THE UNION OF CHRIST AND THE CHURCH; In a Shadow. By R. C. LONDON, Printed for RICHARD BISHOP. 1642. The Union OF CHRIST AND THE CHURCH Shadowed. IT is ordinary in matters both of Practice and Opinion, for men when they turn from one extreme, to run too far upon the other, by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Saint Basil calls it. And I wish some Divines had not been surprised a little with this deceit, as in some other things, so in the Theological consideration of the nature of MARRIAGE: and whilst they have been carried by an heat of opposition against that fond Tenet of the Papists, of seven Sacraments conferring Grace ex opere operato, (whereof we have deservedly rejected all but two) they had not in the mean time neglected, and passed over without any observation, that Mystical Notion which is contained in it. Which lest I should seem rashly and ungroundedly to affirm, I will first lay down, as the Foundation of my Discourse, a Paragraph of St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, in the fifth Chapter, from the 22 verse to the 33. 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church: and he is the Saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it. 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it, with the washing of water by the word. 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing: but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives, as their own bodies; he that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church. 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his Father and Mother, and cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church. It is very clear to any one that is of an impartial judgement, and doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Greeks speak, Serve some hypothesis already taken up, That the Apostle in these words doth not only suppose a bare Similitude between the union of Man and Wife by Marriage, and the mystical union of Christ and the Church, and thence compare them together, as there is a similitude between the Kingdom of Heaven and a Grain of Mustard seed: But that he makes one to be a Real Type of the other, and the other an archetypal Copy, according to which, that was limmed and drawn out. As the Platonists use to say, concerning spiritual and material things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That material things are but Ectypall Resemblances and Imitations of spiritual things, which were the First, Primitive, and archetypal Being's. And as a deep contemplator of Truth, shall find nothing more obvious than that of Reuchline, Deum solere uno sigillo varias materias signare, That God often prints the same Seal upon several matters: Which divers Signatures from one and the same Seal of God, our late noble Viscount of St. Alban calls, Parallela Signacula, and Symbolizantes Schematismos, having found out divers instances of them in Nature, which he concluded, were not Merae similitudines (as the Vulgar perhaps might imagine) But una eademque Naturae vestigia, diversis materiis & subject is impressa. Neither were the ancient Hebrews unaquainted with this Notion, which seemeth indeed to have been the true foundation of all their CABALA, as I shall show hereafter: For I find it happily expressed by one of those Doctors in this manner, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. All the Three worlds were printed with the same Print, and sealed with the same Seal, and that which is sealed and receiveth the Sigillation here below, is like to the Shape and Form of those things above, which did seal and stamp the Signature upon them: By these three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worlds they mean three several and gradual Emanations of Creatures from God in the World, one below another, upon all which, they say, God set his Seal of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mundus emanationis, sive Mundus Archetypus. SEPHIROTH so hard, that he printed quite thorough the bottom of them. In like manner I conceive God having framed that excellent Plot of the Gospel, and therein contrived the Mystical union between Christ and the Church, delighted to draw some Shadowing and Adumbrations of it here below, and set the Seal of that Truth upon these Material things, that so it might print the same stamp and Idea, though upon base matter; and thence arose the institution of Man and Wife here below: although indeed Christ and the Church be Sponsus & Sponsa Archetypi, and this Man and Wife which we speak of are but Sponsus & Sponsa Ectypi. But for our better and more orderly proceeding, I shall observe three things especially, which I shall insist upon, from these words alleged. First, that The Union of Man and Wife is a Type of the Union between Christ and the Church, which is the Architype. Secondly, that the making of Eve at first out of Adam, and then the uniting of both again by marriage into one, in Paradise, was all Typical of Christ the Second Adam, and his Wife the Church. Thirdly, How and in what respects the Marriage of Man and Wife doth Typically signify the Union between Christ and the Church. For the First, That the union between Man and Wife is a Type, whereof Christ and the Church is the Archetype. This I prove from the whole scope of this place, where the Apostle falling upon Economical duties, and first those between Man and Wife, he derives them wholly, and brings the reasons of them, from the Relation between the Church and Christ, supposing that to be the Copy and Archetype, to which the Relation of Man and Wife is to be conformed. First he gins with the duty of the Woman vers. 22. Wives submit yourselves to your Husbands, As UNTO THE LORD, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sicut Domino nostro, saith the Syriack, i.e. The Lord Christ. For the true meaning is, As beholding a Type of Christ in your Husbands, submit yourselves to them; and this a Popish Interpreter well observed, In viris vestris considerantes Christum Dominum, qui est caput & sponsus Ecclesiae. So the following Verses expound it; For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church: THEREFORE as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be subject to their husbands in all things. To fancy nothing here, but a bare Similitude between man and wife, Christ and the Church, were to make S. Paul's discourse to be very dilute. Then he comes to the duty of the Husband, vers. 25. which he draws likewise from the manner of Christ's behaviour to the Church. Husband's love your wives, as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, and so onward to the 28. verse; where he shows, that as the Wife was to honour the Husband as her Head, because Christ was the head of the Church, so the Husband was to love the Wife as his body, because the Church is the body of Christ, vers. 28, 29, 30, 31. And then in the close of all he gives an account why he had used this Parallel all along. For this cause shall a man leave Father and Mother and cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great Mystery, I speak of Christ and the Church; that is, because The Union between Christ and the Church, thus Adumbrated and Shadowed out in the Union of Man and Wife is a great Mystery. For this sense the very connexion itself doth sufficiently imply. I will now come to show how well this doctrine was understood among the ancient Jews, especially by the MASTERS of the CABALA; which is a kind of secret and mystical Divinity remaining in part yet amongst them, that is almost wholly built (if I mistake not) upon this one foundation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. That every thing which is below, hath some ROOT above. Wherefore they call these inferior things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Branches, and the Sephiroth above, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Roots. Now they tell us that the Union between Man & Wife here below, is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Branch of the mystical Union between Tiphèret and Malcuth above, which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Root of it. And these Tipheret and Malcuth, are two of those ten Sephiroth, or Emanations of † For the Etym●n of the word Sephiroth is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sa●phirus, by the Author of Shaake Ora●●● Po●tae 〈◊〉. Light above, in the archetypal world, which are the same Originally, that Sponsus and Sponsa are Derivatively and Typically here below. Now that we may see who these were, and that they meant nothing else by them, but that which we call God or Christ, and the Church, although expressed in a little more Metaphysical manner, let us examine further what they say concerning them. Archangelus de Burgo Novo, a man well skilled in this faculty, speaks thus of them according to the mind of those profound Doctors. Secundum Cabalistas duae Veneres sunt Tipheret & Malcuth, quae dicuntur duo amores, etsi sint unus amor per reciprocationem, unde Solomon in Canticis Sponsum Tipheret, & Sponsum Malcuth introducit ad invicem loquentes. Where we see that they expound the Song of Solomon concerning these two, which every one knows is a Lovesong between the Church and Christ. But to clear it further, we must observe that this Malcuth, which is Sponsa, is otherwise called by them Chenèseth Israel, and Beth Israel, that is, Congregatio Israelis, and Domus Israelis, (for so it is usual with these Authors to express one and the same Sephirah by divers names, for fuller explication sake.) So the learned Author of that Discourse whose Title is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Influentia Roris, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Malcuth is that which is otherwise called Cheneseth Israel, or Congregatio Israelis, i.e. The Church: And Tipheret likewise, which is Sponsus, is expounded also by the same Author by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adam superior, in opposition to whom the first terrestrial Adam is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adam inferior, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adam corporeus. As also in those Cabalistick Axioms collected by Mirandula, he is called Magnus Adam, in these words: Rectius dicitur quod Paradisus sit totum aedificium quàm sit Decima, & in medio ejus collocatus est Magnus Adam, qui est Tipheret. The meaning whereof is, that the terrestrial Paradise was not only a Type of the tenth Sephirah, but of the whole Decade of them, because Tipheret the celestial and archetypal Adam, is placed in the midst of them, just as the terrestrial Adam was created in the midst of earthly Paradise. So that it is clear, this Tipheret can be nothing else but Christ the true celestial Adam, whom the Scripture sometimes calls the The Persees use to call Noah to this day Adam Asseni, which is pure Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. The Second Adam. Second Adam. The Author of Shephah Tal, before commended, speaks thus concerning the mystery of these two Sephiroth: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Opera bonorum omnium & justorum, & spirituales eorum intentiones, & preces sanctae & purae ascendunt ad Sephiram Malcuth, & Sephira Malcuth adornat se illis ut Sponsam, & sic exhibet se coram Tipheret Viro suo, & excitat eum ad influendum in eam deorsum. And again a little after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Malcuth adornat se ut Sponsam, bonis operibus justorum, & per eaexcitat Virum suum Tipheret ad influeudum in eam, per Arcanum Facierum. By all this mystically describing the Communion between the Church and Christ; the Church adorning herself as a Spouse, by the holiness and integrity, and good works of the Saints, that so she may please her Husband, and Christ sending down the Influence of his Spirit again into the Church. There is an excellent Speech also to this purpose, in that ancient and famous Cabalistick Book made by R. Simeon Ben jochai, whilst he lived for the space of 12. years in a dark dungeon, for fear of the Roman Persecution in the times of Trajane, and therefore called it Zohar, that is, Splendour; As if he had then seen most Intellectual Light, when he saw least Sensible, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Dixit R. juda, quando multiplicantur merita & bona opera in Mundo, tune Cheneseth Israel exhalat fragrantissimos odores, benedicta à Rege sancto, & facies ejus coruscant. Upon which an Hebrew Scholiast thus glosseth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Quando multiplicantur Merita in mundo inferiore, quia justi semet excitant per opera bona ad Vniendum & Maritandum Mundum inferiorem cum Mundo superiori, tunc Malcuth quae dicitur Cheneseth Israel, emittit odores fragrantissimos, ad Tipheret Virum suum. By which passages we may partly see the strain of Cabalisticke Divinity, and what a resentment they had of this Notion. But Picus Mirandula in his Cabalistick Propositions, collected by him from some ancient Jewish Authors, puts us down one that speaks as fully to our purpose as we could imagine. Vbicunque in Scriptura sit mentio amoris Maris & Faeminae, ibi mysticè nobis significatur conjunctio Tipheret & Cheneseth Israel (for so it should be read, and not Chienseth as our printed Copies have it) vel Beth Israel & Tipheret. That is, as the forenamed Archangelus (who hath commented on some of Picus his Cabalistick Axioms) well expounds it, Conjunctio Domus Israelis & Christi, qui locatur in Tipheret, tanquam Pulchrum omne pulchrum pulchrifaciens. For Tipheret, as is well known signifies pulchritude and ornament. And so the learned Schickard in his Bechinath Happerushin, amongst some other of Picus his Jewish Observations which he there commendeth, glanceth upon this in this manner; Tipheret matrimonio jungitur cum Cheneseth Israel, hoc est, ●hristus Ecclesiae inenarrabili amore desponsatur. And the next Proposition which Picus there sets down, belongs also to this purpose, and therefore might not be forgotten. Qui mediâ nocte cum Tipheret copulabitur, prospera erit illi omnis generatio; Which Archangelus thus interprets Tipheret est Sponsus, & Sponsa est quaelibet anima huic contractui consentiens, & consequenter tota Ecclesia & Collectio fidelium, & qui per orationem Deo in medio noctis adhaeret, valae de Influxu Tipheret participabit. It will not be much amiss upon this occasion by the way, to give a little light to another axiom, which the same Author elsewhere sets down secundùm opinionem propriam, of the same kind, which I think there are but few that understand. Rectius est ut Amen Tipheret dicat & Regnum, ut perviam numeri ostenditur, quàm quòd dicat Regnum solum, ut quidam volunt. Where if we do but observe that Tipheret and Regnum are those two Sephiroth, Tiphereth and Malcuth, which we spoke of so much before; for Malcuth signifieth Regnum, and then in what number of the Ten Sephiroth these two are placed perhaps it will be easy to divine his meaning. But that I may hasten to finish and shut up this observation, I will only remember one place more out of Nachmanides, Parash ab cha●●● Sarah. where he speaketh of these two Sephiroth, but under two other Names, and in a little different Notion. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. There is a Propriety or Sephirah in God, which is called Col or Vniversitas, because it is the Foundation of the Universe; and another Sephirah which is called Bath, or Filia, that floweth from him, and by this doth he guide and govern the World: and this is that which is called in the Song of Songs, Callah, that is, Sponsa, and it is that which our Wisemen have called in many places Cheneseth Israel. Here we see, Tipheret is also called Col, or Vniversitas, which name may very well agree to Christ also, in whom were conceived the Idaea's of the whole World, and by whom the Worlds were made; and Malcuth, or Cheneseth Israel, is called not only Callah Sponsa, but also Bath Filia, which may very well agree to the Church likewise, which is not only the Spouse of Christ, but also his Daughter, flowing out from him, as Eve that was made out of Adam's side, and afterward united to him, was his Wife, his Sister, and his Daughter: of which more anon. Now from this opinion which the Jews had of Marriage, I believe that ancient Tradition amongst them did first arise, Berashith ●●bba. Quòd non sit Conjugium Hominis nifi à De● tantùm, i.e. as we use to say, That all Marriages are made in Heaven; expressing some special hand of God's concurrence in it, because it had a Typical signification of a Divine Mystery. Quaesivit quidam ex R. Iose quidnam faciat Deus post absolutam creationem mundi: Respondit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sedet & conjungit conjugia: And the same is to be found both in the Jerusalem Targum, and that of jonathan upon Deut. 32.4. As if God did nothing since the Creation of the world was perfected, but join souls together in Marriage, before they came down into their bodies, for so they use to speak, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omnes animae, descendunt è coelo conjugatae. I have now done with the Jews, and what if I should speak a word of the Heathens also, who did ever look upon Marriage as a Sacred thing. Coniugium rem esse verè sacram, id est, non humanitùs sed divinitùs constitutam, magno consensu Gentes crediderunt, saith a learned Author. And it is very pertinent to this purpose, what a late Author reports of two Ancient Sects of Religion in the Oriental Parts, the one of the Banians, Natives of India, which seem to have been the Remainders of the ancient Brachmannes, whose Name their Teachers and Doctors yet retain. The other of the Persees, Persians by Nation, which seem to have descended from the Famous Magis, the Father whereof was Zoroaster, whom they still honour (as I take it) under the name of Zertoost. Of the first the Author relates, Pag 61. That they marry about the seventh year of their age, because they account Marriage one of the most blessed actions of Man's Life, without which to die were a great unhappiness. And of the other, Pag. 47 43. That when any one amongst them dies before Marriage, they have a Custom to procure some Man's Son or Daughter to be matched to the Party deceased, attributing this to the state of Marriage, to be a means to bring people to happiness eternal in another World. I have often thought the Egyptians had some relics of an old Tradition concerning this very notion which we have spoken of, lest among them, from that which Plutarch mentions of them in the life of Numa, upon the occasion of that familiar converse which he pretended to have with the Goddess Egeria. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which I need not English but it is likely that Plutarch might mar it a little in the relation; otherwise if this be not the meaning it may seem to argue some Prophetical Prenotion which they had of Christ's Conception by the Holy Ghost in the Virgin Mary. We learn from all this which hath been said, the true reason why the Scripture so often useth to express the Relation of Christ and the Church under the Notion of Man and Wife, or Sponsus and Sponsa, both in the Old and New Testament. In the 45. Psalms and the Song of Solomon throughout. And john the Baptist useth the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if they were in a manner synonymous. john 3.28, 29. I am not the Christ, but I am sent before him, he that hath the Bride is the Bridegroom, this Notion being then very familiar amongst them. In the 22. of Matthew the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a King making a Marriage for his Son. The Apocalypse speaks much of the Marriage of the Lamb, and there be divers Other places to the same purpose. Wherefore Idolatry and false Worship also in the Church of God, is expressed under the Notion of Spiritual Fornication; and no one Scheme of Speech or manner of expression is so frequently and constantly made use of throughout the whole Scripture as this is. In all which places and the like, we must not conceive a Metaphor, but a Mystery. And perhaps Christ himself intimated this Mystery in his manner of Life and converse here upon earth. For some * Divines have wittily conceived, Lud●● Vives de Vegit. that amongst many other good reasons which may be given, why Christ should live an Unmarried Life, this might be one also, to show that he was Sponsus Ecclesiae, The Spouse of the Church. And I cannot here forget how elegantly this Notion was expressed by an Old Syriack Philosopher in an Enigmatical Poem De Sapientia Divina, set out by Sionita, in this manner. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Occurrit mihi in mundo Puella Aspectu bella, Et Oculis splendida, Et Vultu pulchra. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Virgo & Mater, Adolescentula, Et Vetula, & familià Admiranda. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In eius facie depicta est Dies quae omnia illuminat, Et Nox obscura suspensa est Crinibus eius. In medio palpebrarum eius, Occultantur Sol & Luna & Aer; Etiam Elementa coram ea Exultant, motu Circulari. Thus fare he seems to describe the Church, and afterwards to bring in Christ the Spouse, in this manner: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vidi juvenem iucundum Diademate vinctum, Eius Puellae quae me insanum reddit, amore percitum. Thus I have done with the first thing which I propounded, That the Union of Man and wife is a Type, whereof the Union of Christ and the Church is the Archetype. I come to the second. That the Making of Eve at first out of Adam, and the Uniting of her again to him, which was the first Original of Marriage, was Typical of Christ the Second Adam, and his wife the Church. And this I prove from the 30. and 31. verses, where the Apostle useth those very words which were spoken of Eve, in Genesis, when she was made out of Adam, concerning the Church and Christ. For we are members of his Body, of his Flesh, and of his Bones; For this cause shall a man leave his Father and Mother, and be joined to his Wife, and they two shall be one Flesh. Where lest we should be mistaken, as if these words of the latter verse were spoken only of Man and Wife, and did not allude to Christ and the Church, as the Words going before did, to which notwithstanding they were immediately subjoined by Moses in Genesis: he addeth, This is a great Mystery, but I speak (all this while) of Christ and the Church. 'Tis true, the Apostle doth not here go about to prove that there was any such Mystical meaning in that passage of Moses his story; neither doth he bring it out as if it were a new thing to those converted Jews to whom he wrote. But as that which was well enough understood amongst them, and therefore certainly they had some Cabala, or received Tradition concerning such an interpretation of it. Which that ingenuous Author Petrus Cunaeus well observed, De Rep. Heb. Lib. 3. Cap. 8. where having shown that divers places of the Old Testament are expounded in the New, according to some Cabala, which they had concerning them, he reckons up this amongst the rest: Etiam in illis verbis quae extant in Capite secundo Geneseos agnoscimus Cabalam, Quod enim ibi dicitur, RELINQUET HOMO PATREM MATREMQUE, ET ADHAEREBIT UXORI; ex illo ignotum mortalibus Sacramentum revelat Apostolus in Capite quinto Epistolae ad Ephesios. Mystertum hoc magnum est, loquor autem de Christo & de Ecclesia. Now though it be not necessary, that any Footsteps of this Cabala should be found in those Jewish writings which now we have, (for Cunaeus doth not go any further to show us what it was) yet we will endeavour to make our best search and enquiry after it. Moses Maymonides in his Moreh Nevochim lib. 2. cap. 30. speaking concerning the Story of Genesis and the first Creation, after he had declared some more obvious things concerning it, he comes to tell his Reader some Mysteries, but so as that he would wave the interpretation of them, lest he should be counted a betrayer of the Secrets of his Nation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quae tibi ex verbis Sapientum nostrorum propositurus sum, sunt perfectissima & ordinatissima, ideò non diu immorabor in expositione illorum, neque sensum ipsorum explicabo, ne arcanorum fiam revelator. The first of those Mysteries is this: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Buxtorfius thought good to Latin thus, though I think he do not exactly express the Author's sense. Adam & Eva creati fuerunt sicut Vnus, & tergis vel dorso conjuncti, postea verò à Deo divisi fuerunt, qui dimidiam illam partem accepit, & fuit Eva, & adducta fuit ad ipsum. Animadverte quomodò explicetur quod fuerint certo respectu Duo, & certo respectu Vnum, sicut dicitur, Os ex ossibus meis, & Caro ex Carne mea; quod fuerint certo respectu Duo, id confirmatur ex eo quod dicitur Nomen Vnum AMBOBUS convenire, Vocahitur Ishah Vira, quia ex Ish Viro desumpta est: quod fuerint UNUM id confirmatur eo quod dicitur, Et adhaerebit VXORI suae, & erunt in Carnem unam. But lest we should take all this merely in a literal sense, he concludes it in this manner: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Quanta verò est ignorantia illius qui non intelligit haec secundùm aliquem Sensum occultum intelligenda esse? This same Tradition, whatsoever it mean, I find divers others of their own Authors glancing at. R. Simeon Ben jochai in the Book Zohar before commended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adam & Eva creabantur latere ad latus, quaenam est ratio quòd non creabantur facie ad faciem? R. Solomon and Aben-Ezra upon the second of Genesis, and Elias Levita in Tishbi upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 express it briefly thus, out of Midrash Aggadah. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. The first Adam was created with two faces, and afterward God divided him into Man and Woman. The same is likewise mentioned in Breshith Rabath, and the Babylonish Talmud, in the Book Berachoth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Duas facies creavit Deus in Adamo primo, sicut dicitur, Ante & retrò formasts me. And Philo the Jew without question alludeth to it, in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, speaking concerning the Making of the Woman in these words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Quando verò facta est mulier, videns homo cognatam speciem & imaginem, delectabatur spectaculo, superveniens autem amor tanquam VNIUS ANIMALIS DUO SEGMENTA AB INVICEM DISTANTIA colligens, in unum iterum compegit. Here than we have already found out some Jewish Cabala, or Tradition, concerning that piece of Story in Genesis, which is so mystically expounded by Saint Paul, although we do not yet know the meaning of it; only Maymonides hath taught us that it must be understood in some OCCULT SENSE. But before we come to that, that we may show how ancient this piece of Cabalism was, and that it was long before Saint Paul's time, by whom this Epistle to the Ephesians was written, we will produce the very self same thing out of Plato, as he had received it some way by Tradition in the Oriental Parts, which will deserve no little admiration. He therefore in that excellent Symposiack dialogue concerning the nature of Love, brings in Aristophanes discoursing in this manner: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. Non erat antiqua hominum natura qualis nunc est sed longè diversa, ANDROGYNUM tunc enim erat & specie & nomine, ex Maris & Foeminae Sexu commixium. (Compare this with that of Maymonides before; Adam & Eva creati fuerunt sicut unus, (and go on) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Erat porro rota hominis species rotunda, dorsum & latera circum habens, manus quatuor, totidemque crura, facies item duas teriti cervice connexas. Here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the very same words which we quoted from the Talmud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for in that declining age of the Hebrew and Chalday Tongues, about the time of the destruction of the Second Temple, many Greek and Latin and other barbarous words, were mingled with them) and there is withal added a larger explication of it. But then when he comes to speak of the dividing of this Androgynon into two, whereof one should be Male and the other Female, he puts in something for the occasion of it, which we have not found mentioned to this purpose in Jewish Authors, although he received it also by Tradition (though not immediately) from the Jews, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Animos superbos habuerunt, Diis bellum inferre conati, & in coelum ascendere, quemadmodum de Ephialto & Oto narrat Homerus, ut violentas manus in Does inferrent. Whereupon the Gods consulting what to do, jupiter at last found out this plot, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vnumquemque in duas partes dissecabo. Whereupon it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. Haec fatus, bifariam partitus est singulos, instar eorum qui ova dividunt ut sale condiant. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They are incomparable words, expressing in the Type exactly according to the Scripture-Notion the Nature of Marriage, but yet so, as looking also beyond that, they aim at some further Mystery. viz. Hinc nimirum ex illo tempore mutuus hominibus innatus est amor PRISCAE NATURAE CONCILIATOR, annitens VNUM EX DUOBUS efficere, (what could be more like that of the Scripture, They two shall he one Flesh) hominumque naturae mederi; est igitur unusquisque nostrum hominis Collatio & quasi Dimidium, veluti dissecatus, ut illi Pisciculi qui Psettae vocantur scissi ex Vno efficiuntur Duo. I cannot consent with † Lib. 12. Praepar. Evang. Eusebius, that Plato had seen Moses his words, and there had taken out this whole Story, as well as divers other things, for * besides many weighty Reasons which I have to think he never saw any of those Sacred Volumes, Vide Engubinum in Timaeum Platonis. this doth not agree with Moses his relation of it, but is the very same with that Jewish Cabala before recited, which he had therefore certainly received by Tradition, when he was in Egypt, or some other of those Oriental Parts bordering upon the Jews. Only as Leo Hebraeus (a disguised Author, whose true name I think was juda Abravanel) well observes, having there heard of these two distinct things, The making of Eve out of Adam, by Cutting of him in two; and then of the Fall of our first Parents, which was by their Pride, desiring to be as God: He thought these two did belong to one another, and therefore joined them both together, making their Pride to be the reason why they were so divided into two, as a Punishment inflicted on them: whereas in Mose's Story, the Fall of Man came after the making of Eve out of Adam. And certain it is that Plato in all this, did think there was contained some Mystical meaning concerning the Nature of Divine Love, either as Ficinus or Leo Hebraeus allegorise it, or else perhaps more simply thus, That Man in his first Estate being united unto God, and one with him, afterward Sinning was divorced from him, and sunk down quite into the Body, but so as that by Divine Love he might still recover himself, and so by degrees work up himself again unto God, and be made perfectly one with him, as by a Carnal and outward Affection, Man and Wife here below are united together. But if we would have a true and genuine Interpretation of this Jewish Tradition, we must have recourse to the Jewish Authors themselves, and especially the Masters of the Cabala; and they will tell us, that here also Adam and Eve are mystically signified Tipheret and Malcuth, of which we have spoken sufficiently before, that were at first both one Sephirah, as it were Male and Female together, but afterward were parted asunder into two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from being so conjoined; but then were united together again as Man and Wife, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is fully handled and explained with many Cabalistick Mysteries, by the sorecited Author of Shephah Tal, in a Discourfe on purpose, the Title whereof is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arcanum duarum facierum. I will only transcribe some few remarkable passages out of it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Anima Adami qui erat masculus emanavit ex Tipheret, & anima Evae quae erat Foemina emanavit ex Malcuth; Duas facies habuerunt post creationem, hoc est, post creationem eorum in mundo hoc corporeo & materiali habuerunt duas facies in corpore uno: Et sicut Adam & Eva materiales habuerunt duas facies in corpore uno, sic etiam Fontes unde emanarunt Tipheret & Malcuth, sc. Fons Amimae Adami qui erat Tipheret, & Fons animae Evae qui erat Malcut, quando erant hae duae Sephirot Tipheret & Malcuth in secreto Binah, erant tunc corpus nnum Sephirah una, consummata ex duabus faciebus, quae erant secretum maris & Foeminae. Et Zohar loquitur quidem (viz. in that Tradition before related out of him) de inferioribus & de animis Adami & Evae, sed intelligendus est de Superioribus, scilicet de Fontibus undè emanarunt. And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Notum est, quod istae Sephiroth Tipheret, & Malcuth, Secretum maris & Foeminae, administrant mundum, nec necesse est ut revelentur distinctè, nisi post creationem hominis: erant verò anteà in Essentiâ suâ occultâ conjunctim existentes. The meaning is, that as soon as Man was created, the Church did then flow out of Christ, and became distinct from him (whereas before it lay hid in him) yet so, as that Christ and it, that is, Tipheret and Malcuth, were united together again, as Sponsus and Sponsa, whereof the Union of Adam and Eve by marriage was some Type and Shadow. So then we may easily unriddle this Cabala, whereof the true meaning seems to be nothing else but this, that the Church did as it were lie hid in Christ from all Eternity, and was Seminally contained in him; who therefore might be said all that while to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or else in Plato's language to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. (to speak with reverence) Male and Female together. As the Heathens, I know not how, in some Arcane sense, were wont to describe their Gods. For so Orpheus, the Father of ethnical Theology, speaks of jupiter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which Apuleius in his Book De Mundo thus interprets, jupiter & Mas est, est que idem Nympha perennis. And of Minerva, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And there is an Old Monument at Rome to this day, with this Inscription upon, it, SIVE DEO SIVE DE A C. TER. DEXTER EX VOTO POSVIT. Servius upon that Verse of Virgil in his second AEnead, Descendo & ducente Deo— where the Poet calls Venus Deum, in the Masculine Gender, notes, Loquitur secundùm eos, qui dicunt utriusque Sexus participationem habere Numina. And this, other learned men since, have often taken notice of; as Petrus Crinitus in his Book De honesta Disciplina; and Casperius Gevartius in the Third Book of his Electa, in the explication of that famous Enigme of Elia Lelia Crispis, Nec Vir, nec Mulier, nec Androgyna. Which Fortunius Licetus hath more fully since explained, in a Volume of purpose upon that Argument. And lastly, Master Selden, in the Prolegomena of his Book DE DIS SYRIS, whose words I will here set down: Vide & eundem ibidem de Astarte. Credidit Vulgus Deum hoc, illud Deam Numen, Edocti tamen à sacrorum antistitibus solenni invocatione, SIVE TU DEUS ES SIVE DEA, unumquodque compellabant, teste Agellio, Arnobio, aliis: Viriusque scilicet Naturae & Masculinae & Foemininae vis ineffabilis, quam veteres in Deo Vnico Opt. M. agnoscebant, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eum vocantes, mysticè innuebatur. And a little after, Rectissimè ad eam mentem Nichomachus Gerasenus in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 libris, coeteroqui satis ineptis, Vnitatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asserit. And indeed Hermes Trismegist, or whosoever were the Author of Poemander, who, I think with Casaubon, was rather a Christian Divine than a Philosopher, calleth God or Christ the true λογοσ and Word of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as if seems, in respect of the Creation of the whole world, which was made out of that Ideal Fecundity which was in him: which might be better applied to him, in respect of the Church, and that by the Apostles warrant, who hath led us thus fare into this Notion, affirming that Believers are Members of Christ's Body, of his Bone and of his Flesh, and therefore made out of him; which must not be understood as if it were by the derivation of any material substance, for so Christ in respect of his body is rather Bone of our Bone, and Flesh of our Flesh; but by the Effluxe and Communication of his Spirit. For the Church is nothing else but Christus explicatus, Christ dilated and explicated, and therefore is sometimes called in the Scripture by the name of Christ: Ecclesia est Christus, (saith Tertullian) ergo cùm te ad fratrum genua protendis, Christum contrectas, Christum exoras, & illi cùm super te lachrymas agunt, Christus patitur, Christus Patrem deprecatur, in his Book De Poenitentia. But further to confirm this, that the Jews had such a Tradition concerning this Mystical Interpretation of that Story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, I will produce another Testimony of some ancient jewish Author, recorded by Munster in his Commentary upon that Book; that the making of Eve at first out of Adam's side, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad significandam sive notandam conjugem ADAMI SUPERIORIS qui est benedictus. Which is the same that was intimated in the former Cabala, according to the manner of the Oriental Nations, that were wont to couch their greatest Mysteries and pieces of Wisdom, which they conveyed by Tradition to one another, in the Covert of some Fables. And thence Pythagoras and Plato afterward brought that manner of Philosophising into Europe. But last of all, for the fuller conviction of this Proposition which we have laid down, that The Making of Eve out of Adam, did type out something answerable in Christ and the Church, it will not be amiss, to consider what an elegant Parallel there is to that Type in the Antitype. For just as Eve was made out of Adam's side when he was asleep in Paradise, so when Christ was sleeping the sleep of death upon the Cross, was his side likewise opened, and out of it flowed forth Water and Blood, one for the justification, the other for the Sanctification of the Church; or else, as Saint Austin and others of the Fathers will have it, the Types of the two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lords Supper. Whence is that of Saint Jerome, in his Epistle Ad Pammachium, Eva in typo Ecclesiae de Costa viri aedificata est: And of Saint Austin, in his second Book De Symb. Dormiat moriendo, aperiatur ejus latus & Ecclesia prodeat Virgo, ut quomodo Eva facta est ex latere Adae dormientis, ita Ecclesia facta sit ex latere Christi morientis, & in cruse pendentis; and others of the Fathers so often alluded to this Notion, that the Schoolmen at last had got this pretty observation, Ecclesia facta est de latere Christi dormientis in cruse. Neither may it seem strange that we make Adam before the Fall to be thus a Type of Christ, for if it were not too long here to discuss, it might be easily proved that there were Types in Paradise. Neither can I believe that the Tree of Life had in it a Natural Power to preserve from death, as Goropius Becanus perhaps might dream, but that it was a Typical and Sacramental thing, the mystery whereof seems to be unfolded Rev. 22.2. where we have a description of another Paradise, of which also, to my apprehension, the first Paradise itself was a Type. For though I dare not confidently aver that which the Noble Picus took upon him to defend, Si non peccasset Adam Deus fuisset incarnatus sed non crucifixus; Although the ancient Jews seem to have been of that opinion, when among five things, which they say were created before the World, they make Messiah the Son of David to be one, meaning thereby, as a learned Scholiast of their own expounds it, R D Kimchi in Comment. ad 〈◊〉 that he was absolutely and primarily intended in the Creation of the World. And Tertullian also, if I understand him aright, in his Book De Resurrectione carnis, Quodcunque enim limus exprimebatur, Christus cogitabatur homo futurus— Et limus ille jam tunc imaginem induens Christi in carne, non tantum Dei opus erat, sed & pignus. Yet however there might well be Types of Christ in Paradise, because God ever intended Christ in the World, upon the supposition of man's Fall, which he at least foreknew. Sure I am the Apostle tells us plainly, that the first Adam was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 5.14. A figure or Type of him that was to come. And so R. Menachem of Rikanat according to the mind of the ancient Jewish Doctors, upon Gen. 5.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. The Form of the Inferior Adam, mystically signified the Form of the Superior Adam. And as Adam was then a Type of Christ, so might Eve also be of the Church; neither was she so called without a Mystery, for the Church indeed is the True Chawah, the Mother of all living, of all those which live the Life of Grace here, and of glory hereafter. I come to the Third and last thing, From these Words, to show How and in What Respects this Union of Man and Wife by Marriage, doth typically signify the Mystical Union of Christ and the Church. Which is not barely by the Natural Conjunction of them, for there must be some Positive and Instituted Circumstrnces to make a thing properly to be a Type. And they are chief those two which are contained in those words in which the Primitive institution of Marriage is expressed. For this cause shall a man leave Father and Mother and be joined to his Wife, and they two shall be one Flesh; where are two things of Divine Institution concerning Marriage employed. First, that every man should have but one Wife, and that is to Type out the Union betwixt Christ and his One Only Church, expressed in those Words, They Two shall be one Flesh, against Promiscuous conjunction and Polygamy. Secondly, That a Man may not put away his Wife for any cause (except that of Fornication) when it is said, They shall be One Flesh, to type out the inseparable and indissoluble Union between the Church and Christ, against Divorce. For that these two, Polygamy and Divorce, are in themselves absolutely against the Law of Nature, I think will hardly ever be proved. And therefore our Saviour, Matth. 19 goes about to show them both to be unlawful, not from the Law of Nature, but from that Primitive, Positive Institution which we have before specified, in these Words. Have you not read that he which made them at first, made them Male and Female, and said, For this cause shall a Man leave Father and Mother, and cleave to his Wife, and they Twain shall be one Flesh; Wherefore they are no more twain but one Flesh: What therefore God hath joined together let no man put asunder. They said unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a Writing of Divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of their hearts suffered them to put away their Wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Where although it be said, that it was for the hardness of their hearts that they were allowed to put away their Wives with a Bill of Divorce, which may be affirmed likewise of the other, the permission of Polygamy amongst them; Yet I cannot believe that God would have suffered these two, Polygamy and Divorce to have continued so long in his own Church, and that with such seeming approbation, if they had been directly contrary to the Law of Nature, which he doth not, some say, cannot dispense with. But it is in his own power to dispense with his own Positive Institutions for a time, more or less, as he pleases. Now if it should be objected, that in the Hebrew Text Gen. 2.24. there is nothing that may seem to prejudice Polygamy, because the Word Two, upon which the chief stress of that Notion lies, is not there to be found, it being read thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And they shall be one Flesh. I answer, That though perhaps that Word may be Understood and borrowed from the Context, yet I strongly believe that it was read also in the ancient Copies of the Hebrew Bible. Not only because the place might else be easily eluded; and we see that the Jewish Doctors notwithstanding do all generally hold to this day that Polygamy is lawful, as Master Selden hath largely showed, in that incomparable work De jure Naturali & Gentium: but also because this is sour several times quoted in the New Testament, in this manner, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They two shall be one Flesh, and sometimes, so as that the chiefest stress lies upon that word. And because divers ancient Translations read it in the same manner: beside the LXX. whence perhaps it is quoted in the New Testament, the Chaldee Paraphrase of jonathan Ben Vziel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et erunt ambo in Carnem unam: and a Manuscript Syriac Metaphrase produced by Morinus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et erunt ambo Caro una. But lastly, that which is most of all considerable, although these Hebrew copies which now we have, received from the Jews, read it otherwise, yet that incomparable Antiquity of the Samaritane Pentateuch, lately brought to light, which seems to be truer in many places than our Copies are, hath it thus, in Hebrew Language, and the true Old Hebrew (now called the Samaritane) Letter; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et fiet ex duobus illis in carnem unam. Now that both these Circumstances of Lawful Marriage, were instituted to Type out something in the Union between Christ and the Church; was very well understood by Saint Austin, who observes first against Polygamy, in his Book De Bono Conjugali, thus; Nuptias Christianorum cum una tantum Vxore, Sacramentum esse Vnitatis Ecclesiae Christo subjectae: And against Divorce in his Book De Nuptiis & Concupiscentia; Quoniam sanè non tantùm foecunditas, cujus fructus in prole est, nec tantùm pudicitia, cujus vinculum est fides, verumetiam quoddam Sacramentum Nuptiarum commendatur fidelibus conjugatis; unde dicit Apostolus, Viri diligite uxores vestras sicut Christus dilexit Ecclesiam. Huius proculdubio Sacramenti res est, ut mas & foemina connubio copulati, quamdiu vivunt inseparabiliter perseverent, nec liceat excepta causa fornicationis à coniuge coniugem dirimi. Hoc enim custoditur in Christo & Ecclesia, ut vivens cum vivente in aeternum nullo DIVORTIO separetur. And it is very observable, that this was the only Argument of Moment which Tertullian had, that prevailed with him to hold all Second Marriages unlawful, Because Christ is but once married to his Church: So he in his Book De Exhortatione Castitatis, Cùm Apostolus in Ecclesiam & Christum interpretatur, Erunt duo in unam carnem: secundùm spirituales nuptias Ecclesiae & Christi, (unus enim Christus, & una eius Ecclesia) agnoscere debemus duplicatam & exaggeratam esse nobis unius Matrimonii Legem, tam secundùm generis fundamentum, quàm secundùm Christi Sacramentum. De uno Matrimonio censemur utrobique, & carnaliter in Adam, & spiritaliter in Christo; and often elsewhere. Although this opinion be directly contrary to the Apostles Rule somewhere given; and if Tertullia's Rigour had not misled him, he might easily have seen here a sufficient ground of difference between these two, in that Christ and the Church always live together. The Reason, why this Type is not yet abolished, but still to continue; is because the Antitype thereof, which is the marriage of the Lamb (Rev. 21.) is not yet consummated. FINIS.