etc.  The will of man hath a power to be changed, even till death: his understanding unsettled, and easily to be deluded with appearances: the souls of men in this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, theatre of temptations, stand upon the ice, consist in lubrico, & in ancipiti, in slippery and doubtful places: they who stand, may fall: who have fallen, may recover. He was taken away speedily, to the intent he might not sinne: which the allseeing eye needed not to have done, if he could not have lost his station: and in likelihood, would not have done, but that Enoch before that time had both turned and returned, was both bad and good; which, in the last place, the thirteenth verse seemeth to confirm: as if his holiness had continued but a short time; but yet was so intense, and so consummate and perfect, even almost ad perfectionem graduum, to the highest perfection in this life; that in a short time he fulfilled a long time.  

n Justus erat Enoch; at ment levis, ut facilè redire potuerit ad vitam improbam: ideo properabat Deus eum tollere.  Enoch was just; but apt to return to wickedness: therefore God hastened to translate him, saith Rabbi Solomo. Procopius Gazaeus Sophista in his Commentary 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 enoch's repentance which he performed, that God made so much of him, and loved him. Though Salianus saith of this testimony, that 
p Nescio quomodo animus aversatur.  his mind was against it: yet there is no impossibility, no nor improbability in it; and howsoever it be not apodictical, 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, etc. he bringeth Enoch in, as an example. And it seemeth (saith he) that he followed Jesus the son of Sirach, in the words cited: viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ecclefiastic. 44.16. And though he slubbereth over the words and matter (which are to him Canonical) and saith, that The mind of the Scripture in that place is; that Enoch shall be an exemplary 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 sins; but was always holy, and most austere, preventing great sins, rather than repenting; and not so much bemoaning his own offences, as dehorting other men, and crying out against their iniquities, with a charge, almost enforcing them to repentance: whilst himself shown a sign of his being sanctified and illuminated, even in his mother's womb.  
Secondly, there is as much joy over a repentant, and God is as much glorified, for point of mercy, 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 enoch's 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, etc.  and now the same God in the seventh generation of the world, assumeth (as a sign of the ending of an age) I say, assumed Enoch as the first fruits of the reasonable creature. He was out of God's 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 find fault withal. 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 truly or falsely, I inquire not; but the matter giveth me the hint of an excursion.  
Moses said from God, Genes. 6.3. Man's days shall be an hundred and twenty years; and Moses himself died, when he was 120 years old, Deut. 34.7. David said, The days of our years are threescore years and ten, Psal. 90.10. and he himself, who prayed to God to teach him to number his days, died the same year (being the first lesser climacterical year, after that great one of nine times seven, that dangerous threescore and third year:) for, He was thirty years old when he began to reign; and he reigned forty years, 2. Sam. 5.4. Both these were most certain Prophets of their own deaths; and, perhaps, had more especial reference to their own times; designing those years out in the more general, which were more appropriate to their own persons in particular. Let me add two heathen examples, by way of imperfect parallels.  
That most exquisite work of nature, her glory, pride, and masterpiece, Julius Cesar, preferred a swift and sudden death, in his choice, before any other kind. 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 sickness ordered some things concerning his funerals; he hating so lingering 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 suitable 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 happiness, Augustus, the successor unto the dictator, 
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 easy departure might befall himself, and his friends. And, saith he, 
t Sortitus est exitum similem, & qualem semper optaverat, etc.  He died according as he always desired, parting, as in a compliment, with his most familiar friends; 
u Et repentè in osculis Liviae defecit.  and gave up the ghost amidst the kisses of Livia. This story hath brought my miscellany 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 Christ's 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 painful 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 Saluâ 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 tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Neither doth it satisfy 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 years: which being expired, he living as yet (the Lord would so have it) buried himself. The story is enlarged by S. Augustine, Tract. 124. in Joannem, thus; Some report, that in certain Scriptures, though Apocryphal, 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 showeth 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 believed to arise and to be forced from the bottom of the tomb 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 boileth 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 fare Augustine.  
Some such thing, in another case, is recorded by S. Hierom. Hear 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 showed. And whereas the same earth is taken away daily by the believing Christians, nevertheless 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 Saviour's bodily ascent into heaven: but Christ's 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 natural 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 CUPULO, 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 fare M. George Sands. M. Fines Morison saith, On the top of mount Olivet, the highest of all the mountains that compass Jerusalem, in a Chapel, they show in stone the print of Christ's feet, when he ascended into heaven.  
It did a little amaze me, that these our two countrymen, 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 plural; (Antiquity 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 countrymen 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 Authors 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 sons 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 SHALL DRINK OF MY CUP, & shall be put to a violent death, and be crowned with martyrdom, 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 truly alleged by Sixtus Senensis, ibid.) should interpret Chrysostoms' words, of the martyrdom 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 Christ's 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 Christ's mother, and was so beloved of Christ, should be so assumed, as Christ's 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 marginali 2. thus, Sixty eight years from Christ's death, S. John died at Ephesus, as Hierom hath it de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, in Joanne. And Polycrates, a most ancient Divine, writing to Victor, than Bishop of Rome, as Eusebius hath it, 1.25. saith of S. John, 
h Ephesi obdormivit.  He died at Ephesus. Tertullian, 
i Obiit Joannes, quem in adventu Domini remansurum, frustra fuerat spes; in lib. de Anima, cap. 5●.  S. John died, of whom some conceived a vain hope, that he should live till Christ came again. Eusebius, 3.33. saith, There were two john's in Asia: John the Apostle, and John the Disciple; and both their sepulchers were at Ephesus. Chrysostom, Homil. 26. in Epistolam ad Hebraeos, saith, The sepulchre of S. John is manifest, as of other Apostles: therefore he speaketh of S. John the Apostle: But, 
k Non nisi mortuorum solent esse sepulchra.  Sepulchers belong properly to them who are dead, as Baronius well inferreth. So much obiter, concerning some unusual passages about S. John, occasioned by Holcots testimony of the strange relation of his painless death: but this I shall by God's grace handle much more plentifully in my succeeding books, wherein against Cardan, and his Indian apples, the procurers of death without any pain, as he saith; I shall (I say) under the tuition of the Almighty, prove that the separation of the soul from the body is painful: that all death is bitter, in one degree, or other.  
And now I return to our Enoch; whom the Jewish Rabbin feigneth to have been dead without any pain; against whom, and all other Jewishly-affected, I hope to demonstrate, that Enoch did not die, but is now living: Heb. 11.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Enoch was translated that he should not see death: Ad non videndam mortem, saith Montanus; Nè videret mortem, saith the Vulgat. The end, why he was translated, was, that he might not die: and the reason is annexed, why he did not die; for God translated him. Shall God intent to keep Enoch from death: and did he yet die? shall God be frustrated of his end? shall things come to pass contrary to his will? where is then his Omnipotency? It holds firmly, God translated Enoch, that he should not see death; therefore he died not, but liveth as yet.  
A second argument (though not so sharp-pointed) is this; Of the other Patriarches it is said, They died: so it is recorded of Adam, Mortuus est, Genes. 5.5. of Seth, vers. 8. of Enos, vers. 11. of Cainan, vers. 14. of Mehalaleel, vers. 17. of Jared enoch's father, vers. 20. of Methuselah enoch's son, vers. 27. of Lamech enoch's grandchild, vers. 31. even of the whole holy Genealogy from Adam to Noah, of every one it is said, Mortuus est, He died: except only, when mention is made of Enoch, and then it is not said, He died; but it is remarkably varied thus, vers. 24, Et non ipse: which our later translation hath, And he was not: which words, you must not take in too strict a sense: for if he had died, yet had he had a being; but consisting of soul and body, we may truly say, He was. How then shall we interpret, Et non ipse? I named you the Rabbin, who expounds it, He died not with pain, as other men; but died sweetly. Others thus, He was not on earth, after the same manner, as he was before. This is true, and well strengthened, Ecclesiasticus 49.14. Upon earth was no man created like Enoch; for he was taken from the earth; DE TERRA SUBLIMIS ASSUMPTUS EST, He was lifted up on high from the earth, saith Vatablus. This is also certain, that from the diverse expressions used concerning Enoch, and of others, in the same Chapter, that were not translated but died, there is more signified of Enoch, then of others; and in that special unusual phrase some special unusual thing is involved concerning Enoch; But no special unusall thing is spoken, if it be only meant of him, as it is of others, that he died: Therefore certainly Enoch died not.  
I will not recount more diversity of opinions; In all humbleness, I will present before you mine own conjecture. First, I say that there is an hiatus in the Hebrew; and somewhat to be understood. The Spirit would leave some things doubtful, and put us to the search. Secondly, a supply must be made one way or other, if we will fix any sense on the place. Thirdly, I would have wary, and probable supplements; not of imagination, and air only. Scaliger, Exercitat. 81. Parag. 2. saith thus, 
e In tabulis Mosis fractis, dimidiati Samech pars altera erat in extrema ora tabulae, altera in aere videbatur.  In the tables which Moses broke, one half of the letter Samech was in the utmost brink of the table, the other part of it was seen in the air. Or else Scaliger told an untruth, say I: give me fair likelihood, and not the vastness of a fancy. Fourthly, I say, the words, Et non ipse, may commodiously be thus interpreted, He was not found. If any one ask, where I find ground for this Commentary; I answer, first, it is in the seventy, Genes. 5.24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non apparuit, saith the Interpreter, in Vatablus; or, as himself commenteth, Nusquam comparuit: but it is better rendered, Non est inventus, He was not found. And so it is rendered Hebr. 11.5. where S. Paul hath taken the same words, letter for letter, from the seventy, (whose authority, by themselves considered, I esteem somewhat above the ordinary humane) and made them divine; By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death; And was not found, because God had translated him.  
Concerning Enoch, these things I do further observe with some of the Fathers, with Aquin, and Cornelius à Lapide; That he was a type of Christ; so also was Elias: and both their raptures, or translations, were figures of Christ's ascension. Again, Hebr. 11.5. Enoch, before his translation, had this testimony, that he pleased God. He did not only please God; but it was published, and proclaimed, and, as it were, letter's testimonial from heaven, or a divine certificate was made, that he pleased God. And therefore I hold it very probable, that as Elijahs assumption was known beforehand to the sons of the Prophets, that were at Beth-el, 2. Kings, 2.3. and to the sons of the Prophets, that were at Jericho, vers. 5. as well as to Elishah himself; so was the translation of Enoch also, known to those of his time, unto whom God testified that Enoch pleased him. And it is conformable also to the Antitype; because Christ before told his Disciples concerning his departure, John 14.28, etc. John 16.5, etc. and vers. 16, etc. and more punctually, concerning his ascension, John 20.17. I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Which words Christ spoke, after his resurrection from the dead, unto Mary Magdalen. Yea further, let me expatiate, in showing the correspondence between Enoch in the law of Nature, and Elias in the law of Moses, and our all-glorious Saviour in the law of Grace. Even as Elishah saw the carrying up of Eliah 2. Kings, 2.12. yea, and fifty men of the sons of the Prophets beheld the same, (as it is likely 2. Kings, 2.7, 15, and 16 verses:) so it may very well be, that God was pleased to give bodily sight, and evidence of Enoch, at his translation, to those unto whom he gave testimony before his translation, that he pleased God. And even this fraction the substance of our Saviour's ascension doth strengthen and enlighten. For, He was seen, not only after his resurrection, of Cephas; then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above 500 brethren at once, 1. Corinth. 15.5, etc. but in the act of his ascension, Act. 1.9. While they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight: And, they looked steadfastly toward heaven, as he went up, vers. 10. They stood gazing up into heaven, and they did see him go into heaven, vers. 11.  
If any one be so curious to inquire, in what posture Christ was seen ascending; I think it is pointed at, Luk. 24. ver. 50, etc. He lift up his hands, and blessed them: And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
f Dum benedictionem nondum absolvisset.  Before he had finished his blessing, saith Lucas Brugensis, on the words. The blessing which he began upon them, and with them, with words and gesture, he continued ascending; that is, with his hands lifted up, not so much upright to heaven, whither, perhaps, his heart, hands, and eyes were sent in prayer to God a little before (for prayer is a prime part of all spiritual blessing;) but with his hands lifted up over the Apostles; 
g Non habitu precantis Deum, sed habitu quasi impartientis & infundentis benedictionis gratiam.  Not in a posture, as if he were praying to God; but as if he were dispersing his grace, and pouring out a blessing. So 
* Levit. 9.22.  Aaron lift up his hands toward the people, and blessed them. So Simon the son of Onias used a most solemn form of holy service and benediction, Ecclus. 50.20. where it is said, He lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the children of Israel, to give the blessing of the Lord with his lips: And his lips conveyed it by his hands towards them into their hearts, by a Ministerial Sacerdotal exhibition. Thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
h Sustollebatur, vel ferebatur, non volantis more, aut gradientis; at ità ac si alior●m manibus g●status, & panlatim su●sum portatus fuisset  Christ was taken, not as birds fly, or as men go: but so, as if he had been carried in men's hands, and by little and little lifted upward, saith Brugensis: 
i Corpori● statu recto, paulatim in coeles ten dens.  With an upright posture of body leisurely ascending into heaven, saith Barradius. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
k Ferchatur, n●n alieno adminiculo, sed propriâ virtute.  He was mounted, not by any other outward help, but his own power, saith Cajetan: 
l Vel per potentiam divinam, vel per agilitatem, dotem humanit atis.  Either as he was God: or else by the agility which is proper to glorified humane bodies, saith Barradius. Yet Aquin well observes, that as Christ is said to rise by his own power, and yet he was raised by the Father; because their powers are one: so may he be said to ascend by his own power, and yet be elevated, or assumed by the Father. 
m Elevatus est in coelum, non scandend● gr●diens, sed totus simul elevatus est.  He moved not (saith Cajetan) leg after leg, nor seemed to climb, or go● but all parts alike, and he wholly together was lifted up. And, for the greater Majesty, a cloud received him, Descending even to his feet, in the form of a Throne, on which he sat, saith Abulensis. As the royal Chariot declareth the King; so (saith Chrysostom on Acts 1.) there was sent to Christ, REGALE VEHICULUM: which cloud was rather carried up by Christ, than he by it. When Aquinas saith, part. 3. quaest. 57 artic. 4. 
n Nubes non praebult adminiculum Christo, per modum vebicul●.  Christ used not the cloud as men use a coach or chariot, to help them in their want. I understand him of ADMINICULUM NECESSARIUM, A necessary support or stay (for Christ had no need of such an one:) yet it might be ADMINICULUM SOLENNE, A ceremonious aid, and solemn free assistance: he might assume it as a token of his Majesty: 
o Apparuit signum Divinitatis.  There was seen the sign or seal of his Divinity, saith Aquin himself. Nor is it against the glory of Christ's Divinity, to make use of a cloud, or clouds. He shall come with clouds, Revel. 1.7. With the clouds of heaven, Dan. 7.13. In the clouds of heaven, Matth. 24.30. This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven, saith the Angel, Act. 1.11. This one cloud might be so great, as many lesser clouds when he ascended; as all the clouds shall be, in which he shall descend at his second coming: or else, more clouds were about him; but one more eminent, on which he sat, and with which he ascended. And the extraordinariness of this cloud might testify his Divinity; in which regard, to discriminate him from his forerunners, the Apostles worshipped him, Luk. 24.52. which was not, in any likelihood, performed to Enoch or Elias: for they were not carried up in a cloud or clouds. But there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire:— and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven, 2. King. 2.11. To which is added the fiery nature of the whirlwind itself, Ecclus, 48.9. He was taken up in a whirlwind of fire. The manner of enoch's assumption, I confess, is uncertain. Aquila his Alphabet saith, 
p Deus subduxit Enoch in turbine, sicut Eliam.  God took up Enoch in a whirlwind, as he did Elias: So saith Rabbi Menachem, and the Zoar, on the fifth of Genes. Drusius in his Henoch, cap. 13. saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tulit eum Deus, God took him, (which are the exact words of Scripture, concerning Gods taking away of Enoch, Genes. 5.24. both in the fair Hebrew Bibles of Stephanus in octavo, and in the interlineary, and in Vatablus; though Drusius a little  the middle word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 
q Sanê in Gematria valet,  by a Jewish gambol, is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
r Cum vento tempestatis ascendere fecit eum.  In a tempestuous wind did he make him to ascend: including an intimation, that in a whirlwind 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 rabbinical speculations conclude not; therefore I will.  
Lastly, it is improbable, but diverse of the Disciples or Apostles who saw Christ's 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 sons of the Prophets saw Elijah snatched up, and Elishah parting Jordan with Elijahs mantle; they said unto Elishah, There be with thy servants fifty sons of strength; let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master, 2. Kings 2.16. and accordingly, they sent fifty men, and they sought three days, 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 find 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 looked after. Finding implieth precedent search, or going after, most ordinarily: but Not being found, necessarily implieth a former inquiry: Elias was not found by Ahab; therefore Ahab sought for him. Enoch was not found; therefore they made enquiry 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 sour; an easy death, or a painful.  
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 body 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 fare 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 fare 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 only add 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, Gregory, Epiphanius, and Hippolytus, acknowledging the translation of Enoch and Elias, are silent concerning the place of their being. Augustine leaves it as doubtful, and disputable. Chrysostom and Theodoret like not the enquiry. 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 only in the Vulgat. So fare Salianus.  
But indeed, first me thinks, that the old Translator 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 itself 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 COELUM into AERIUM, COELESTE, ET SUPERCOELESTE, Aerial, heavenly, and supercelestial, say, Enoch was carried into the aerial heaven. I must confess, that the region of the air, that Expansum, the aerial orb, is sometimes called Heaven: The Lord thundered 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, than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword. These hailstones came from the middle region of the air. I confess also, that Enoch was carried up into the aerial 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 marvel, 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 express, that he resteth not in the air: and bringeth in Satan, as wondering 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 immortality, and that by dispensation unusual, in the act of translating him? God did not let him continue on the earth, or in the air; but assuming him into the highest heaven, did glorify his body. For concerning coelum coeleste, Bellarmine will not say that he resteth there: nor did ever any afford patrociny to that conceit. Indeed Seneca, De consolation, showeth that the Stoics 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 stars. Besides that the conceit is heathenish, it nothing concerneth our question of mortal bodies. But if Enoch and Elias are in the orbs, and among the spheres, which is the coelum coeleste; they should be hurried with diurnal motion, from the East unto the West: unless you place them upon the Poles, to stand there immovably: which Poles are as imaginary, as their being there. If there they be in mortal bodies; what strange influences would the heavens pour forth upon them? since, the nearer the Object is to the Agent, the more effectually the Agent worketh. If they have the same unaltered bodies, either in the air, or in the coelo coelesti; what meat, what clothing have they? The natural mortal body of Elias, yea of Christ himself, after forty days fast, was hungry, whilst he lived on earth. Augustine, De peccatorum meritis & remissione, 1.3. saith, They either live without meat; or, as Adam did, by the tree of life. But Cornelius à Lapide renounceth the latter clause; since Paradise, and the tree of life is starved and dead. S. Hierom, ad Pammachium, and Epiphanius, Haeres. 64. say, They live without meat. The forenamed Jesuit fleeth to a miracle; and that is always an help at a dead lift: but he dealeth most injuriously with Epiphanius, cutting him of by the skirts, and mangling his opinion. The words of Epiphanius are these, 
u Vivunt spiritualiter, & non animaliter, propter translationem; súntque in corpore seu carne spirituali, & non o●us habente, ut per corvos nutriantur; sed nutriuntur alio spirituali alimento.  They live, since their translation, spiritually, and not as they were wont to do on earth: their bodies and flesh are spiritual, having no need to be fed by ravens; but are nourished by other spiritual food. If the Jesuit will grant they have spiritual bodies, he will let fall his position, and the position of his fellows, That Enoch and Elias shall die.  
I reassume the interrupted point, concerning Paradise; Which, Cornelius saith, was taken away by the flood; and, The place continueth not, saith Pererius; directly contradicting Bellarmine: and with Pererius stand Salmeron, Sa, Del Rio, and many other. I will help them to this argument: If Paradise did, and doth continue on earth, as it was then; Noah, and his family, and all the beasts, might with less ado, and more soon, have been brought into Paradise, and there have lived; especially, there being no great distance between the place where Paradise was, and the abode of Noah when he builded the Ark, if Divines aim right. If Paradise had been on earth in Christ's time, would not Christ once have gone into it? Or would the Angels, or could they have kept Christ out? Much, very much more might be said; but Salianus hath saved me all that labour, who, pag. 66. of the first tome of his Ecclesiastical Annals, writeth thus, 
x Ridiculum est existimare, Paradisum esse in aëre supremo; aut in lunae concavo collocare: codémque flumina, quae in terris visuntur, transfer.  It is a folly to think that Paradise is in the highest part of the aerial orb; or to place it by the moon. The rivers mentioned to be in Paradise, are on earth: how shall we convey, or transchange them to those places? And it is easier to say, then to prove, that the Angels kept Paradise from being overthrown with waters.  
Thus doth he reconcile those, which said, Paradise is extant; and those, who deny it; with a true and good distinction, as I conceive it, in this manner: Let us say that the region and soil, the MATERIALE PARADISI, the place of Paradise, is yet extant; for ONE GENERATION PASSETH AWAY, AND ANOTHER GENERATION COME; BUT THE EARTH ABIDETH FOR EVER, Ecclesiastes 1.4. For, HE LAID THE FOUND ATIONS OF THE EARTH, THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED FOR EVER, Psal. 104.5. Again, Psal. 119. vers. 90. THOU HAST EST ABLISHED THE EARTH, AND IT ABIDETH. And saith he, The place is not fare distant from Euphrates, and Tigris. But the delicacies, trees, elegancy, delight, order and distribution, ordained for innocence, are decayed; that it is not to be wondered at, if we cannot find so much as the footsteps of them: So he. Perhaps, saith Eugubinus, as Jerusalem, and Zion the mountain of God, and the Ark of God; so Eden also 
y Vetustate contabuit.  is grown writhled and wrinkled with age; He doth well to add, Perhaps; for indeed, it is more likely, that it was not paulatim, but suddenly, and wholly defaced, when the Angels left the custody of it, when the flood washed away its beauty, and bemired it, just like to other places. 
z Paradisus quoad essentiam, non quood ornatum, quem olim habuit, superest.  The same ground and the essential place on which Paradise was seated, remaineth still: the beauty, adornation, and delight is vanished, saith Del Rio: And the beds of the rivers are changed; and the fountains break forth in other places; as Gregorius de Valentia well collecteth. Thus fare, excellently, Salianus.  
Now, as I have approved him for saying, 
a Simpliciter fateamur; istum Paradisum planè nullum esse.  Let us ingenuously confess, That that garden of God, is now no where; the extraordinary beauty and commodities are vanished; though the ground thereof yet remaineth: so have I just cause to laugh more at him, than he did at his fellows for their opinions; since he is so strangely conjectural, as to say, We may say that Enoch and Elias are placed within the boundaries, which environed Paradise of old: and are kept there by the ministry of Angels: yet so that no man can see them: as Christ now and then among the Jews made himself invisible. Against this I thus argue. First, whosoever placed Enoch or Elias in Paradise, placed them there, as in a place of extraordinary pleasure and delight. Paradise was ever, by all, taken for locus amoenitatis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an extraordinary place of pleasure; and accounted the garden of God till now: But now there is no such unusual pleasure, saith Salianus; Therefore they are not now in Paradise.  
Even Aristotle, Ethicorum 9.9. could say, 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  An happy man is not to be made an Anachoret; or rather thus, An Hermit cannot be an happy man. And in the same chapter; 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  No man would enjoy the whole world, on condition to have none in the earth with him. For man was born for civil conversation. And, Pol. 1.2. 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Man by nature is a sociable creature. Whereupon he well concludeth, A blessed man is not solitary. For 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eth. 99  he hath whatsoever is natural; but to delight in company is natural; therefore he must needs enjoy it. The great S. Augustine, perhaps, met with the same place; I am sure these are his words, De Civit. 19.3. 
f Vitam beatam etiam socialem perhibent esse, quae amicorum bona propter seipsa diligat 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 itself. Ludovicus Vives, on the place, saith, They were the Stoics, who said so: but I rather guess, they were the Peripatetics; and Aristotle, their chief chanter. Which blessed life the heathen meaned not of eternal blessedness after the resurrection, but of a blessed natural 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 company of their kind. Enoch, more especially, had less happiness, 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 years.  
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 company, at any other time; I should not much have envied, or wished that felicity; yea, though he had not fallen, whereby he became Radix Apostatica, in the phrase of Augustine. Yea, such a blessedness there is in communication of happiness; that the all-blessed, onely-blessed, ever-blessed Deity of the Unity would not be without the conjoined happiness of the Trinity: The singleness of Nature would not be without the plurality of Persons.  
Thirdly, do they see those men and women, and their actions, who now live in the bounds of old Eden, whilst 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 enoch's assumption, which is now above 4000 years since, have Angels kept him, that he hath not been once seen?  
Besides, no one place of Scripture Canonical saith, they are in Paradise: and it is so fare from a favour, as it is rather a durance and captivity, if they be kept from all other parts of the world, within the bounds of old Paradise; since many places are now more delightful than the place or places whereabouts Salianus himself now holdeth Paradise to be situated. Moreover, Elijah was taken up into heaven. Suppose that to gratify 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 rendereth 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 pithy. 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 fare better answers than himself bringeth. And I will be bold to say of Salianus, though he doth justly deride them, who make Paradise in the air, 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 flood was? or was not all the earth overflown? The Angels than kept them in the air; or else, by an other miracle, kept the water from overflowing that place. That the Angels kept people from entering into Paradise, I have read: that they kept any from going out of it, and kept them in it, I have not read. 
k Nemivi 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 aerial Paradise: that they may uphold an other crotchet worse than 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 jointly. Concernning Enoch, the first of them who were rapti, it seemeth to me, that the Apostles words, Heb. 11.5. not only do reach home to that point, unto which before I applied 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.  Wisdom, to say, NE MALITIA MUTARET INGENIUM EJUS, LEST HE SHOULD 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 fare Drusius. To whom let me add, that Christ saith, Luke 9.60. Let the dead bury their dead. And 1. Timoth. 5.6. She that liveth in pleasure, is dead whilst 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 God's Saints. And if the literal sense can be admitted, we must not flee to the mystery: 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 enoch's soul was not parted from his body. Indeed he is one of them that are mentioned between Abel and Abraham; but yet singled out by express words, That he was translated, lest he should, or might see death: and therefore he is exempted out of the compass of that word All, by special dispensation; and only Abel, Noah, Abraham, are the All there meant.  
Secondly, saith Drusius in his Preface, It may be said, the Apostle spoke 
m De morte calamitatum, & agritudinum; ut sententia sit, Nè videret mortem, hoc est, ea incommoda, quae mort●m comitari solent.  of calamities, crosses and sicknesses, which may be accounted as a death: as if he had said, Lest he might see death, that is, THE DISCOMMODITIES AND INCONVENIENCIES, WHICH ACCOMPANY DEATH. For, who are continually sick, are accounted as dead. First, I say this is a forced interpretation; Enoch was translated lest he should see death, that is, lest he should be continually sick; and, that he might not feel the discommodities, which accompany death. Secondly, that opinion leadeth Enoch to death, but not the dolorous way to it: which indeed rather beggeth the question, then proveth any thing against me. Lastly, there is no circumstance inducing us to think, that the Apostle, by the word death, aimed at the large and extended signification of it, for calamities, or sickness. Sure, about Enoch his time, there were no such notable calamities upon the Saints: and the generations of the world were then strong and healthful.  
Thirdly, saith Drusius in the same place, It may be said, Enoch died not; because the Scripture, when it mentioneth his rapture, mentioneth not his death: so the Jews say, Jacob is not dead; because the Scripture useth the word of EXPIRING, not of DYING. This is ridiculous; for, what is expiring, but dying? Genes. 49.33. Jacob yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people: doth not either of these phrases, do not both evince that he died? Oh, but the Jews say, Jacob non est mortuus; I am sure, the Apostle, Hebr. 11.21. speaking of Jacob, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he was dying, he blessed his children; or, when he was a dying, as it is in our last translation. It evinceth, he died within a while after. And I am sure again, that Christ, Luke 20.37. from the testimony of Moses, proveth, that Jacob died. I am also sure, that S. Stephen saith, Act. 7.15. Jacob went down into Egypt, and died. Surely these crotchets of misbelieving Jews should not have the least countenance against pregnant proofs both of the Old and New Testament.  
Drusius yet enforceth this third answer, thus; The same Apostle saith of Melchisedech, Heb. 7.3. HE WAS WITHOUT FATHER, WITHOUT MOTHER, WITHOUT DESCENT, HAVING NEITHER BEGINNING OF DAYS, NOR END OF LIFE. Wherefore? without doubt, because in Scripture there is no mention of his parents, and kindred, of his birth, or of his death.  
I answer. First, If it be said of all, whose progenitors, issues, kindreds, birth, and death, are unrevealed in Scripture, that they were without father, mother, descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; we should have many, very many more Melchisedeches in those respects; Demetrius the silversmith, and Alexander the coppersmith, and troops of the wicked; Daniel, Sidrach, Misach, and Abednego; Nathanael, and Joseph of Arimathea; S. Mark, and S. Luke, and diverse others. For, what mention is there of their parents, their children, their genealogies, their birthdays, or of their death-dayes, in the sacred Writ? Therefore these words may be said of Melchisedech, without any reference at all to that reason: and the words may not be said of others, though the divine Scripture omitteth as much, as it did of Melchisedech.  
Secondly, if we grant, that it is in part the reason, why he is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without a father, etc. yet it may be said also, because no other record, before S. Paul's time, no sacred or profane Author, no tradition, no book Apocryphal, historified his parents, or issue (so fare as yet appeareth:) And because S. Paul, who knew the names of Jannes and Jambres some such way, or by revelation immediate, and by no such way knew Melchisedechs' pedigree, he might say as he did.  
Thirdly, Erasmus saith, Melchisedech came of obscure parents, not worthy to be named. Before him, Eustatius Antiochenus said the same: and perhaps it may be a reason why David called his Nephews, Joab and Abishai, the sons of Zeruiah, 2. Samuel, 19.22. (for Zeruiah was David's own sister, 1. Chron. 2.16.) and omitted their father, for his unworthiness; yea, the Divine history, where David is silent, often mentioneth Joab and Abishai, with the addition of their mother's name; but always omitteth the father's name. This I cannot think to be Melchisedechs' case: for being a King, and so glorious a Priest, both in one; it is most unlikely, that he had obscure and poor parents: yet he might descend from cursed Cham; as well as Christ, from Moabitish Ruth, or from Rahab the harlot of Canaan.  
Fourthly, the Jews say, He was a bastard: But it is sooner said, then proved; for never bastard attained as called by God, to those two highest conjoined titles, of King and Priest. Many men have thought him to be Noah; and more, to be Sem, Noah's son; as some Jews; Lyra, and Abulensis: when indeed he can be neither. 
n Quidam admodum stultè opinantur, Sem esse Melchisedechum: V●rùm id impossibile est: suprà enim, cùm ejus genealogiam explicaremus, patuit, quòd nec Tharrae tempora assequi potuit.  Some very foolishly think that Sem was Melchisedech (saith Procopius:) But that is impossible: for when I set down his genealogy, it appeareth that he lived not to the time of Terah, or Thara, Genesis 11.24. So he: who hitteth the truth, that Melchisedech was not Sem: but is out in the genealogy; for both Noah and Sem lived in Abraham's time. See Cornelius à Lapide, on the Hebrews; and the learned Helvicus. Noah, saith Helvicus, died the 57 year of Abraham; and Sem outlived Abraham.  
That neither Noah nor Sem could be Melchisedech, is demonstrable from Hebr. 7.6. Melchisedechs' descent, or pedigree is not counted, saith the Apostle, Hebr. 7. from Levi, or Abraham, or their progenitors, who came from Arphaxad, the son of Sem, the son of Noah. Secondly, both Noah, and Sem, and their genealogy and generations, are perfectly and exactly set down: but Melchisedech is without descent, or pedigree, or genealogy, Hebr. 7.3. as undescribed, say they. Thirdly, we know, Sem's father was Noah; Noah's father was Lamech; but Melchisedechs' father is not known. Fourthly, Noah died, Genes. 9.29. and Sem lived not 603 years, as it is apparent, Genes. 11.10, etc. Helvicus maketh his death fall on his six hundredth year; but there is no end known of Melchisedechs' days. Origen, in likelihood, foreseeing the inconveniences accompanying the forerecited, and commonly received opinion, inventeth a new trick, That Melchisedech was an Angel. After him ran Didymus. But no Angel was ever a temporal earthly King: no Angel was ever a Priest, offering up bread and wine, and receiving tithes; or had an order of Priesthood annexed to any of them: no Angel had ever pedigree from Abraham, or any other. But Melchisedech, though he had none at all from Abraham or his ascendants, none at all mentioned in any authentic records or tradition; yet had he one or other; of which hereafter.  
There was one Theodotus, saith 
o De praes●riptione, cap. 53. in fine.  Tertullian, and he brought in a novel opinion, and held, That what Christ doth for men, Melchisedech doth for the Angels. But this cannot be; for the good Angels needed not any Mediator of Redemption; no, not Christ himself; nor ever had, nor ever shall have. This Arch-heretick had other Melchisedechians, who taught, that Melchisedech was a certain virtue, or power, greater than Christ; because Christ is said to be a Priest according to his order: So Epiphanius relateth, lib. 2. Haeres. 55. Yet this holdeth not for the majority, or betternes; but for the priority, or typical resemblance.  
Some have held, that Christ was a Priest according also to the order of Aaron; and then, by that argument, the aaronical Priesthood should be better than Christ's; which is plainly confuted in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Christ accomplished every type of him, and according as they signified, did he fulfil: This doth not prove their betternes, or efficacy, greater than his: no more doth his being a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, either magnify Melchisedech above Christ, or any way vilify Christ.  
Variety of conjectures have been manifold; I hold it probablest, with Josephus the Jew, with diverse late Writers, with the ancient Fathers, 
p Coelestis Hierarchiae cap. 9  Dionysius, 
q Haeres. 51.  Epiphanius, 
r In Genes. quaest. 63.  Theodoret, Procopius and others, that Melchisedech was one of the Kings of Canaan, and came from Cham, not from Sem. And this God might ordain purposely, that the Gentiles might not despair of salvation: but, though Christ came of the seed of Abraham, and the Jews were Gods peculiar people; yet Christ himself was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, who descended from the cursed seed.  
That Melchisedech was the holy Ghost, was a mad opinion, now forsaken of all. That he was not an Angel, nor a virtue greater than Christ, I proved before: but a man, a mere man: whose pedigree is not to be reckoned from Abraham, or his predecessors: for Abraham's predecessors dwelled in Vr of the Caldees, Genes. 11.28, and 31. and, Your fathers dwelled on the other side of the flood in old time, Joshuah 24.2. that is, Beyond Euphrates Eastward, even unto the East-Indies, did Sems' posterity reach and multiply; propagating true religion, with the histories both of the Creation, and of the Deluge. In the East-Indian Shaster (which is the Canon of their devotion, esteemed by them, as the sacred Bible is by us) there are now many fables intermixed, savouring more of humane invention, then of faith: yet their rational traditions make nearer approaches to the divine truth, concerning the creation, than the more ignorant Theology of the Romans, till Christ's time; and as good laws and precepts have the East-Indians, for morality, and government Oecomenick and Political, if not better, for a settled State. And I hold it a most remarkable thing, that the East-Indian language, to this day, hath fare more affinity with the Hebrew, than any one of our Occidental languages; yea, than all of them put together. And those Indi Aurorae, or, as one calleth them, Indi Diei, have scarce a word, but it is found in the Caldee, Arabic, or primitive Hebrew: and by perfect knowledge in the Hebrew, one may easily attain to the knowledge of all other the Eastern tongues. Whence we may conclude the priority of the Hebrew tongue. See the learned William postel, in his alphabet of twelve tongues, different in characters: and more specially the Indica lingua. One great error I cannot omit in the said learned Postellus, in his Tractate de lingua Samaritana; for, from S. Hierom, in prooemio libri Regum, and with him, he maintaineth, that it is certain that Esdras, after the instauration of the temple under Zerubbabel, invented other letters, which now we use; and that the characters of the Samaritans and Hebrews were all one till then: and withal, himself found out a very probable specious reason, why Esdras should forsake the old characters, and framed new: and yet he bringeth in the characters of Hebrew now in use, as delivered by God in the tables given to Moses: whereas (if he would be constant to himself) either God gave to Moses the Samaritan letters, and Esdras invented new ones: or, if God gave these now in use to Moses, the Samaritans may be thought to invent new characters, that they might differ from the Hebrews, and make their schism more irreconcilable, by the strangeness of misfigured letters. Moses was fare more ancient than Esdras; and the Samaritans, who received no Scripture but Moses his writings, in all likelihood used the letters and characters used by Moses: and so, in conclusion it will arise, that the Samaritan letters and the Hebrew were all one a long time; which Postellus confesseth: and that they were exactly the same which God gave to Moses; which Postellus denieth: and after that, Esdras might invent new characters, upon the ground which Postellus framed, and the Jews (as he saith) approved: and these commonly we enjoy. I cannot omit, that you shall find other characters of the alphabet of that language which was used beyond Euphrates, different from the Samaritan, but more from the Hebrew: And it is in the Hebrew Grammar of Abraham de Balmis, 
q Prout inveni in libro vetustissimo.  As I found (saith he) in a most ancient book: and he saith, It was 
r Scriptura transitus fluvii.  the writing used beyond Euphrates. The characters of both which, I would have described exactly, if I had been sure our Printers had the stamps; for others have not: In regard of which defect, Mr Selden, in the preface to his book called Marmora Arundeliana, excuseth his printing of the Samaritan, the Syriack, and Arabic words and passages used in his Commentary, by the Hebrew letters, rather than by their own proper characters.  
I am come back to Jerusalem, where Melchisedech reigned. And though he was a most holy man, and an extraordinary type of Christ; yet, I say, he came of the cursed seed. For I'm possessed all Canaan; and it was called the land of Canaan, from Canaan the son of Cham. And he was one of the Kings in that land: for it had many Kings, Genes. 14. Melchisedech, and Job, and many other, in the old Testament, do prove, that God was not the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.  
This place of the Apostle, Hebr. 11.5. concerning Enoch, Nè videret mortem, hath occasioned much discourse; but I cannot leave Enoch yet. Indeed it is said, Genes. 5.24. God took him; 
s Id est, abstulit eum Deus per mortem.  that is, God sent for him by death, saith Aben Ezra: and so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken, Ezechiel 24.16. 
t Ecce, ego aufero 〈◊〉 te desiderium oculorum tuorum.  Behold, I take away from thee the desire of thine eyes. Salmanticensis Judaeus, in lib. Johasin, 98.2. saith, 
u Mortuus est Rabbi Emmi, quia rapuit eum mors.  Rabbi Emmi died: for death snatched him away. And so it is in the Latin phrases, Rapio, and Aufero, what in the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  

Quis Deus, Octavi, te nobis abstulit?—  
— & te  
Raptum, & Romanam flebimus historiam.   

What God, Octavius, Took the away from us?  
We will bemoan the death of thee, And of our Roman history.   
So fare Drusius in the preface to his book called Henoch. But this is no good exposition, since God took away by death all the rest of the Patriarches, as well as Enoch; and yet it is most singularly spoken of Enoch, He was not found, for God took him. By death, saith the shallow Jew: but our divine Apostle saith, He was translated, that he might not see death. What Christian or rational man will doubt, but we are to incline to the Apostle?  
Again, the third answer brought by Drusius (against his own opinion, as himself professeth) to prove, that VIDERE MORTEM, To see death, doth not signify to die a natural death, where there is a true separation of the soul from the body: and that, NON VIDERE MORTEM, Not to see death, on the contrary, doth not signify To be kept alive from death, (which I, with Drusius, do say, was the true intent of the Apostle) draweth to this head, Enoch saw not death, that is, died not; because the holy Scriptures, where they make mention of his rapture, mention not his death. I answer, If all were true, yet it followeth not, that Enoch is dead, or shall die; which is the point questioned.  
Moreover, if Enoch were dead, or to die; the wisdom of the Divine Inspirer, would never have singled out such a phrase, among so many other thousand, as should lead men to think the clean contrary. He was translated, that he should not see death. For there resteth the period. If it had been meant, he should die; it would have been added, He should not see death, for a long time; or, He should not see death, till toward the end of the world; or the like. But, He was translated, that he should not see death; Therefore he shall never see death.  
Suarez, in tertiam partem summae, quaest. 59 artic. 6. sect. 1. saith directly, S. Paul meaned, that Enoch should not die in that place, into which he was translated. True; But why should he die in any other place? or indeed why should he die at all, who, above other men, was rapted purposely, That he might not see death? Surely, the deferring of death, for a time, is not so great a favour; The exempting one wholly from death, is a blessing, above ordinary. Again, it is said of Enoch, Genes. 5.23. All his days were 365. (where days are taken for years, as otherwhere in Scripture:) But these are not all his days, if either he remove from one place of the earth into an other, (which Salianus fond imagined) or live now in a mortal corruptible body.  
It is said of our blessed Saviour, Hebr. 5.7. He poured out prayers in the days of his flesh; that is, whilst he lived on earth the life of nature, in an elementary, terrene, humane, passive body. And of some other Patriarches, All the days of them were such, and such, Genes. 5.17, 20, etc. that is, all the days while they breathed on the earth the breath of life in mortal bodies. Therefore even from the very phrase concerning Enoch, All his days were 365. we may infer, He lived not in a mortal body any longer on the earth, He liveth not now any where in a mortal body.  
Somewhat must I say also of Elias severally. Rabbi Solomon, on the 5 of Genes. saith, When Elijah was hurried up in a fiery chariot, his body was burnt up of that fire: and, Other Jews agree with him, saith 
x De Romano Pontifice 3 6.  Bellarmine. For my part, I say, I will not embrace an unlikelihood, though it run toward my opinion. I think, the cloak might have been burnt, as well as his body; and Elishah could not have escaped scorching, when the fire parted them. Again, the ashes might have fallen, as well as his mantle. And the Jew would account it no great favour, to be burnt alive. That fire, certainly, was rather conservative, then destructive: not penal, and consuming, as the fire from heaven drawn down by Elias, 2. Kings, 1.12. not punitive, and conserving, as the fire of hell, Everlasting, Matth. 25.41. Unquenchable, Mark 9.43. but like the fiery furnace, in which the three children sang, Daniel 3.25. or the fire in the bush, Exod. 3.3. harmless, yea gracious: or the fire at the consummation of the world, which one calleth Ignem rationalem. The phrase then, 2. Kings 2.11. importeth no less: Elijah went up, by a whirlwind into heaven; Elijah, All Elijah, Whole Elijah, Soul and body. His soul had no need of a whirlwind; Elijah went up. It is varied, 1. Maccab. 2.58. He was taken up into heaven. His rapture excluded not his willingness: his willingness had been insufficient without his rapture: his ascension being grounded on assumption: the power being Gods, not his: or, his passively, and Gods actively.  
If it be true what Bellarmine avoucheth, That some other Jews agree with Rabbi Solomon in this, that Elijah was burned; Yet I am sure, 
y Bibliothe●● Sanctae lib. 2. pag. 65.  Sixtus Senensis citeth the opinion of other Jews, to the contrary. For they said, that the length of time, from the beginning of man till the end of the world, hath been, and shall be measured by the several lives of seven men: and, that there was never hour from man's creation to the general resurrection, but some one of these seven men did or shall live in it. Adam lived to see Methuselah; Methuselah was alive in Sems' time: Sem died not till Jacob was born: Jacob lived till Amram Moses his father was born: Amram expired not till Ahijah the Shilonite lived: Ahijah lived with Elijah: Elijah shall live till the end of the world: Therefore they thought Elijah was not burnt, is not dead. But first, the Papists themselves say, that Elijah shall be slain by Antichrist, before the end of world: Therefore this maketh not for them. Secondly, the Jews might have tucked up the time shorter, on this fashion: Adam lived in the days of Enoch; and Enoch to the end of the world. And so their number of seven might be reduced unto two. But let us leave these rabbinical speculations concerning Elijah; and say somewhat of him, not as he was in a Paradise of fancy, but as he was with our blessed Saviour on the mount, at that glorious transfiguration. And this I set down for certain; No passage in the Gospels proveth demonstratively, that his body was immortal. It is true, it is said of Elijah and of Moses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they appeared in glory: which apparition I hold to be true, and real; though temporary. They were 
z Visi in gloria.  seen in glory, saith Montanus. I add, that the glory of their souls could not be seen by the bodily eyes of the Apostles; and that the Apostles could not know them by their souls, but by their bodies. And, questionless, the bodily glory was meant, and aimed at. Yet none of this can extort a necessary argument, that the bodies of Moses, or Elijah, were immortal, or impassable.  
First, concerning Moses, Del Rio, Magicarum Disquisitionum 2. Quaest. 26. Sect. 2. saith, It is not improbable, but that Moses appeared in an aerial body. Indeed Tertullian cometh somewhat near to Del Rio (though the Jesuit cite him not) 
a Moses apparuit in imagine carnis nondum receptae: nam à parte potiore facieuda est denominatio.  Moses appeared in the similitude of flesh which he had not received: for the denomination is taken from the better part. But, He is called Moses from his soul, which being the better part, and present, gives the denomination, saith Del Rio. True, say I, where both matter and form are joined in one: where there is a COMPOSITUM, An unity framed of a duality, A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All the souls which came into Egypt, etc. Genes. 46.27. is spoken of such, as then consisted both of souls and bodies.  
Secondly, I confess, Abraham, Dives, and Lazarus are so called, though their bodies were separated then from them. Yet let Del Rio give me a Scripture instance, where ever any one man or humane soul in an aerial body, is called that party whose soul it is. The trivial objection of Samuel I purposely balk (because I am so fare flown out already) standing upon this, that either true Samuel appeared not; or, if he did, he appeared in his own body.  
The question which Alexander asked of the first man of the Gymnosophists, was, Whether the dead or the living made the greater number? He answered, The living: For the dead (said he) are no more men. The reason of his answer, is grounded on these Aphorisms; That the soul is not man: That the body is not man: That both soul and body do concur to make a man. Neither doth Christ's divine reason contradict any part of this, when he avoucheth, That God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. For Christ spoke of the souls only, or of souls which should have bodies at the resurrection; and the Gymnosophist, of men consisting of souls and bodies, who are properly to be termed living men: whereas separated souls, though living, are not truly living men.  
Augustine, de Civit. Dei, 19.3. hath it thus, out of the great Marcus Varro: In the nature of man are two things; soul, and body: That the soul is fare better and more excellent than the body, he doubteth not: but whether the soul only be the man, so that the body is but as the horse is to the rider, he enquireth. For the horseman is not the man and the horse, but the man only: yet he is called an horseman, in reference to the riding of his horse. Ludovicus Vives cometh in like a busy body; and he, from Gellius, Marcellus, and Servius; and they, from Ennius and Virgil, will maintain that an horseman is taken for an horse; and an horse, called an horseman. I answer, Virgil followed Ennius his antique phrase; and both of them Poetical licence. But Varro used proper Philosophical terms; whilst their language is improper, and in itself both absurd and untrue. S. Augustine out of Varro still proceedeth; Or whether the body only be the man; being semblable to the soul, as the cup is to the potion: For the cup, and the potion contained in the cup, are not together called the cup: but the cup only is called a cup, because it is fit to hold the potion. Vives here again cometh in with his overnice exception, and criticism: 
b Est etiam poculum id quod potatur, praesertine apud poctas.  That which men drink (saith he) is termed a cup, especially by the Poets: Poculáque inventis Acheloia miscuit uvis: his meaning being, that he did mingle wine in the cups of Acheloius his framing. I answer, that the cups in that place, are exactly distinguished from the wine in them, and are not taken (quatenus pocula) for the liquor in them. Secondly, if any one hath at any time so used the word; it is Metaphorically, and not in propriety of language. For he could not mingle wine with, but in the cups: nor did he properly mingle the cups with the wine.  
I pass from the second interruption of Vives, to S. Augustine, out of Varro still; Or whether neither soul alone, nor body alone, but both togeher, be man: of which man one part is either the soul or the body; but he wholly consisteth of both, to be a man: as we call two horses joined together BIG AS; whereof either is part of the pair or couple; but neither is the pair or couple, but both harnessed together. In the end, Varro resolveth, saith S. Augustine, That neither the soul, nor the body, but both soul and body together is the man. And so the chief blessedness of man consisteth in the good both of soul and body. Which opinion is a divine truth; and S. Augustine approveth it, as may be gathered by his whole discourse, and by the beginning of the fifth chap. of that book. So it was not the true Moses, unless the very soul and the very body of Moses were present.  
Yet Aquinas, 3. part. quaest. 45. thinketh that Moses appeared not in his own body: which Suarez confuteth by these authorities; S. Hierom, on Matth. 17. S. Augustine, de Mirab. sacrae Scripturae, 3.10. which is followed by Sotus, in 4. senten. distinct. 43. Hieronymus Natalis the Jesuit, thinks he strikes all sure: for amongst his curious costly pictures upon the four Gospels, he picturing out the transfiguration of our Saviour, bringeth in Moses with horns on his head; to design, that it was the same Moses, and the same body which Moses had on the mount; according to the Vulgat, Exod. 34.29. Ignorabat Moses quòd cornuta esset facies sua: that is, according to Natalis his opinion, Moses knew not that he had horns: and vers. 30. Viderunt filii Israel cornutam faciem Mosis: that is, according to the same man's fancy, The Israelites saw Moses his horns: though intruth the words may be fare better translated. And so vers. 35. Was not the Jesuits face made of horn, or rather of brass, who published in so seeing and clear-sighted an age, such an ignorant conceit, with such boldness; when indeed the words in the Original, as they are translated by their own interlineary, are only thus, Promicuisset cutis facierum ejus, The skin of his face was sleek: and in the margin is, Resplendebat, did shine: which is also used in the Translation of Vatablus? 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 glory of his countenance. Indeed the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth properly signify an horn: from whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is splendere, radiare, fulgere, to shine. Because (saith Vatablus from a learned Jew, when man beholdeth earnestly, and intentively, the Sun, or any luminous body; the rays 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 falsely believe, that Moses had two horns on his head; which is most false. So fare Vatablus, though a man of their own, against the brainsick faction of the Jesuit; who will maintain the people in any error, if it be old; rather than suffer reformation. The Caldee hath it, Multiplicatus est splendor gloriae vultûs Mosis, The brightness 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 painter's 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 story 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 than he, 
f Nihil cornutum, ad literam, sign●ficatur etc.  In the literal 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 body of Moses preserved the radiant comeliness 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 believe 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 spoke to the people. So Ambrose, in Psal. 118. 
h Quamdiu vixit Moses, & alloquebatur populum, velamen habuit i● fancy.  So long as Moses lived, and spoke 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 glory of his countenance, which was to be done away: Therefore it continued not after death; if it did till then, whensoever he spoke 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 original: 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 Latin run:) 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 majesty.  
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 bosom WAS LEPROUS 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 only 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 me, 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 only of a temporary glorification: for Moses laid down his body again, as is held most probably.  
The author of that book, which is entitled 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 necessity, that either Moses or Elias (though they were seen in glory) had immortal and impassable bodies by the transfiguration, appeareth by this, That our blessed Saviour himself, after that his transfiguration, had a mortal body, and did die: especially, if we consider, that his glory was greater than 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 glory and majesty: as at marriages and other festival days, the nobility richly clad do wait on Kings. Tertullian, adversus Marcionem, cap. 22. saith, Moses and Elias were seen 
p In consortio claritatis.  equally bright and glorious. Luke 9.29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; As he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered. 
q Nemo putet, Salvatorem veritatem corporis amisisse; externam tantùm speciem permutavit splendore.  Let no man imagine (saith Hierom) that our Saviour lost the nature of a true body; only he converted the outward form and fashion all into brightness. The like may I say of Moses and Elias; if they had their glory by redundance from Christ's glory, as Suarez maintaineth: and then there is no necessity, nor indeed great likelihood, that Christ's glorious transfiguration should leave to himself a mortal body; and they should be by him then invested in eternal tabernacles of incorruptible flesh.  
Now as I have clearly declared my judgement, that it holdeth not demonstratively from any punto, that Elias at the transfiguration had an unchangeably glorious estate of body: so I hold it very probable, that Elias did never die properly; but was changed at his rapture; and, at his ingress into heaven, enjoyed a truly glorified body; and both unto the time of Christ's transfiguration, and then, and ever since enjoyeth, and liveth in flesh incorruptible; not Animal, but Spiritual, as the blessed Saints shall have after the end of the world.  
If any one think to choke me with my former words, That Christ's glory was greater than the glory of his servants; And therefore, if Elias had an immortal body, Christ must have one also; which he had not: I answer, That the hypostatical union of the Divine Nature to the Humane in Christ, was at all times of greater glory, than the glorified estate of the Saints shall be after the resurrection.  
Secondly, as intensively Christ's glory was greater than Elijahs, though it was eclipsed by Christ's voluntary condescent, that he might accomplish the work of our redemption: so extensively, at the instant of the transfiguration, I doubt not, but the bodily glory of Christ was as fare above his servants glory, as the light of the sun surpasseth the light of lesser stars. Therefore, all things considered, Christ's bodily glory was greater than Elijahs, though Elijahs was immortal, and Christ's then changeable and mortal.  
Bellarmine, in his Apology against the judicious monitory preface of King James, esteemeth it as 
p Valde admirandum.  much to be admired at, that the learned King said, Enoch and Elias are now glorified in heaven. Many things indeed might Bellarmine learn by his Majesty, which are & laudanda, & valde admiranda, both to be praised and wondered at: but, taking valde admirandum in the worse sense, I say, his wonder is full of ignorance and malice. Wherefore, omitting much of what that really-unanswerable Bishop hath copiously alleged, I say, It is no such strange matter; to say, or believe, that Enoch and Elias have glorified bodies. And yet here, first of all, I will ingenuously confess that a man, both in soul and in a corruptible body, may be in the third heaven: because S. Paul else might have known, that himself was not in the third heaven in his body: but his doubting and nesciency (2. Cor. 12.2, etc. Whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth) proveth that either might have been. The disjunctive might else have been spared, if it could have been done only one way: Therefore it is possible unto the Almighty, that Elias might or may have a passive mortal body, though he were rapt into heaven, and there be at this present. But, A posse ad esse non valet consequentia: and the reasons and authority which place Elias in heaven, in an unpassible body, are more ponderous and numerous, then theirs which embrace the contrary.  
If it be objected, that Elias went not up into the third heaven, because he was carried up in a whirlwind: and whirlwinds reach not to the third heaven: I answer, By the same cavil they may say, Our Saviour ascended not into heaven, when a cloud received him out of their sight, Act. 1.9. because clouds pierce not to the highest heaven. But we must distinguish between things ordinary and extraordinary. Both the whirlwind and the cloud had somewhat in them above the common level of nature, and were not merely elementary; but adapted to higher and diviner uses, then common clouds or whirlwinds.  
I remove this passant tabernacle of discourse from an objection unto the standing mansion of our great Adversaries confessions. Suarez, in tertiam partem Summ. quaest. 53. artic. 3. confesseth in this manner: 
q Sunt in inserno aliqui homines, corpore & animâ, ante generalem resurrectionem; ut Dathan, Abiram, & similes.  Some men are in hell both soul and body, before the general resurrection: as Dathan, and Abiram, and the like. He is seconded by Peter Morales, another Jesuit, in his fifth book on the first chapter of S. Matthew, Tract. 11. This opinion is somewhat minced by Ribera, upon the words, Revel. 19.20. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone: who hath his second also, viz. Blasius Viegas; for they say, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were swallowed up alive; but then the earth closed, and they died, and their souls only were carried into hell. The like they say of Antichrist, and his forerunner. But this nicety is contradicted by the Vulgat, which to them is authentical: Num. 16.33. Descenderunt vivi in infernum: so also in the thirtieth verse; and so the interlineary rightly readeth it, according to the Hebrew. And if infernus did signify the grave, in the case of Korah and his complices, as it doth not (for then it had been no such extraordinary miracle, for people alive to be swallowed up by the earth's rapture; since many people, yea, whole cities have often been so punished, and came to destruction: but they were for a sign, Numb. 26.10. that is, for an example; that others should not murmur and rebel against God's Ministers; as the Genevean Note on the place, sound, and pertinently, and deeply interpreteth:) yet concerning Antichrist and his false-prophet, mentioned by them, it cannot be so: for it is said most punctually, Revel. 19.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vivi missi sunt hi duo in stagnum ignis arden's, & sulphuris, These both were cast alive into a lake of burning fire and brimstone, as it is in their Vulgat. Montanus varieth it thus, In stagnum arden's in sulphur, Into a lake burning in brimstone. They did not descend 
r Ad sepulchrum, ad infernum, ad stagnum ignis exclusiué.  to the grave, to hell, to the lake of fire, exclusively; coming only to the brink: but, 
s Descenderunt in infernum, in stagnum ignis.  they descended into hell, into the lake of fire, they were plunged into it. Therefore they did not die by the way, or at the gates of hell; but actually and really entered into those fiery mansions, or burning chambers. For both Ribera and Viegas will be ashamed to say, that the grave burneth with fire and brimstone; which they must be forced to say, if they continue to hold, that Antichrist and his forerunner leave their bodies in the grave.  
Andrea's Caesariensis (saith Viegas on Revel. 13.) thinketh that Antichrist and his forerunner shall not die; 
t Sed incorrupto corpore, vivos ad infernum descensuros.  but with incorruptible bodies shall descend alive into hell. And as concerning Korah, and his fellow-mutiners; though some think, it cannot be understood literally, of the nethermost hell; because it is said, Numb. 16.33. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit: but their goods, and their houses went not to hell: therefore not their bodies: Yet I answer, The Text is too much wrung, and strained: for by the like wrench, they may as well prove that their houses and goods were alive: the letter will bear one as well as the other, if they ground on some translation of the seventy; for of the Original I shall speak anon. But the true meaning is, They, and all their things, came to that destruction, which in their nature they were capable of: their tents and goods were swallowed up and consumed; their bodies were hurried to their own places; not of rest (as is the common death of all men, till the judgement general) but extraordinarily, they endured present punishment.  
Our learned Doctor Raynolds, Tom. 1. de libris Apocryphis, praelect. 81. pag. 973. relateth, that Epiphanius, in Ancorato, held; Korah, Dathan, and their rebellious troops, 
u D●scendisse viventes in orcum; non corporibus solutis, neque reliquiis traditis, aut parte; sed totis ipsis, cum corpore & anima, traditis in supplicium.  descended living and quick into hell; their souls not disunited from their bodies; no remnant or part left behind: but they all and wholly, souls and bodies, were delivered up to torment. And thus that most learned Professor discourseth, 
x Descenderunt ipsi, cum omn●bus quae ipsorum erant, vivi in infernum; quomodo babetur in Hebraico contextu. Quae sunt illa omnia? Tabernacala, & domus, & cpes ipsorum. Atqui non dicent (credo) Pontificii, domes corum & facultates omnes in lscum animarum descendisse, sed in locúm corporum.  They descended, with all things that were theirs, alive into hell, as it is in the Hebrew. What is meant by those words, All things? Their Tabernacles, houses, and goods. But I believe, the Papists will not say, that their houses and goods descended into the place of souls; but into the place of bodies. Therefore Moses denoteth the place of bodies, not of souls. The honoured Doctor might also have considered, that it may be as well said, that their bodies went to hell, as their souls to the sepulchre; if the place of their descent had been understood only of the receptacles of bodies, and not of souls. Secondly, (as I touched before) may not as well their bodies go to hell alive, as they, and all that appertained to them, went down (as the seventy in Vatablus have it) alive into the pit? Thirdly, did their tabernacles, houses, beasts, and goods go down into their graves? Graves are not the proper places for tents, beasts and goods? but for humane bodies. Those terms of locus corporum, are obscure; and culled out purposely, for a starting-hole: whereas, if he had said, Moses denoted their sepulchers only, and not hell (which he doth in effect afterward;) we may press him with this, That they are much happier than other: for whereas others bring nothing into this world, nor carry any thing out of it; these men went not to hell, in Moses his meaning; but carried with them, out of this world, their beasts, their goods, yea their very tents. But their misery and curse extraordinary is described, and not their happiness.  
Lastly, I could wish that the worthy Doctor had throughly weighed how divinely the Holy Writ discriminateth several matters. Moses prophesied Numb. 16.30. If the earth swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit, etc. where you must interpret it, as if he had thus said, The earth indeed shall swallow and cover alike both them and all their goods: but the persons themselves shall go down alive (VIVENTES, living, as the interlineary hath it; vivi, as Doctor Raynolds) lower; even to the pit. And accordingly it came to pass, vers. 32. The earth swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods: where you see, the earth swallowed all alike; the chief leaders, and their goods; the associates of Korah, and all their goods. Yet for the persons themselves, it is said in the next verse, by way of distinction, remarkably; They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit: which you cannot possibly interpret of their goods, and tabernacles: (for they never were alive; and never could go down alive, no not to the grave, or to any pit whatsoever) but of the principals, and the accessaries; viz. the chief rebels, and their partakers: for divers men appertained to them, as is apparent vers. 32. and therefore, what our English translation hath somewhat dubiously, and ambiguously, They, and all that appertained to them, (where it is not significantly enough expressed, whether men only, or men and goods are comprised under the words) the interlineary hath exactly, and truly determined, 
y Descenderunt ipsi, & omnes, qui eyes, viventes in infernum.  They descended, and all the men which lived with them, alive into hell: and Vatablus, 
z Descenderúntque ipsi, & quo●quot ad eospertinebant, viventes in infernum.  And both they descended and as many men as were their partakers, living and quick into hell: the quot quot having reference to men only, not to other things: for than it would have been viventia, and not viventes: and therefore in the margin of Vatablus, it is thus varied, 
a Omnes, qui eyes.  All they who belonged to them. Where the masculine gender designeth out the men only to go alive into the pit. To be plain, I care for no opinion, as it is an opinion of Bellarmine's, or of the Pontificians; but if they light upon a truth, I will accept of it, not as theirs, but as true: 
b Amicus Socrates, amicus Plato; sed magìs amica Verita●.  Socrates shall be my companion, Plato my friend, truth my familiar friend: and Vel veritas, vel 
— Virtus & in host probatur.  
Or truth, or any virtue do I like,  
Even in an enemy that would me strike.   
And I hold Bellarmine's opinion true, That Korah, his partisans and company, descended alive into hell. And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Numbers 16.30, and 33 verses, signifieth hell properly. 
c Ex manifestis loci circumstantiis intelligetis, notari à Mose locum subterraneum, corporum, non animarum.  You shall discern by the manifest circumstances of the place, that Moses meaneth some place under the earth fitted or appointed as receptacles of bodies, not of souls, saith Doctor Raynolds.  
Herein I must needs descent. And first, I say, What is this 
a Locus corporum.  place of bodies? It must be either the grave, or hell; or let him design us out a third place. A third place he cannot name; especially for humane bodies. Some held concerning infants, That in regard of their innocence they are to have eternal life: but because they were not baptised, they should not be with Christ in his kingdom. But Augustine saith, That Christ himself confuted 
b— istam (nescio quam) medietatem. De peccator. Merit. & Remis. 1.28.  this new-invented middle or third mansion: and as he said a little before, more generally, 
c Nec est ullu● ulli medius locus, ut possit ess●, nisi cum diabolo, q●● non est cum Christo.  It is impossible for any man to be in any middle place, but he must needs be with the devil, who is not with Christ: so do I say of this Locus corporum, It is either hell, or the grave: Tertium locum penitus ignoramus, We know no third place. The Papists err, to establish a Purgatory for the soul, besides hell and heaven: And Doctor Raynolds doth not well, to mention so often a Locus corporum; where he ought to name, Where it is, and What bodies go into it.  
Secondly, it is plain, that their souls did sin, their souls were punished, and went down to hell. Doth not the Apostle S. Judas (vers. 11.) speak of such, as perished in the gainsaying of Korah;— to whom, not the woe of a sudden death is denounced, but (vers. 13.) the blackness of darkness for ever is reserved? doth not the place stand fair for the damnation of Korah and his fellows? Though Doctor Raynolds minceth it in this doubtful manner: 
d Non inflcior, quin eorum avimae, si sint mortui pertinaces in scelerata sua obstinatione, adjudicatae sint inferis, cum Divite.  I deny not but their souls, if they died obstinate in their wicked rebellion, were adjudged to the hell where Dives was. Again, when the Scripture saith, Si creationem creaverit Dominus, (Numb. 16.30.) If the Lord shall make a new thing, or a strange thing, as new almost, as strange to sight almost, as is the creation (for I take so much to be employed in that unusual phrase;) what reason hath that grave Doctor to say, 
e Illud quod propriè notatur in verbis— Descenderíntque viventes in infernum, nihil est aliud, quàm, horribile & tremendum judicium Dei divinitus illis inflictum iri: ut, cùm alii priùs moriantur quàm sepeliantur, ipsi quasi vivi sepeliantur.  That which is properly meant by the words, IF THEY GO DOWN QVICK INTO HELL, is nothing else, but that the horrible and dreadful judgement of God, divinely shall be inflicted on them, viz. in such sort, that whereas others first die, and then are buried, these shall be buried (as it were) alive. Why so reservedly and cautelously is it added, As it were, alive? Again, 
e Locus fuit corporum, non animarum, in quem descenderunt Corah, Dathan, & Abiram.  It was the place of bodies, and not of souls, into which Korah, Dathan, and Abiram descended: (as if their souls were in the place appointed for bodies) which he further parallelleth with the burying alive of the deflowered Vestal virgins: though he ought to distinguish between the extraordinary miraculous hand of God, and the ordinary justice of men in such cases. And the Vestal virgins were fare longer ere they died, than Korah and his company, ere they were swallowed up.  
Let the judicious reader ponder these words of that famous Doctor, Is nothing else: and Shall be buried, as it were, alive: and, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram descended not into the place of souls (though the souls of all wicked men do so: and their souls, by his reason, should have more privilege than other wicked men's:) and, I dare say, he will think that Doctor Raynolds might more safely have held the other opinion, That their souls and bodies went alive to hell properly so called.  
That Moses denoteth the place of bodies, I deny not: for even that place is in hell, for all the bodies of the wicked in due time, and for these men's bodies, extraordinarily, before the general judgement.  
But I am loath to say, Moses meant not the place of souls: I am loath to entertain a thought, That the Rebels themselves did repent; for, if they did so, they are saved: I would be loath to flee from rationable probabilitíe, to possibility; which hath a farre-stretched almighty arm; and to say, as he doth, 
g Fieri potest ut quidam eorum aut offines illi culpae non fuerint; aut si fuerint, poenitentiam egerint.  It may be that some of them were not faulty; or, if they were, repent. That they repent who were swallowed up alive, seems not agreeable to S. Judas, who (ver. 11.) pronounceth a fearful woe against such as are like unto them, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah: In which woe, not temporal bodily punishment alone, but eternal torment of the soul is included. Compare the words with 2. Pet. 2.12. Moreover, none dares deny the possibility of repentance; but who can think it probable, That God would send such an extraordinary punishment on such as were innocent, or repent; when as the children of that Luciferian Arch-rebel Korah, were exempted from that destruction? Numb. 26.11. Notwithstanding the children of Korah died not: yea, were eminent and famous among the Levites; Were over the work of the service, keepers of the gates of the Tabernacle, and their fathers were over the host of the Lord:— and the Lord was with them, 1. Chron. 9.19. etc. And they were either excellent Musicians, or Singers, or Penmen for Divine Service; as may be collected from many Psalms, entitled, To the sons of Korah; as, Psal. 42. Psal. 44. Psal. 87. And when the Scripture saith, They descended alive into the pit, I would be loath to  the phrase as he doth, 
h Si sint mortui pertinaces.  If they died in their obstinacy. I deny not, but in a large sense, they may be said to die: and the Scripture saith, They should not die the common death of all men, Numb. 16.29. yet also, They descended alive into the pit: which cannot be better reconciled, then to say, The state of their bodies was changed; immortality swallowed up their mortality, in the act of their descending, or passion rather, if you will so call it. There was no true separation between their souls and their bodies; and therefore they died not: their change notwithstanding may be reputed for a death; which perhaps also shall be the case of all the wicked, who shall be alive at Christ's second and glorious coming; and shall be certainly the estate of the righteous, who shall be alive at that great and dreadful day.  
I would be loath also to say, That nothing else is noted by the words, but that, Whereas others die first, and then are buried; these men were buried alive, or as live men: that I may pass by his amphibolous phrase, 
i Non inficior, quin eorum animae, si sint mortui pertinaces in seelecata sua obstinatione, adjudicatae sint inferis cum Divite.  I deny not, but their souls, if they died obstinate in their wicked rebellion, were sentenced to hell with Dives. Why doth he not specialize where those inferi be? and in what place Dives is? or did they go to a parabolical hell? for he could not be ignorant that many hold that history of Dives to be but a parable.  
The truth and sum of all is this; By divine power extraordinary, the houses, or tents, the beasts, and the goods of Korah and his complices, were separated and secluded from the use of men; were swallowed up, and covered in the earth, and came to that end and destruction which they were capable of: No word of God saith expressly, no inference or reason evinceth, no probability induceth us to think, that their tents, householdstuff, or utensils were alive; or that they, yea, or the beasts of these conspirators, went into the graves of them, (if graves they had any;) much less, did such trash descend into hell, that place of torment, that Tophet prepared for wicked men, that Deep, excruciating and affrighting both the Devil and his Angels. That tents, goods, and faculties should go thither, to what purpose were it? but God doth nothing, unless it be to some great end or purpose: therefore to the lowest hell their goods descended not. But as concerning the men themselves, it is plainly said, That both the earth did open its mouth, and swallowed them up, (even as it did their tents, or beasts, or goods:) and after that, most distinctly; that they went down alive into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but their souls could not go into the graves, and there reside; and their bodies might go into hell, and there reside; therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must needs there be expounded, not of the grave, nor of locus corporum (as Doctor Raynolds phraseth it) but of the hell of the damned, of the locus animarum; which place also must be the receptacle for all humane bodies of the wicked, after the day of doom and retribution; and may be the prison of those reprobate both souls and bodies, whom God miraculously thither adjudgeth, as he did this rebellious rout.  
Though Lyra, cited by Doctor Raynolds, thinks the grave is meant, because it is appointed for all men to die, and after that cometh judgement: yet I have many ways proved, that by especial dispensation, and by extraordinary privilege, some may receive favour, beyond the common rule or course of nature: and contrarily, I doubt not, but upon so great a commotion, and furious rebellion, God could, and did, by way of exemplary punishment, punish these men bodily, before the usual time; and sent their bodies to hell, before the general judgement.  
If Cajetan, and Hieronymus ab Oleastro, cited by that Reverend Doctor, expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the grave; yet they want both weight and age, to put down Epiphanius, before recited, and many other Ancients, who place their bodies in hell.  
I accept then of Suarez his confession before mentioned; and agree with him, That Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, are now, both in souls and bodies, in hell. And upon this ground, I thus work: If they be there, they are there to be punished, and are punished: if they burn in hellfire, they have no longer mortal bodies: But as at the last day, the bodies of the wicked, that are alive then, shall put on immortality; so the bodies of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, were not properly separated from their souls; but were changed, and fitted for such places of punishments, in the instant of their descent: and so they descended alive into the pit of hell.  
Then why may not Enoch and Elias be in immortal and glorified bodies, since they were assumed up into heaven? especially, since Suarez himself again ingenuously confesseth, 
k Animae gloriosae connaturale est uniri corpori immortali & glorioso.  It is convenient, yea proper to nature, that a glorified soul should be united to an immortal and glorified body. And the souls of Enoch and Elias are now glorified, by the like acknowledgement of our learned Adversaries.  
Again, where the souls of Enoch and Elias are, there also are their bodies: But their souls are in the highest heaven. For our Saviour saith, John 17.24. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am. And John 12.26. Where I am, there shall also my servant be. But Christ is in the highest heavens: Therefore both Enoch and Elias are, with their bodies, in the third heaven: unless you can say, They were not given by God to Christ, and were not Christ's servants. Now since they are there in their bodies; it is very unlikely, that they should be there some thousands of years in bodies mortal and unglorified. Hierom, ad Pammachium, avoucheth, 
l Fruuntur divino consortio, & cibo coelesti.  They enjoy and have the fruition of the Deity, and are fed with heavenly food: which is not meat for mortal bodies.  
Besides, S. Hierom, Tom. 3. Epist. pag. 189. in Epistola ad Minerium & Alexandrum, citeth Theodorus Heracleotes, instancing in Enoch and Elias, as carried to heaven, and as having overcome death. And Apollinarius fully agreeth with the other, with this addition only, that Enoch and Elias have now glorified bodies. Dorotheus, in Synopsi de Elia, thus, 
m Qui humi iucedebat; instar spiritus, cum Angelis in coelis agit.  Who was on the earth as other men; now, as a spirit, liveth in heaven with the Angels: therefore he hath not a mortal body.  
Again, in most of the general promises that God hath made, he giveth some instance or other, to be as it were a taste of what shall succeed; lest men's hearts should fail, in expectancy of that, whereof they see no kind of proof. As for example, because it was promised, that there shall be a resurrection, it was figured, not only more obscurely in Isaac his rising up from the Altar; in the drawing of Joseph out of the pit; in the Whale's delivery of Jonah; in Samsons breaking from the cords; in daniel's escape from the lions; in the waters yielding and giving up Moses, to live in the King's house, and the like: but more evidently, by the real, and temporary raising up of diverse dead, both in the Old and New Testament.  
Likewise, the glorification of our bodies being determined by God, and by him promised; yea, Enoch himself prophesying, that God cometh with ten thousands of his Saints, to execute judgement upon all, Judas 14, and 15 verses; which is not, cannot be executed, without the glorifying of souls and bodies of his servants; we may well think, it pleased God to give to the old world a pledge or two of the general glorification of the bodies of his Saints, by the particular performance of the same to the bodies of Enoch and Elias, whom he assumed up into heaven, by way of especial favour.  
To this I may add, That Enoch and Elijahs raptures being types of Christ's ascension, since Christ ascended in a glorified and immortal body, the shadows must be like the substance: and therefore they ascended in glorified immortal bodies.  
Suarez is driven to a great exigent: They were only (saith he) 
n— in statu merendi, & potuerunt in gratia crescere, etc.  in a state in which they might merit and increase in grace, till the time in which they were translated: And as they were translated, they were so confirmed in grace, that they can commit no sin: And to their old estate of meriting shall they return, when they shall live again amongst men. But who ever heard of such turnings and returnings in any other men or Angels? or that their estate shall be changed from 
o A non posse peccare, ad posse peccare.  an estate wherein they cannot sinne, to an estate in which they may sinne? and so backward? For supposing they shall live again, and die again; if they can merit, they can also sinne whilst they live among men: and so, when they die, and have their reward in heaven, this shall be no small part of it, 
p Non posse peccare.  To have no power to sin. But this opinion somewhat resembleth the diversified estate of devils, who shall be saved after the general judgement, as Origen feigned and fabled; and which the Church hath branded for erroneous.  
And now I see I have fallen, before I was ware, upon the fourth and last question by me propounded, Whether Enoch and Elias shall ever die, or do live with glorified bodies in the highest heavens? which also I have answered at large, That they never shall die, but do and shall live in glorified bodies. Tertullian, I confess, said concerning Elias at the Transfiguration, 
q Apparuit in veritate car●is nondum defunctae  He appeared in true flesh which had never been separated from its soul: and more punctually, de Anima cap. 50. 
r Translatus est Enoch & Elias, nec mors eorum reperta est; dilata scilicet: Morituri reservantur, ut Antichristum sanguine suo extinguant.  Enoch and Elias were translated: nor is their death recorded, or known; it being adjourned: they are kept and preserved that they may die hereafter, and by their blood overthrow and extinguish Antichrist, as Baronius cities him. And the more common opinion of the Papists is, That they two shall be slain: and they prove it by Rev. 11.7. When the two witnesses shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit, shall overcome, and kill them. The three other places of Scripture, on which Bellarmine built his third demonstration, that Antichrist is not come, because Enoch and Elias are not yet come, are answered before. This last place and passage of Scripture, used by Bellarmine, de Romano Pontif. 3.6. cometh now to be examined: and you shall find it thus well winnowed by Bishop Andrews, in his Answer to Cardinal Bellarmine's Apology, Cap. 11. That the two witnesses are the two Testaments, as Beda, Primasius, Augustinus, and Ticonius are Authors. S. Hilarius rejecteth Enoch, and puts Moses in his room, and that very peremptorily: Though many have substituted Jeremy in enoch's room, saith Hilary on Matth. Can. 20. S. Hierom, the next Father cited by Bellarmine, is not constant enough for Elias (which I touched at before:) and Rupertus, on Malach. 4. testifieth so much of Hierom: and Bullinger, in Apocal. lib. 3. v. 3. saith, S. Hierom esteemeth them to be Jews and Jewish heretics, who think Elias shall come again. Lactantius, cited by Bellarmine, in his Apology, nameth neither Enoch, nor Elias. And Chrysostom, Theodoret, Origen, and Primasius say nothing of Enoch. Hippolytus, for the two witnesses, brings in three; one whereof is S. John the Divine: and indeed he is more likely to be one of the witnesses, than Enoch; for unto him it was said, Revel. 10.11. Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings: but no such thing was said to Enoch. Others say, Elizeus shall be one of the two witnesses. Hieronymus, saith, 
r Nisi quis spiritualiter intelligat hunc locum Apocalypsews, Judaicis ei fabulis acquiescendum est. In Epist. ad Marcellum.  Unless a man understand this place of the Revelation spiritually, he must needs settle and rest on Jewish fables. Maldonate on the 17 of Matthew, and his learned Interpreter, saith, It is so clear a matter, that Moses and Elias shall come, that none but a rash and impudent man can deny it. Thus much Bishop Andrews in his Answer to the place of the Revelation, against Bellarmine's Apology; who vaunted of a cloud of Fathers; which cloud is vanished almost into nothing.  
Much more of great worth and consequence hath that Reverend Bishop, in the same 11 chapter, concerning Enoch and Elias, living in glorified bodies; to whom I refer the Reader. And this shall suffice to have spoken of Enoch, and of Elias, against Bellarmine's third demonstration (as he calleth it) that Antichrist is not yet come. Every part and parcel of which proof is so weak, and so fare from concluding apodictically; that they scarce deserve a place among probable arguments. And thus is the second main branch of my answers made good and manifested, That some have been excepted from death, viz. Enoch and Elias; though it be objected, that It is appointed for men to die. The third part of my answer followeth, That others also shall be excepted.  
O Fountain of life, and preserver of men, to whom belong also the issues of death: I have deserved to die the first and second death, I have provoked thy long-suffering, I am no more worthy to be called thy son; Lord make me as one of thy hired servants, and put me to what labour, to what pain soever, within me, without me, so long as pleaseth thee: only, I beseech thee for the blessed mediation of thy dear beloved only Son, Jesus Christ my Saviour, give me grace not to faint under the burdens appointed; and at the end of the day, at my lives end, vouchsafe to give me a penny among thy labourers, and eternal life among thy chosen. Amen.   

CHAP. III.  
1. Some others hereafter shall be excepted from death. The change may be accounted, in a general large sense, a kind of death. The Papists will have a real proper death: Aquinas, an incineration. This is disproved 1. Thessal. 4.17. which place is handled at large. The rapture of the godly is sine media morte, without death. The resurrection is of all together. The righteous prevent not the 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 tenants 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. Doctor Estius, and Cornelius à Lapide the Jesuit, approve Cajetan. S. Augustine is on our side; and evinceth it by Adam's 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, conveniency, probability, 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 heretics, yet held truly, That some shall not die. S. Augustine dubious. Others stick in his hesitancy. Yet other Fathers and late Writers are constant, That some shall be privileged from death; yet, that change may be called a kind of death.  
1. THe third main question being, Whether Adam and his children, all and every one of them, without privilege 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 kind of death, saith Beza. Bosquier, in his Terror Orbis, maketh rapture to be a kind 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 corruptibility and mortality, 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 kind of death. But because this change doth not separate the soul from the body, doth not dissolve the compositum; we are bold to say, It is not a true, proper, real death.  
The Papists will not be content with this immutation; but urge a perfect natural death, a very disjunct separation of the soul from the body.  
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 air, as Montanus hath it. The Vulgat differeth but in word, not in sense; 
d Qui vivimus, qui relinquimur, etc.  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 general judgement; because he saith, 2. Tim. 4.6. I am now ready 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 believe that Christ's day was at hand. His own time was at hand, but Christ's day was not. The English translation jumpeth verbally in the contradiction; At hand; and, Not at hand. The Original varieth but a little; and that not in sense, nor in the Verb itself, 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 only of the godly, is also apparent by the context: for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we the remainder, showeth, 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 only who sleep in Jesus, and whom God will bring with him, 1. Thess. 4.14? which are not the wicked, but the godly only. They are the Saints, with whom the Lord cometh, Judas ver. 14.  
The Rhemists themselves confess, that the Apostle speaketh of all the faithful 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 powerful reason may confirm this: because the wicked will wish mountains to cover them, will quake and tremble at that hour, 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 sum is, The godly which shall be then left, and be alive, shall be taken up into the air. The Papists say, this is not to be done, 
g Sine media morte.  without intercurrent, or intercedent death: whereas the words are express, We living, and remaining, shall be snatched up. The argument of Gregory 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 others: for they shall both die and rise again. Which opinion, because it is against all Divinity, he minceth and mollifieth thus, 
i Omnes possunt dici resurgere simul, prout simul fieri dici potest, quod fit sub idem tempus brevissimum.  All may be said to arise together: as that may be said to be done at once, which is done in a very short time. But this shift cannot serve his turn: for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (1. Corinth. 15.52.) in punto, or in tempore indivisibili, in one instant, is neither first nor last. But so shall all arise: and Bonaventure, Sentent. 4. distinct. 43. quaest. 3. proveth by six reasons, that 
k Resurrectio omnium fit simul, & non successiuê.  There shall be a joint resurrection of all together; and not successive, as Valentia would have it. The frame may be this, from his confession, The righteous shall not arise after others: But, by Valentia his acknowledgement, if the righteous, who shall be alive when Christ cometh, shall die; they must arise after others: Therefore they shall not die at all. Though it be said, 1. Thess. 4.16. The dead in Christ shall arise first, yet he saith not, he meaneth not, that they shall arise sooner than other men (much less later, as the Jesuit would featly excuse it:) for all shall be raised together, good and bad, at the blowing of the trump: All that are in the graves shall hear Christ's voice (one voice, one single voice shall be heard of all) and shall come forth: they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation, John 5.28, 29. They must not come forth one by one, or one after another; but all together. And not only they who are dead, shall all arise together: but at the same time shall both the dead be raised, and the living changed: 
* 1. Thess. 4.15.  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord (perhaps, some of the words which he heard in the third heaven) that we which are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep: And there is no likelihood that the dead shall prevent the living: Therefore all shall arise, or be changed together. The Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the trump, 1. Thess. 4.16. With a great sound of a trumpet, Matth. 24.31. The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed, 1. Cor. 15.52. All this shall be done at one time, the change of some, and the resurrection of others. No preeminence is in that point. Though the Apostle saith, The dead in Christ shall arise first; it is meant, before others shall meet Christ in the air. 
l Non enim ponit ordinem resurrectionis ad resurrectionem, sed ordinem ad raptum vel occurrentiam.  For he setteth not down the order of their several resurrections, but the order of their several raptures and meetings with Christ, saith the deep Aquinas. The raised and changed holy ones shall go together: the changed shall not meet Christ, till first the holy dead be raised.  
Again, it is not, Resurgent primi, Shall be the first who arise, which is the bad translation of the Vulgat; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Resurgent primùm, Shall arise first of all, adverbially; first, that is, before others meet Christ. S. Augustine was sometimes doubtful of the main point: but what saith he, Tomo 4. de octo Dulcitii quaestionibus, quaest. 3. upon these words, WE WHO LIVE AND ARE LEFT? I would (saith he) hear more learned men concerning these words, and correct what I have sometimes thought otherwise, from hence; if they can be so expounded to me, as by them I may understand, that all who live now, or shall live, shall die.— But if in these words there can no other sense be found; and if it be clear, that the Apostle would be understood, according to the evidence of the words, That there shall be some living in the end of the world, 
l Qui non expolientur corpore, sed superinduantur immortalitate, ut absorbeatur mortale à vita.  who shall not die corporally, but be clothed over with immortality, that mortality may be swallowed up of life; then to this opinion, without doubt, is agreeable that which in our Belief we confess, That Christ shall come to judge both quick and dead. So fare proceedeth that holy Father S. Augustine.  
2. And because he hath named a second place, and instanceth in the Creed; it shall be my second argument; and thus do I shape it; The Creed Apostolical saith, Christ shall judge both the quick and the dead. He was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead, saith S. Peter, Act. 10.42. S. Paul hath the same, 2. Timoth. 4.1. Testificor coram Jesu Christo, qui judicaturus est vivos & mortuos, I testify before Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead; And when the Scriptures say so, they understand it 
a De novissimo generali judicio.  of the last general judgement, saith Bellarm. de Purgat. 2.4. Yea the Apostle expresseth so much in the last cited verse of Timothy; Christ shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing, and his Kingdom. But his Kingdom was not of this world, and his first appearing was past; Therefore it must be at his second coming. The groundwork of the words being laid, thus the structure ariseth. By the word, dead; you cannot understand the parties as they are dead; for so Christ judgeth them not; alive people are the object of his judgement: But you must needs expound dead for those, that sometimes did die and now are raised to be judged, and are alive. The word quick, or living, you cannot interpret, as the Papists do, such as are alive then, and shall die; and then be raised; and then be judged: for it needed not to have been said, He shall judge the quick and the dead; but it had been sufficient to have said only one of them, He shall judge the quick, or the living; for indeed they shall all be alive: or, He shall judge the dead; for even the living, and the quick shall die, as the Papists feign. But indeed the Holy Writ divides all mankind into two sorts: the one part shall be living, and not die, but be changed; the other are such, as sometimes died: Viventes, & mortuos. And thus there are no clouds in that article, He shall judge the quick and the dead.  
In the Creed there is neither redundancy, nor defect: in the Popish exposition there is redundancy: for, if all and every one shall die, it might as well have been expressed, He shall judge the dead: Or, if the dead, as dead, be not properly judged; it might only have been said, He shall judge the quick: for, according to the Papists, all the living shall die, and be again made quick. But, as I said, the specializing of two sorts, quick and dead, evinceth, that some shall not die, and some have died.  
These words of the Creed did much move Cajetan, as himself confesseth; and they are brought by S. Augustine to establish this point, That some shall not die, but shall be changed: though I confess, the definitions Ecclesiasticorum Dogmatum, cap. 8. leave it doubtful. For thus they say, 
a Quod dicimus in symbolo, in adventu Domini vivos & mortuos judicandos, non solùm justos & peccatores significari credimus; sed & vivos eos, qui in carne invenien●i sunt: qui adhuc morituri creduntur, vel immutandi sunt, ut alii volunt; ut suscitati continuò, v●l reformati, cum antè mortuis judicentur.  What is said in the Creed, That Christ at his coming shall judge the quick and the dead, we believe doth signify, that not only the just, but the sinners also shall be judged. And even those also who shall be found alive in their bodies of flesh; of whom our belief is, that they shall yet die, or, as others think, be changed: that being raised immediately, or changed, they may be judged with those who died before: And yet, me thinks, another exposition of Ruffinus is as bad: for quick and dead he understandeth of souls and bodies; As if the souls were not sentenced before, in the particular judgement; as if the bodies were then dead, or to be dead, when they are judged.  
3. I have not yet ended with the words of the great S. Augustine: but from the phrases used by him, out of the Holy Writ, of Expoliari, & Superindui, To be unclothed, and clothed upon, I thus frame another argument.  
S. Paul saith, 2. Corinth. 5.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We would not be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. He, who is not unclothed, but clothed upon, holdeth what he had, layeth down nothing, and hath somewhat added to him. But by this garment, Metaphorically, is the body meant, which shall not be cast off from the soul, or the soul from it; but in the change shall be arrayed with immortality.  
Now if there be not an expoliation, if there be not a separation of the soul from the body; there is no death: But there is no such expoliation: therefore they who have other clothing put upon them, shall not die. Cajetan, upon the words SUPERINDVI CUPIENTES, DESIRING TO BE CLOTHED UPON etc. saith, The same shall truly befall us, 
b Si in die Domini, vestiti corpore, & non nudi, inventi fuerimus; id est, si tunc residui futuri sumus, & nondum mortui.  if at Christ's coming we shall be found clothed with our bodies, and not naked: that is, if we shall then remain alive, and not be dead before. And the same Cajetan confuteth Aquinas his exposition, on the place. Doctor Estius approveth Cajetan; and so doth Cornelius Cornelii à Lapide, on the words.  
Lorinus on Act. 10. and Justinian upon these passages of S. Paul, will by no means censure our opinion, as Catharinus and Soto do: and this they profess, though they be Jesuits. For indeed our opinion is confirmed by S. Augustine, de peccatorum meritis & remiss. 1.2. 
c Si non peccâsset Adam, non erat expoliandus corpore, sed supervestiendus immortalitate & incorruptione, ut abscrberetur mortale à vita, id est, ab animali in spirituale transiret.  If Adam had not sinned, his soul had never been disunited from his body, but he had been clothed upon with immortality, and incorruption: so that the mortal part should have been swallowed up of life, that is, should be changed from a carnal life into a spiritual. Otherwhere S. Augustine saith, Adam had a state, by which he might pass from mortality to immortality without tasting or partaking of death. Bellarmine speaking of Adam, citeth this, and liketh it. Why therefore may not they, that shall be residui, left, be also without death translated into glory? If the Jesuits had had such an argument, they would have said, It were convenient for God so to do it, yea necessary; that by plain demonstration mankind might see and know, what estate they had, and what estate sometimes they lost in Adam; and that all mankind should have been so translated, if sin had not hindered, and thrust death among us. I will only say, It may be, that some are therefore kept to be translated, to show the manner how Adam without death should have been changed.  
Salmeron objecteth, Children found alive at that time, if they die not, shall continue in the same stature: which may not be believed. I answer, he derogateth from the power of God: as if he were not able to make children to be men by the change, as he is able by death. Can God make children of stones? and can he not make men of children? Did he create Adam to be a full grown man, of earth? and will his hand be shortened in the immutation? God, out of the little dust of little children, raiseth up, by Salmerons' confession, entire, perfect bodies of men: therefore the same God may as well, as easily, and perhaps more easily, (if God doth such things more easily, than other) of the same living bodies of little children, by that mysterious change, produce and ampliate every member to the full growth of perfect men. God caused the rod of Aaron to bud; and it brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds, Numb. 17.8. and yet it was severed from the root; and laid up in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, before the testimony; free from water, or earth, to nourish it: and this was done the morrow after it was there laid: though it would not have born almonds, if it had been still united to the stock; perhaps, for many months after. Did the same God restore unto Jeroboam, his hand which was dried up before, so that he could not pull it back to him again, 1. Kings, 13.4. and that on a sudden, at the prayer of the Prophet? And will Salmeron think, that if children do not die, they shall continue still children, although they be changed? Who knoweth not, that the change is as great a part of God's power, as the resurrection?  
Salmeron again objecteth, If the living or quick at that day, shall not die; The wicked ones 
d Ignem conflagrationis evadent.  shall avoid the fire of conflagration. I answer first, That the fire of conflagration shall be after judgement. Secondly, if they should escape that fire, they cannot flee from the fire of hell. Thirdly, the wicked ones shall arise with the just, all together. The wicked ones may be changed also at the same instant, that the just are; and that is, at the same instant of the resurrection. Christ is the resurrection, and the life, John 11.25. The resurrection, to them that are dead: perhaps the life to them that are changed, and die not. The resurrection of the dead Saints, is called the resurrection unto life; The resurrection of the dead wick● ones, is called the resurrection unto damnation, John 5.28. Likewise, say I, The change of the wicked, (if changed they be, as I hold it most likely) may be called the change unto shame and pain eternal; as the change of the godly, may be called a change unto glory. For the wicked shall reap no benefit by that change: nor shall they meet Christ in the air, by any extraordinary rapture, as I conceive. And since they die the second death; it mattereth not, if they avoid, either the first death, by immutation; or the fire of conflagration. Lastly, if they shall meet Christ in the air, it is to their greater terror: They shall be hurried to their judge, and haled toward their punishment: they meet him not, as he is a mild Saviour; but as an angry and just God. And this is a sufficient answer both to the second and third objection of Salmeron; as the learned, who read him, can testify.  
4. Another argument, and that of moment and validity, to prove that some shall hereafter be excepted from death, is taken from that memorable, diversely read, diversely expounded place of the Apostle, 1. Corinth. 15.51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
e Omnes autem non dormiemus, omnes autem immutabimur.  We shall not all die, but we shall all be changed; as the interlineary hath it. And this is the first, and best reading. Let us examine, first the words, and the several translations; and so approach to the exposition.  
The Greek cited by me at large, is in all the Greek copies: so saith Peter Martyr; and Doctor Estius confirmeth the same: so likewise doth Chrysostom, and Theophylact read it: and Theodoret, and Justinus ad Orthodoxos, quaest. 61. & quaest. 109. and Origen, in tertio volumine enarrationis Epistolae primae ad Thessalonicenses, as also in his book against Martion, Which is a manuscript in the Vatican, saith Estius. So Oecumenius, Prognost. 3.48. So Theodorus Heracleotes reads it, saith S. Hierom, in Tom. 3. Epistolarum, pag. 198. and in the end of the same Epistle to Minerius and Alexander, S. Hierom acknowledgeth, that even in his days the Greeks did not read it as the Latins. Salmeron on the place, finds fault with, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Omnes quidem non dormiemus, All of us shall not die: 
f Quod, juxta verborum proprietatem, perinde est ac dicere, Nullos dormituros: non enim dicitur, Non omnes dormiemus, quà declararet, aliquos non morituros. Est grande discrimen apud Logicos inter Non omnes dormiemus, &, Omnes non dormiemus.  which, according to the propriety of the words, is as if he had said, NONE SHALL DIE. For it is not said, NOT ALL OF US SHALL DIE, by which words is meant and declared, that some shall not die. And there is a great difference among Logicians between these two propositions, NOT ALL OF US SHALL DIE, and, ALL OF US SHALL NOT DIE. So fare he.  
First, I say, Estius a learned Doctor, and Popish Divine, doth sleight this subtlety: 
g S●ito sensum non mutari, sive legas, Omnes quidem non dormiemus, qui ordo verborum est in Graeco: sive, Non omnes quidem dormiemus, quomodo legit Hieronymus, & plerique Lat ni vertunt.  Know (saith he) that the sense is no whit changed or altered, whether you read it thus, ALL OF US SHALL NOT DIE, as the order of the words is in the Greek text: or thus, NOT ALL OF US SHALL DIE, as Hierom reads it, and most of the Latins interpret it.  
Secondly, I say, if we should maintain that none shall die of them that are residui, then remaining alive; but that both good and bad, shall all be changed without death; I see no inconvenience to arise from that opinion.  
Catharinus, in his Commentaries, finds fault with those, who follow the first reading, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Estius finds fault with him for his fault finding; condemning him of inconsideration, and rashness. The Arabic accordeth with the Greek; Nos omnes non moriemur, sed nos omnes mutabimur, We all shall not die, but we all shall be changed. The Syriack also is in harmony with both Greek and Arabic (though Salmerons' nicety may think it a jar) Non omnes nos obdormiemus, omnes autem nos immutabimur; Not all we shall sleep, but all we shall be changed: yea, an old vulgat translation, which is in Basil in the library of the Predicants (saith Erasmus) agreeth with our Greek. Aquinas himself, in the end of his 8. Lect. confesseth, that our Greek reading is in sense consonant to that which the Apostle wrote to the Thessalonians, the first Epist. 4 chap. and 17 verse. Scriptures sweetly expound Scripture: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, saith the Apostle here: and to the Thessalonians, We which are alive, and remain, shall be caught up together. The very Prefaces have a correspondence in substance, and are more than ordinary; This we say unto you by the word of the Lord, 1. Thessal. 4.15. and here, 1. Corinth. 15.51. Behold, I show you a mystery: And then doth he in both places evince an immutation, without death. Therefore there can be no danger in our opinion; as may be evinced from Aquinas his free acknowledgement. Yea, there is not only no danger, but great reason for it: for, How excellently doth this agree with that, which presently followeth, verse 52. The dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. Doth he not plainly discriminate and diversify those, which shall be raised, from those which shall be changed? He doth not say, We shall be raised incorruptible, and, We shall be changed; as he must have done, if all are to die, and then to be changed: And, to show that the change is not by laying down of the body, he addeth immediately, This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality, vers. 53. phrases implying no loss, no decay, no separation; but a superinduction, and superaddition to what before was enjoyed. And when this is done, he saith most pertinently, vers. 54. Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. as if he had said, When both these things are accomplished, the raising of the dead, and the change of the living, so that they shall be no more mortal; then shall death be overcome: O DEATH, WHERE IS THY STING? vers. 55.  
So much for the first and best reading, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I come to the second (which is varied by the addition of one letter; but it makes a contrariety in the sense) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Omnes non dormiemus, All of us shall not sleep, saith the former: Omnes dormiemus, All of us shall sleep, saith the latter. And this latter way it seemeth to have been read in some few copies, even in S. Hieroms' time. But this Greek lection is justly suspected (saith the worthy Estius;) the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being so easily turned into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or a little dash. And he findeth just fault with Acacius in Hierom, for saying it was so read in most Greek copies; when as, certainly it was read so but in very few copies; whereof there is scarce one now extant, and not many proofs that ever there were many copies of that extant. Neither indeed doth the reading stand with sense. For the Apostle solemnly premizeth, Behold, I show you a mystery: and then subjoineth immediately, according to this new-fangled mis-writing, We shall all therefore sleep, or die. Is this a mystery, that all shall sleep, or all die? Doth he promise mountains, and bring forth a molehill? Every Heathen knows, that we shall die; every Christian, Turk, and Jew, that we shall be raised again. But, when God justly for sin sentenced man to death with a morte morieris, That some sinful men should be excepted, is a mystery, deserving such a watchword, as Behold: Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.  
Secondly, from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I thus argue: That death (if such a death there be any) which is so speedily begun, by separation of the soul from the body, and ended (as I may so say) by the swift and momentany reuniting of the same soul to the same body, cannot handsomely be called a sleep. Doth he sleep, who in the twinkling of an eye is changed from mortality to immortality? yea, from being alive, is made dead? and from being dead, is made alive; and that incorruptibly? Was ever sleep confined to an instant, till now? or may one be said to sleep, in the midst of these great works? It is not so much as Analogical sleep. The greatest sleepers have more than an instant, ere they can begin to sleep. Sleep creepeth or falleth on men by degrees; heaviness and dulness usher it; and the spirits have a time to retire to their forts, and citadels; the senses are not locked up, nor do they deposit the use of their faculties in a moment. And may that be called properly rest, or sleep, which resteth not above an instant, and is as quick as thought? Rest and sleep do couch upon the bed of time: likewise it is as much as possibly can be done, (if so much can be done) to awake one in an instant. The Scripture useth the phrase of sleeping towards them, who rest (as it were) in death, in the earth, in the grave: Our friend Lazarus sleepeth, saith Christ, John 11.11. when indeed he was buried. Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake, Dan. 12.2. Let one place of holy Writ be produced, where one and the same instant beginneth sleep, and endeth awaking; and then I may say, there may be some shadow for that reading. But here is no pause, no rest, no quiet; therefore no sleep: therefore the word sleep in this place, is applied to such as died before; and not to such as are alive, and shall die; as the second lection implieth.  
Thirdly, it wanteth force, to say in the whole conjoined sentence, We shall therefore all sleep, or die; but we shall all be changed. If the Apostle had intended any such thing, he would not have used the adversative particle But; but the implicative word And: We shall all therefore sleep; AND we shall all be changed. This had been sense, if thus it had been: but not being so, we may the more confidently shake off the second lection, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as abhorrent from reason; and cleave to the first, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Omnes quidem non dormiemus, etc. All we shall not die, but all we shall be changed.  
And so, from the variety of Greek copies, I come to the Vulgat, the Translation in Latin, Omnes quidem resurgemus, sed non omnes immutabimur; Truly we shall all of us arise, but we shall not all of us be changed.  
First, I say, this differeth from all Greek copies; whereas, if it had been according to any sort of them, it might have swayed us much that way.  
Secondly, the same argument touched at before, may also give a side-blow to this translation. The Apostle raiseth up their considerations, by promising to tell them a mystery: But it was no mystery to tell them, that they should all be raised; when he had told it so pithily, so divinely, and so often beat upon it before, by so many kinds of arguments, as he did.  
Thirdly, where the Vulgat saith, Non omnes immutabimur; it is not true: for Omnes immutabimur, We shall all be changed, from mortality to immortality, from natural bodies to spiritual. If you say, We shall not be all changed to glory; I say so with you: I add, That is no mystery; all know that. Therefore the Apostle speaketh not of a change to glory eternal in the heavens; whereunto some only shall be changed; but he speaketh of a change from mortality to immortality, from corruptible bodies to incorruptible; which even the wickedest men shall have. And perhaps he meaneth, that this general immutation shall be made, sine media morte, without intercurrent, or intercedent death, even in the wicked that shall be then alive: yet in the change, you must always make this diversity: The wicked shall be singled out to shame, to loss, to punishment eternal, with their raised or changed bodies (for even in their raising also, there is a change from corruption to incorruption:) but in the change of the godly, there is glorious incorruption, joyful immortality, pleasurable eternity.  
The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a change of a thing from place to place; as when we take a piece of wood from the earth, and cast it into the water: Thus the wicked shall be hurried from their graves to the judgement seat; and shall be placed on the left hand of our Saviour; and, after sentence, shall be haled, and cast from earth into hell. On the other side, the righteous in their change shall be mounted up from their graves, or from the earth, into the air, to meet Christ; and shall be at his right hand; and, after sentence, be carried or ascend up into heaven, in most glorious manner, to live with Christ eternally.  
Fourthly, if we read it with the Vulgat, We shall all arise, but we shall not all be changed; we must also immediately annex the words, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for there is the pause, and stay to be made; there is the full sentence. The Vulgat hath done very ill, to make the stay and full point at immutabimur: for then the words following bear no construction at all, if they be considered by themselves; In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump. For than cometh in new matter; For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed: For this corruptible must put on incorruption, etc. What coherence subsequent then shall you make unto these words? None at all. The coherence must be with the antecedent words. But, say I, take the antecedent words, as the Vulgat hath them; and read, as you must, the connexion in this sort, We shall indeed all arise: but shall not all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: For the trumpet shall sound, etc. I say, even in this reading there is little sense also; yea, much untruth. Is it not certain that we shall be changed in a moment? Or how long shall the time of change be? There is no way to avoid this foul absurdity, which cometh by the Vulgat edition; unless it be by a greater, that is, by saying that you will make an Hyperbaton; and include these words, We shall not all be changed, in a Parenthesis: and then the sense will be, We shall arise in a moment, etc. For, though it be true, that we shall arise in a moment; yet there is no ground, that we shall not be changed in a moment. In all likelihood, a change may rather be more speedy, which is without death; then that change which is made through death and resurrection. If they may be, and shall be raised, and changed in a moment; they may in a moment be changed, and not raised.  
Secondly, no authority, that I know, runneth for such a needless Parenthesis: and I deem it as a violence offered to the Text, so to strain it, when the sense will run fairly otherwise, according to the best Greek copies; We shall not all sleep; but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump.  
Let this also serve to have been spoken against the Latin Vulgat edition, and its bad reading, Omnes quidem resurgemus: sed non omnes immutabimur. In momento, in ictu oculi, in novissima tuba, canet enim tuba, & mortui resurgent incorrupti, etc. By how much the less sense is in this; by so much the more are we bound to adhere to the Original, and the most common and best copies of it.  
This I may be bold to aver, That if some shall not die, and yet be changed; there shall be an infallible, yea demonstrative proof unto sense, That the very self same body which man had, shall inherit eternal glory. For, if they die not, they must needs keep and have the same bodies, from which they are not parted by immutation. Yea, the identical resurrection of the same very bodies which were dead, may thus fare be proved, That if the changed bodies shall be still the same in substance, though differing in qualities; the raised bodies also shall be no otherwise, nor any way different: and Pythagoras will then disprove his 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  transmigration of souls into divers bodies, and his heathenish 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  regeneration (to which Nicodemus seemed to have an eye, Joh. 3.4.) when every soul cometh arrayed with its own body; and when they, who by change put not off their bodies, shall come alive to judgement.  
5. The Pelagians were wont thus to argue, If sin came in by Adam, than all must needs die: But some shall not die, namely those, 
y Qui reperientur vivi  who shall be found remaining alive: Therefore sin came not into the world by Adam. S. Augustine answereth this argument very sufficiently otherwise: and it may easily and briefly be answered, All shall die reatu, though not actu. Yet that holy Father, and that great just enemy of the accursed Pelagians, 
z In majorem cautelam.  for the greater and better security and safety, would seem to rest doubtful of their assumption; which he needed not. Whereupon, de Civitat. 20.20. he saith, 
a Dormitio praecedit, quamuìs brevissima, non tamen nulla.  Death goeth before; a most short and speedy one, yet a death. And in the same place, 
b Per mortem ad immortalitatem mirâ celeritate transibunt.  They shall slip, sail, or pass over by death to immortality with wonderful speed. Again, de peccat. merit. & remiss. 2.31. 
c Hoc quibusdam in sine largietur Deus, ut mortem istam repentiuâ commutatione non sentient.  God at the end of the world shall grant this privilege unto some, That by reason of their sudden change they shall not feel death. And, Retract. 2.33. 
d Aut non morientur, aut de vita ista in mortem, & de morte in aeternam vitam, celerrimâ commutatione, tanquam in ictu oculi transeundo, mortem non sentient.  Either they die not, or otherwise they glide from this life into death, and from death into eternal life, as it were, in the twinkling of an eye, by a most speedy alteration, taking no notice or sense of death. He leaves it doubtful (as you see) in these his last books: though sometimes before he thought, That all should die; and otherwhere, as ad Dulcitium, quaest. 3. That they should not die.  
The Master of the Sentences saith concerning the question, Whether the change be by death, or without it, 
e Horum quid sit verius, non est humani judicii definire.  Man cannot determine certainly which of these is truest. Rabanus, lib. 4. the sermon. proprietat. having alleged the consent of diverse Fathers to establish his own opinion, That all must die; yet annexeth this, Because there are others alike Catholic and learned men, who believe, That, the soul remaining in the body, those shall be changed to immortality, who shall be found alive at the coming of our Lord; 
f Et hoc eis reputari pro resurrectione ex mortuis, quòd mortalitatem immutatione deponant, non morte, etc.  and that it stands them in stead of rising from the dead, that they cast away mortality by change, not by death; Let any man rest on which opinion he pleaseth, etc. Which very words also, you shall find in the book de Ecclesiast. Dogmat. cap. 7. Now though S. Augustine was dubious, and some with him; and though some also have embraced the contrary opinion: yet equally Catholic and learned men have been constant to maintain, That some shall not die, but be changed; as you have heard confessed.  
If you please, you may take a view of some, more particularly. The afore named Theodorus Heracleotes, cited by Hierom, in his epistle to Minerius and Alexander, hath it thus; 
i Sancti, qui in die judicii in corporibus reperiendi sunt, non gustabunt mortem; erúnt que cum Domino, gravissimâ mortis necessitate calcatâ.  The Saints, who in the day of the last judgement shall be found to be alive and remain in their earthly bodies, shall not see death, or taste of it; and shall be with the Lord, kicking and spurning at death and the greatest enforcing necessity thereof. Apollinaris, cited in the same epistle, said, Some shall not die; but be snatched out of this life, that with changed, and glorified bodies, they might be with Christ. Chrysostom on the 10. to the Romans, and on 1. Thess. 4. and upon this place to the Corinthians, saith, Some shall escape death. With him agreeth Epiphanius, Haeresi 64. saying, 
k Qui rapitur, nondum mortuus est.  Who is suddenly snatched up, is not yet dead. And before them, Origen, lib. 2. contra Celsum, so opineth. Theophylact on 1. Corinth. 15. thus, 
l Etiam qui non morientur, ad incorruptibilitatem transferentur.  Even they who shall not die, shall be transchanged out of this corruptible life, to incorruptibility: And again, 
m Nonnulli nè morientur quidem.  Some indeed shall not die at all. To that effect S. Hierom in his epistle to Marcelia, quaest. 3. num. 148. and in his epistle to Minerius and Alexander, bringeth the saying of Christ (Matth. 24.37, etc.) of the days of Noah, when the flood swept them away, as they were eating and drinking; to prove that at the last judgement some shall not die. Theodoret evinceth the same truth, producing the passage of Matth. 24.40. of two in the field; one assumed, the other rejected. And Chrysostom, in his Sermon the Ascensione Domini, instanceth in the verse following, of two in a mill; one refused, the other accepted: which proofs aim at this, That all shall not die. Cajetan is rich in proofs, That all shall not die: See him on Act. 10. upon Timoth. 4. upon 1. Corinth. 15. upon 1. Thessaly. 4. Tertullians' words must not be omitted, in his book the resurrectione carnis; 
n Hujus gratiae privilegium illos manet, qui ab adventu Domini, deprehendentur in carne: &, propter duritias temporum Antichristi, merebuntur, compendio mortis per demutationem expunctae, concurrere cum resurgentibus.  This gracious privilege belongs unto those, who at the coming of our Lord and Saviour to judgement shall be found alive upon earth: and for the grievous afflictions and pressures of the times under Antichrist they shall have granted unto them this indulgence, That they shall not die, but shall be suddenly changed, and so go to meet Christ together with those which shall then be raised from the dead.  
Salmeron being peremptory, That all and every one shall die properly, upon 1. Thessal. 4. hath a wild crotchet, That all, who shall be alive toward the end of the world, shall be consumed with the fire of conflagration, which shall go before Christ; and so dead and raised shall be snatched up. But S. Augustine, de Civitat. Dei, 20.16. setting down the order of the last judgement, saith, The fire of conflagration shall be after the last judgement.  
I will close this point, with the sound and learned words of Calvin, (which fully accord, with what I rested on, in the beginning of this chapter) upon 1. Corinth. 15. 
o Cùm mutatio fieri nequeat, quin aboleatur prior natura; ipsa mutatio meritò censetur species mortis: sed cùm non sit animae à corpore solutio, non reputatur in morte ordinaria.  Since there cannot be a change (saith he,) but the former nature must be abolished; the very change, on good grounds, may justly be accounted a kind of death: but since there is not a separation of the soul from the body, it is not to be reputed as if it were the common and ordinary death. Upon 1. Thessal. 4. he wittily observeth, that they 
p Qui dormiunt, aliquo temporis spatio exuunt corporis substantiam; qui innovabuntur, non nisi qualitatem.  who are dead, or do die, for some space of time or other (longer or shorter) their souls put off the substantial clothing of the body or flesh: but they who shall be changed, shall put off only the quality, not the substance.  
The sum of all is this, The third main question, by me at first propounded, was, Whether all and every one, without exception, must and shall die? The Papists are obstinate for the affirmative; I have proved the negative, That some may be, some have been, and some others shall be excepted, and not die. And so I end my third and last Chapter of my third book of Miscellanies.  
O Most gracious Lord God, who hast committed all judgement to thy only son, our only Lord and Saviour; I beseech thee to have pity upon me, and for Jesus Christ his sake, receive me into thy especial favour. O blessed JESUS, accept of these my poor and weak endeavours; and receive my prayers, and present them with mercy to the throne of Grace: hasten thy coming, and thy kingdom: Come sweet JESUS, come quickly: and prepare my soul, to meet thee with joy. If it be thy holy will, let me be one of them, that shall be changed, and changed to the better: from pain to comfort, from sickness, sorrow, and labour, to rest, and blessedness eternal. Amen. Amen. Amen.   
VNI-TRINO DEO LAUS, ET GLORIA.  
FINIS.   

An Alphabetical Table of the principal things contained in these three Books of Miscellanies.  

A  
ABortion is a curse. Book 1. pag. 103. Two kinds of Abortives. ibid. pag. 98, 99  
Adam's body was created immortal; and how. ibid. p. 11. Adam's body was framed of other dust, than the dust of Paradise. ibid. p. 16. viz. out of the red earth of ager Damascenus. ibid. p. 85. & Book 2. p. 23. The contrary disposition of Elements had not caused a dissolution of Adam's body, had Adam stood. Book 1. p. 17, to 28. The natural temper and constitution of Adam's body in state of innocence. ibid. p. 18, and 20. Whether if Adam and Eve had stood confirmed in innocence, any of their children could have sinned. ibid. p. 44, to 54. The endowments of Adam in state of innocence, ib. p. 55, 56. Whether Adam and Eve foreknew their fall. ibid. p. 59 Whether Adam and Eves sin were the same. ibid. p. 61. Whether of their sins were the greater. ibid. p. 62, 65, to 73. where also of Adam's first sin by which he fell. ibid. Adam mourned 100 years for the murdered Abel. ibid. p. 85, 87. Adam was a type of Christ; therefore saved. ibid. Adam was buried in Golgotha, and his skull found upon mount Calvary. Book 2. from p. 13, to 29. Whether Adam could naturally understand all languages. ibid. p. 47, 48.  
amphibology prejudicial to truth. Book 1. p. 2.  
Angels fell the second instant of their creation. ib. p. 108, and 126. Christ merited for Angels. ib. p. 189, 190. Angels representing men are called men in the Scripture. Book 2. chap. 16.  
Apocryphal books too much slighted. Book 2. p. 145. They are to be preferred before any other humane Authors. Book 3. p. 183.  
Of the divers Appointment of things by God. Book 1. p. 2, 3.  
The Apostles represented the whole body of Christ's Ministers. ibid. p. 147, 148. The Apostles were none of them learned before their calling. Book 2. p. 87, 88  
Aristotle and Plato compared. Book 1. p. 13, 14, 15.  
The Ascension of Christ represented in the assumption of Enoch and Elias, Book 3. p. 191, to 195.   

B  
BEauty desired. Book 1. pag. 19 The Being, or not Being of a thing may be said diverse ways. Book 2. p. 77.  
Bristol built of old by Brennus. ibid. p. 23, 24.   

C  
WHence the Capitol in Rome had its name. B. 2. pag. 18.  
Ceremonies levitical died at first by degrees; and now they are not only dead, but deadly. Book 1. p. 3.  
There is no Chance where Providence reigneth. Book 2. p. 71, 72.  
Cherubims with real flaming swords were placed in Paradise. Book 1. p. 2, 3. and why. ibid. p. 23.  
Christ's beauty in his humanity described, together with his Passion. B. 1. p. 18, 19, 20. compare ibid. p. 193. Christ doth us more good than Adam did us harm. ibid. p. 185, to 188. Christ saved more in number then Adam condemned. ibid. p. 188, 189. etc. Whether Christ were in Adam; and how. ibid. p. 82, 83.  
The judgement of the essential Church of Christ is infallible. ibid. p. 148.  
Circumcision of women by the Turks. ibid. p. 144.  
A wicked Companion is very dangerous. Book 3. p. 184, 185.  
Conception what it is, and how. B. 1. p. 93, to 99  
Confirmation in grace is of two sorts. ibid. p. 48.  
General Counsels are the highest earthly Judges of Scriptures controversed. ibid. p. 136, 148.   

D  
DEath is threefold. Book 1. p. 4. Death is common to all. ibid. Death Natural, and Violent. ibid. p. 17. Sin is the only cause of Death. ibid. p. 26, 27. Death is bitter, because painful. ibid. pag. 28, 31. Death is sweet to some men, because God makes it beneficial unto them. ibid. pag. 32, 33, etc. Death was inflicted on Adam for one sin. ibid. Death was inflicted for the sin of the man Adam, not of the woman Eve. ibid. pag. 36, to 44. Speedy death by some is accounted best. Book 3. pag. 187. Whether all Adam's posterity, without privilege or exception, must, and shall die. Book 3. Chap. 1, 2, 3, throughout.  
The difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Book 1. pag. 192, 193, etc.  
Disciples of Christ were none of them Noble, at least not Nobly bred. Book 2. pag. 86.   

E  
OF the East-Indians and their language. Book 3. p. 204.  
Of Elias and Enoch, whether they be yet living or dead. Book 3. Chap. 2. throughout. Divers questions about Enoch more especially. ibid. p. 181, 182, etc.  
Equivocation in what sense, and in what cases it may be allowable. Book 1. pag. 165, 167.  
The second book of Esdras was never held Canonical. ibid. p. 7.  
Eve remained an intemerate virgin until after the sin of Adam. ib. p. 39, 40. Whether Eve sinned before she talked with the serpent. ibid. pag. 60.  
Excommunication was of three sorts in the Jewish polity. Book 2. pag. 48, 49.   

F  
THe word Father is diversely taken in the holy Scripture. Book 1. pag. 120. and Book 2. pag. 113, etc.   

G  
GEnealogies were ever drawn from the Males. Book 1. page 40, 41.   

H  
THe Healed by Christ were never a second time cured of any disease. Book 2. p. 8.  
Heavenly influences, which are noxious, are the causes of much sickness and destruction. Book 1. p. 17.  
All languages have some words retaining the footsteps of the Hebrew. Book 2. p. 45. When the Hebrew points were first used. Book 1. p. 100, 101, 102.  
Hebron the city. Book 2. page 19, to 29.  
Humility. ibid. p. 161, 162. The humility of S. Paul. Book 2. p. 84, 85.  
The Husband represents the wife. Book 1. p. 140.   

I  
JEr. 10.11. was the only verse of his whole prophecy, that was written in Chaldee; which every captive Jew was commanded to cast in the teeth of the Babylonians. Book 1. p. 180.  
Jerusalem the holy city. Book 2. p. 154, 155, 156.  
Ignorance threefold. Book 1. p. 60.  
Interpretation of Scriptures is the Pastors' right, with whom the Laity must consult. ibid. p. 149, 150, 156, 181, 182. & Book 2. p. 63. Interpretation of Scriptures by Anagrams is profane. B. 1. p. 152, 153. Whether interpretation of Scriptures, or judgement of doctrine do in any sort belong unto the people; and how fare. ibid. p. 157, 159. Helps and cautions prescribed unto the people for interpretation of Scriptures. ibid. pag. 160, to pag. 169, etc.  
John the Apostle his death. Book 3. p. 187, 188, 189.  
Joseph was the firstborn of Jacob. Book 1. p. 142, 143. Joseph was a type of Christ. Book 2. p. 33.  
A twofold acception of the word Judgement. Book 1. p. 6. Judgement after death is private, of souls; public, of bodies and souls. ibid.   

K.  
KIngs represent the people under them. Book 1. p. 183, 184. Of the honour due unto the King. ibid.  
Whether Korah, Dathan, and Abiram descended with all their goods truly into hell. Book 3. p. 214, 215, to p. 221.   

L  
WHerein the confusion of Languages consisted. Book 2. p. 45, 46. Oriental languages conduce much to the understanding of Scriptures: therefore necessary to be studied. ib. p. 48. Of the same languages also. B. 3. p. 204, 205.  
Of Lazarus raised by Christ. Book 2. p. 7, 8, 9  
Humane Learning is an handmaid to Divinity. ib. p. 88, 89.  
Literal sense of Scripture is hardest to be found. Book 1. p. 149.   

M  
MAgistrates not to be reviled. Book 1. p. 168, 169, 170.  
Maran-atha expounded. Book 2. p. 48, to p. 54.  
Of Melchisedech, and why he is said to be without father and mother. Book 3. p. 201, 202, etc. to p. 206.  
Members of the body are not all of equal worth. Book 1. p. 63.  
God is very Merciful unto all. ib. p. 186, 187.  
Whether Moses at the Transfiguration appeared in his own true person, or not. Book 3. p. 208, 209, etc.   

O  
IN Oaths we must be wary of mental reservations, and unlawful equivocations. Book 1. p. 166, 167.  
Opinion. Book 2. p. 83.  
Original sin. See Sinne.   

P  
OF Paradise. Book 3. pag. 194, 195, 196, 197.  
The Pastors' wisdom, both for the matter and manner of his doctrine. Book 1. p. 158.  
The Patriarches were buried in Sychem. Book 2. chap. 10.  
Merely Personals are not propagated. B. 1. p. 109, to p. 138.  
S. Peter represented all the Apostles, Joh. 21.15, 16. Book 1. p. 147.  
The Pope is servus servorum Dei. ibid. p. 132.  
The Privileges of a few make not a law. Book 2. p. 160.  
Whether God may justly Punish the Fathers for the children's actual delinquencies. B. 1. p. 119, 120. In what cases God may, and doth punish the children for their Parents faults, either with temporal, or eternal punishment. ib. p. 118, to p. 124. Every individual man is justly punished for original sin in Adam. ib. p. 145, 146, 147, etc.   

R  
REdemption was of a double kind in the levitical law. Book 1. p. 143.  
Of Relics, Book 2. chap. 12. and the Authors esteem of a true choice Relic. ibid. p. 130, 131.  
The Resurrection was typified in Samson; and how. Book 2. p. 31. Compare Book 3. p. 220. at the bottom of the page. Why all men shall rise again at the last day. Book 1. p. 195. Whether such as have been raised from the dead did die the second time. Book 2. p. 1, to p. 12. Of holy men there is a double resurrection. ib. p. 4. The raising of the dead was an act appropriated unto Christ himself, no way communicated to his Apostles, in his life time. ib. p. 6, 9, 10. Who they were that rose at Christ's death. ib. p. 12. wherewith compare ib. chap. 8.11, 12, 13, 14. throughout. The raised Saints ascended not into heaven with Christ. ib. ch. 15, 16, 17, 18. throughout. Christ's resurrection was typified in Elias, 2. King 2.13. ib. p. 146.  
The figure of Rome at its first building. ib. p. 24.   

S  
THe whole Scripture is but one, though penned by diverse. Book. 2. p. 38, 39 The Penmen of the holy Scriptures, as such, could not forget ibid. p. 40, 41, etc. Whether, & how it was necessary that the Scripture should be written for men's instruction. ibid. p. 68, 69, 70, etc. Whether the holy Penmen of the Scriptures understood all that they wrote. ibid. p. 80, to p. 86. Whether they read profane Authors. ibid. p. 86, to p. 90. They did cite Poets, or profane Authors. ibid. p. 89, to p. 93. Whether they studied the things they wrote beforehand. ib. p. 92, to p. 96. 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. ib. p. 96. We must have recourse unto the allusions of Scripture which are, not rest on what the Apostles conceived in their minds only. ibid. p. 97. The Penmen of Scripture had no liberty to put in their own conceits, or, in writing to add, or blot out what they had done. ib. p. 98, to p. 104. They had no power to cloth their inward apprehensions with words of their own. ib. p. 104, 105, 106. The Penmen of Scripture wrote their heavenly dictates in the same language, in which they conceived them. ibid. p. 107, to p. 112. Whether the holy Penmen of Scripture wrote the Scripture casually. ibid. p. 71, 72. When the New Testament began first to be written, and upon what occasion. ibid. pag. 73. Whether the Penmen of Scripture were commanded to write. ibid. p. 73, to page 76. Whether the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles were compelled to write. ibid. 76, to p. 80. Whether Christ wrote any part of Scripture himself immediately. ibid. p. 64, 65, etc.  
Why Sin is called Original. Book 1. p. 129. Styles given to original sin. ib. p. 36. Some sins are greater than other. ibid. p. 62, 63, 64. The greatness of a sin is two ways considered. ibid. p. 66. Of original sin, as conveyed unto us from Adam. ib. p. 74, to pag. 90. Original sin is matter of repentance. ib. p. 76. How we sinned original sin in Adam. ib. p. 78, 79, 80. Not by imputation only, nor only by imitation. p. 84, 85. Original sin is propagated to mankind. ib. p. 90, 91. & p. 129. When original sin beginneth. ib. p. 91, 92, 93. The manner how the soul is by it made sinful. ib. p. 103, to p. 109. Adam's actual sin was private, and personal, ideal only, and representative: therefore not imputed unto us. ib. p. 88, 89. & p. 129.  
The four principal faculties of our Souls, with their several objects, Book 1. p. 56.   

T  
A Twofold kind of Temperature; the one of weight, the other of justice. Book 1. p. 18.  
Tithes are by an everlasting law due to the Priesthood of Melchisedech. ibid. p. 83. Curses that follow those who sacrilegiously rob the Church of Tithes. Book. 2. p. 50, 51.  
The Transfiguration of Christ, with the manner of it, and how it was not painful to him. B. 1. p. 29.  
Of the Translation of them who shall be found alive at the last day ibid. p. 30.  
The use of the Tree of life in Paradise unto Adam. ibid. p. 20, & 23. Whether Adam did eat of the tree of life before he fell. ibid. p. 21, 22.   

V  
VIator is considered according unto a twofold estate. Book 1. page 51, 52.   
FINIS.   

The several places of Scripture explained in these three Books of Miscellanies.  

The first book.  
GEn. 3.20. pag. 40.  
Gen. 4.15. 64, 65.  
Exod. 13.2. 140.  
Exod. 20.5. 110, 116, 127, 128.  
Job 14.4. 95, 96.  
Ps. 51.5. 92, 93, 94.  
Ps. 91.11. 25, 26.  
Ps. 109.14. 121, 122.  
Ps. 131.1. 161, 162.  
Isa. 53.2. 18.  
Vers. 4. 20.  
Jer. 25.26. 153, unto 157.  
Matt. 15.14. 174.  
Joh. 8.44. 37.  
Joh. 9.2. 132.  
Act. 23.5. 168, 169. 170, etc.  
Rom. 5.12. 79, 80. vers. 13. 186. ver. 18. from page 190, to the end of the first book.  
Rom. 11.16. 106.  
1. Cor. 3.1, 2. 158.  
1. Cor. 7.14. 106.  
1. Cor. 15.47. 42.  
Ephes. 4.23, 24. 56.  
Heb. 9.27. from the 1, to the ninth.   

The second book.  
GEn. 22.5. p. 83.  
Gen. 31.53. 32.  
John 8.56. 30, 31.  
Joh. 20.7. 146, 147.  
1. Cor. 9.16. 78.  
1. Cor. 16.22. 48, 49, etc.  
2. Cor. 5.14. 78.  
Gal. 6.11. 67, 68  
Heb. 11.35. 4.   

The third book.  
EXod. 34.29. p. 210.  
Mal. 4.5, 6. 174, 175, etc.  
Matt. 17.11. 177, 178, etc.    


¶ Faults escaped in the first Book, thus to be corrected.  
Page 18 line 11 for proportion read proportio.  
Page 20 line margin for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Page 24 line 2 for tree life read tree of life.  
Page 29 line 13 for not read no.  
Page line 39 for eclipsed read eclipsed.  
Page 30 line margin for transeuntis read transeuntis.  
Page 32 line margin for laborantoes read laborantes.  
Page 44 line 20 for yaes read yea.  
Page 57 line 20 for he did for a while read he did fulfil for a while.  
Page 62 line 22 for Cittien read Citizen.  
Page 65 line 30 for Wheter read Whether.  
Page line 43 for Gensis read Genesis.  
Page 82 line 41 for lisienesse read likeness.  
Page 86 line 20 for this read his.  
Page 96 line margin for doctus, nec doctus read doctus, nec indoctue.   

¶ In the second Book.  
Page 2 line 39 for istance read instance.   
FINIS.