Miscellanies of divinitie divided into three books, wherein is explained at large the estate of the soul in her origination, separation, particular judgement, and conduct to eternall blisse or torment. By Edvvard Kellet Doctour in Divinitie, and one of the canons of the Cathedrall Church of Exon.

CHAP. IX.

1. The second answer disliked. Melchior Canus censured for saying, S. Steven his memorie 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. M^r. Selden in part defended, though his Historie of Tithes hath done hurt. Maran-atha. The Amphibologie of Act. 3.21. cleared by the Sy∣riack. Ʋbiquitaries 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 Pen-men were under one or other language: in which conce∣ptions they could not erre; nor could they erre 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 reade profane Authours: Whether they studied the things beforehand.

9. Conclusions against Heinsius. There was no difference be∣tween the Pen-men 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 then his words. They had no libertie left them, to put in their own conceits, or in writing to adde or blot out what they had done. They had no libertie to cloath their inward apprehensi∣ons with words of their own. They did not conceive in one lan∣guage, and write in another.

1 THus then, the constant and uniform ac∣cordance of the Greek and Latine Copies being held for Authenticall and Canoni∣call, and all manner of corruption and generall aberration in any one letter be∣ing wholly removed; there is invented a second way of answer, grosse and ab∣surd; which I dislike as ill, if not worse then 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 narra∣tion, especially if it be sudden, he hath mingled and confounded some things, a And forgot himself in some things, to wit, in such things as belonged little or nothing to the purpose: for he was busily musing, and intent upon the main matter. But (saith he) S. Luke writing the historie, changed not one jot, but writ as Steven spoke. Now we need not defend Steven from all errour and fault (saith he) but we must quit the Evangelist. For onely the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, did never labi memoriâ, or erre in any matter, great or small; other men did. His proofs are these.

Jephthah in Judges 11.26. pretendeth 300 yeares possession, when they were not so many: and the divine Pen-man or Histo∣riographer, writeth as Jephthah pretended; and established not the truth of the thing it self.

I answer, that Salianus, in his Annales, Anno Mundi 2849, ma∣keth

one account, wherein the time of the Israelites coming out of Egypt, to the instant of Jephthahs arguing, is 377 yeares: and from the death of Sihon king of the Amorites, 337 yeares. But the truth is, (if we will hit the exact number) both Sa∣lianus and Tremellius, and many others say, That from the coming out of Egypt, and from the giving of the Law, unto this present controversie of Jephthah with the King of the Amorites, there were 305, or 306 yeares expired. And Tre∣mellius well observeth, that Jephthah began his narration from their coming forth of Egypt, vers. 16. Therefore thence beginneth the number, and the reckoning. Now the shortning of an account, is an usuall Ellipsis, both in Scripture, and in other Authours. The 70 Interpreters are cited for 72. Among the Romanes, the Centum-viri consisted of one hundred and five men. Judges 20.46. all which fell of Benjamin that day, were 25000. yet there fell that day 100 more, vers. 35. So 2. Sam. 5.5. the account is shortened by six moneths lesse then was set down in the precedent verse; it being b A frequent Synecdoche, to make a round and smooth reckoning, saith Tremel∣lius. If any shall yet contend, that Jephthah saith expresly, v. 26. Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns; and in Aroer and her towns; and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, 300 yeares; Peter Martyr on the place answereth, That the Scripture-ac∣count often followeth the greater number. Now because the yeares from Sihons death, were nearer 300. then 200. Jephthah reckoneth not the refract, but the whole number; and accounteth them 300 yeares, as inclining to the greater number. For Sihon was overcome, and slain the last yeare of Moses his life; being to the present debate, 266 yeares, saith Abu∣lensis; 267, saith Lyranus; 270 yeares, saith Peter Martyr. If Peter Martyrs answer be sleighted, I adde, that the perfection of Scriptures stands not so strictly on exactnesse of number, but that it puts a certain number for an uncertain. Instances are obvious. So, while we plead too much for number, we shall, as S. Augustine saith, forget, or neglect, both weight and measure. Lastly, grant that Jephthah either mistook, or mispleaded the yeares, in a braving fashion; and say, that the holy Ghost hath penned, not what was truth in it self, but what Jephthah al∣ledged erroneously, or covetously, for his prescription (for Jephthah had more then one errour:) yet, it followeth not, that S. Steven was deceived; for he was full of the holy Ghost, when he spake this, Act. 7.55. and before he spake this, he was full of faith, and of the holy Ghost, Act. 6.5. Full of faith and power, vers. 8. and they that disputed with Steven, were not able to resist the wisdome and the Spirit, by which he spake, v. 10. Therefore he spake wisely, truely, and by the Spirit, as well as S. Luke wrote by the Spirit; and neither of them could in this

passage erre, though Jephthah be held a man of imperfections.

2. Secondly, saith Canus, the Evangelist hath it, Matth. 2.6. That IT IS WRITTEN BY THE PROPHET, AND THOU BETHLEHEM, IN THE LAND OF JUDAH, ART NOT THE LEAST AMONG THE PRINCES OF JUDAH, when it is not so written by the prophet; who saith, Micah 5.2. BUT THOU BETH∣LEHEM 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 Which testimonie (saith Hierome on Micah 5.2.) agreeth neither with the Hebrew, nor the Seventie; as is plain, though I say nothing. Then followeth his opinion, d I think that S. Matthew being willing to reprove the negligence of the Scribes and Priests, toward the reading of holy Scriptures, related the words, as they were cited by them. So that though the Scribes and Pharisees were blinde, and, seeing the Prophet through a vail, took one thing for an other; and though the Evangelist purposely reciteth their mistaking, that we might discern the fault of these ill guides, and ignorant teachers, yet it no way followeth, that S. Steven did erre, or was mistaken, or that S. Luke misreported the words of S. Steven. But enough of this, to testifie my dislike of the second opinion, and of such, who excusing the Greek Text from corruption, (wherein I wonderfully applaud them) do impute an errour and slip unto the holy, powerfull, gracefull, truth-speaking, and dying Protomartyr, S. Steven (which I cannot endure in them.) And certes, both these former rejected opinions are built on a false ground, and idlely do presuppose, that there is no reall historicall truth in the words, as they are in the Greek, and in the Latine Text. But truth there is, and though truth lie deep hid, as in a well (said he of old;) yet, by Gods help, we shall winde her up, and draw her above ground, that every eye may see her, though we have many turnings.

3. Which that I may the better accomplish, I must straggle awhile after two most learned men, Cardinall Cusanus, and Daniel Heinsius; especially Heinsius; whom when I have over∣taken, and wrung and wonne from him some holds, which are offensive to the majestie of sacred Scripture, then shall I re∣turn, and descend to the most difficult place of Acts 7.16, &c.

The learned worthie Heinsius (whom I name not without honour, though I dissent from him) in his Exercitations upon Nonnus, and in the Prolegomena, beats out certain paths, which never any on the earth trode upon, before him; pag. 27. making the Hellenisticall language to be the best interpreter of the Hebrew and Chaldee; and the Hebrew and Chaldee, interchangeably, the best interpreters of it.

Before all his words or my answer be recited, I think fit to premise these things:

First, If Heinsius mean onely to extoll the knowledge of the Hellenisticall language, and of the Chaldee and Syriack; I assent unto him: nor shall any man, in right, ascribe more to the holy mother of them all, and of all other languages, the primitive Hebrew, the language of God (when he spake au∣dibly) and of Angels, unto men, then I will. Yet the purest gold may be over-valued, and the very shekel of the Sanctuarie thought heavier then it is. And indeed I should be loath to say, what the most learned Cardinall Cusanus hath written in his Compendium, cap. 3. pag. 240. e It is not absurd to beleeve, that the first art of speaking was so copious, and full of many Synonymaes, that all the afterward-divided tongues were in it contained: For all languages are derived from our first parent Adams language. And as there is not a tongue which man understandeth not; so even Adam (who was no other then a man) could understand any lan∣guage if he heard it: For he was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who imposed names upon the creatures; and therefore no word of any other language was originally instituted by any other. Neither are we to wonder at this in Adam, when it is certain, that by the gift of God many have suddenly obtained, and speedily were inspired with the skill and knowledge of all languages. So farre Cusanus.

That there is no language under heaven, but hath some words retaining the foot-steps of the Hebrew, I beleeve; and in the languages which I understand, I can demonstrate: but that A∣dam could understand all languages now spoken, if he had heard them, is not credible. When God confounded their language, Genes. 11.7. &c. the language of all the earth, he did it to this end, that they might not understand one anothers speech. The confusion was not of inventing of new letters, vowels, and consonants; for they are still the same: and if there were seventie two languages, as say the Ancient, Hierom, Augustine, Prosper, Epiphanius; or but fiftie five, (as our Modern writers conjecture) answerable to their families, Genes. 10. yea two thousand foure hundred languages more; they might all be ut∣tered by the first two and twenty letters: Nor was it onely such a confusion, as when the sweet singing of the nightingales is undistinguishable through the obstreperousnesse of gagling geese, and chattering daws. For if at the beginning of that confusion every one had spoken to another articulately and distinctly, alternis vicibus; they could not have understood, what either said; though afterward by use, each familie under∣stood themselves, as we may dumbe men. But the confusion consisted in this, That God took away from all, save the fami∣ly of Heber, the habituall, or actuall knowledge of the He∣brew tongue; emptying the treasuries of their memories, both

sensitive and intellective, from all and every old note, impres∣sion, character, figure, or species.

Secondly, when by an universall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or oblivion, he had drowned or blotted out all former conceptions; he prompted readily unto them new forms, and furnished their intellectualls with new notions; which the pliable obedience of the tongue (at first not knowing what it said) uttered in new words and languages; by the transposition and trans-changing, adding or diminishing of a letter, or letters. See Avenarius, drawing almost all Greek; and our Minshaw, many languages from the Hebrew. But if they retained the same syllable, and the same word; yet in one language it signified one thing, and in another, another thing; as sus signifieth, in the Hebrew, an horse; with the Flaunderkins, silence; among the Latines, an hogge: as Cor∣nelius à Lapide hath observed. Nor think I, that Noah (who lived at the confusion of Babel; and was born within sevenscore yeares of Adams death) could understand all their languages, without much commerce, studie, or divine revelation. Besides all this, all ages have made and framed new words; nor is any time to be blamed,

— si nova rerum Nomina protulerit, — If it coyn new names:

it was lawfull, and is yet, — dabitúrque licentia sumpta pudenter, It shall be lawfull, so it be done modestly without enforcement, saith Horace, De arte Poetica. And though there were but few yeares, about half a mans age, between the first and second Punick warre; yet the articles of peace made at the end of the first warre, were hardly understood at the second, as may be ga∣thered from Polybius. What speak I of words, when new languages have sprung up, more then ever were at the confusion of Babel? If God at the overthrow of Babel coyned or stamp∣ed 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 Sa∣xon, English, Scotish, &c. (the derivatives from it, as Ver∣stegan and others will have it) then in use? If the Latine was framed in Babel; was it the first old blunt Latine, or the refined? If the refined; was the Valachian, Italian, Spanish, French, (the Provinciall tongues of Rome, if I may so call them) at that time spoken? I could be plentifull herein. But I passe unto the objections of Cusanus, which shall receive this satisfaction in order.

Object. 1. The first art of humane speech was copious by many Synonymaes.

I answer, The Hebrew had but few Synonymaes, few pri∣mitive Radixes, in comparison of other languages; many words signifying contrary things, every one divers things: nor did Adam speak any but Hebrew, nor needed he know any more. Cicero cried out of old, O word-wanting Greece! and much more Judea, say I.

Object. 2. All languages came from the Hebrew which Adam spake.

I confesse it, quoad fundamenta sermonum, id est, quoad lite∣ras. There were no new letters stamped or added to the first: but the tongues themselves came after divers descents: so that many languages now in use may acknowledge other mothers; though even those mothers were grand-children, or daughters of the Hebrew: neither of 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 un∣derstand if he heard.

I answer, The word Adam is homonymous, and the simi∣litude unlike, and disjoynted.

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 He∣brew, to that Origo originans. But that Adam called Cheese, Coise; or Cattell, Catalla; or a Chappel, Capella; a learned man should not think.

Object. 5. Oh, but some, by Gods gift, had the knowledge of all tongues: then wonder not if Adam had.

I answer, They had the gift of all tongues then necessarie to be spoken or understood; perchance of all tongues then in being: that as when people inclined to idolatrie, the diversitie of tongues was introduced; so when they were to be recon∣ciled to Christ, the cloven tongues sitting on the Apostles, might finde a remedie for that diversitie, by the gift of lan∣guages. Yet saith Aquinas, 2^a.2^ae. quaest. 176. art. 1. ad 1. f The Apostles were taught from heaven the languages of all nations, so farre forth as was requisite for the doctrine of faith; but for points of elegancie, the Apostles were onely skilfull in their own tongue. As in wisdome and knowledge they were sufficiently instructed, so farre as the doctrine of faith required; but they were not furnished (saith he) with acquisite knowledge, or conclusions Arithmeti∣call, or Geometricall. Thus farre Aquinas. But that they under∣stood or spake tongues which since have sprung up, is not like∣ly: no more did Adam.

That Adam could have done it by Gods miraculous power, I confesse: that he could out-weather any meer man by his na∣turall gifts, I beleeve: what he could have done by labour or studie in a little time, if he had heard or read any language, I will not question; since man hath found out the language of Hieroglyphicks; and the tongue of characters hath been read; and if you place constantly severall things in the room of severall letters, a dog for A, a tooth for B, a lion for C, and the like; a little practise will discover the true meaning. But my controversie with Cusanus is, What Adam could do suddenly, naturally, and ordinarily, if he heard our mongrell 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 ac∣knowledge, that the Orientall languages are of infinite worth, most necessarie to be studied, exacting as much labour and pains before they be gained, as they afford delight and pro∣fit spirituall when they are obtained; yea, I heartily wish, that even the learned would not presume to interpret the harder places of Scripture, unlesse they be furnished with knowledge in the Eastern tongues: much lesse should the igno∣rant Laicks 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 unusuall splendour from the Syriack, hath fully inlightned many places of the New Te∣stament, which lay in darknesse. 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 Latine languages, how copious soever: in the end, it was traced to be an Idio∣tisme of the Syriack; and a phrase borrowed from the usance and practise of the Jews: for their politie had three sorts of Ex∣communication. The first called Niddui, which regularly was a separation for thirty dayes: during which time, the excom∣municated person must keep himself foure 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Latine, by the Livian phrase, Devotorius; by the Cesarean, Devotus. It were easie to mention some, who have vowed-away themselves, as that resolute young Ro∣mane Knight, Marcus Curtius, (see it in Livie lib. 6.) and the

soldurii (from whence in likelihood cometh the name of souldiers) in Cesars commentaries conditionally devoted.

—Deciique caput fatale voventes; And the Decii vowing their own destruction.

Also, at severall times and places, divers others, both ca∣ptives and natives, have been dedicated to the infernall deities. To which, in the spirituall censure of Christian Excommuni∣cation, there is some allusion, where S. Paul delivered Hyme∣neus and Alexander unto Satan, 1. Tim. 1.20. and 1. Cor. 5.5. where he likewise decreed the like sentence against the ince∣stuous Corinthian.

The third and highest step in this Excommunication, is cal∣led Anathema Maranatha, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for so some reade it in the Greek; also most of the Latine Bibles make it all one word, Maranatha; others, Maranata, saith Cornelius à Lapide. What it did signifie, g the learned Divines long and much endeavoured to know: and all much laboured to finde the fountain and origination of that Anathema, saith Bertram in the Preface on his compa∣rison of the Hebrew and Aramean Grammar. Elias, in Thisb. saith, MARA signifieth DOMINUS; and so the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 one Syriack word. i Half Hebrew half Sy∣riack, as Cornelius à Lapide hath it. k It is more Syriack then Hebrew, saith Hierom, Epist. 137. ad Marcel. l Though (as he ad∣deth) it somewhat sounds like Hebrew, by the nearenesse and proxi∣mitie of those languages. In the perfect Hebrew, Marenuatha, is, Dominus noster venit, Our Lord cometh. ATHA is used Deut. 33.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Et venit. That MAR, MARA, or MARAN, is used for Dominus, till after the Babylonish captivitie, I reade not. What in the Hebrew is MORE, in the Chaldee is MAR; MAR 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 sen∣tence is Chaldaick (if ye beleeve the learned Estius:) at large, MARANA-ATHA; contracted, MARAN-ATHA. He also hath a wittie relation, That the Jews, before Christs coming, were wont ordinarily to have this word in their mouths, Maran, in expectancie of Christ the Lord; and on every occasion with re∣ference 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 beleeved; when∣soever the unbeleeving brethren still cried their old MARAN, as if the Messiah were not come; the beleevers answered, ATHA, to their MARAN; MARAN-ATHA, Our Lord is come: which because the other would not beleeve, 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 storie, 7.6. That a gift was given to a Monasterie; and the violatour of that donation, jubetur esse Anathema, Mar∣rano, & Excommunicatus. Where the word is not taken (as some suspect) à Mauris, from the Moors; because most of them (in Italie) renounced their Christianitie in the dayes of Fre∣derick Enobarbus; for he reigned 360 yeares, and more, after that gift: but rather, it is to be borrowed from the Syriack, MA∣RAN-ATHA, saith Mariana, commended by Baronius.

The consideration of which curse and excommunication, strikes horrour to my soul, in compassion of those who have raised their houses out of the ruines of things sacred with such dreadfull imprecations, and feed themselves fat with revenews properly belonging to the Altar. If man had not cursed such sacrilegious infringers, God would: but Founders have blast∣ed them with lightning and thunder from heaven. What saith King Stephen in confirmation of his gift to the Priorie of Eye in Suffolk, cited by M. Selden in his Historie of Tithes, cap. 11. pag. 350? l Whosoever shall willingly and wittingly take away, diminish, or disturb any one of all these things which are con∣tained in this Charter: By the authoritie of God Omnipotent, the Fa∣ther, Sonne, and holy Ghost, and of all the Apostles and Saints, let him be excommunicated and anathematized, and sequestred from the companie of the Lord, and not be admitted into the Church till he repent. By which words he intended to terrifie succession, and to keep them from sacriledge. Let the world know that there are many, and, as it falleth out now, too many such direfull execrations annexed by holy Benefactours, to eternize their gifts: And as that good King said of himself, That he was m Willing to partake with them who by an happie commerce ex∣change 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 posteritie to this day, nor may extend beyond the first Atheisticall cormorants.

The same M. Selden in his book called Marmora Arundellia∣na, pag. 65. mentioneth a Christian inscription which (as he conjectureth) both prayed to the most holy Mother of God for such as were Benefactours to a Monasterie; and cursed them who did it any damage, with the imprecations of di∣vers holy men; wishing, that whosoever did so, might in the day of judgement have against him for an adversarie the same most holy Mother of God. These things I have related out of that most learned Antiquarie, my worthy friend M. Selden, rather then the like out of other Authours; because I would not have either Clergie or Laitie 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 sonne brought upon Religious houses; or that he was the instrument of ungracious Politicians; or his book the trumpet to animate the armies of the destroy∣ers against the pitifull poore remnants of our Church, not enough (forsooth) as yet reformed; that is, not enough beg∣garly: 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 then 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 onely thought on, say I, but trembled at, till the houre of restitution. And let them remember also who saith, That it is a destruction for a man to devoure what is consecrated, Prov. 20.25. which destruction is damnation; not cared for by our de∣vouring Esaus, if they may fill their bellies with our hallow∣ed morsels; as appeared in those whirl-winde-dayes of Henrie the eighth, and would have appeared since, if God had not ruled the heart of religious King James, of most happie me∣morie, and of our sacred Soveraigne (to whom we of the Clergie do more especially pray God to send all happinesse, equall to his desires on earth, and a more glorious estate among blessed Saints, then 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 MA∣RA 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 reade it in tempore praeterito, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 condemn∣ing any were wont to do so, under the commination and con∣testation 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 Do∣minus: howsoever he is peremptorie, that it is a cold exposi∣tion which applieth the words to the Preterperfect tense,

and the meaning to the first coming of Christ.

Let me adde, that whether the word be read in the Present tense in the Indicative, or in the Optative mood, Venit, or, ve∣niat; He cometh, or let him come; it pointeth not at the past, but at the future coming of Christ. Yea, Jude 14. (where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used) our Translation hath it, The Lord cometh; and the words immediately following, make it to have appa∣rent, and undeniable reference to the last judgement. Nor were the words Maran-atha taken from Moses, Deut. 33.2. though he saith, The Lord came with 11000 of Saints: where is a great similitude of some particulars; for there is related what passed at the deliverie of the Law; and neither Mara nor Maran is mentioned; but rather by the semblance of words we may think Moses alluded to the prophesie of Enoch, which long after this S. Jude citeth expresly, as prophesying of fu∣ture punishment to be inflicted for the breach of the Law. And indeed Ambrose well expounds our Maran-atha of the se∣cond coming of Christ: so Clemens Romanus, Epist. 2. in fine. Augustine Epist. 178 thus, Anathema, condemnatus, Maran-atha, definiunt, Donec Dominus redeat; Condemned till the Lord return to judgement.

Most true it is, Maran-atha is added, to exaggerate the power of the Execration, and that it is a form of Execration: so was it in the intent of the Donor in Mariana. The Talmudists say, it signifieth one delivered into the hand of the Tormentour, by the judgement of the Lord himself. Answerable it is in sense, to the words in the 17. Chapter of the 6. Councel of Toledo; l May he be perpetually anathematized: and Chapter 18. m Being stricken thorough with the divine curse, without all hope of remedy let him be esteemed damned by the eternall judgement. Therefore indeed foolish were they, who thought Anathema Maran-atha, to be a kinde of oath; as if S. Paul adjured them, by the coming of Christ; yet so some held, saith Peter Martyr. More foolish was Cornelius a Lapide the Jesuit, who on the place confessing the words to be n Words of imprecation, of commination of the eter∣nall 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 and a man excommunicate for apostasie are Synonymaes: yet for all these things, by himself avouched, saith expresly, They are not words of one that excommunicateth. But indeed they are words of an excommunication, taken from the minatorie prophesie of Enoch, recited by S. Jude, verse 14. The Lord co∣meth; p From thence therefore every man seeeth that Anathema is de∣duced, and that according to the Hebrew guise it is called Ana∣thema, from the beginning or first words of that curse: which words

are otherwise lesse used to the beginnings of other sentences, saith the learned Bertram. Maran-atha is q The highest and greatest degree of excommunication among the Jews, saith Drusius in his Henoch, pag. 29. who addeth, concerning the Apocryphall books of Henoch, that the Jews say, they have them yet, to this day. From whence it is likely, both that the Jews took their form of excommunication, and from the first words of the curse, Maran-atha, might denominate the intire Anathema, Maran-atha: as from the beginnings of writs, or from the principall words, many of our Common-law-writs are so called aswell as the decrees of Popes.

Nor let any object the unlikelihood, that this Anathema is taken from Enochs prophesie, because S. Jude hath it not, like Maran-atha, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I answer, that neither He∣brew, nor Syriack, nor our English, so well endure the placing of the Verb before the Noun, as the Greek doth; but follow∣eth naturally the naturall sequele of the words: and not onely when Enoch spake it, but when S. Jude first wrote in the Sy∣riack (if in it he wrote) that was Maran-atha, what after, by the Spirit was changed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the meaning is all one; whether it be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Noun must be construed before the Verb, The Lord cometh, Maran-atha. This excommuni∣cation S. Paul briefly and in two words reciteth, as an usance of the Jewish Synagogue; and fit to be introduced into the Chri∣stian Temples, and exercised in Ecclesiasticall discipline. So much of that.

An other instance is in Act. 3.21. What is in the Latine and Greek full of Amphibologie, diversely, at divers editions, ren∣dered by Beza and others, is plain, & radiant in the Syriack; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Quem oportet quidē coelum recipere, saith the vulgat; The sentence is altogether doubtfull both in Greek and Latine, saith Bellarmine, Tom. 1. pag. 409. whether Jesus suscipiat coelum, or coelum Jesum, as Cajetan openeth the case. Now the Syriack, translated by Tremellius, hath it, Quem oportet coeli capiant; Quem necesse est coelis ut capiant, as it is varied by the skilfull Linguist Bertram; Quem oportet coelum ut capiat, saith the Arabick; all running to the second exposition, that the heavens must contain Christ.

Which words being firm against the Ubiquitaries, they inter∣pret Coelum, not properly, but figuratively, for the glorie, reigne, and majestie of God. r For otherwise, if he had meant the place of Heaven, it would have been said, Who must be received into Heaven: So Illyricus, in lib. de Ascensione Christi. But Illyricus must not teach the holy Ghost how to speak; nor be offended, if the All-wise Divine Spirit use an Amphibolous phrase in the Greek, which is cleared by the more Eastern tongues. In my opinion, he might rather have said, that, perhaps, by Heaven

GOD is meant; both because our blessed Saviours last words were, Luke 23.46. Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit; which most certainly was received into the hands of his Father in heaven; as also, for that not onely the word Coeli, in the plu∣rall number, is taken for God; according to the use of the Aramaeans and also of the Jews; as appeareth in the record containing the jointure and dowrie which Rabbi Moses made to Clarora, the daughter of Rabbi David, explained by Ber∣tram, at the end of his Aramaean and Hebrew Grammar; where the Bridegroom saith (among other things) f Be thou a wife to me according to the law of Moses and Israel: and I according to Gods commandment will worship, honour, keep & govern thee: somewhat according, as in our marriages, the husband promiseth to wor∣ship, comfort, honour, and keep his wife: save onely that the Jew did promise to govern his wife, which we leave out: which is also consonant to the authentick Hebrew, Daniel 4.26. Dominantes Coeli, or Coeli dominentur, The Heavens do rule, as it is in our late Translation; that is, God in the Heavens doth rule: But also because (the Jews, in reverence and fear, avoiding the naming of Jehova, and calling him, among many other attri∣butes, Coelum) our Saviour representing in this historicall para∣ble the person of a young penitent Jew, speaketh as the Jew would, and placeth the word Heaven in the singular number for GOD. Luke 15.18. Father, I have sinned against Heaven. Likewise Matth. 21.25. The baptisme of John, whence was it? from Heaven, or of men? it is not from Heaven, or from Earth; but from Heaven, or of men; not a place, but persons are to be un∣derstood; and in Heaven, rather God then Angels: and if likelihood lead us to expound it of Angels (as it doth not) yet those Angels represented God, and were so called in his stead. And thus we will passe from this point.

6. The second thing, fit to be premised, is this. If Heinsius mean onely, that there are divers words, phrases, and sen∣tences in the Greek Testament, which never were coyned, stamped, or allowed in Athens, as free-denizons of Greece; but are borrowed, and translated from the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriack; no man will oppose him; and the exemplifying of it were easie and delightfull, if I had not made too large excur∣sions before, in a matter not much differing from this: But when he saith, They who were Jews by birth or generation, and withall did both know and speak Greek, may be called Helle∣nists; and that these Hellenists, writing in Greek, much differed in language from the Heathen Grecians: As I deny it not in the generall; so some Jews there were, who, being wonderous∣ly well versed in the Greek, wrote in Greek most politely: whence Philo judaeus was said to Platonize; and Josephus is styled by Baronius, The Greek Livius.

Thirdly, if Heinsius had onely said, that S. John saw the Hellenists; that S. John might have seen the paraphrase of Onkelos; that the Chaldee Metaphrase Sanctissimo Joanni pluri∣mis in locis placuit; that S. John ad Chaldaicam saepe allusit inter∣pretationem; quâ Judaei Asiatici, ut olim, ità nunc utuntur; all which he saith pag. 61. I would onely have wished to see his proofs.

Fourthly, if Heinsius mean, that the Hellenists onely, who were not inspired from God, conceived in one tongue, what they did write; and wrote in another, what they conceived; I will subscribe; and adde, that whatsoever they did speak in Greek, they first had the notions of it in Syriack; and thence did, as it were, translate their speech, or writings; even (per∣haps) Philo, and Josephus, and such as trafficked much with Greece, and Greeks: unlesse among the Jews there might be such a case, as was of Lord Michael de Mountaigne, who (as him∣self relateth in his Essaies, 1.25.) being born a French man, yet never heard French, till he was above six yeares old; nor understood any word of his mother-tongue, no more then he did Arabick; because he was brought up, where he heard no o∣ther language spoken, then Latine onely: and therefore long after, when he usually spake nothing, but his Perigordin or French; yet upon great sudden exigents, his conceits were first shaped in Latine; and his words brake forth, ere he was aware, in La∣tine, and not in French, as himself recordeth. So say I, if a Jew were thus brought up in the Greek, or in any other langua∣ges, his conceits might be the apprehensions of his childish lan∣guage, and not of that tongue which he used after.

Fifthly, and lastly, if because Heinsius himself is a daintie Critick, he will reduce the judgement of all Divinitie to Scri∣ptures; of all Scriptures to Criticisme; I will not contradict it, if we confine this judiciarie Censorship and Criticisme to men skilfull and eminent in all arts, sciences, and languages: for who can so well interpret Scripture, as such men? It was a pas∣sionate conceit of hood winkt men, as is recorded in the historie of the councel of Trent, lib. 2. pag. 122. t 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 consult∣ing with the Hebrew Text: then these new-sprung pettie-Gramma∣rians 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 This made a powerfull impression upon the mindes of the Prelates: because it was said Grammarians would assume to themselves authoritie to direct and instruct Bishops and Divines. Wisely, wisely; as if Divines and Bishops ought not to have been perfect Grammarians be∣fore they were Divines: As if both could not consist together: As if famous and deep Divines had not been admirable, yea,

the best and soundest of all Linguists and Criticks; whom they scornfully term pettie Grammarians: As if they envied any men these passages of learning, which they kenned not; and would put out the candle, which other men lighted; delighting rather in darknesse, then suffering some places, used by Popes and School-men, to be questioned and cleared: and it was a just in∣dignation of the Friars against the Fathers, in the councel of Trent, because they were so prompt to define Articles, and pronounce Anathemaes, when they did not well understand, and were loth to be taught the things themselves, as it is in the Hi∣storie of the councel of Trent, lib. 6. pag. 481.

But since he saith of the Evangelist S. John, x He alwaies had an eye to the Targumists, pag. 289. and, y He still respecteth the Targu∣mists, pag. 250. and, z All the words and speech soundeth strange, pag. 230. as if there were not in S. Joh. one line, or phrase, of pure good heathen Greek. Since he maketh the Hellenisticall Greek & the other Greek, divers languages, pag. 373. though they differ not so much as some Dialects, (besides his jerk at Nonnus for his Grecanick, rather then Greek) adding to this effect, Prolegom. pag. 93. Many have known superficially the Hellenisticall tongue, but few the depth of it. Since he resteth not at this, saying, It much mat∣tereth to know, whether an Hellenist expresse the Hebrew, or the Syriack in Greek; and whether he hath an eye to the Hebrew Text, or to the in∣terpretations of the Grecians; but addeth, a All which unlesse the In∣terpreter distinguish, he must needs lose his labour. And he hath little knowledge, and no conscience (as Heinsius censureth) b 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 igno∣rants. Since he proceedeth, avouching, The knowledge of the New Testament c in vain shall you seek from the Grecians, because both words and phrases winde up to the Hebrew or Syriack. And again, The Greek Fathers d amazing the world with their abundant learning, have given document, that other things without the He∣brew are little worth: Whence may be inferred, that the know∣ledge 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 then 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 plu∣rima 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 Testa∣ment, had been faultie in their interpretations of the New Te∣stament, 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 singularitie, hold our selves to the gene∣rall expositions which Fathers, Councels, and the Church of God hath made of Scripture; till this more then Doctor subti∣lis, 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 passe by with a touch onely, because he hath one strain of farre more both difficultie and moment. In which one point many are in∣volved, and some of those seldome or never handled.

His words are these in his Prolegomena, pag. 52. e If one ask of me, In what language S. John wrote; I will say, He wrote as an Hel∣lenist: If one enquire 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 winde up to the Syriack both the words and the sayings, as is proper to the Hellenists. Where∣fore we must not have recourse to the allusions which now are, but we must look to them which S. John then conceived in his minde. Yea, Proleg. pag. 49. he saith in generall, f 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 vertue of naked truth, that if we could see her as she is in her self, Admirabiles sui amores exci∣taret, She would make men wonderfully enamoured on her: and such is the ouglinesse of errour and untruth, that they dare not ap∣peare without masks, vizors, colours, fucusses; but go common∣ly trooping in the companie 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 errours; which will easier be distinguished by their severall ranks and files, if we consider and handle three Lemmata, or Postulata, Reasonable axioms or demands, which I account as granted: seven Questi∣ons 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 intellectuall and inward conceits of the inspired were after a wonderfull man∣ner, as it were, figured and characterized. S. Augustine, de Ge∣nes. ad literam, 12.26. saith thus of the kinde of prophesy∣ing by spirituall vision: g If the soul be rapted from and above

the phantasmes, so that it is elevated and carried, as it were, into that region of things intellectuall and intelligible, where without any phantasme 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 brightnesse or excel∣lencie of the Lord is seen, not by any typicall or corporall vision, as it was seen in mount Sina; or spirituall, as I saiah saw, and S. John in the Revelation: but plainly and directly, not darkly or in riddles, so farre as the minde 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: Ʋnderstand the face or mouth, not of the body, but of the minde.

Dionysius, coelestis Hierarch. cap. 1. somewhat otherwise: h It is impossible that the divine light should otherwise shine upon us, then clouded and surrounded with varietie of sacred vails and co∣verings. For humane understanding cannot conceive the very bare and naked intelligible truth her self, without conversion to the Phantasmata; therefore things propounded to men by God or Angels, are propounded under sensible similitudes, and resemblances not meerly incorporeall: I say, by God, or Angels; for howsoever Dionysius cap. 4. de divinis nominibus, part. 1. aliquantulum ante medium, saith, i All divine irradiations are brought unto men by the interposition or help of Angels: and Gregorie, Dialog. 4, 5. k In this visible world nothing can be order∣ed, but by the invisible creature: yet I would be loath perem∣ptorily to exclude Gods immediate operation or illumination; but rather conclude, That all intellectuall irradiation of men, either by God immediately, or by Angels, is by known species.

Basil on Isa. 7.3. l I think that the Prophets received not the word of God by sensible hearing, by the corresponding help and conformation of the aire: but since the intellective soul hath its proper kinde of eares or hearing, what was spoken from above and from God, came to their knowledge and notice without any bodily voice. See Aquin. part. 1. quaest. 210. art. 1.

In all three kindes of oracles, by which God speaketh to men (the Externall, the Imaginarie-spirituall, the Spirituall-intellectuall) there are some species or other intercurrent be∣tween God inspiring and inlightning, and man apprehending or conceiving. Though where Fulgentius saith truly, that in divine inspiration, m Without the sound of words or elements of let∣ters, the truth speaketh so much the sweeter, by how much the se∣creter, is rightly inferred; that there is no outward sound; yet there is an intellectuall loquitur of the Spirit to our inward man; and it attempereth and mouldeth it self to the capacitie, abilitie, and habituall species of the part recipient, that is, our understanding; or frameth our understanding to it.

Men may be taught new languages on a sudden, and under∣stand as suddenly things before unknown; but to conceive without some kinde of word, is above conceit. God himself cannot be conceived by men, but by similitudes of things corporeall; and, perhaps, even Angels cannot conceive of him but under some shadow: for a finite thing cannot comprehend an infinite essence, but onely according to its model. An in∣finite thing onely can comprehend infinitie as it is in itself.

When the Spirit of God immediately speaketh to the spi∣rits of men, though the irradiation be spirituall and intelle∣ctuall, yet it is shaped to the habits of knowledge acquired. Infused notions must be proportionable to acquired; actuall, to habituall; all homogeneall, not heterogeneall; having affi∣nitie, and holding correspondent intelligence with the species received. n Whatsoever is received, is received according to the measure, power, or facultie of the receiver, is a true ground, and sound maxime, as well in Divinitie as in Philosophie.

There is not an higher illumination then was that of S. Paul: yet was there in him, and in all others, somewhat loco signi & vocis, in the room or stead of the signe, voice, or species. 2. Cor. 12.4. I heard unspeakable words, (yet words spoken) which it was not lawfull (or possible) for a man to utter: yet to him they were uttered; and it is not certain that he was bodily rapt into the third heaven.

Augustine, de Genes. ad liter. 12.27. discoursing of Gods speak∣ing 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 un∣derstood according to the bodily substance presented to the eyes of the flesh; for so he spake to Moses face to face, when Moses said, Ostende mihi temetipsum, Shew me thy self: and addeth, o But in that way, and in that form as he is God, he speaketh in∣effably, more secretly, more home and close to the purpose, more nearely present with words unspeakable. And in the Chapter following he saith, The speaking mouth to mouth was p by such a species, by which God is whatsoever is: howsoever the minde of man which is not as God, cannot conceive him without bodie or bo∣dily similitude: where still he maketh a kinde of not-speaking speech, or of speaking non-speech, according to the capacitie of man.

The second Lemma is this, That the holy Actuaries, or Writers of the Divine Scripture, could not erre in their con∣ceptions.

Augustine, de Genes. ad liter. 12.25. proveth daintily in ge∣nerall, that our outward and inward senses may be deceived; when onely the intellectuall vision is certain, and is not decei∣ved: q Either it understandeth, and then it is true; or if it be not

true, it understandeth not. As the aire is enlightened by the resplendent rayes of the sunne, so was their intellect by su∣pernall, bright, unfailing irradiation; which beam of di∣vine light wrought these two effects: First, that they knew certainly it was God who spake unto them: Secondly, that they could not misconceive or take awry in an erring sense the things inspired: which illumination may be called Gustus Dei, The taste of God, Psal. 34.8. The wheels with strakes full of eyes round about them, Ezek. 1.18. Cloven tongues like as of fire, Act. 2.3. As it were, a sixth sense leading to knowledge, as Clemens Recognit. lib. 2. termeth it: A joyfull sound, the light of Gods countenance, Psal. 89.15. In thy light we shall see light, Psal. 36.9. A burning and a shining light, Joh. 5.35. A marvellous light, 1. Pet. 2.9. Sol spiritualis, An intellectuall sunne: Sapor, a savour or taste; which Monica could not expresse by words, as her sonne relateth, Confess. 6.13. Intimus sapor, saith Gregorie, Dialog. 4.4. Intimus sapor & experimentalis illuminatio, A most inward relish, and experimentall illumination, as Gerson styleth it: Columna ignis, A pillar of fire, Exod. 13.21. Stella Magos in Ori∣ente antecedens, The starre conducting the wise men of the East, Matth. 2.9. An holy, undeceiving, unambiguous influent corusca∣tion: The Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters, Gen. 1.2. This made Abraham not unwillingly to sacrifice his sonne. The quenching of this Spirit against the cleare light of his own convicted conscience, made the old Prophet more inexcusable then the other officious lying Prophet, who de∣ceived him, 1. Kings 13.16, &c. Nor did an Angel speak unto the seducer by the word of the Lord, vers. 18. Samuel being but a childe might not indeed, as a novice; or some others, for a while, might not know the voice of the Lord: as Peter at the present knew not the operation of God by the Angel, in his miraculous deliverie: But now I know (saith he) that God hath sent his Angel; yea, I know of a surety, Act. 12.11.

Profane ones I will not priviledge from mistaking of God: as perhaps, lest Satan might out-stretch his Commission from God, when he gave Job into his hands, God said restraining∣ly, Onely save his life, Job 2.6. And S. Augustine, de cura pro mortuis gerenda, cap. 12. telleth an admirable storie of two men, each called Curma; to wit, How Curma the Countrey-man lay almost dead many dayes: onely, a little steam of breath co∣ming from him, they kept him from buriall, though he was without motion, or any feeling, whatsoever they did unto him; in which time he saw many visions: So soon as he opened his eyes, he said, Let one go to the house of Curma the smith. Who was found dead that moment in which Curma the Husband∣man came to his senses. And the surviving Curma related, that he heard in the place from whence he was returned, that

the smith, and not himself, was to be brought to that place. A mistaking there was by the messengers of death, though it were after righted. Caiaphas might not know the inspiration or instinct propheticall which he had; because he was a wicked man: Dispensativè illi contigit sermo, He did distribute the speech to others, which he knew not himself, saith Basil in Prooem. Isaiae. He was a Prophet perchance; Casu, saith Origen on John. Ba∣laam his asse and Caiaphas spake they knew not what. The pro∣phesie was transitorie, saith S. Augustine. Wherefore I conclude, as before, That wicked men may be punished with mista∣kings in things divine. But that ever any holy man was igno∣rant to the end, that God moved when he moved him; or that the righteous were ever deceived by Oraculous, anfractuous perplexities; or that the Notaries of heaven, the writers of any part authentick of either Testament, could be deceived in their conceptions, is not agreeable to likelihood, reason, or truth.

The last Lemma is this, The holy Penmen could not erre in writing.

If they could, what difference is there between their Wri∣tings, and other profane Authours?

And to what end had they infallibilitie of understanding, if what they understood they could expresse erroneously?

A readie, perfect, and quick scribe writeth not falsly; but, My tongue is the pen of a readie writer, saith the Psalmograph, Psal. 45.1. Holy Ezra, who was the divine amanuensis of the book of Ezra, is called by the same words, SOPHIR MAHIR, a readie, swift, exact scribe, Ezra 7.6. no question, with allusion to the words of the Psalmist.

John 16.13. When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth. How into all truth, if there be an errour in wri∣ting? Or, had God care that the Apostles should not misse of the truth in their Speeches, and yet misse in their Writings?

If the Prophets could not erre, no more could the Evan∣gelists or Apostles: for, if there were any superioritie in pri∣viledge, we are rather to ascribe it to these latter, then to those former; in regard that the Law of Christ and of Grace, is farre above the Law of Moses, as the Apostle doth demonstrate to the Hebrews themselves. But that the Prophets could not erre is apparent, because Christ himself, who is Truth, would not have appealed from the present more visible pretending Syn∣agogue, to them as all-sufficient Judges (as he often did) if they could erre. A perfect rule is not to be tried by an imper∣fect one. Prophets writ their Prophesies, and fastened them to the gates of the Temple, and other publick places, to be read: and were rather judged by their Prophesies written, then by them as inspired or uttered by mouth.

The Gnomon of the Sunne-diall, which our late Hierogly∣phical Poetaster doth make to signifie the Scriptures, is better to be judged by a moving clock, the curious handie-work of the same great Artist (I mean, by the Church, and Church∣men; with whom Christ hath promised his Spirit shall be to the end of the world) then by the rude masons, or rather the senselesse stones and mortar of the walls, (I mean the ignorant people) who have plucked down not onely the Weather∣cock (by his interpretation, the Pope) but usurp to themselves a power to judge the Gnomon; and to reform and amend the well wrought, well ordered clock. The shallow phantastick stateth not the question aright, when he is so magisterially peremptorie; saying, That the Clergie may not so judge of the Scriptures, as to conclude or teach any thing against them; or to vouch unwritten verities (if they be certain verities, it matter∣eth not much whether they be written or unwritten: Veritie will vouch it self in spight of lying Poets) as some call them, or Traditions contradictorie to the written Word: Which contradi∣ctorie Traditions do much differ from unwritten Verities, howsoever the Poet confusedly joyneth them. For, who of us ever taught that the Clergie may teach any thing against the Scriptures? when we professe with him, that the Church ought to subject it self to be directed by the Scriptures. But that fabling rymer may say any thing, who in his Sarcasmos and Frontispice is suffered thus to rave,

No wonder that the Clergie would be Kings:

whereas we the now unpriviledged Clergie, do humbly pray to God to uphold our declining estates from the hands of those Atheists, and turbulent Anti-episcopall, Anti-monarchi∣call Reformists; perhaps Pensioners of the forcin enemies of our State, who, under the pretence of Religion, labour to pluck down our Church and Ecclesiastick Hierarchie; and upon the ruines thereof to arise to the depluming of the Ea∣gle; to the bearding of the Lion; not onely to the paring of the royall prerogative, but also the removing the very scepter and crown from the Anointed of the Lord, (whom God al∣waies mightily defend!) and to the bringing in of popular government: for, No Bishop, no King, said the learned, wise, and pious King James, most truely.

I return to retort the Church-reforming Poets words up∣on himself: In his Solarie he saith, That the diall is the Written Word, which is of it self dead and unprofitable, with∣out further illumination; since none of the Philosophers, nor Solomon himself, by the meer 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 Clergie or Laitie shall be Interpre∣ters

of this dead word, and unprofitable without further illu∣mination. We bid not the people to pluck out their eies, that they may be led by us, as the Jesuites and Popish Priests do; neither do we like the other extream of the people, presu∣ming that they can give better answer then the Ephod, the Urim and the Thummim; and over-see the Seers, who ought (by the expresse commandment of God himself) to have the oversight of them, Heb. 13.7. But they are to rest contented with the generall Commission given to the Ministerie, He that heareth you, heareth me; especially in things (as most things are) above their capacitie. But the people will expound Scri∣ptures, contradict their Pastours, 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 fancie; but mono∣polize the Spirit to themselves, and yeeld 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 beleeve and follow, in all things wherein their con∣sciences 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 Sanctuarie, according to all that the Lord had commanded, Exod. 36.1. Had God more care of his Sanctuarie, then of the Church of Christ? Or could God command an untruth, when he guided the Apostles and Evangelists as powerfully, if not more then ever he did the workmen of his Sanctuarie? Or had the Pen∣men lesse grace or goodnesse then the workmen? Certainly they had, if they swarved in writing from what was com∣manded 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 shewed thee in the mount, Hebr. 8.5. which the Apostle borrowed from Exod. 25.8, &c. where God giveth this charge, Let them make me a Sanctuarie — according to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the Ta∣bernacle, 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 reade, is proved Luk. 4.16. That he could and did write is plain, John 8.6, &c. 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 beleeved that our blesved Saviour wrote an epistle unto Abagarus, or Abgarus,

Prince of Edessa; yet since Salianus wholly balketh this storie, (which he would not have done, if there had been either truth or likelihood in the matter; because of the miracles mention∣ed by Baronius, wrought by the image of our Saviours 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 cer∣tain: 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 him∣self, to write his own doctrine (saith Aquin. 3. part. quaest. 42. art. 4.) for the excellencie both of the Teacher, and of the doctrine; which he confirmeth thus, The most excellent way was, to im∣print his doctrine in their hearts: So did Christ teach, As HA∣VING 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 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 meer froth, and the shadow of reason, unfitting the pen of so Angelicall a Doctour; who remembred not that God himself wrote the Law; and that God did write the Law in some mens 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 no∣thing, yet their words made no deeper impression upon the hearts of their auditours, then 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 Her∣mes 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 reach∣ed 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 spirituall things of Christ; then certainly, if Christ had

writ his doctrine, we would not esteem of him according to the letter onely of that doctrine; but we would think (as we ought) that either he wrote not all, or wrote onely 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 baptized 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 conve∣nient.

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 dayes work particularly and expressely, It was good, or God saw that it was good; as he did at all and every of the other five dayes creation: Was it therefore not good? Yes verily; for Gen. 1.31. God saw every thing that he had made, and be∣hold, it was very good.

John 14.16, &c. The Comforter shall abide with you for ever: even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him: for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. And verse 26. The Comforter shall teach you all things: Therefore he shall teach them to write truely: the Spirit of truth will not suffer them to write falsly whilest he dwelleth with them, and in them; as he did when they wrote.

Inspiration was ordained as a cause, and as a means of right conceiving: conceiving or apprehension was appointed as a cause and a means of right expression: expression was either by word or writing. Many words were prophetically and most divinely spoken, which were not written; not so many were written, as were first spoken: The vocall expression was more transient and transitorie; perhaps, concerning some few, and those onely of those times: the expression perma∣nent, and by writing, was and is directorie to mankinde to the end of the world. Inspiration, apprehension, and much ex∣pression by voice, were all as means to this main end, that there might be a Scripture. Shall the means be certain, uner∣ring, and inerrable; and shall the end be dubious, crooked and erring? The perfect use of the right means leads on in∣fallibly to an undeceiving and exact end: If the Divine Pen∣men could not erre or be misled in the former, which some∣••imes vanished, leaving no footsteps behinde them; it is not possible that they should erre in writing, which is the master∣piece

of that divine work, lasting for ever; the absolute square, and judge, and canon of all mens thoughts, words, and deeds; unlesse you say, God had lesse care to preserve from corruption divine records filed up on eviternitie, and necessarie at all times, for all persons, in all places (as the Scriptures now are) then he had of inspirations: which ended onely in the apprehension, if they were not expressed; or turned into aire, and vanished almost with the breath, if they were onely spoken.

Nor let any man say that writing is further removed from the divine operation, then inspiration was, and so more sub∣ject to errour: for it shall appeare ere long, that the same Spi∣rit which began by inspiration, sat, still moving on the wa∣ters, not leaving his own work till there was a perfect pro∣duction, till the end was accomplished, and the will of God was written in words and letters of truth; so that not one Iota or tittle had any errour. Yea, let me go one step further, and say, that when the Apostles did dictate to their scribes, actuaries, or secretaries, not onely not themselves, but not their notaries could erre.

And yet I have read of two mad stories crosse to my opi∣nion: the one in Sixtus Senensis, Bibliothecae sanctae, 2. pag. 120. on the name Tertius: who recordeth out of Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus, that this Tertius, being no excellent speaker nor writer, made the obscure Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes to be more obscure, whilest he laboured to expresse S. Pauls thoughts and sense, by more confused and unabsolute sen∣tences, and transposed explications. As if S. Paul could not write sufficiently himself: though he said (in humblenesse) Rudis sermone sum, I am rude in speech, 2. Cor. 11.6. yet was he powerfull in writing, 2. Cor. 10.10: As if he had not divers most sufficient scribes by him: As if he would permit the wri∣ting of so divine, super-divine an Epistle to an Ignaro, a silly fellow: As if Tertius himself wrote not this Epistle in the Lord, that is, by divine authoritie, or (as Cajetan thinketh) these words, In the Lord, are added to shew that he did not write it as an hireling: which sense is made good by some authori∣ties, according to the diversitie of punctation: As if the Spi∣rit who inspired Paul dictating, ruled not the hand of Terti∣us writing: As if S. Paul would make so block-headed a di∣sciple as Tertius is feigned to be, to be his scribe, and that in his most majesticall and obscurest Epistle: Or if Tertius were so, that he should be thought worthy to be Iconii Episcopus, and have that extraordinarie grace to be crowned with Martyr∣dome; as Ecclesiasticall historie recordeth of him: As if S. Peter (whom Paul withstood for a smaller matter to the face, Gal. 2.11.) when he said that there were in all S. Pauls Epistles

some things hard to be understood, would have commended his fellow-Apostles wisdome, as he did, 2. Pet. 3.15. and not rather have found fault with his follie, and the manner of his writing, if not with the matter also, if Tertius had been so absurd as Diodorus imagined; especially seeing S. Peter saith, that the unlearned and unstable wrest some of those writings unto their own destruction: which in all likelihood should justly rather swallow up S. Paul for his carelesnesse of indi∣ting, and Tertius for his supinenesse, or rather blasphemous forgerie of divine truths by mis-writing them, if any fault could have been truely imputed to either of them. But of this we shall speak (by Gods help) more at large in the next section save one.

The second mad storie followeth. Because some were wont to forge Epistles in S. Pauls name, (as is apparent 2. Thess. 2.2. where he beseecheth them, Not to be shaken in minde, or to be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as from us) therefore he alway subscribed his own name to all his Epistles, f 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 He∣brew knew not Greek letters: and because necessitie required that he should subscribe with his own hand to the Epistle, t He wrote, though in ill-shaped, unhandsome, very great letters: shewing this testimonie of a kinde affection, that he would endeavour to do for the Galatians what indeed he could not do. Whereby he concludeth, that S. Paul could not write Greek, at least, not in a legible good hand. S. Hierom won∣dered at the ridiculousnesse of his exposition (as well he might) because the Apostle used to subscribe to divers of his Epistles, and here he wrote this whole Epistle with his own hand: and yet S. Hieroms exposition is almost as forced as the former: u S. Paul (saith he) wrote in large long cha∣racters or letters, because the sense was great in the words, and was written by the Spirit of the living God, and not with penne and ink. For though the sense and words of this Epistle to the Galatians be from God, and most divine; yet there is no reason to imagine, that S. Paul intended to include that sense under these words, Videte, or Videtis qualibus literis scri∣psi vobis manu meâ You see how large a letter I have written to you with mine own hand. But if the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth signifie quantitie; though S. Paul wrote in great letters and characters, yet it might be a verie good and fair hand: as there are few fairer writings then some where the letters are large and full drawn: and I doubt not but he who gave them the extra∣ordinary gift of tongues and languages did also, as a necessa∣rie appendant, give them the power to write well those lan∣guages;

especially since their writings were to benefit more then their voices could reach unto. We never reade that the holy Apostles, Peter, James, or John, were learned; or could reade or write before their calling; or learned it by degrees after their Apostleship: yet they could and did write; and as the Spirit guided their thoughts and words, so did he their hands; and they wrote both divinely for matter, and (as I think) exquisitely for the manner; yea, more exquisitely then other men, as being governed and actuated by the hand of God, which is perfect in all his works. And indeed the true sense of the place (in my opinion) toucheth not at the de∣formednesse of the characters, or at the grand-greatnesse of them; but at the length or prolixitie of the Epistle: which is excellently rendered by our English, You see how large a letter I have written; as if S. Paul had spoke thus, more at large; I who before told you that we must not be weary of well-doing, but must do good unto all men whilest we have time, especially to the houshold of faith; I say, I my self have not been wearie in wri∣ting this Epistle, though it be long: and whilest I had time, I have spent that time in doing you good, by writing this letter, by writing this long and large letter to you. For though I have written longer Epistles, yet I did rather subscribe to them, and wrote not all of any one of them with mine own hand; but you may take it as a token of my heartie love, that I wrote all this Epistle my self: You see how large a letter I have writ to you with mine own hand. And this sense better answereth to the coherence, then that of S. Hierom, or of the other learned man whom S. Hierom wondered at. So much for the third Lemma.

8. I come now to the first Question: viz. Whether it was necessarie that Scripture should be written for mens instru∣ction?

That it was not absolutely necessarie, must be confest: for God might have used other means. He is liberrimum agens, the freest agent; or rather ipsa libertas, libertie it self, not chained to fate, nor bound in with nature or second causes. Necessitie, freedome of our will, or indifferencie to either side, and contingencie, are the issues of his will.

Yea, God did use other means in the law of nature; for above 2450 yeares the Patriarchs were nourished with agra∣phall Tradition onely. No word was ever written till God wrote the Law; the two first Tables, the work of the onely∣wise Almightie; The writing was the writing of God graven up∣on the Tables, Exod. 32.16. Written with the finger of God, Ex∣od. 31.18.

The Jews say, The book of Genesis was written by Mo∣ses, before God wrote the Law. For though God spake all

the words of the Decalogue, Exod. 20.1. &c. yet he delivered not the Tables to Moses till Exod. 31.18. but Exod. 24.4. it is related, that Moses wrote all the words of the Lord: and vers. 7. that he took the book of the Law, and read it in the audience of the people. Kemnitius answereth, That the things are record∣ed per Anticipationem, seu per 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The last is recorded in the first place: for the writing and dedication here mention∣ed, were accomplished afterward, Exod. 34.32.

The pillar of stone, and that other of brick, which Jose∣phus Antiq. 1.4. saith the children of Seth did write in before the floud, were either fictions, or antidated. The prophesie of Enoch was not written by him, as S. Augustine de Civit. 15.22. and Origen Hom. 28. in Num. think: but Enoch prophe∣sied, Saying, Jude 14. As the prophesie of Adam, Genes. 2.24. and of God himself, Genes. 3.15. both of them concerning Christ, were spoken in Paradise, not written; and as the Apo∣stles wrote not the Creed, but delivered it onely vivâ voce, by word of mouth, saith Irenaeus, 3.4. and Augustine de Fide & Oper. cap. 9. and Ruffinus on the Creed, and divers others: so is it likely, that Enochs prophesie was not written; or rather was written long after it was spoken: for writing was not so ne∣cessarie for the Patriarchs: First, because they were purer in minde, saith Chrysostom, Hom. 1. in Matth. And it is the fault of our corrupt nature, and we may be rightly impleaded, that ever there was any writing; as may be gathered from Isido∣rus Peleusiota, lib. 3. epist. 106. Secondly, the long lives of the Patriarchs supplied the room of writing: for Methusalah, who lived 240 yeares with Adam (with the first Adam, who was AETATIS ILLIUS EPISCOPUS, Bishop of those times, saith Kemnitius in Examine, part. 1. pag. 13.) lived also 90 and odde yeares with Sem, and Sem lived 50 yeares in Jacobs time, by the calculation of Helvicus; and there were not 200 yeares from Jacobs death to the writing of the Law. Thirdly, besides such aged venerable Prophets as were Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham (who was an eminent instructer with authoritie, and, as it were, with a Pretorian power: Gen. 18.19. I know that Abraham will command his sonnes and his houshold after him, that they keep the way of the Lord) other Patriarchs knew the will of God by immediate revelation, by dreams and visi∣ons; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, At sundrie times, and in divers man∣ners, Heb. 1.1. Gods speech was in stead of writing. But when men grew more impure, and upon the increase of sinne mans dayes were shortened, God did withdraw himself, and his familiar conversation was not so common: but because their hearts of flesh were hardened, in which was printed the law of nature, by them even obliterated, and they recei∣ved new evil impressions in stonie hearts; God himself

wrote the Morall Law in two Tables of stone: and Gods own handie-work being broken by the occasion of their sinne, to shew that the Morall Law should continue for ever, the bro∣ken Tables were removed (and none knoweth what ever be∣came of them) and Moses was commanded to frame two new whole Tables of stone, like the former.

Two extreams about the written word are here to be a∣voided: The first is of the Papists, who too much disgrace the Scripture, at least comparatively; x Do you think that more sects and heresies would have bubbled up, if there had been no Scri∣pture 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 That the Apo∣stles wrote some things, not that they might rule over our Faith and Religion, but be subject rather: and concludeth, that the Church is not onely not inferiour, nor onely equall, but in a sort superiour to the Scriptures. The Carmelite Antonius Marinarus, in the second book of the Historie of the Councel of T••ent, pag. 118. is confident, z That the Church was most per∣fect before any Apostle wrote, and that the Church of Christ had never wanted perfection, though never any thing had been written. Majoranus Clyp. 2.28. thus, a The uniform consent of the Church, which never was destitute of Gods Spirit, ought more to be esteem∣ed by us, then all the dumbe writings and volumes which are or shall be written: which have ministred matter of debate to the wits of men. These are accursed errours, and easily confuted; be∣cause 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, &c. Luk. 11.39. Matth. 23.18. and com∣mandeth them to search the Scriptures, John 5.39. and refer∣reth himself, and the whole course of his life and death to be examined by Scripture, Luke 24.25, &c.

The other extream 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 materiall Temple of Solomon; when, in truth, their contempt of the Church and its power, turns to their damna∣tion, without repentance; and if the frequent, divine, immedi∣ate revelation had been imparted by God to us, as it was to the Patriarchs, it had been better for us: for in that illumina∣tion there was no errour, no mistaking, no doubtfulnesse, but an impossibilitie of being deceived. So that my discourse end∣eth in the point in which it began, The Scripture was not ab∣solutely necessarie to be written; but ex hypothesi, conditional∣ly, and supposing the divine decree, it was necessarie; yea

upon corruption of manners and doctrine, it was not onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, convenient, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, necessarie: not onely the most conve∣nient way, but the most necessarie means. Otherwise, God would never have written it. It is necessarie, if not as a cause, yet as a concause; The word as a cause, the writing as a con∣cause, saith Trelcatius. The Scriptures are not simply neces∣sarie ad esse Eclesiae, to the being of a Church, whatsoever Schar∣pius saith; but ad bene esse, to the wel-being: for nothing was written of the New Testament in Christs life-time, nor in some yeares after. Away with the Popish vilifying of Scri∣pture; c Matter of strife (say they) and not the voice of the judge. Away with the Puritanicall cut, disdaining the Church, and the interpreters thereof (to wit, their thrice-reverend Bishops and Priests) and priding themselves in their own senselesse 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 onely bare contingencie, they wrote not casually:

Te facimus, Fortuna, deam, coelóque locamus:

Men think they make Fortune a goddesse (a giddie 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 provi∣dently; but whilest providence administreth all things, nothing falls by chance in this world; if through it we look up to God, as to the universall cause by his providence: For nothing falls under our senses, but was commanded or permitted from the invisible and intelligible Hall of the highest Emperour, saith Au∣gustine, de Trin. 3.4.

1. Kings 22.34. A certain man drew a bow at a venture (or, in his simplicitie) and smote the King of Israel between the joynts of the harnesse. What the 32 Captains of the King of Aram could not accomplish, though this were their Commission, Fight neither with small nor great, save onely with the King of Israel, vers. 13. that this roving arrow did by chance accom∣plish, and slew the bloudie 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 then what was written on the arrow that stroke 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 know∣ing the others employments: after certain yeares he appoint∣eth each of them to be at such a port on such a moneth and

day, if they so can: They both meet, both wonder, both at the first hold it a strange chance; when the deep wisdome of their master providently determined all this. There is no chance where providence reigneth.

If we take casually as importing counsel meerly humane led by opportunitie onely, 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 Prophesie came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 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 casuall?

If we conceive the matter thus, The holy penmen wrote casu∣ally, that is, Ʋpon just occasions, and newly emergent occurrences, the Spirit of God inspired them to write, who otherwise would not have written; I will say they wrote casually; for casualtie in this notion presupposeth things done upon reason; and who dareth say that God did ever any thing without good ground or reason, saith the divine S. Augustine? They wrote fortuitò, say the Papists; non fortuitò, saith Vorstius: Cleare the terms by the former distinction, and the question is ended.

No part of Jeremie is in Chaldee, but one verse onely; and upon what occasion was that? The Chaldee Paraphrast thus re∣lateth it, saith Vatablus; Jeremie wrote to the Elders in the Ca∣ptivitie; 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 wor∣shippers 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 Vul∣gat, Vatablus, the Interlinearie, and translated Chaldee: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, say the Septuagint. And this doth somewhat ammuse me, why our last English Translation, with others, embrace the Future tense, reading They shall perish, when the words are a present execration of past, present, and future idols. I come to the point; If the Jews had said the effect of these words in Hebrew, the Chaldeans could not have understood it; nor had it been written in Chaldee, if the Chaldeans had had no intercourse with the Jews; and in this sense that verse was written casually.

As Ananias and Sapphira their with-holding of things con∣secrated, ministred occasion to the holy Spirit, both to im∣part the knowledge of their sacriledge to S. Peter, and to in∣spire into him that particular prophesie, Act. 5.9. which S. Pe∣ter otherwise had never spoken: So if Onesimus had not been a bad servant, and after converted, S. Paul had not writ∣ten that Epistle to Philemon, at least not the greatest part of it. Chemnitius, in Examine, part. 1. declareth at large, Quâ oc∣casione, propter quam causam, & in quem usum, primùm Scriptu∣ra tradita sit à Deo: And he speaketh of the Old Testament.

Concerning the New Testament, neither Christ nor any of his Apostles wrote any thing for many yeares; nor did any one Evangelist or Apostle singly write, till the Church was pestered with Schismaticks, Who troubled them with words, sub∣verting their souls, Act. 15.24. To remedie which discord, a Councel was gathered at Jerusalem of the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church; and they wrote Letters, or an Epi∣stle to the brethren; And, a Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us, was the forefront of their main decree. And this was the beginning of writing of any part of the New Testament, saith Chemnitius in his Examen of the Councel of Trent, part. 1. pag. 32. though others dis∣sent from him. I will onely say, If that schisme had not been, that Councel had not been gathered, that Epistle had not been written. Briefly thus: Eusebius in the second and third book of his historie, specializeth the causes and grounds why each of the foure Evangelists did write; which is exemplified by Chemnitius in the place before cited, even to satietie; whilest he at large describeth the occasions, and inducements, or rea∣sons, why all and every book of the New Testament was written. Thus the conclusion being firm, That the word of God was written casually, that is, the sacred Pen-men were inspi∣red to write all of it upon just motives, and fair occurrences; and yet not casually, if we take the word, in sensu profano, & usu forensi: I proceed to the third Question, Whether they were commanded to write?

They who reade the Scripture, may think this question idle and impertinent: but who hath been conversant in the thornie paths of controversies, shall finde much opposition by our adversaries. Bellarmine, de Verbo Dei non scripto, 4.3. saith thus, b 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 com∣mand expressely either that they should write, or not write. To the place alledged by Bellarmine, I answer: They are not there commanded Praedicare, but his verie Vulgat hath it Docere; which may be by writing, as well as by preaching.

The Original hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, discipulate, or discipulas facite omnes gentes: where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, DISCIPU∣LARE, saith Beza. The very word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, praedicate, preach, used Mark 16.15. doth not necessarily imply onely the Apo∣stolicall preaching vivâ voce in suggesto, aloud in a pulpit; but doth signifie a publication in generall: not onely a going up into the pulpit (as idiots imagine:) for an Angel did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Evan∣gelicall and Apostolicall writings, then ever were by their preachings in their own times.

I answer again: He saith, It is false. To prove a falshood a man must have expresse truth, which he confesseth he hath not: and how lamely followeth this? Because we now reade it not, Ergò, they were not commanded. He would have laught at such a negative proof of ours. Augustine saith, c Whatsoever Christ would have us reade of his words and works, that did he command the Evangelists, as if they had been his own hands, to write. Bellarmine answereth: d He speaketh of the in∣ward command, which is rather a suggestion and inspiration then a proper command. I reply; Of precepts properly so called, some are hid and secret, others more manifest: the internall command bindes as much as the externall; divine suggestions oft times have the force of an expresse inward precept; and commands are sometimes manifested by inspirations. Praece∣ptum propriè dictum, which is by word or writing, and Impe∣rium internum, may be equivalent; and so long as it is Imperi∣um 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 him∣self, is from the Revelation, where S. John is commanded divers times to write. To this he answereth most unclerk∣like, That S. John was commanded to write certain hidden vi∣sions; not the doctrine of the Gospel, and precepts of manners. But this is easily confuted: for Revel. 19.9. it is said, Write, Blessed are they which are called to the marriage-supper of the Lambe. Is not this the doctrine of the Gospel? what is more Evan∣gelicall? He might have considered the marriage-feasts in the

Gospels, Matth. 22.2, &c. and Luk. 14.16. And a voice from heaven said, Revel. 14.13. Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth; yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours, and their works do follow them. Are these hidden visions? Is not this the doctrine of the Gospel? The like might be amplified out of the first, second, and third chapters of the Revelation, where matters of moralitie and precepts of manners are commanded to be written, and are written: and not hidden visions, but rather the doctrine of repentance, and of the Gospel.

Christ saith to his Apostles, Act. 1.8. Ye shall be witnesses unto me. He forbeareth the word of preaching; and useth more generall words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ye shall be witnesses; and they bare witnesse by writing: Joh. 21.24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimonie is true; not onely he himself, but Peter and the rest, WE know that his testimonie is true: what testimonie but his writings? d He would have all his works or writings be∣leeved, saith Luc. Brugensis, and Maldonate.

When the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write, saith S. John, and a voice from heaven saith, Write them not, Revel. 10.4. The Apostles forwardnesse or prone∣nesse to write, argueth not necessarily that he was not com∣manded first to write; but rather presupposeth it: and this pre∣sent inhibition, Write not, may serve as an exception to a for∣mer generall command that he might have to write.

Indeed there is no expresse record that all and every of the Apostles were enjoyned to write: nor is it likely they were; for then they would have obeyed; whereas not the one half of the Apostles committed any thing to pen, ink, and paper, for ought we know; But we are sure that some writers of the Old Testament were commanded to write: Exod. 17.14. And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memoriall in a book; Jerem. 36.2. Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee, &c. and S. John was com∣manded eleven or twelve times to write: and thence it is more then probable, that the rest of the Apostles which wrote were commanded to write; they might be expressely appoint∣ed to write, though in their writings so much be not expres∣sed. To say as Bellarmine doth, It is false that God command∣ed 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 pro∣ved? To evince a thing to be false, is required a reall proof of truth positive, which Bellarmine wanteth: and the falsitie may justly be retorted home to the Cardinall himself, from

the authoritie of a prime man of his own part. Wiser A∣quinas 3. part. quaest. 42. artic. 4. & 2. thus, When the disciples of Christ had written what he shewed and spake unto them, we must in no wise say that Christ himself did not write, since his members wrote that which they knew by the dictate of him their Head. For whatsoever he would have us reade of his deeds and words, he commanded them as his own hands to write. Now let Bellarmine say, It is false, that the Apostles were commanded by God to write. And thus much shall serve for the third que∣stion.

The fourth question. Whether the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles were compelled to write?

As when it is said, Luke 1.70. GOD SPAKE BY THE MOUTH OF HIS HOLY PROPHETS, per LOQUENDI ver∣bum, SCRIPTIONEM quoque comprehendit: so what I propound of Propheticall, Evangelicall, and Apostolicall writing, must also be understood of their speaking, or dictating; Whether they were compelled to it?

Compulsion is of two sorts; Proper and absolute, Improper or mixt.

Proper, when a man is forced (as we say) in spight of his teeth, against his will; as some who have been drawn to pu∣nishment. Thus were they not compelled.

Mixt, when a man doth that which he would not do, un∣lesse he feared a greater losse; as when a Merchant or Mari∣ner cast their goods into the sea to save their lives; which hath in it part of the voluntarie, and part of the involuntarie: And of this there may be some question; for Jonah fled from the presence of the Lord, Jon. 1.3. that is, was unwilling to do the message. Moses again and again refused to be Gods em∣bassadour to Pharaoh, Exod. 3.11. and to the Israelites, Exod. 4.1, 10, 13. Isaiah was also backward, Isa. 6.5. One answer serves for all: They were at first fearfull rather then unwil∣ling; but when they were confirmed, they readily and bold∣ly did their duties. So farre were they from shadow of com∣pulsion, that they offered their service. When the voice of the Lord said, Whom shall I send? and, Who will go for Ʋs? (Isa. 6.8.) the Prophet said, Here am I, send me.

Yea, but they were impulsi, rapti, agitati, acti, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2. Pet. 1.21. I answer, The word rather excludeth voluntarie and ar∣bitrarie will-worship, or self-will-service; then includeth com∣pulsion: for all this was performed Libero motu voluntatis, With the free motion of their will: or (as others take it) Salvo pleno usu liberi arbitrii, Without any impeachment of the freedome of their will. e They who were led by the holy Ghost, spake, being in∣spired by God: yet know that their motions and inspirations were setled and composed; unlike to the profane heathen priests or pro∣phets

(for they were wilde, senslesse, not knowing what they did or said) saith Tremellius. Rom. 8.14. Many are led by the Spirit of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Aguntur is no more in effect then ducuntur. If it had been trahuntur, yet f Meat draweth a sheep to it, saith Augustine: and all is farre from coaction. And this may stop the mouth of Aretius, saying, on Peter 2.1. g Moses, Elias, and others, who had rather have fled from these duties, were oft unwil∣lingly 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 exposi∣tion of the Ordinary glosse, We CANNOT, that is, We WILL NOT. By such a That is I will confound heaven with earth. But I answer, The words imply no violence; the wills of the Apostles were not inforced: if the will of man could be com∣pelled, it were no longer Voluntas, A will, but rather Noluntas, No will. A thing may be said Posse, aut non posse fieri, To be, or not to be made; these wayes:

1. We cannot but speak, that is, Non possumus convenienter tacere, It is unreasonable that we should be silent. Can the chil∣dren of the Bridechamber mourn? (Matth. 9.15.) is a que∣stion without question; for certainly they could: but while the bridegroom was with them, they could not mourn; that is, It was no fit time for them to mourn. Likewise, the Apostles could hold their peace; but then it became them not: and therefore they say, We cannot but speak.

2. Non possumus licité, We cannot lawfully: so Lyra expounds the words. We can do nothing against the truth, saith S. Paul, 2. Cor. 13.8. that is, We cannot lawfully: unlawfully he might, and so might any other. So here, If we do lawfully, and as we ought, We cannot but speak.

3. We cannot but speak, that is, We are very prone and apt to speak. Mat. 12.34. How can ye, being evil, speak good things? and how could the Apostles, being good, but speak good things? their souls were filled with grace, which boiled forth into words; their mouth could not choose but speak what their heart thought: My heart was hot within me, while I was musing the fire burned; then spake I with my tongue, Psal. 39.3.

4. We cannot but speak; that is, We speak not of our selves, but as God teacheth us:

Est Deus in nobis, agitante calescimus illo: When God on us doth blow, By him our heat doth grow.

He moveth us, & mota faciliùs commoventur, Things fixt are not so soon moved as things in motion: so the Apostles were silent before; but when the Spirit enlightned their understanding and framed their words, could they hold their tongues? them∣selves answer, We cannot but speak.

I summe it up all thus: It was inconvenient not to speak;

It was sinfull not to speak; It proceeded from the habits of grace and goodnesse that they were so prone to speak; It pro∣ceeded from the celestiall suggestion, actuating their hearts and tongues: Therefore (say they) VVe cannot but speak: And yet away with all coaction.

Others may yet alledge the 1. Cor. 9.16. Necessitie is laid upon me to preach the Gospel; and verse 17. If I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation is committed unto me. Unto the first part I answer, The ne∣cessitie is not of pressure, angariation, or force; but of pre∣cept: Obstrictus sum ad hoc, I am commanded and bound to this, as it is in the translated Arabick: for he was often command∣ed to preach: In Damascus, Act. 22.15. in the temple of Je∣rusalem, Act. 22.21. at Antioch, Act. 13.2. h If unto the precept I adde a willing-readie heart, I have my reward, saith Aquin. But, I will freely sacrifice unto the Lord, saith David, Psal. 54.6. and S. Paul will preach rather for love, then necessitie.

The other part of the words, against my will, evinceth not compulsion, but backwardnesse, slownesse, and ill ends. If I preach WILLINGLY; that is, for the love of Christ, of my self, of my brethrens souls, for Gods honour and glorie, and at his command, I HAVE MY REWARD: But if AGAINST MY WILL, that is, Ʋnwillingly, or in an unwilling manner: ( i If for onely servile fear I preach, saith Aquinas) if for fear of wo denounced against me, if for my private ends of fame or gain; yet even to such a mercenary IS THE DISPENSATION COMMITTED. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the words against my will, are not so pro∣perly expounded, though it runne so in our Translation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is with a good will, as Coverdale well translates it: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signi∣fieth a thing done proprio motu; therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is with an ill will, grudgingly, mercenarily: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is non volens, sluggishly, draw∣lingly, formally, for fashions sake. I will conclude this answer with the exposition of the Arabick and Syriack Translatours: k If I do this purposely, with a full will, I have my reward: if when I do it, it is harsh, unpleasant, and sowre, &c. saith Arabs. l If with my will, if besides my will, saith Syrus. None of this tasteth of coaction.

There yet ariseth up another objection: The same Apo∣stle saith, The love of Christ constraineth us, 2. Cor. 5.14. I answer, The words are diversly expounded: Ʋrget nos, Ʋrgeth us, saith the Vulgat; Cohibet nos, Restraineth us, saith Montanus; Conti∣net nos, Containeth us, saith Oecumenius; Incendit nos amore, Setteth us on fire with love, saith Theodoret; Charitas Christi con∣stringit nos in hac sententia, The love of Christ bindes us fast in this opinion, saith Arabs: such a constraint as would not be free; such a bond or knot as would not be untied; such a constraint as when a man is commanded to do that which he would do

without command; when precept is joyned to voluntarinesse; when injunction is interposed between both precedent and subsequent willingnesse. So much for the Objections.

On the other side, for the truth these arguments stand forth.

Luke 1.3. It seemed good unto me to write unto thee, saith he. This proveth that the Evangelist was not compelled.

Gal. 6.11. Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand; by which words S. Paul seeketh to ingrati∣ate himself with them for that labour. But it was neither matter of kindenesse on his part, nor thank-worthy on their part, if he were compelled.

No man dares write in a Princes name, without his com∣mand: S. John was spoke to, advised, commanded twelve times to write: that he was compelled I reade not.

The second of Johns Epistle vers. 12. the Apostle had many things to write; yet would not write with paper and ink, or with ink and pen, as he phraseth it, Epist. 3. vers. 13. If he would not, how was he constrained?

S. Jude gave all diligence to write, vers. 3. so farre was he from coaction; And it was needfull for me to write, saith he in the same place: It was not absolutely necessarie; he saith not that he was compelled.

Divers followers of Solomon wrote his Proverbs; who coacted them?

S. Paul wrote according to the wisdome given unto him, 2. Pet. 3.15. Was this a power compulsive?

In the Epistle to Philemon, vers. 21. Having confidence in thy obedience, I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more then I say: which words imply, he would not have writ if he had thought Philemon would have been obstinate, or refractarie, and would have done nothing at his request: how∣soever, he was free from coaction.

2. Tim. 1.5. The remembrance of the unfeigned faith in Ti∣mothie, in Lois, and Eunice, was the reason of S. Pauls writing unto him. Doth reason use violence?

By Silvanus I wrote briefly, exhorting you, saith the Apostle, 1. Pet. 5.12. Was he compelled himself, who exhorted others?

m It implieth a contradiction to say simply, The will was infor∣ced to the act of willing, saith Scotus. The will may be com∣pelled by God or by the creature, quantum ad actus impera∣tos, so farre as belongeth to the commanded acts in which the body is passive. Joh. 21.18. Another shall gird thee, and carrie thee whither thou wouldest not, saith Christ to Peter. Many are compelled to go to the Gaol, and to be hanged: but the will is induced, quantum ad actus elicitos, by the emanant and distil∣led acts. What the holy Penmen spake or wrote, they did free∣ly and willingly, void of compulsion.

The fifth question followeth, viz. Whether the holy Pen∣men understood all that they wrote?

Christopher Castrus on the smaller Prophets, lib. 3. de vera futurorum cognitione, cap. 12. handleth this point at large; and to him I ow a great part of these authorities. Montanus held that the Patriarchs and Prophets spake in an ecstasie, not knowing what they said; as Epiphanius, Haeres. 48. contra Mon∣tanistas, relateth. But he was an heretick for it. The devil so moveth the tongues of the rapted or ecstaticall heathen, that they neither understand what they speak, nor have power not to speak; and their speech is low out of the dust, and their voice out of the ground, Isa. 29.4. as with the Mon∣tanists their Prophetisses Prisca and Maximilla; and among the heathen the Pythonists; and divers orders of religious irreligion this day among the Turks, especially the Dervises. But our Prophets, saith the worthy Estius, did speak and write, propheticall light being infused into them, and the knowledge of the mysteries inspired, and with the free motion of their will. The Fathers run in full streams to this depth.

Origen, Homil. 6. in cap. 16. Ezekielis, n The Prophets were in their right mindes. And Tom. 6. in Joan. o We must confesse that the Prophets understood what they spake, and carried in their lips the courteous grace of their minde. And (Periarch. 3.3.) p All the Prophets and Apostles were obedient to the words divine, with∣out any disturbance or distraction of minde.

Basil in Prooemio Isaiae, q Some say that the divinely illuminated do prophesie, their humane soul being swallowed up of the Spirit. But it abhorreth from the professed truth, and goodnesse of the di∣vine presence, to make him a mad man who is inspired by God: and when he shall begin to be filled with divine Oracles, that then h•• should be out of his own wits. Is it likely or convenient that one by the Spirit of wisdome should be made most like to a mad man? Rather light stirreth up the visive facultie naturally: nor doth light breed blindenesse, nor the Spirit infuse darknesse into the mindes of men. See the same Basil on Isaiah 13, at the beginning: Chrysostom, Homil. 29. in primam Epist. ad Corinth. 12. Hierom in prooem. Isaiae, & Nahum, & Abacuc, & in 3. cap. ad Ephes. Augustine de Genes. ad literam 12.9. and Epist. 112. and contra Adamantium Manichaeum, cap. 28. Gregorie, Moral. 11.12. All aim at this mark.

That they were rapti, or in an ecstasie, none denieth: but there is a double ecstasie. The first either from outward and in∣ward senses, the minde remaining more enlightened and free and perfect: Thus were they sometimes in an ecstasie. Se∣condly, there is an ecstasie from the minde it self, when it understandeth not: Thus they were never in an ecstasie. So Philo Judaeus in his book, Quis rerum divinarum haeres?

Cyril, lib. 8. in Joannem, cap. 3. r It is not alwayes necessarie that a Prophet should understand whatsoever he foretelleth. Dani∣el had many visions which at the first he understood not, but was after taught by an Angel; and yet he forfeited not the name of a Prophet.

I answer with Hierom on Daniel 10. They did know what the things signified, though they were not presently inlightened; s that upon the delay occasion might be ministred unto them to pray oftner and more unto God, and with tears and fasting call upon him, that God would send his Angel to instruct Daniel. So that every Prophet knew what words he spake, and knew the li∣terall meaning of every word: but the spirituall meaning they understood not at the first, or presently, but afterwards. So Zacharie saw many things and knew them not, but asked the Angel: Zach. 6.4. What are these, my Lord? And 1.9. O my Lord, what are these? And 4.5, 6. Knowest thou not what these things be? And I said, No my Lord. Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is, &c. See the like in the 13 and 14 verses.

Pharaoh, Nabuchodonosor, and Caiaphas did apprehend, but not understand things divine: Prophets understood almost alwayes, saith Castrus: Alwayes, say I, within a short while; so that they were ne∣ver left wholly nescient of what they prophesied.

Aquinas, 2^a, 2^ae, quaest. 173. artic. 4. cometh home to me in the question propounded and in the close, though he hold∣eth somewhat aloof in the bodie of the Article. His Quaere is, Ʋtrùm Prophetae semper cognoscant ea quae prophetant? VVhe∣ther the Prophets alwayes understand all things which they pro∣phesie? and at first he resolveth, t It is not necessarie that they should know whatsoever they foretell. I confesse there is no ab∣solute necessitie of it; and the Non oportet makes another di∣stinct question: But against my position detur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, give me one instance. He proves it by Caiaphas, who knew not what he prophesied. It is answered before; He was no Prophet, though he spake a propheticall sentence, no more then Ba∣laams asse was a man, because he once discoursed more wise∣ly then his master. Aquinas addeth, and that truely, That the Spirit moved the mindes of the souldiers to part Christs garments; but they knew not what it signified. But this is farre from our question: for neither were they Prophets, nor spake any pro∣pheticall sentence; but onely fulfilled one. Three Arguments he bringeth unanswerable for my opinion.

1. Augustinus super Genes. ad literam 12.9. toward the be∣ginning: u VVho saw by the Spirit heavenly visions in and by the glasse of bodily resemblances, unlesse there were added also the use, employment, and offices of the minde, whereby those things may be understood, he deserveth not the name of a Prophet: But those things that are understood are not unknown: Therefore the Pro∣phet is not ignorant of what he prophesieth.

2. x Greater and brighter is the divine light of prophesie, then the light of naturall reason: But by naturall reason we are not igno∣rant of those things which we know: Therefore whosoever is in∣spired with the spirit of prophesie, cannot be ignorant of such things as he prophesieth of.

3. y Prophesie is ordained as a means to instruct and inlighten mens understandings: whereupon it is said, 2. Pet. 1.19. WE HAVE A MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHESIE, WHERE∣UNTO YE DO WELL THAT YE TAKE HEED, AS UNTO A LIGHT THAT SHINETH IN A DARK PLACE: But no∣thing can irradiate or give light unto others, that is not illumina∣ted in it self: Therefore it seems that a Prophet is first inlightened himself, to know those things which he fore-divineth to others. His onely answer to the objections is, that the three reasons speak of true Prophets, whose minde is from heaven perfect∣ly inlightened: Which is wholly my conclusion, except he differ from me in this, That the mindes of the true Prophets are not perfectly inlightened in the things which they do prophesie: which his words may insinuate, and my opinion contradicteth. It is true, that Faith is of those things that are not seen; Hope is of those things that are not had or enjoy∣ed; Prophesie is of those things that are not, but are to come: and things to come are as easily known lumine prophe∣tico, by the light of prophesie, as present colours are discerned lumine naturali, by the light of nature: But that prophesie is of things hidden from the true Prophet, evinceth that a Prophet and a Seer are not all one; and what I say concerning whatso∣ever the Prophets spake or writ, I say also of all other Pen∣men of holy Scripture; They knew what they spake, they knew what they wrote; even S. Paul that heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawfull for a man to utter, 2. Cor. 12.4. out of doubt understood whatsoever was said unto him: He saith not, he heard words that he could not understand; but words unspeakable.

Three Objections follow: two brought by Castrus, but not answered; the third is drawn from divers passages of the Apostles.

Object. 1. Augustine, de Civit. 7.33. saith, z The Prophets did understand some things, and not understand other things.

It is true, No one of them knew all things, but some things were revealed to one, some to another, in severall times, places, manners, and degrees: but Augustine will not say, that the holy Prophets were ignorant of what they prophesied themselves, and were to teach others. Elisha knew not the cause of the womans coming to him, 2. King. 4.27. and till the minstrell played, the hand of the Lord came not on him, 2. King. 3.15. but the same Elisha knew, not onely things to

come, but also things contingent, and which did never come to passe: Whereas Joas smote but thrice upon the ground, Elisha knew by the spirit of prophesie, that if Joas had smit∣ten five or six times, then had he smitten Syria till he had consumed it, 2. Kings 13.19. Now let any one think the Pro∣phets to be parcell-ignorant in their own prophesies, I will not.

Object. 2. Ambrose, de Abraham, 1.8. saith, Abraham pro∣phesied he knew not what, when he spake to his young men, Gen. 22.5. Abide you here with the asse, and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

Melchior Canus, de locis Theologicis, 2.4. in initio, saith, Sunt alii quibus ego vehementer assentior, qui admittunt Abraham men∣titum fuisse; Others admit that Abraham told a lie, to whom I strong∣ly adhere. I answer in generall, Canus had done better if he had followed them, a Who religiously and gravely contend (as himself speaketh) that Abraham lied not. I answer more particularly, The plurall might be used for the singular; or he might think reservedly, If God will, If we both live. Ei∣ther of these wayes is better then that of Canus. But the truth is, The father of the faithfull knew, that though him∣self did kill Isaac, yet God who is able to stones to raise up children unto Abraham, Matth. 3.9. was able to raise up Isaac even from the dead, Heb. 11.19. and in hope or full assurance thereof might say, I and the lad will return; and yet intend faithfully to sacrifice his sonne. And who knoweth but he might be divinely and extraordinarily assured, that his childe should return with him?

The third Objection consisteth of these parcels: 1. Pet. 5.12. By Silvanus a faithfull brother unto you, as I suppose. 2. Cor. 11.5. I suppose I was not a whit behinde the very chiefest Apo∣stles. In both places is used the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, computo, suppu∣to: Existimo, saith the Vulgat, I suppose. 1. Cor. 7.40. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I think I have the Spirit of God. Joh. 21.25. There are many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written, I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the books that should be written: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, arbitror, I opine, think, or suppose. From which or the like places the objection thus ari∣seth; Opinion is conversant about those things which are changeable; and is onely of all the powers of the soul busied about contingents; and is a trembling, pendulous, shaking and uncertain habit, circa complexa: upon probable reasons incli∣ning to one side; yet fearing or doubting the contradictorie: for opinion is framed on likelihood, as knowledge is upon truth. Where opinion or supposall is, there is not certain knowledge: But our Apostles did think or suppose: Therefore they had not immediate divine revelation or certaintie in the points supposed, and therefore wrote somewhat which they knew not.

I answer to each of these Apostles in particular: and first to S. Peter, who seemeth to be in doubt and uncertainty what was to be thought concerning Silvanus.

Divers say, he speaketh modestly of him, as the Apostoli∣call men were wont to do of themselves. S. Augustine, Tract. 37. in Joan. averreth, that under those words is couched an asseveration: As if one should say to a stubborn servant, Thou dost contemn me: Consider; I suppose I am thy master: where the seeming supposall makes him neither to be, nor seem to be ever a whit the lesse his master. But I answer, That the holy Ghost having not revealed unto S. Peter fully what the heart of Sil∣vanus was, or was like to be, left him to suppose; and accor∣ding to the supposall of his soul, did dictate unto S. Peter (what the blessed Spirit knew better then S. Peter) these words. The supposall of the Apostle inferreth not a supposall of the Spirit; The Spirit was most certain when the Apostle might be dubious: The holy Ghost spake (if I may so say) representing Peter, and in Peters person; which might be sub∣ject to a supposall, and yet divinely inspired to know certain∣ly what he wrote, namely to know this, that he did suppose. And that upon good motives.

Whereas S. Paul saith, 2. Cor. 11.5. I suppose I was not a whit behinde the very chiefest Apostles: and 1. Cor. 7.40. I think I have the Spirit of God; he speaketh not so much doubtingly as humbly. To use diminuent and sparing phrases concerning ones self is lawfull: 2. Cor. 11.23. I speak as a fool, saith S. Paul; yet there was as great a dissimilitude between a fool and him, as between any (I think) then breathing. Ephes. 3.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ʋnto me who am lesse then the least of all Saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the un∣searchable riches of Christ. No man had the like priviledge in every degree, as he had in this. S. Peter was Doctor Judaeo∣rum, the Doctour of the Jews; S. Paul Doctor Gentium, the Do∣ctour of the Gentiles: yet no man can speak more modestly then S. Paul doth of himself: Lesse then the least of the Apostles, had been much; but lesse then the least of all Saints, is the depth, the heart, the soul of humilitie: which yet is further evidenced, in that he saith not, this grace was given when he was a persecuter, and so indeed worse then any Saint, yea al∣most worse then any man; but to me even now when I am called, now when I am turned; to me now lesse then the least of all Saints, is this grace given. Lesse then the least is contrary to the rules of Grammar, which admit not a compara∣tive above a superlative; contrary to common sense; contra∣ry to the literall truth of the things themselves: for he was a chosen vessell, a chief Apostle; few (if any) more chief: though he should boast more of his authoritie, he should not be ashamed,

2. Cor. 10.8. No whit inferiour 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the very chiefest Apostles, 2. Cor. 12.11. A Minister of Christ more then others, 2. Cor. 11.23: Now though S. Paul used terminis dimi∣nuentibus, and spake sparingly and modestly in some places concerning himself; yet otherwhere he revealeth the whole truth; he knew the certaintie of things, to wit, that he was not lesse then the least, that he was not as a fool: and when he said, I suppose, or I think, he did know. Dum minus dicit, majus innuit: Whilest he speaketh the lesse, he intimateth the more: he was never a trumpeter of his own worth, but when he was urged unto it by opposition.

Concerning the place of S. John thus I answer: The Apo∣stle was governed by the holy Ghost, to use an Hyperbole, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the Orientall Idiotisme; and perchance aimed at the words, Gen. 13.6. The land was not able to bear Abraham and Lot, that they might dwell together: Or at the place of Amos 7.10. The land is not able to bear all his words; as is well observed by the curious Heinsius. He also here is guided by the same Spirit, to write, I suppose, or I think, that even the world could not contain the books: as for other reasons to us un∣known, so perhaps because both the Spirit would qualifie the Hyperbole, and speak within truth which is allowed, rather then beyond truth which is disallowable: I suppose, rather then I know.

Secondly, I answer more punctually; If the holy Spirit did leave S. Paul nescient, whether he were rapt in bodie, yea or no; and Paul did know his own nesciencie, 2. Cor. 12.2. why might not the same Spirit leave S. Paul, S. Peter, S. John in supposals? and yet no inconvenience ariseth thencefrom, since they perfectly knew that they did suppose. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimonie is true, John 21.24. as S. John saith of him∣self.

To conclude this point; No man ever said, that whatsoe∣ver the holy Penmen mentioned or treated of, they under∣stood perfectly, invested with all their circumstances: for they spake and writ of the day of judgement, and other se∣cret visions, whose depths were never sounded by meer man; but sealed and reserved, perchance from Angels, till the gene∣rall judgement: yet whatsoever matter, sentences, and words they wrote, they knew as they were writers thereof, and were in no doubt of them, nor could they mistake them. As they were not omniscient on the one side; so were they not ignorant on the other side: but whatsoever they spake or wrote they knew, and knew much more then ever they spake or wrote.

The sixth question followeth, viz. Whether the holy Pen∣men did reade profane authours?

Upon the premisall of six points, the answer will be most expedite.

The first is this, That diverse Prophets and Penmen of the Old Testament, were Noble-men, Rulers, or Kings, cannot be denied by him, who thinketh of Isaiahs birth of royall linage, saith Hierom in the Prologue on him; and Lyranus from the Rabbins; or on David, Solomon, and others.

Secondly, That diverse also were learned before their cal∣ling to publick place, is most apparent. Thus Moses was learn∣ed in all the wisdome of the Egyptians, and was mightie in words and deeds, Act. 7.22. and this before he was called to his pub∣lick charge. Thus was Job skilled in Astronomie, as his words declare; and Solomon the best Philosopher (as I think) that ever was, except Christ and Adam; though Solomons great learning was rather infused then acquired.

The third puncto is, That no Penmen of the New Testa∣ment were Noble: And perchance even therefore our Bles∣sed Saviour would write nothing by himself in person, be∣cause he was of the bloud-royall. S. Hierom in his Epistle to Principia the Virgin, saith, S. John was Noble, and for his No∣bilitie known to the high Priest. I answer, that he was very neare of kindred to our Blessed Saviour, and therefore Noble; but that ever he was nobly bred or brought up according to the usance of the world, or that he was by his nobilitie made known to the high Priest, I see not proved. S. Paul saith, 1. Cor. 1.26. Ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mightie, not many noble are called: and vers. 28. God hath chosen the base things of the world, and things which are despised. If any one object, Though there were not many noble called, yet S. John might be one: Estius is peremptorie, that b Not one of the twelve Apostles, according to the world, was wise, powerfull, or noble. Ambrose, lib. 5. in Luc. ad illud Capitis sexti, 13. ELEGIT EX IPSIS, thus, c Observe the providence of God: He chose not any wise, nor rich, nor noble, but he elected fishers and Publicanes: and them he instructed, lest he might seem to have drawn men unto him by worldly wisdome, or to have redeemed them by wealth, or to have allured them to his side and to the participation of his grace, by the reconciling au∣thoritie of power and nobilitie.

The 1. Cor. 4.11. the Apostle speaketh in the person of all his fellows, thus, Even to this present houre we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffetted, and have no certain dwel∣ling place; and labour, working with our own hands, &c. which things the Noble of this world will neither do nor suffer: Therefore they were not Noble.

The fourth thing premisable is this, None of the twelve Apo∣stles 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 Phy∣sician, might be learned ere he was a Christian: the like might be surmised of S. Mark; and the rather, because we reade not that the gift of tongues was given to these two. Concerning S. Matthew, though there may be some probabilitie that he was learned before his vocation, because he sat at the receit of custome, Matth. 9.9. for few unlearned men were gatherers of Cesars customes or tributes: and though Publicanes were vilely esteemed of among the Jews, yet divers passages of Cicero do shew, that they were of good account among the Romanes: and though more particularly it is observed, Luk. 5.29. that Levi (or Matthew) made Christ a great feast in his own house; and there was a great companie of Publicanes and of others that sat down with them; whence may be inferred, that S. Matthew was a rich man; yet notwithstanding all this, he might be un∣learned; and a poore man might make a great feast for joy of his extraordinarie calling. See what the young, perhaps, poore plough-man Elisha did, 1. King. 19.21.

Joh. 7.15. the Jews say of Christ, How knoweth this man let∣ters, having never learned? The Priests, Scribes, and Pharisees knew Christ frequented not their schools, no not those at Je∣rusalem (for Franciscus Lucas Brugensis calleth them Schools) pointed at, Luk. 2.46. which were in the Temple, and at the outwardest Eastern gate of it; I say, Christ frequented them not to learn; but he at twelve yeares of age went and heard the Doctours, and asked them questions; and belike, when they could not answer, he did; or els, perhaps, he did answer to o∣ther questions propounded by them: for all that heard, him (even they with whom he disputed) were astonished at his un∣derstanding and answers, Luk. 2.47. John 7.27. VVe know this man whence he is, say the Jews. As if one be eminent among us, we usually enquire of his parents, of his breeding, and whole course of life: so in likelihood they did of Christ: They knew his breeding in the citie of Nazareth; VVhere from his childhood he used a mechanicall trade with his supposed father, saith Pererius: They saw him not poring on books, nor tum∣bling them over, nor for studies sake resorting to any places where religion was taught; yet they heard him, Legis testimo∣nia proferentem, Alledge the words of the Law. They did not ad∣mire his doctrine (say Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophy∣lact) nor beleeved they it; but they were astonished at his eloquence and learning, acknowledging them rather inspired then acquired. From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdome is this which is given unto him? say they, Mark 6.2. As Christ never went to any Schools, no more (in all likelihood) did any of his twelve Apostles; who being poore tradesmen, may well be thought unlettered: Matth. 4.21. even John, and his brother

James, with their father Zebedee, were mending their nets; where∣by their povertie and mean calling was described. Their igno∣rance is taxed by the Jews, John 7.49. This people, who knoweth not the Law, are cursed: where his disciples are held as illite∣rate 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 Apostolicall learning might be rather Divine, then Humane: in which regard also, perhaps, he chose none of the Doctours with whom he argued: sure I am, S. Augustine saith, for this very cause Nathanael was not numbred 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 skilfull 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 Great was the mercie of Christ: He knew if he had chosen a Senatour, the Sena∣tour would have said, I was chosen for my place and dignitie: If an Oratour, he would have pleaded, My eloquence hath made me regarded: If a Philosopher, My wisdome caused me to be chosen. Give me the Fisherman: Come thou poore 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 onely, and the necks of Oratours are subject unto them. Or (as Athanasius, de Incarnat. & Sacrament. cap. 9. hath it) e The plain down-right truth of Fish∣ermen, hath thrust out of doores the oratorie of Philosophers.

Lorinus, on Act. 1.26. relateth the opinion of Antoninus, thus, That Christ whilest he lived chose rude and illiterate men, lest the con∣version of the world should be attributed to humane industry and wis∣dome: yet the Apostles chose the learned Matthias, to insinuate unto the succeeding Churches, That not idiots, but skilfull men were to be cho∣sen Governours of souls; Yea, even Christ himself from heaven, vocal∣ly called the learned S. Paul. And so I shake hands with this point.

The fifth followeth, viz. That it was lawfull for them, and is for others, to reade, or seek profane Authours.

The arts are as handmaids to Divinitie. Clemens Alexandri∣nus, primo Stromat. saith, f 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 Philosophie, (Col. 2.8.) yet it is that Philosophie which is joyned with vain deceit. True Philosophie is a branch plucked from the eter∣nal Veritie (saith Clemens in the same place) and is the childe of rectified reason. But g even Jupiter is ruled by good reason,

saith Cicero: and Tertullian, more African-like, h God and rea∣son are at one. When any Fathers tax Philosophie, it is be∣cause it cometh too nigh the Mountain, and intermingleth with Divinitie: otherwise, it is lawfull to use it, or any other profane authoritie. See it proved by Nicephorus, 10.26. Gre∣gorie Nazianzen defendeth S. Basil for his learning in Ethnicks, and censureth those that condemn it, saying; The aire, the earth, are not to be contemned, because some have abused them. Fire, meat, iron, & other things, i of themselves are neither profitable nor harmfull, but as they are used. As we make Theriacall medica∣ments of creeping things: so let us choose the good things out of them, and contemn the bad; k making the profane things to be san∣ctified and ecclesiasticall, saith Origen, Homil. 31. in Luc. Hierom well observeth in the beginning of his Commentaries on Da∣niel, and in his Preface on Job, That, if you look over all the books of Philosophie, you must needs finde in them l some part of the chosen truths of God. In Plato, God to be the Ar∣chitect of the world: in the Stoicall Zeno, Hell, and the im∣mortalitie of souls. We are to vindicate their good things from them, as from unjust possessours, and to transfer the spoils of Egypt to our selves, as Augustine sweetly alludeth, de doctr. Christ. 2.40. When Ruffinus accused Hierom for using in his letters humane learning, Hierom Epist. 8. answereth, That that is to kill Goliah with his own sword, 1. Sam. 17.51. Let Philosophie submit her self, as Agar to Sara, saith Clemens ibid. Let the captive womans head be shaved, and her nails pared, Deut. 21.12. If the handmaid be obstinate, Cast out this bondwoman and her sonne, Gen. 21.10. m Why do we refuse secular learning, without which we cannot comprehend things divine? saith Tertullian, de Idololat. And Aquinas most divinely in his disputed questi∣ons de side, Art. 10. n Divinitie is never contrarie to true natu∣rall 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 lawfull to reade profane Authours, is the rather concluded, because it shall be confirmed by the sixth,

The holy Penmen did cite Poets or profane Authours.

Titus 1.12. One of themselves, even a Prophet of their own, said,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cretenses semper mendaces, malae bestiae, ventres pigri: The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

Epimenides the Cretian in his book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, de Oracu∣lis, 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 intire in Callimachus: Besides, Callimachus was of Cyrene, not of Creet. The learned Estius is my authour.

The same S. Paul cites 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 off-spring. In which dis∣course S. Paul insists in the writings of diverse of their Pro∣phets. First, vers. 24. God made the world, and all things there∣in; which almost all Heathen acknowledged, and many have published: vers. 26. He hath made of one bloud all nations of men: Orpheus comprised both of them before in few words,

Ʋnus 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 els from Orpheus, who acknowledgeth that in God

—cuncta moventur, Ignis, aqua, & tellus,— All things are moved, Fire, water, earth.

Concerning those words, vers. 29. We are his off-spring; they are the very words of Aratus in the beginning almost of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ipsius enim genus sumus, We are his off-spring. Clemens Strom. 5. and Vasques, Tom. 1. part. 1. dispu∣tat. 28. num. 17. expound it, as if we were his Genus Creatione, By creation. That is true, but not enough: for Genus may be taken for Soboles, an off-spring; and men may be said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Evil communications corrupt good manners.

Tertullian, ad uxorem, 1.7. saith, This versicle was sanctified by the Apostle. Hierom, ad Demetriad. virg. Epist. 8. cap. 10. saith, S. Paul assuming this secular verse, made it Ecclesiasticall. So∣crates, 3.40. and out of him Nicephorus 10.26. say, It is bor∣rowed from Euripides. Hierom, Peter Martyr, and many mo report it to be Senarius Menandri, an Hexameter of Menander. I reconcile them thus, That it is in both of the Poets. Justi∣nian the Jesuite relateth, that Photius, apud Oecumenium, saith, Some such thing is in the Prophet Isaiah; But I could never finde it, saith the Jesuite. Perhaps he mistook Photius; for if Photius had any relation to the precedent words, vers. 32. Let us eat and drink, for to morrow we die; the Jesuite might finde the same Isa. 22.13. And so Athanasius, on the place of the Apostle (or rather Theophylact, if we beleeve Bellarmine, de Scripto∣ribus Ecclesiasticis, ad annum 340. in Athanasio) saith, Those words were taken from Isaiah.

Acts 20.28. Take heed unto your selves, and to all the flock;

Attendite vobis, &c. That Thales Milesius was the first that said, Non sine oculo Domini (.i. attentione) equum; non sine vesti∣gio Domini, (id est, attentione) agrum pinguescere, was a good observation of Bishop Andrews in his Concio ad Clerum, in Sy∣nodo Provinciali, pag. 29: but that grave Prelates intimation (for indeed at the utmost it is no more) that Paul alluded to that saying of Thales, is a conjecture farre enough fetched. Eodémque in loco, Paulus (jam Milesius) Nec, sine attentione, bene esse Ecclesiae dicit. So he. Much more may be said to the point concerning the Apostles citing Apocryphall, or not Ca∣nonicall writings.

S. Paul knew the names of Pharaoh his Magicians, 2. Tim. 3.8. Jannes and Jambres, as we reade it according to the Greek and Syriack; which is also followed by Numenius apud Eu∣seb. de praeparat. Evangel. 9.3. though the Vulgat hath Mam∣bres in stead of Jambres, and the Hebrew Talmud, and Rabbi Nathan, as Genebrard cites them in the first book of his Chronologie. o 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 It is more cre∣dible the Apostle took it out of an Apocryphall book, called JANNES AND MAMBRES: for from thence the Talmud fetched it, saith Drusius. I for my part will not define whether S. Paul was onely immediately from heaven assured, that these were the names of the Magicians; or whether he had read their names also in some Apocryphall book now perished, or in the Tal∣mud.

James 1.17.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.

Every good gift, and every perfect gift is from above: Which words I have both heard and read alledged for the lawfull use of humane literature; though I, for my part, cannot guesse whence the Apostle took them.

That S. Jude had the historie of the strife between Micha∣el and the devil, about the bodie of Moses (the 9 of Jude) in part from Deuteronomie, and in part from an Apocry∣phall book, Aretius maintaineth: The title of the book was Assumptio Mosis, The assumption of Moses (as some say;) or, Ascensio Mosis, The ascent of Moses, as others say. That S. Jude might also have read the book of Henoch and his prophesie, I will not denie: for he citeth some words of it, vers. 14. So think Hierom in Catalogo, and in his Commentarie on Titus 1. Augustine de Civitat. 15.23. & ibid. 18.38. and Beda on the place. But the book of Henoch is Apocryphall.

That S. John read the Targumists, in many places, the learned Heinsius proveth or laboureth to prove by many passages. Thus much clearly must be confest, that the gifts both of reading, and of writing, and understanding of strange tongues

was conferred on all the Apostles; not one was an illiterate man, after the cloven tongues like as of fire sat upon each of them, Act. 2.3. and I make no question but they also read the Old Testament, after that time, and might reade other books, Talmudists, Targumists, Hellenists, Apocryphall books, yea Heathen writings; and perhaps did so.

But in all these or the like places, which the Apostles ci∣ted or pointed at, this is now my last resolution, as a Corol∣larie to the Question before briefly answered,

Either the sacred Penmen never read those things them∣selves, but the all-knowing Spirit did tender and dictate both matter and words to them: Or if they did reade profane au∣thours, and were conversant in them; yet they used the words, not as their own reading, not as humane learning, not as drawn out of the treasurie of their own memories, not as if they had the choice to insert those sentences above others; but the ho∣ly Ghosts inspiration guided them wholly, and reached forth words unto them, both in things which they knew, and in things unknown unto them before.

Yea, I beleeve, that if Plato, or Aristotle, Tullie, or Varro had lived after Christs dayes, and been called to write any part of Scripture, they should not, would not have conceived one thought, or written one word of humane literature, as from themselves, or any part of their own great knowledge; but would have quitted themselves, and been wholly led by the holy Ghost.

The seventh Question. Whether they studied the things before-hand?

That both Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, were filled with holy thoughts, and heavenly meditations, we certainly beleeve and know. Psal. 45.1. My heart is enditing of a good matter; or (as it is in our margin) boyleth, or bubbleth up a good matter: Eructavit cor meum verbum bonum, saith the Vulgat; Verily good thoughts were in my heart: The like I say of all, and every of them. Psal. 39.2. I was dumbe 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 spake I with my tongue: and vers. 4. Lord, make me to know mine end. From whence appeareth, that David was premedi∣tating, as other people do: and at the last, as other mens, his thoughts brake forth. The similitude is taken from sorrow and grief, which being for a while suppressed, groweth great∣er; or from fire, which being smothered, or half quenched with water, upon recovery of its strength, groweth farre 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 wayes he liked not: He poured

out his complaints and prayers unto God: So Musculus. And this no doubt did the Spirit of God stirre him up to do. It pleased the holy Ghost to make those thoughts of David, which be∣fore were pure and divine, yet private, now to be divine, pub∣lick, and canonicall.

Again, That they might conceive and understand by the Spirit, a great deal more then the holy Ghost would have to be written, I denie not: and on such things they might muse.

Yet I conjecture, that what they wrote in holy Scripture, they studied not before-hand (the Spirit hath no need of mans studie 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 Gods grace shall anon appeare) pro re nata, as occasion offered it self.

One chief reason may be this, That nature, which is the right hand of God, hath greatest care of greatest matters, and lesse of least, and equall care of things equall. If the Apo∣stolicall and Evangelicall writings are not (consideratis consi∣derandis, weighing one thing with an other) of more esteem then 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 com∣manded 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 before-hand, —neither do ye premeditate: An absolute inhibition; and it had been a great sinne to transgresse it, and a distrust of the holy Ghost. The like I say concerning all their writings.

They might have indeed in their meditation before-hand di∣vers 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 wombe of their own memories; but as freshly and newly inspired, apprehended, in∣dited, and dictated unto them.

There is one kinde of knowledge proceeding from princi∣ples known by the naturall light of the intellect: as Arith∣metick, Geometrie, &c. Others proceed out of principles known by light of an higher knowledge: as Perspective, from the principles evinced by Geometrie; and Musick, from prin∣ciples known by Arithmetick: So is the Scripture beleeved by an higher light, even by the revelation of God, saith Aquin. part. 1. quaest. 1. art. 2. and not beleeved onely; 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 then the hand of man. All was the holy Spirits doing, even the leading of their hands whilest they wrote, that they could not erre.

Cornelius Cornelii à Lapide, on 2. Tim. 3.16. thus, The Spi∣rit did not dictate all Scripture after one manner. The Law and the Prophesies are revealed and dictated to a word; the Histories and Morall exercitations, which before by sight, hearing, reading, or meditation the holy Writers had learned, there was no necessitie to be inspired, or dictated from the Spirit; since they knew them al∣readie: 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, modifie, and qualifie his former saying, in this manner; But the holy Spirit may be said to have dictated even the latter also: First, because q he was present whilest they wrote, that they could not go one jot from the truth: Secondly, because it stir∣red them up, and suggested that they should write this rather then that: r 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 methodize 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 dignitie: that which is after the divinest manner, is to be held best: that wherein there is a medly of divine and humane knowledge and wisdome, is of an inferiour sort. But this may not be granted; for, All Scripture is of divine inspiration. Excellently saith Doctour Estius on 2. Tim. 3.16. Rightly and most truely from hence do we conclude, that all the sacred Canonicall 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 so, that not onely 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 memo∣ries; nor his writing or speech, of their hearing, reading, sight, or premeditation.

Secondly, he is to be taxed for saying, there was no ne∣cessitie that things Morall and Historicall should be inspired.

I say, there was a necessitie that histories and moralities should be inspired, if they are to be parts of the sacred Writ: otherwise, this knowledge and writing are onely parcels of hu∣mane learning. Though S. John bare record to what he saw,

his bearing record without the Spirit, had been but an ordi∣nary testimonie. Not his saying, but the inspiration makes the record divine: and his testimonie from the Spirit, That he saw, is of more force then his testimonie could be to the Spirit, What he saw. It seemeth good unto me, saith S. Luke; but it was made to seem good unto him by the Spirit: yea, first it seemed good unto the holy Ghost; as the Apostles in the like case said, Act. 15.28. It seemed good unto the holy Ghost, and to us. The words do not notifie the pleasing of his own fancie, without the dictate of the holy Ghost, say I. And the understanding that he had of things from the first, was not by sight; for he was not then called: nor by humane relati∣on; for that may be mistaken, increased, or decreased, or sub∣ject to errour. But the knowledge issued out from the light divine; and therefore is there tearmed perfect understanding; like Gods gifts, James 1.17. All other guides are somewhat imperfect.

Thirdly, the Jesuite is justly blameable for saying, The Spi∣rit need not tell them what they knew before.

I say, they might have forgotten or mistaken some things, as they were men; and by the Spirit they might know more certainly, what they knew before more doubtingly; and by the same Spirit they might know some circumstances more then before they knew: what they knew humanely, they now know divinely.

I will not discusse the question at large, Whether the Law written by the hand and finger of God immediately, were to be regarded above other things divinely inspired into holy men, and written by them. This I will say, That if I were ascertained that I saw the very tables, the latter tables of stone which God himself wrote; or if I had seen any thing which Christ himself had written (for I will not say he wrote nothing; and I know he could write) I should pre∣fer them somewhat above whatsoever should be transcribed or written by any other whosoever: and this is my reason; Though Moses his writings were inspired and dictated from God; yet he placed them in the side of the Ark, Deut. 31.26. a place not altogether so noble: (see Cajetan on Heb. 9.) but the tables, and onely the tables written by Gods own finger, were laid up in the Ark it self; as appeareth, 1. Kings 8.9. and 2. Chron. 5.10. howsoever afterward it seemeth there was a change, Hebr. 9.4.

At length I am come to the five Conclusions, which beat directly upon the learned Heinsius: whereof the first is this,

There was no difference between the Penmen of the divine Writ of the Old and New Testament in the point of conceiving and writing in different languages.

Which in this manner I do explain;

If I demand of the worthy Heinsius, in what tongue the Old Testament was conceived: his answer is peremptorie, Prolegom. pag. 26. f It was conceived in the Hebrew and Chaldee language. It had been clearer if he had used some disjun∣ctive, rather then a copulative Preposition. For none will imagine that the skilfull Heinsius did ever mean, that all of the Old Testament was conceived both in Hebrew and in Chaldee, to which his words seem to incline: but either in Hebrew or in Chaldee was it conceived; and they who wrote in Hebrew conceived in Hebrew; and they who wrote in Chaldee conceived in Chaldee. I do not think but he would thus have expressed himself, and explained his own meaning, if he had been put unto it. Whereupon I discourse in this man∣ner: Jeremie wrote somewhat in Chaldee, and Daniel wrote some chapters: If they being Hebrews or Jews by generati∣on and birth, and perfect in their mother-tongue, readie Scribes in the law of Moses, as well as Ezra, Ezra 7.6. did yet con∣ceive in the Chaldee, that Chaldee which they wrote (which the ingenuous Heinsius will not denie: for what was concei∣ved in Chaldee, if that which was written in Chaldee was not so conceived?) why did not the Writers of the New Testa∣ment, though they were born and bred in the use of the Sy∣riack, 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 lan∣guage, 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 in∣spiration 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 Chal∣dee: or let him equall the Penmen of the New Law to those of the Old in this point, That they wrote in the self-same tongue in which they conceived.

Besides, it will be hard to prove, that Jeremie ever knew any part of the Chaldean language, till that very verse was inspired into him: and so with it, both the knowledge, and the words, and the power both of pronuntiation and of wri∣ting. So that Jeremie could not possibly conceive and utter also the Chaldee in the Hebrew; but conceived that verse in Chaldee, and in Chaldee pronounced or wrote it.

A second errour in the learned Heinsius, Pag. 49. Prolegom. is this, t Wherefore we must rest not on the allusions which now are, but which S. John conceived in his minde.

Against which I set down the second Conclusion; viz.

We must have recourse to the allusions which are. S. John was Sol Evangelii, The light, the sunshine, the very Sunne of the Gospel, as Dionysius termed him: This Sunne is in eclipse, and we have not, cannot have his true and perfect light, if we must not look to his rayes and shine, which are his words; but to his thoughts, that is, the light which is in himself; to his in∣ternall and substantiall light, and not to the externall.

The certainest rule is most to be trusted unto: therefore let us not go from the words and extant allusions which we know, to the thoughts of S. John which we know not. For, Who knoweth the thoughts of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? 1. Cor. 2.11. And if the finite thought of every man be unknown, can the thoughts of him, who is inspired by the infinite Spirit, be so soon and so easily known? Moreover, the same words written in Greek may be conceived two or three wayes in the Syriack: for variations are in that language, and different expressions of the same things; And which of those shall we think was the conceit of S. John? And when we have lighted on divers, and all of them good expressions of Syriack; yet the Spirit might guide S. John to an other, which we never thought upon: And so we are for ever uncertain what allusion S. John conceived in his thoughts. For he con∣ceived more by the boundlesse power of the divine inspira∣tion, then we can possibly reach unto: and there was never place of Scripture so, since the Apostles dayes, 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 anchor-hold must be on the words; or else we shall flote in the wide vast sea of ima∣gination and phansie, without sail, oar, or rudder, without card or compasse; by having recourse to the Non entes, or Non ex∣tantes allusiones, Ʋnextant 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 dayes: how then can we finde out, what the Apo∣stle conceived? For the Syriack and Arabick now in use (ex∣cept 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 identicall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, first originall manuscripts, in which S. Matthew wrote his Go∣spel, and S. Paul his Epistle to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew or Syriack; had we the true self-same paper or parchment, in which the Evangelists and Apostles or their amanuenses wrote the divine dictates; we might better guesse 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 steadie 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 minde; 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 libertie left unto them to put in their own conceits, or in writing to adde 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 What things soever concern faith or salvation, they were deter∣mined 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 I pray you speak more sparingly of this point, viz. That the Apostles used their own wis∣dome or prudence: for it is dangerous to say or write, that the Apo∣stles 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 imme∣diately after these words, ACCORDING TO MY OPINION, or judgement; AND I THINK ALSO THAT I HAVE THE SPI∣RIT OF GOD, 1. Cor. 7.40. So that his very opinion or judge∣ment, 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 expurgatorie index of the New Testament. For we must separate that which is precious from that which is vile. Things of humane wisdome will never stand mixed with things divinely inspired. So farre he. Enough indeed for an Epistle; but I could have wished that the most learned walking-librarie had more fully answered all the ob∣jections 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 furie in warre) 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. Ʋnto the married I com∣mand, 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 mercie of the Lord to be faithfull.

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 onely to write or speak some things, and commanded to write other things: nor touched it any part of his thought, to permit a little sinne, that a greater might be avoided, as some hence maintain; c Whilest he forgiveth them, he granteth they were faultie, saith Augustine concerning these words, in lib. de peccat. Orig. cap. 38. Again, de bono Conjugali, cap. 10. d It is most absurd to say, They sinned not whom pardon ab∣solveth. Again, in Ench••r. cap. 78. c Who can denie there is a fault, where the Apostle confesseth that the doers thereof were forgiven? I answer, Erasmus saith, some Copies have it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, secundum indulgentiam, as Augustine and o∣thers reade: and then the sense is, I tell you my opinion, or This is my advice; I leave you to your selves, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sontentiam do; and verse 40. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. f Leaving every man to his own libertie in this point, saith Erasmus.

Secondly, I wonder that that holy Father could think S. Paul would permit the least sinne, when Rom. 3.8. he counteth them slanderous reporters that affirmed he said, Let us do evil that good may come; adding, their damnation was just.

Again, if it be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, our English well translateth it, By permission: and the Arabick expounds it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, By my concession: g Nor speak I it as a sinall sentence or binding decision, as Beza hath it. The Arabick of Junius hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, With mutuall consent: and thus enlargeth it; h Whereas I say, One may depart from another by consent for a time, that they may fast the more, and pray the better; I command not this, but advise it. For even God himself never gave charge unto any of his, that this should be done commonly, and kept perpetually, but he hath given us an example agreeable to my counsel, that it may be done sometimes for a while upon extraordinary occasion. Exod. 19.15. Come not at your wives. The translated words of the Ara∣bick by Junius are these, i This is the advice, not the decree of the Law. Beza makes the sense of the words to be, as if S. Paul did not command expressely, that all should be mar∣ried, as some might collect from his words, vers. 2. Junius

applieth them to his leaving it indifferent for man and wife to forsake the companie of each other for a time. i Augustines PARDON is farre fetcht and forced too much, saith Beza: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a candid interpretation upon good reason; and doth not alwaies imply such a pardon as connoteth a fault. Ari∣stotle saith, k It is an upright sentence, inclining not to rigour, but to moderation. Peter Martyr saith, l It is exercised about that which is equall, and qualifieth the rigour of the law, which other∣wise is extream injurie.—Even in the same sort could I deal with one whom I saw to fast, or to studie too much; that he might sometime refresh himself. Which I would not say imperiously, but by way of counsel grounded on equitie. Neither doth it therefore follow, that to studie hard, or to fast holily is a sinne. So farre Peter Martyr; who might as well have insisted in S. Pauls ad∣vice to his scholar, 1. Tim. 5.23. Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomacks sake, and thine often infirmities. The Syriack in Junius hath it answerable to the Arabick; m This I say, as to the weak, not by commandment. n By grant, not precept, as Tremellius turneth it. o I charge not, but permit, saith Hay∣mo: for how could S. Paul command when Christ left it free? When Christ said, It is not given to all: or, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it, Matth. 19.12. if the words have reference to the second verse: or, when God himself left it indifferent, if it hath dependance upon the temporarie ab∣stemiousnesse, upon just occasion touched at in the fifth verse?

Concerning the second objection, vers. 10. Ʋnto the marri∣ed I command, yet not I, but the Lord. I answer, First, that those forms of speech are not simply exclusive, much lesse contradictorie; and denote not so much a simple negation as a kinde of comparison sometime: I, yet not I. And we have o∣ther places of Scripture to be ranked in the same parallell: John 7.16. My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. As therefore it was most true, that Christs doctrine, even as he is God and Man, is not his in one sense, that is, originally; (for as he had not the divine essence of himself, or from himself, but from God the Father; so from the Father had he the divine doctrine) and yet in another sense is truely Christs doctrine; as conceived and preached by him who is God, the Foun∣tain of truth, yea Truth it self. And as the doctrine which he had as he was Man, was partly not his, (for the infused doctrine into the soul of Christ, comprehending all scientifi∣call habits, by which Christ naturally knew, and that most perfectly, whatsoever was to be known, was not his as Man, but was infused of God) and partly his, namely such as he, like a Viator or another Man, experimentally might gather. And the true meaning of the words may be, The doctrine which I preach is not the invention of mine own brain, but his rather

who sent me, to teach you what he taught me: and so is both mine, and not mine: To which effect Pererius. So in the place of the Apostle where it is written, I command, yet not I, but the Lord; since S. Paul might be considered either as an ordinarie man, or as an Apostle inspired from God: he first saith, I command; and then by distinguishing explaineth his meaning, Yet not I, as a common man, but rather the Lord, by me his Apostle. And all this proveth not that S. Paul could write any thing as he was an Apostle, of his own head; or yet put in any of his own conceits: but was wholly guided by the Spirit. For, whatsoever is so properly mans work, that it is not also Gods, that is not good; since the Authour of goodnesse is excluded.

Secondly I answer, The place doth rather expressely say, that whatsoever S. Paul wrote or spake as an Apostle, they were not his words or writings, but the words of God (for his commands were not his, but the Lords) then any way imply that he could write any thing as an Apostle, without the Spirit, or by the dictate of his own naturall prudence onely.

Thirdly, o I command not according to mine opinion, but the Lord in the Gospel doth, That a man may not depart from his wife except for fornication, saith Haymo. Where our Saviour speaks not of a short departure with consent, for the improvement of religious duties (for then S. Paul might have had a command for it in the objection precedent:) but our Saviour speaketh of a totall or finall departure of man and wife by bill of di∣vorcement or separation: for of this Christ spake expressely, Mat. 19.9. Mark 10.11. Luk. 16.18. Therefore S. Paul com∣manded not, but the Lord; namely Christ in those places of the Gospel to which he aimed.

The third objection is out of the 1. Cor. 7.12. To the rest speak I, not the Lord. These words compared with the former may seem to carrie it cleare against me. For what can be of more force? I command, yet not I, but the Lord; and, To the rest speak I, not the Lord: as if S. Paul spake and wrote something by humane wisdome, which the Lord bid him not. First, I answer with Peter Martyr, S. Paul saith thus, because before he had reference to Christs speech in the Gospel, of not ea∣sily dissolving matrimonie: but now he sets down somewhat, of which Christ in the Gospel is not found to have said any thing. So now he speaks, not the Lord: namely, not Christ in the Gospel, not Christ by word of mouth as he was man: and yet on the contrarie side, we may as truely say even in this place, and to S. Pauls proper sense, with the words inverted, The Lord speaks, not I: Not I, of my self; not I, as a man: but God from heaven, or the holy Spirit speaketh.

The conclusion is, S. Paul speaketh or writeth nothing as an Apostle from himself, without the Lord, without divine imme∣diate revelation from the holy Ghost: but he might relate something which Christ spake not whilest Christ lived on earth; something that is not registred in the Gospel: And thus S. Paul did speak, and not the Lord: And thus may an other speak or write, and not the Lord. p I speak, not the Lord: Did not the Lord speak by him? Yes. But therefore he said that him∣self spake and not the Lord, because this precept is not contained in any of the Gospels, as the other was, saith Haymo before Pe∣ter Martyr. And indeed, I remember not that Christ so much as toucheth at this point; Whether a beleeving man should put away, or dwell from an unbeleeving woman, yea or no?

To the fourth objection, 1. Cor. 7.25. I have no command∣ment from the Lord, yet I give my judgement, I answer, It was matter of counsel, not of precept; it was left indifferent; the doing, or not doing had not been sinne. q Christ would give no command concerning single life or virginitie, lest he should seem to condemn marriage. So Augustine, in libello de sanct. virginit. So Hierom against Jovinian: So Ambrose, saith Peter Martyr. Yet the Consilium do, I counsel, is the advice of such an one, as had obtained mercie of the Lord to be faithfull: and a faithfull steward will not distribute more or lesse then his Lord ap∣pointeth.

The unjust steward made them write lesse then was due: the usurer makes them write more: the good and faithfull man followeth his masters will 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, foot by foot. So this place proveth not that the Apostle as an Apostle wrote or spake by humane wisdome any thing, but what was appointed of God.

The Rhemists on verse 12 say, By this we learn, that there were many matters over and above the things that Christ taught or prescribed, left to the Apostles order and interpretation: where∣in they might, as the case required, either command or counsel; and we bound to obey accordingly. Doctour Estius goeth further: r This speech, I COMMAND, YET NOT I, BUT THE LORD, doth sufficiently evidence, that the Apostles and their successours can com∣mand something which Christ himself by himself commanded not. Both of them runne awry in one extream. Doctour Fulk an∣swereth to that place of the Rhemists; The Apostles had not particular precepts for every case; but they had generall rules in Christs doctrine, which they were bound to follow in their precepts and counsels. I think he approacheth too nigh unto them; un∣lesse he mean that both their precepts and counsels had the di∣vine dictate to guide them; especially in things which they wrote. And whereas he saith, They had not particular precepts

for every case, I say, they had for all cases necessarie: especially concerning the whole Church. And their generall rules might rather be for guiding matters of order and discipline, then of doctrine. For he that promised to lead them into all truth, would not leave them in the framing of particulars; as he doth us and other men, who out of generals do deduce these and these specials. For there is a great distance and traverse to be pla∣ced between those sacred Penmen, and other succeeding Ex∣positours 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, According to my judgement, he addeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 I THINK. He speaketh soberly, signifying more then he spake; and it is all one as if he had said, I KNOW CERTAINLY, saith Dionysius Carthus. with whom accordeth Primasius, Do not think that I speak what I do of my self; the Spirit of God speak∣eth in me: t The word I THINK is not wrapped about with doubt∣fulnesse. Peter Martyr thinks it is an Ironie against the false Apostles, who traduced S. Paul as unworthy to be an Apo∣stle. And then the Ironie hath as full force, as if he had pe∣remptorily avouched, The Spirit of the Lord is in me, and by it I write what I write.

Other objections may be made, as the 2. Cor. 11.17. I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly in this confidence of boasting. Therefore not onely humane wisdome, but humane infirmitie may seem to challenge part both in his words and writings. It is answered in a few words of Dionysius Car∣thusianus, Non loquor, id est, Loqui non videor: that is, It seems not so to some, though my self know the contrarie.

Others may object, 1. Cor. 9.8. Say I these things as a man? or saith not the Law the same also? I answer, that he might speak or write some things like an other man, some things un∣expressed in their Law; but now he speaketh or writeth (for they are both one sense in this notion) as an Apostle; who therefore was equally to be regarded (as a Penman of the Law of Grace) with Moses, a Penman of the Law Leviticall.

It may yet be objected what S. John saith, 2. Epist. vers. 12. Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with pa∣per and ink: and 3. Epist. John ver. 13. I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee. From whence a power seemeth to be wholly left in him, both whether he

would write or no, and what he would write. I answer to both places; If he had said he had writ any thing without or beyond the Spirit, or what he was bid not to write; he had spoken home to the purpose: but these words do not imply that he had either power or will to write any thing of his own head, or by the wisdome or learning of man; but they fully evidence, that the holy Ghost had suggested many things unto him, which the same blessed Spirit would not have him to write; as being fitter perhaps to be delivered face to face, and not concerning posteritie.

If I knew any more opposite arguments, I would endeavour their answer. The positive proofs I referre to the last point of all; it being the very main hinge of the controversie. One∣ly consider this one thing, The Scripture hath a priviledge above all other writings. Aquinas on 2. Timoth. 3.15. giveth this rea∣son, u Because other writings savour of humane reason; but the Scripture is divine: Where he excludeth the prudence of man from composing any Scripture. If any earthly wisdome wrote any part of it, it is no more to be accounted our Scripture. Let this suffice for the third conclusion, concerning the matter of Scripture: wherein the holy Penmen had no libertie left them to put in their own conceits; or in writing to adde or blot out what they had done: whereby all humane literature and wisdome is removed from sharing part in the holy Writ.

The fourth conclusion followeth, concerning the manner of writing: viz. They had no libertie to clothe their inward apprehensions with words of their own. Either all the Pen∣men had the libertie, or none: (The disjunction stands upon a Da tertium, Give me a reason why some should, and not others. Who were these some? and why those?) But all had not li∣bertie: (for the very words were dictated unto some of them) Ergò &c.

Either every Penman did apparrell his understanding with words of his own throughout all and every of his own wri∣tings, or it was practised in some places onely. If so, then again I enquire what places they were; and why those had an especiall priviledge above others.

S. John indeed was bid to write the things which he had seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter, Revel. 1.19. I answer, This generall command evinceth not, that the holy Ghost did not administer as well the words as the matter.

If it be objected, that the Evangelicall Prophet Isaiah, and the Psalmograph, and some others, are most eloquent in the Old; and in the New Testament, the beloved disciple S. John is compared to an Eagle for his loftie flight; and S. Paul may seem to have brought some of the third heaven down with

him; so heavenly is he: but Amos, and some others writ more plainly, in an homely style. I answer, If all this were true, yet it proveth not that any of them were left to expresse as they would their own dreams, visions, or illuminations; nei∣ther did they frame and fit their styles to the Spirit, or their words to the matter; nor indeed could they. For what pro∣portion is there between finite and infinite? and how can the shallow capacitie of man comprehend the depth of God? God forbad the linsie-woolsie; and to the divine truths would he suffer them to adapt humane expressions? How often in the Old Testament, is both the matter put into their hearts, and the manner with the words into their mouthes? And is the Law of Grace of lesse worth then the Law of Moses? God forbid. But whosoever readeth the Prophet Amos, and the rest that are undervalued, shall finde more in Amos, then Amos; more in him then in one among the herd-men of Tekoa, Amos 1.1. and shall heare the piercing language of the Spirit in others: sometimes perhaps attempering it self to the partie writing, and making both words and matter easie; but at other times it rapteth him above himself, and maketh him (as it were) to prink it in loftie and almost undiscernable towring; by infusing things, phrasing sentences, and dictating words above what was agreeable to the meannesse of his former calling.

That the holy Ghost can and hath suggested the very words very often, I think none will denie. That ever he permitted them a libertie of many sentences, of many phrases, of many variations of words, to choose what they liked, and to refuse the rest; I think few ancient Divines ever said before, but to that effect saith Heinsius. Els what can his meaning be, when he saith, S. John saw the Chaldee Paraphrase, and Hellenists, and had often reference to them; and that divers things were taken from the Targummim? x The Evangelist alwayes hath an eye to the Targumists, saith he, pag. 550. If the noble Hein∣sius had said in any one place (which he did not, so farre as my remembrance now beareth) that the holy Spirit had guided S. John to those Authours and authorities of the Tar∣gumists, Hellenists, and Chaldee Paraphrast; I should have subscribed, and sat down at his feet. But when he so often appealeth from the Greek to the Syriack, and saith, S. John was so conversant with the forenamed Authours; he deroga∣teth (in mine opinion) from the majestie of the holy Writ; whilest he would seem to have ought of it taken from humane reading or wisdome, though of an Apostle; unlesse it were ad∣ded, That the holy Spirit guided the Apostle unto it, and did dictate it unto him, not as it was known before to the Apostle, but as the holy Ghost thought fit to make use of it, and to sanctifie that part of humane literature: to dictate, I

say, the words and syllables, yea every letter and iota; and in the writing to guide their hands aright; as a good master of wri∣ting over-spreadeth and over-ruleth the hand of his scholar, and writeth what copie he pleaseth, without reference or re∣gard to the scholars former knowledge, but rather to his fu∣ture instruction.

This is that which against Heinsius may be averred, That though many things which are in S. John and other holy Penmen, were before in the Targum, Talmud, Hellenists, Chaldee Paraphrase, or any heathen Authours; yet it doth not necessarily evince, that the holy Actuaries or Notaries did oversee, reade, heare, or transcribe those things out of their knowledge from the said Authours: but both the names of those Authours, and the things themselves were presented to them by that blessed Spirit which knew all things; and this among the rest, That these words, phrases, and sentences, were fit to be inserted into the holy Writ, which now are in it.

All Scripture is of divine inspiration: But the very words are part of Scripture: Therefore even they were inspired.

Revel. 19.9. The Angel said, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage-supper of the Lambe. Did not the An∣gel speak the words? Did not he give the Apostle both mat∣ter and words?

When the Apostle was commanded, Revel. 14.13. by a voice from heaven, to write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, &c. was he commanded to write his conceits and thoughts apprehended in Syriack, and translate them into Hellenisticall Greek? or did the heavenly voice suggest one∣ly an holy inspiration into him, and left him to coyn words, as Heinsius would have it? or rather did not the voice teach the very words which should be written, viz. Blessed are the dead, &c.? Now let us passe to the fifth and last Conclusion, in which we must dissent from the worthy Heinsius, and dis∣arm him of his often-inculcated, but not once proved Te∣net,

The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Writers of holy Scripture, conceived in one language, and writ in an other. Upon which ground he hath raised a strange structure: but his very ground-work is sandie, slipperie, and false: And this I hope to evince by Scripture, Authoritie, and Reason. All which shall be squared to that Corner-stone, which more then once before I hewed upon more roughly, and now (by Gods grace) intend to polish; namely, That the very words and letters were dictated unto the holy Scribes: and therefore they had no power to change or transchange, to adde or diminish; or to expresse by their own words their internall irradiation: but in the language

which they conceived, they also wrote their heavenly dictates.

2. Pet. 1.21. The Prophesie came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost. Therefore their very speech being according to the motion of the holy Ghost, their words were not of their own choice, but from above; and not onely divine thoughts, but sacred words were also given them.

1. Cor. 2.13. S. Paul spake in words which the holy Ghost taught. Did the holy Ghost inspire thoughts into them in one lan∣guage, and teach them words to speak in an other language? Cui bono? To what end and purpose? and why not all done in the language which they conceived?

2. Tim. 3.16. Scriptura per Spiritum scripta est, The Scripture was writ by the Spirit, saith the Syriack; not onely inspired, as it is from the Greek, but written; and as it was inspired, written.

Revel. 19.9. The Angel saith concerning very words which he commanded to be wrote, These are the true sayings of God. Not inspirations onely of God, and the words of Men; but the sayings of God.

Exod. 34.27. Write thou these words: for after the tenour of these words I have made a covenant. God was not tied to the words, Moses was to the writing of the very words.

Jerem. 30.2. Write thee all the words which I have spoken un∣to 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 in obedience to the Spirit, saith Sasbout on Peter: Therefore the Apostles had not the pow∣er left unto them of writing their own conceits, but were fit∣ted with words by the Spirit.

z If the Prophets and other writers of holy Scripture spake by the moving and inspiration of the holy Ghost; it followeth, that all the Scripture is the word of God; no otherwise to be esteemed of by us, then if God immediately without the ministery of men or Angels had set it forth, and, as I may say; had written it with his own finger, saith the learned Estius.

Even Cornelius Cornelii à Lapide himself, on Timothie thus, a The Prophets and other holy Penmen of Scripture are styled the pens and instruments of the holy Ghost, as of that scribe who speedily writeth, inspireth, and dictateth the divine writ. Where

he confesseth the holy Spirit not to inspire onely, but to di∣ctate; yea, to write like a swift scribe the holy Scripture.

Gregorius, Praefat. in Job cap. 2. b 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 Christ made the Old and New Testament.

d 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 A Prophet prophesieth nothing out of his own brain; but all things by the prompting of the holy Ghost: as he wittily concludeth. Therefore not so much as the words are his own.

Chrysostom, de Lazaro, Homil. 4. Though a dead man revive, and an Angel come from heaven, you must beleeve Scriptures above all: for the Master of Angels, the Lord of the living and the dead, he himself framed them. The same Chrysostom, de expulsione ipsius, sheweth the manner. I reade his own handwriting, &c. They are done by his hand; the very writing it self is his: and therefore called Chyrographum Dei, A writing under Gods own hand, by Augustine, on Psal. 144.

Now follow the Reasons why they concelved and writ in the same tongue.

First, there is little or no difference between the Apostles and other men, if the Apostles did frame words to their hea∣venly 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 pou∣reth it forth before God Almightie, and setteth it down in writing: Shall the prayer be held as Divine as Scriptures? Then may Manasses his Apocryphall prayer, immediately before the books of Maccabees (as it is in our last translation) be no longer Apocryphall, but Divine; as Divine as any prayer made by the selected holy Penmen. To have a thing perfectly Di∣vine, is required that heavenly words may be mixed with heavenly illumination.

Secondly, our faith will be questioned, if thoughts were in∣spired, and the Penmen should adde what words they plea∣sed. f Our faith will stumble, if the authoritie of the Scripture be shaken never so little, saith Augustine, de doctr. Christian. 1.37. But the Scriptures authoritie shaketh, if God give onely the matter, and men the words.

Thirdly, the Prophets and Apostles wrote not alwayes all

their own things themselves; but sometimes used the mini∣sterie of divers others. A Scribe and a Prophet were two distinct persons and offices, Jer. 36.26.

Jeremie had Baruch: Jer. 36.4. Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the Lord: so then the words of Jeremiah to Baruch, were the words of the Lord to Jeremiah. And when that roll was burnt, Jeremiah by the word of the Lord, was bid to take another roll, and write in it, vers. 28, &c. Which Jeremie did, not by himself, but by Baruch the scribe, vers. 32.

The nine first chapters of the Proverbs of Solomon were written by Solomon himself. The rest were writ by others, who attended on Solomon and heard them: and are like so many precious stones apart, and severally; though not made up into one jewell or chain, nor hanging together in any set∣led method; yet to be esteemed at as high a rate and value as the very writings of Solomon. The same Spirit inspired all, the same mouth spake all, though they were penned by severall hands, by the command of the same holy Spirit.

In the New Testament S. Paul wrote much with his own hand; The whole Epistle to the Galatians, Gal. 6.11. (at least to these very words:) and to Philemon, vers. 19.

Many saluations: 2. Thessal. 3.17, 18. The saluation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every Epistle: so I write, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. A∣men. So that we may soundly gather, that whatsoever Epi∣stle under his name hath not that in it, it was not written by him. There was an Epistle written in his name to the Thessalonians, terrifying them as if the generall judgement had been present: as may be gathered, 2. Thess. 2.2. But S. Paul disclaims it. It had not (belike) the salutation with his own hand, his friendly farewell and prayer, which (saith Anselm) was in these or the like words, Grace, &c. as all the rest of his Epistles have toward their end, though with a little vari∣ation 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 an∣other 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 Ter∣tius salute you, who wrote this Epistle in the Lord. He said, IN THE LORD, to shew that he wrote not for money, saith Cajetan.

Questionlesse, Paul dictated, and Tertius wrote the Epistle, saith Estius. Even those words themselves are not Tertius his own, inserted as a private mans or secretaries, but are divine Scri∣pture. And either by the Spirit he was commanded to write so, and that thought was from heaven put into his heart, and those words into his mouth, to be written by his hand: or else (which I take to be most likely) S. Paul knowing the minde of Tertius, perhaps in part by Tertius his own expres∣sion, but rather and chiefest by Divine revelation, that Ter∣tius did salute them in the Lord; he willed him so to write.

I hope Heinsius will not say, that Tertius conceived in Sy∣riack, and wrote in Greek: or, when S. Paul made his narra∣tive in the Hebrew tongue, Act. 22.2. that Luke conceived in Syriack, and wrote in Greek: neither can he say the like of the holy secretaries, to whom not first thoughts in language spirituall, and then words; but thoughts by words outward and expressed were revealed. Yet Erasmus in his last Anno∣tation on the Epistle to the Hebrews, saith thus, g What some do affirm, THAT S. PAUL HIMSELF VVROTE IN HEBREVV, BUT S. LUKE DID EXPRESSE IN HIS OVVN VVORDS THE ARGUMENT OF THE EPISTLE VVHICH HE HAD GOTTEN BY HEART, let others consider what force and power it hath. What, will you say nothing to this? Not so great a Critick? Sure this drop might have fallen from your pen, That such manner of writing had savoured no more of the Spirit, then any ordinary writing where a skilfull scribe doth amplifie the heads given unto him.

Again, Erasmus on Hebr. 2. in his Answer to Fabers 57 ob∣jection, relateth that Faber, h Whatsoever seems incommodious or offensive, layeth the fault thereof upon the Interpreters: but not prudently enough, as I think, saith Erasmus: and in the answer to the one and fourtieth objection, i Faber scourgeth the In∣terpreter 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 Fa∣ber, k He commenceth a suit against the Interpreter of this Epi∣stle. All this shews Fabers opinion to be, That some writers of Scripture had power to use such words as they pleased: and used some amisse, even such as he found fault withall. O novell criticism! Wilt thou set thy self no bounds till thou reachest up to heaven, and tramplest on the word of God? The holy Amanuenses were guided by the Spirit to write, as well as the Apostles to dictate.

When S. Paul accounted, and would have his Galatians to account it as a favour above ordinary, that he wrote so large an Epistle as that to the Galatians with his own hand; and since the Epistle to the Romanes was larger then it, and

was writ by Tertius; let me probably collect, that other Epi∣stles of S. Paul, as those to the Corinthians, and that to the Hebrews, and any other (if any other be longer and larger) were not written by S. Pauls own hand. For then his own writing had not been so great a testimonie and argument of his love to the Galatians: for the rest were longer and lar∣ger; but were writ by some other hand, except perhaps the close and saluation.

Fevardentius, on 1. Pet. 5.12. and Salmeron, Tom. 13. Disput. 5. (as they are cited by Lorinus, Act. 15.23.) do think that Paul and the rest of the Apostles wrote seldome with their own hands, but did dictate and subscribe: which they prove by S. Peter, 1. Pet. 5.12. By Silvanus a faithfull brother unto you (as I suppose) I have written briefly. Lorinus answereth, That by the same reason, Judas and Silas wrote the Epistle of the Councel at Hierusalem, Act. 15.23. Let me reply, That I see nothing to the contrary in the Text, or otherwhere, but Ju∣das and Silas being chief men among the brethren, might write it as well as any others; and might also be joyned in Commis∣sion with others, to carrie it.

Concerning which Penmen this is my opinion, That even they were led by the holy Ghost, both to conceive what the Apo∣stles spake, and to write exactly what they dictated: so that they did not, they could not erre in writing any one word, syllable, or letter of the first Originals; no nor did, nor could mis-accent it, or mis-point any part thereof: nor can it be proved, nor seems it likely that ever the Apostles revised, or righted what the Penmen had done; but subscribed to it, took it as their own, or rather as the holy Ghosts, and sealed it for divine Scripture. Oh that the first Originals themselves of the New Testament, or of some part of it, could yet be found! I would go a thousand miles on my bare feet to see them, kisse them, and in Tertullians phrase, I would adore the plenitude of them. They would prove an Antidote against many heresies, a correctorie of more false opinions which have sprung up from the varia∣tion of Copies, and the uncertaintie what reading is best.

By this opinion, I am sure, one firm anchor-hold is esta∣blished; That humane wisdome and skill is excluded from having part in any parcell of Scripture: and the whole Scri∣pture is by me maintained to be wholly and absolutely true; certain, and most divine; which Heinsius and others seem not to do. So end I this point.

I Give thee thanks, most gracious God, that thou hast freed me of the gout, and eased me of the stone: that I have been able, though in great weaknes, to swim through this sea, to go through this wildernesse, in paths untrodden: Lord, I beseech thee, by thine infinite mercies, be mercifull to my soul; prepare me throughly for my departure; and in the houre of death and judgement, good Christ deliver me. Amen. Amen.

Notes

• a

  In quibusdam etiam memoriâ lapsus fuerit.
• b

  Synecdoche frequent, ad rotunditatem nume∣ri.
• c

  Quod testimonium nec Hebraico textui, nec 70 Interpretibus convenire, me quoque tacente, perspicuum est.
• d

  Arbitror, Matthae∣um volentem arguere Scribarum & Sacerdo∣tum erga divinae Scri∣pturae lectionem negli∣gentiam, sic etiam posu∣isse, ut ab iis dictum est.
• e

  Nec absurdum vide∣tur, si creditur, primam dicendi artē adeò fuisse copiosam, ex multis Syn∣onymis, quòd omnes postea linguae divisae in ipsa continebātur. Omnes enim linguae humanae sunt ex prima illa pa∣rentis nostri, Alae sci∣licet hommis, lingua. Et sicut non est lingua quam homo non intelli∣git; ità & Adam (qui idē quod bomo) nullam, si audiret, ignoraret. Ipse enim vocabula legitur imposuisse; ideo nullum cujusque linguae vocabu∣lum ab alio fuit origi∣naliter institutum. Nec de Adam mirandum, cùm certum sit, dono Dei, multos linguarum omnium peritiam subitò habuisse.
• O inops verborum Graecia!
• f

  Instructi fuerunt di∣vinitus in linguit omni∣um gentium, quantum requirebatur ad fidei do∣ctrinam, &c.
• g

  Diu doctos Theole∣gos torsit.
• h

  Ʋna dictio Syriaca.
• i

  Vox Hebraeo-Syriaca.
• k

  Magis Syrum est quàm Hebraeum.
• l

  Tametsi ex confinio utrarumque linguarum aliquid & Hebraeum so∣net.
• l

  Quicunque aliquid de his quae in hac charta continentur, auferre, aut minuere, aut disturbare scienter voluerit; auto∣ritate Domini Omni∣petentis, Patris, & Fi∣lii, & Spiritûs Sancti, & sanctorum Apostolo∣rum, & omnium San∣ctorum, sit excommuni∣catus, anathematizatus, & à consortio Domini, & liminibus Sanctae Ecclesiae sequestratus, donec resipiscat.
• m

  Volens partem habe∣re cum iis qui felici commercio coelestia pro terrenis commutant.
• l

  Perpetuò Anathemate damnetur.
• m

  Anathemate divino perculsus, absque uilo re∣medii loco habeatur damnatus aeterno judi∣cio.
• n

  Ʋerba execrantis, & denuntiantis aeternam damnationem, imò ver∣ba condemnantis.
• o

  Maranus est idem, quod 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, excom∣municatus ob apostasi∣am.
• Non sunt verba ex∣communicantis.
• p

  Indè ergò nemo non videt deductam illam Anathematis ratio∣nem, & ex primis illius Anathematis verbis, minùs aliàs ad alia alia∣rum sententiarum initia usitatis, Anathema ip∣sum de more Hebraeo∣rum appellatum fuisse.
• q

  Extremum genus ex∣communicationis apud Hebraees.
• r

  Alioqui enim, si sermo esset de loco, dictum es∣set, Quem oportet coelo recipi.
• f

  Esio mihi in uxorem, juxta legem Mosit & Israel; & ego, ex verbo Coelorum, colam, hono∣rabo, alam & regam te.
• t

  Potestate unicuique factâ in Scripturae ver∣stonem inquirendi, u∣trùm proba sit, nêcue; vel cum aliis interpretibus eam comparando, vel contextu Hebraeo con∣sulto: tum novos hosce Grammaticastros om∣nia interturbaturos, & si∣bi solis judicium & arbi∣trium in rebus fidei ar∣rogaturos.
• u

  In praesulum animos vehementi indè impres∣sione factâ, quòd diceba∣tur, Grammaticos Epi∣scoporum ac Theologo∣rum instituendorum po∣testatem sibi arrogatu∣ros.
• x

  Perpetuò ad Targu∣mistas respexit.
• y

  Ad Targumistas sem∣per respie••t.
• z

  Totum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quod voces & sermonem spe∣ctat, peregrinum est.
• a

  Quae nisi omnia di∣stinguat, operam necesse est interpres ludat.
• b

  Qui transferre sacra audet, & de his non co∣gitavit.
• c

  Frustra petas ex Graecis, quia ad He∣braeam aut Syriacam d•• dictio & voces exigendae sunt.
• d

  Omni eruditione ad stuporem omnium in∣structi.
• e

  Si quis ex me quae∣rat, Quanam lingu•• scripserit Evangelista noster S. Joannes; Hel∣lenisticâ scripsisse dicam: Si quis quâ conceperit, quae scripsit; Syriacam fuisse dicam: Ad cam au∣tem, quod est Hellenistis proprinm, & voces & sermonē deflexisse Grae∣cum. Quare ad allusio∣nes, non quae extant, sed quas animo conceperat, eundum est.
• f

  Novi foederis Scri∣ptores linguâ concepe∣runt aliâ, quae scribe∣rent; aliâ scripserunt, quae conceperant.
• g

  Si ab ipsis similitu∣dinibus rapiatur, ut in illam quasi regionem intellectualium & intel∣ligibilium subvebatur, ••••t sine ulla similitudi∣ne perspicua veritas cernitur, nullis opinio∣num falsarum nebulis obfuscatur; ibi virtutes animae non sunt opero∣sae: ibi videtur claritas Domini, non per visio∣nem significantem, sive corporalem, ut visa est in monte Sina, sive spi∣ritualem, ut vidit Isai∣as, & Joannes in Apo∣calypsi; sed per speciem, non per aenigmata; quan∣tum ea capere mens hu∣mana potest, secundum assumentis Dei grati∣am, ut os ad os loquatur ei, quem dignum tali Deus colloquio fecerit; non os corporis, sed os mentis.
• h

  Impossibile est aliter nobis lucere divinum radium, nisi varietate sacrorum velaminum circumvelatum.
• i

  Omnes divinae illu∣minationes perferuntur ad bomines mediantibus Angelis.
• k

  In hoc mundo visi∣bili nihil, nisi per crea∣turam invisibilem; dis∣poui potest.
• l

  Arbitror Prophetas nequaquam percepisse Verbum Dei sensili auditu, per conforma∣tionem aëris: sed quando animae intellectu praedi∣tae, suae suppetunt aures, quae à supernis unntia∣bantur, citra ullam cor∣poris vocem, ad corum pertingebant notitiam.
• m

  Sine sonis sermonum & elementis literarum, eò dulciùs, quo secretiùs, veritas loquitur.
• n

  Quiequid recipitur, recipitur ad modum re∣ciptentis.
• o

  Illo ergò modo, in il∣la specie quâ Deus est, longè ineffabiliter se∣cretiùs & praesentiùs loquitur locutione in∣effabili.
• p

  Per speciem scilicet, quâ est Deus quicquid est: quantulumeunque cum meus, quae non est quod ipse, &c.
• q

  Aut enim intelligit, & verum es••; aut, si non est verum, non intelli∣git.
• Sextus sensus praeno∣scendi.
• q

  Nihil altiùs de ejus doctrina bomines aesti∣marent, quàm quod Scriptura contineret.
• f

  Ʋbicunque sciebat falsos adesse doctores.
• t

  Contra consuetudi∣nem curvos tramites literarum vix magnis apicibus exprimebat.
• u

  Grandibus Paulus literis scripsit, quia sen∣sus erat grandis in li∣teris, & Spiritu Dei vivi, non atrameuto & calamo fuerat exaratus.
• x

  Putáne piures baere∣s•••• & sectas exerituras fuisse, fi nuila p••nitus S••riptura extitisset, quàm nunc cùm Scri∣tura mortalibus à coelo data est? Ego certè pro∣pior sum existimanti, pauciore•• fuisse futuras.
• y

  Apostolos quaedam scripsisse, non ut scripta illa praeossent Fidei & Religion•• nostrae; s••d ut su••essent potiús.
• z

  Ecclesiam fuisse per∣f••ctissimam, prius ••uam Sanctorum Apostolorii ullas s••ripsisset: neq Ec∣clesiam Christi perfecti∣••••e ullá carituram, eti∣amsi nihil unquam scri∣pto fuisset mandatum.
• a

  Ʋnus Ecclesiae con∣sensus, qui nunquam ca∣ruit Spiritu Dei, pluris apud nos esse debet, quàm omnes e••ingues & muti codices, & quoi∣qu••t sunt & crunt un∣quam s••ripta volumina; quae hominum ingemis semper materiam con∣tentionis praebuerunt.
• c

  Materia litis, non vox judicis.
• a

  Acts 15.28.
• b

  Falsum est, D••um mandâsse Apostolis ut scriberent. Legimus mandatum ut praedica∣rent; ut scriberent nun∣quam legimus. Deus nec mandavit expreseè ut scriberent, nec ut non scriberent.
• c

  Quicquid Christus de suis factis & dictis no•• legere voluit, hoc scribendum Evangeli∣s••is, tanquam suis ma∣nibus imperavit.
• d

  Lequitur de imperio interno, quod suggestio quaedam & inspiratio po∣tiùs quàm praeceptum propriè dictum existi∣mari debet.
• d

  Toti operi suo fidem vult conciliare.
• e

  Acti à Spiritu sancto loqunti sunt à Deo af∣flati; compositos tamen intellige bos motus; non quales fuere profauorum vatum.
• f

  Herba trahit evem.
• g

  Inviti saepe rapti sunt in hunc ordinem, Moses, Elias, & alii, qui fuga potiùs hoc munus malu∣issent declinare.
• h

  Si voluntatem ad∣jungo necessitati praece∣pti, mercedem habeo.
• i

  Si solo timore servili praedico.
• k

  Si facio hoc ex propo∣sito mentis meae, vo∣luntate meâ, est mihi merces; si autem, cùm facio, ingratum est mi∣hi, &c.
• l

  Si voluntate meâ, si praeter voluntatem me∣am.
• m

  Simpliciter volunta∣tem cogi ad actum vo∣lendi, contradictio est.
• n

  Non excidebant men∣te Prophetae.
• o

  Fatendum est, quae proprio ore protulerunt Prophetae, eos intelle∣xisse, inque labiis gestâs∣se animi candorem.
• p

  Omnes Prophetae vel Apostoli divinis respon∣sis sine ulla mentis ob∣turbatione ministrabant
• q

  Sunt qui dicunt eos extra se raptos, prophe∣tare, humanâ mente à Spiritis absorptâ. Verùm id abhorret à professione divinae praesentiae, ••t amentem reddat qui à numine corripitur: cúm{que} plenus divinorum decre∣torum esse coeperit, tum à Propria mente excidat. Quomodo consentaneum est, ut quis ex sapientiae Spiritu reddatur simil∣limus insano? Quin po∣tiùs neque lumen caeci∣tatem parit, verùm vi∣dendi vim à natura in∣sitam expergefacit: nec Spiritus tenebras indu∣cit animis.
• r

  Non ad Prophetae ra∣tionem id semper exigi∣t••r & necessarium est, ut quae sutura denuntiat intelligat: habuit Daui∣el complures visiones quas primum non in∣tellexit; sed ab Angelo postea est edoctus, & no∣men Prophetae non per∣didit.
• s

  Ʋt per moram occa∣sio daretur, anepliùs De∣um deprecandi, & lacry∣mis & je junio invocandi Deum, ut mitteret Au∣gelum suum qui docere•• Danielem.
• t

  Non oportet Prophe∣tas quaeeun{que} praedicun•• cognoscere.
• u

  Quibus signa per ali∣quas rerum corporalium similitudinet demon∣strabantur i•• Spiritu, nisi accessisset mentis officium, ut etiam intel∣ligerentur, uondum erat prophetia. Sed ea quae intelliguntur, non pos∣sunt esse incognita: Ergò Propheta non ignorat ea quae prophetat.
• x

  Majus est lumen pro∣phetiae, quàm lumen na∣turalis rationis: Sed qui∣cunque lumine natura∣li habet scientiam, non ignorat ea quae scit: ••rgò quicunque lumine pro∣phetico aliqua enuntiat, non petest ea ignorare.
• y

  Pr••phe••ia ordinatur ad homanum illumina∣tionem: Ʋnde dicitur, 7. Pet. 1.19. HABEMUS PROPHETICUM SERMO∣NEM, CUI BENEF ACI∣TIS ATTENDENTES, QUASI LUCERNAE LU∣GENTI IN GALIOINO∣SO LOCO. Sed nihil po∣test alios illuminare, ni∣si in se sit illuminatum: Ergò videtur quòd Pro∣pheta prius illuminetur, ad cognoscendum ea quae aliis enuntiat.
• z

  Prophetae quaedam intelligebant, quaedam non intelligebant.
• a

  Qui piè gravitérque contendunt, Abraham non esse mentitum.
• b

  Inter duodecim Chri∣sti Apostolos nullus erat secundum seculum sapiens, potens, nobilis.
• c

  Adverte coeleste con∣silium: non sapientes aliquos, non divites, non nobiles, sed piscatores & Publicanos, quos diri∣geret, elegit; nè tradu∣xisse prudentiâ, nè po∣demisse divitiis, nè po∣tentiae nobilitatisque authoritate traxisse ali∣quos ad suam gratiam videretur.
• d

  Magna artificis mi∣sericordia: sciebat enim, quòd si eligeret Senato∣rem, diceret Senator, Dignitas mea electa est: si Oratorem, Eloquentia mea: si Philosophum, Sa∣pientia mea electa est. Da mihi istum piscato∣rem: veni tu pauper; ni∣hil habes, nihil nôsti; se∣quere me. Tam largo fonti vas inane admo∣vendum est. Leguntur modò verba piscatorum, & subduntur colla Ora∣torum.
• e

  Verba Philosophorum excludit simplex veri∣tas piscatorum.
• f

  Non minùs literas illas Gentilibus ad Chri∣stum paedagogi vice, quàm legem Judaeis esse
• g

  Recta ratio est lex summi Jovis.
• h

  Res D••i Ratio.
• i

  Per se sunt neque utilia neque noxia.
• k

  Sanctificantes pro∣fana & facientes occle∣stastica.
• l

  Aliquam partem va∣sorum Dei.
• m

  Quomodo repudia∣mus secularia studia, si∣ne quibus divina esse non possunt?
• n

  Rationi naturali ve∣rae nunquam contrari∣atur Theologia; sed eam excedit saepe, & sic vi∣detur repugnare.
• o

  Apostolus è Tal∣mud habet nomina prin∣cipum Magorum Pha∣raonis, ut communis opi∣nio est.
• p

  Credibilius est, ipsum sumpsisse ex libro Apo∣crypho, qui Jannes & Mambres vocatur; nam Talmud indè habuit.
• q

  Astitit scribentibus nè vel in puncto à veri∣tate aberrarent.
• r

  Conceptum ergò, & memoriam corum quae sciebant, non iis ingessit Spiritus Sanctus.
• f

  Ità nimirum, ut non solùm sententiae, sed & verba singula, & verbo∣rum ordo, ac tota dispo∣sitio sit à Deo, tanquam per semetipsum loquen∣te aut scribente.
• f

  Hebraeâ ac Chaldaeâ conceptum est linguâ.
• t

  Quare ad allusiones, non quae extant, sed quas animo conceperat Joan∣nes, eundum est.
• a

  Quae ad salutem & fidem pertinent, ab A∣postolis statuta sunt af∣flatu divino; in caeteris, saepe usi sunt suâ pru∣dentiâ, ut innuit Pau∣ius.
• b

  Parciùs ista, de A∣postolis, prudentiâ suâ ufis: periculose enim vel dicitur, vel scribitur, Apostolos in Quibusdam asslatu di∣vino, in reliquis suâ prudentiâ saepe usos; id{que} in iis quae scripta reperi∣untur. Atqui vel illium ipsum locum, ubi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cis ità concludi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ità ut vel illius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, à Spiritu Dei dictamen suum habu∣erit.
• c

  Dum tribuit veni∣am, denotat culpam.
• d

  Quis ambigat, absur∣dissimè dici, non eos pec∣câsse, quibus venia da∣tur?
• c

  Quis esse peccatum neget, cùm dari veniam facientibus Apostoliea authoritas fateatur?
• f

  Liberum interim fa∣ciens hac in re suum cuique judicium.
• g

  Non dico ut in de∣creto decisivo.
• h

  Quod dico ex con∣sensu posse alterum ab altero discedere ad tem∣pus propter jejunium & orationem, non jubeo sed consulo. Nam nè 'Deus quidem ipse hoc ordinarium aut perpe∣tuum esse mandavit su∣is, sed exemplum prae∣buit cum hoc consilio me•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• i

  Dico hoc, juris (ut dici solet) consiliunt, non ut mandatum.
• i

  Nomen VENIAE perperam torquetur ab Augustino.
• k

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eth. l. 6. c. 11
• l

  Versatur circa aequii, & summum jus remit∣tit, quod alioqum est summa injuria.
• m

  Hoc dico ego, tanquā infirmis, non ex man∣dato.
• n

  Ex concessione, non ex imperio.
• o

  Non praecipio, sed permitto.
• o

  Praecipio non ego ex mea sententia, sed Do∣minus in Evangelio, &c.
• p

  Ego dico, non Do∣minus: Nunquid Do∣minus non loquebatur per eum•• Ʋtique. Sed ideo dixit se dicere, & non Dominum; quia hoc praeceptum non contine∣tur in Evangelio dictū à 'Domino sicut illud superius.
• q

  Noluit Deus de vir∣ginitate & coelibatu praecipere, quia visus fuisset damnare nuptias
• r

  Satìs autem insinu∣at hic sermo, Praecipio non ego, sed Domi∣nus, Apostolos & eorum successores posse quaedā praecipere quae Christus ipse per se non praecepit.
• f

  Puto autem. Sobriè loquitur, minúsque dicit & majus significat; ut sit sensus, Certò scio.
• t

  Futo non dubieta∣tem significat.
• u

  Quia aliae traditae sunt per rationem bu∣manam; sacra autem Scriptura est divina.
• x

  Ad Targumistas semper respicit Evan∣gelista.
• y

  Magisterio Spiritus.
• z

  Si Spiritu saucto in∣spirati, & ab eo impul∣si, locuti sunt Prophe∣tae, & caeteri librorum sacrorum scriptores, Consequens est, Scri∣pturam totam esse ver∣bum Dei; non aliter à nobis accipiendam, quàm si Deus immedi∣atè & absque humano vel Angelico ministe∣rio eam edidisset, &, ut ità dicam, digito suo scripsisset.
• a

  Prophetae, & alii scriptores 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vocantur calami & in∣strumenta Spiritus san∣cti, quast scribae velo∣citer scribentis, inspi∣rantis, & dictantis sa∣cras literas.
• b

  Scriptores sacri Elo∣quii, quia repleti Spi∣ritu sancto, super se tra∣huntur, quasi extra se∣metipsos fiunt; & sic Dei sententias, quasi de labiis, proferunt.
• c

  Christus vetus & novum Testamentum composuit.
• d

  Quid est illud o•• Do∣mini, nisi Scripturae, per quas loquitur Do∣minu••?
• e

  Propheta nihil ex se proloquitur; sed omnia, submonente alio.
• f

  Titutabit fides, si Scripturarum vacillat authoritas.
• g

  Quod aff••runt hîc quidam, Paulum ipsū scripsisse Hebraicè, caeterùm Lucam ar∣gumentum Epistolae, quam memoriâ tene∣bat, suis explicuisse verbis, quantum vale∣at, viderint alii.
• h

  Quicquid est incom∣modi & off••ndiculi, id in Interpretem rejicit; sed meo judicio parùm prudenter.
• i

  Faber flagellat In∣terpretem huius Episto∣lae, qui in Psalmo non verterit ELOHIM, A DEO, cùm idem fecerint Septuaginta, quibus magìs convenie∣bat hoc imputari.
• k

  In ••us trahit Inter∣pretem Epistolae.