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. II.

1. The third question resumed, Whether every one must die? The second part of the answer unto it, That some have been excepted, as Enoch and Elias. The controversie hath been exquisitely handled by King James, and Bishop Andrews.

2. Bellarmines third demonstration, that Antichrist is not yet come, propounded. The place of Malachi 4.5. ex∣pounded by Bishop Andrews: and enlarged by my additi∣ons. The Papists objection answered.

3. The place of Ecclesiasticus 48.10. concerning Elias, examined.

4. Another place of Ecclesiasticus, 44.16. concerning Enoch, handled at large against Bellarmine. Enoch was ne∣ver any notorious sinner, in some mens opinions: Others, other∣wise. Their arguments for both opinions are onely probable; and answered. My opinion: and it confirmed. Some think E. noch died. Strange and various opinions concerning S. John the Evangelist, his living, death, and miraculous grave. More miracles, or else mistakings, in the Temples, of Christs Sepul∣chre, and of his Assumption, about Jerusalem. S. John did die. Enoch did not die, but is living. Mine own opinion of the place Genes. 5.24. Et non ipse: and it confirmed. A comparison between Enochs, Elijahs, and Christs ascension. The posture and circumstances of Christs ascending.

5. Bellarmine and others say, Paradise is now extant: In the earth, or in the aire, saith Lapide the Jesuit. The old translation censured. The heaven, into which Enoch and E∣lias were carried, was not Aërium, nor Coeleste; but Su∣percoeleste. The earthly Paradise is not extant, as it was. Salianus with others say truly, The materiall remaineth, not

the formal: Superest quoad Essentiam, non quoad Or∣natum: The Place is not removed, but the Pleasure, and Amenitie. Salianus his grosse errour, That Enoch and Eli∣as are kept by Angels, within the bounds of old Paradise on earth.

6. Enoch shall never die, as is proved from Hebr. 11.5. Three evasions in answer to that place, confuted. Mel∣chizedech, and strange things of him. The East-Indian lan∣guage hath great affinitie with the Hebrew. An errour of moment in Guilielmus Postellus Barentonius. Elias was not burnt by that fire which rapted him. Soul and bodie con∣cur to make a man, saith Augustine from the great Marcus Varro. Vives taxed. Moses at the transsiguration, ap∣peared in his own bodie. An idle conceit of Bellarmine, con∣cerning Moses his face; and good observations of Origen up∣on that point. It is probable, that Elias was changed at his rapture, and had then a glorified bodie. An humane soul may possibly be in a mortall bodie in the third heaven. Corah, Da∣than, and Abiram, are in their bodies in hell, properly so cal∣led; and alive in the hell of the damned. Ribera and Viegas confuted. Our Doctour Raynolds was not in the right in this matter. Some kinde of proofs, That Enoch and Elias are in glorified bodies in heaven. The place of Revel. 11.7. con∣cerning the two Witnesses, winnowed by Bishop Andrews. Enoch and Elias are not those two witnesses.

THe main third question being, Whether all men, and every one must of necessitie die? the first part of the answer was, That there was no absolute necessitie, but there might be an exception. The second part of the answer touched at, was this; That some have been excepted, who never did die, nor shall die. If I be further demanded, Who they be? I will onely insist in E∣noch and Elias. The controversie concerning which two men, is so exquisitely handled by the most learned Monarch, our late Soveraigne King James, in his monitory Preface; and by his Second, the reverend Bishop Andrews, in his answer to Bellarmine his Apologie, cap. 11. that the most scrupulous inquisitour may be satisfied.

After I have selected some matters of moment from that unanswerable Prelate, I will take leave to glean after the ga∣thering

of their of their full sheaves; and to discover a few clusters, after their plentifull vintage; and to bring to your taste some remarkable passages concerning Enoch and Elias, which (per∣haps) they thought fit to omit, as affecting brevitie, or ty∣ing themselves most strictly to the question; whilest the na∣ture of my Miscellanies give me licence to travel farre and neare.

2. Bellarmine, Tom. 1 de Romano Pontifice 3.6. makes it his third Demonstration (as he calleth it) that Antichrist is not yet come, Because Enoch and Elias are not come; who yet do live, and must oppose Antichrist. Bellarmines first place, is from Malach. 4.5, and sixth verses; Behold, I will send you Elijah the Prophet, &c. The Bishop, pag. 255. from Chry∣sostom well observeth, that most Greek and Latine copies mis∣reade it thus, Ecce, mitto ad vos Eliam Thesbitem: Behold, I send unto you Elias the Tishbite: and so, because the Baptist was not Elias the Tishbite, we might expect the Tishbite after John. Indeed the Septuagint, turned by Hierom, and in Theodo∣ret on Malachi 4.5. have it, Eliam Thesbitem; And Codex Va∣ticanus so hath it, (saith Christopher Castrus on the place) and all the Greek Fathers, and Tertullian, and Augustine de civit. 20.29. But in the Hebrew it is not Elias the Tishbite; but Elias the Prophet: and so it is in the fair great Bibles of our Ad∣versaries, of Vatablus, and others. Ribera the Jesuit is bold (as other Jesuits were before) to finde fault with the Bibles of Arias Montanus: a 1.1 In the King of Spains Bibles it is viti∣ously and erroneously written, in the translation of the Septuagint, BEHOLD, I WILL SEND UNTO YOU ELIAS THE PROPHET: as if there had not been diversitie of copies: and as if those copies which are most agreeable to the Originall, were not to be preferred, or were ill and erroneous: as if we were to bring and bend the Originall to the Septuagint; as Carafa professeth to reduce the 70 to the Vulgat.

There is an errour also, saith Bishop Andrews, b 1.2 When the Grecians in both places reade, that Elias ascended AS INTO HEA∣VEN; not INTO HEAVEN, (which is expressely in the Hebrew) but, AS IT WERE INTO HEAVEN. I doubt not but the Bishop had good ground to write so. But the Septuagint of Vatablus on 2. King. 2.11. hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Even into heaven: so also it is read by him, on 1. Maccab. 2.58. with whom agreeth the 70, of Montanus, on the Maccab. so also Drusius both reades it, and expounds it, ASSUMPTUS EST IN COELUM USQUE, He was taken up even into heaven: con∣firming it also in his notes on the place. So these reade it, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not Quasi but Ʋsque: which reading afford∣eth no patrocinie to them, but helpeth our sides.

Bishop Andrews further proceedeth to this effect; That

concerning the words of Malachi, Christ, both of his own ac∣cord (Matth. 11.10.—) and being questioned (Matt. 17.10.— and Mark 9.12.—) affirmed, That that prophesie was com∣pleat; That John did do what Malachi said Elias was to do. And because John came in the vertue and power of Elias, Christ expounding Malachi, saith, Elias is come, Mark 9.13. Brugensis a Papist, on Malachi 4, saith, What is spoken of Eli∣jah by the Prophet, seems properly to be expounded of John the Ba∣ptist. And Vatablus, ibid. saith, The place is to be expounded of Christs first coming. So Arias saith, from the wise interpre∣tation of the ancient Scribes, That The terrible day hath not reference to the last day of judgement, but to the coming of the Messias; Christ both approving, and proving it. The same Arias interprets The smiting of the earth with a curse (Mal. 4.6.) by laying it waste and desolate, as Judea hath been from the time of Titus.

The reverend Bishop thus recollecteth: Elias was to be sent before the coming of Christ, Malachi 4.5: Before the first coming none was sent in the spirit of Elias, but John: The first coming is to be understood, and not the second, by the confession of our learned adversaries. Elias was called the messenger or Angel, Malac. 3.1. so is John called, Matth. 11.10, Mark 1.2, Luke 7.27. Elias was to come, Matth. 17.11; but, This is Elias which was for to come, Matth. 11.14; and, Elias is now come, Matth. 17.12. Elias shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, Mal. 4.6. John the Baptist shall go before him, in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, Luk. 1.17. Let me adde these things, That Elias is called the Prophet, Mal. 4.5. and, He shall prepare the way before the Lord, Mal. 3.1. So John the Baptist, paral∣lell-wise, Luk. 1.76. is called the Prophet—which shall go be∣fore the face of the Lord, to prepare his wayes: Yea, More then a Prophet, Matth. 11.9. S. Hierom, on Matth. 11. draweth out the parallels to more length: John came in the vertue and pow∣er of Elias; c 1.3 Elias and John had both the same grace and mea∣sure of the holy Ghost, and were equall in austeritie of life, and vigour of minde: Each lived in the wildernesse: each was gird∣ed with a leathern girdle. Elias was forced to flee, because he reproved Ahab, and Jezabel: John was beheaded for finding fault with Herod and Herodias. And yet, to speak truth, the same S. Hierom is not constant to himself; but crossing what he said on Malachi, and otherwhere, he, on Matth. 17.11. thus ex∣pounds these words, d 1.4 EIIAS INDEED IS TO COME: He who is bodily to come in the second coming of our Saviour, is now come by John Baptist in Power and in Spirit. Which I much won∣der that the two great scholars of the world, either did not see, or would not ingeniously confesse; but towing at the rope

of contention, each of them would have S. Hierom to be whol∣ly on his side, when in this point he is on both sides.

Again, the first coming of Christ is necessarily to be un∣derstood by Malachi. For the messenger, and the covenant whom ye delight in, are coupled together, Mal. 3.1. but no covenant, that we delight in, cometh at the second coming of Christ, but did come at the first approach of the Messias, even the covenant of peace. Moreover, what offerings of Ju∣dah and Jerusalem shall be pleasant to the Lord, as in the dayes of old, and as in former yeares, Malach. 3.4? shall such offerings be after Christs second coming? And, if such were; yet af∣ter all this, he saith, Mal. 3.5. Christ will come neare to you to judgement; Shall we have an other judgement after the second, which the Spirit of God calleth the Eternall judgement, Heb. 6.2. and is the last judgement, by an universall agreement? Besides, as the last day may be called, and truely is, a terri∣ble day; yet the righteous are then to hold up their heads, Luk. 21.28. and it shall be a day of joy and rejoycing to them; though it be dismall to the wicked: So the day of Christs first co∣ming, though it was accompanied with good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people, Luke 2.10. yet was it also a dreadfull day to the wicked and disobedient men; worse, then if he had never come: and it was dolefull also to the evil spi∣rits, whom he then vanquished, cast out, and tormented before their time, Matth. 8.29. triumphing over them in his own per∣son, and trampling them down, and breaking them in pieces with his rod of iron, in their own kingdome: and therefore may justly be called, in respect of them, a terrible day. The Pro∣phets testimonie reacheth home, for confirmation hereof, Isa. 61.2. He hath sent me to preach the acceptable yeare of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all that mourn. Which Prophesie Christ himself (Luke 4.18, &c.) appli∣eth to his first coming, and addeth remarkably (vers. 21) This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your eares. The day of venge∣ance (you see) is threatned in Christs first coming: And is not the day of vengeance unto such, to whom vengeance passively belongeth, a terrible day? Which truth is also con∣firmed by that admirable similitude fore-prophesied in the law of Moses, and applied to Christ in the law of Grace; concerning Christs being, not onely a chief corner∣stone, 1. Pet. 2.6. and the head of the corner, Psal. 118.22. Elect and precious, saith S. Peter: a tried stone, a sure founda∣tion, Isa. 28.16. and for a sanctuarie, Isa. 8.14. and whosoever beleeveth on him, shall not be ashamed, Rom. 9.33: But also, Christ is compared to a stumbling stone, and a rock to make men fall, Rom. 9.32, 33: or, as Isaiah hath it, a stumbling stone, and as a rock to fall upon: — and as a snare, and as a net: — And

many shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and snared, and taken, Isa. 8.14. &c. Whosoever shall fall on this stone, shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grinde him to powder, Matth. 21.44. And is not such a stone terrible to such as fall on it? or on whom it falleth? and is not that time terrible, when it falleth? This is prophesied of Christs first coming; and so his first co∣ming is truely said to be a terrible day unto some.

Lastly, it is insinuated, that Christ, when he cometh, may smite the earth with a curse: which must be understood of his first coming: for after his second coming, after the day of judgement, the earth is not to be cursed, but rather blessed: For there shall be a new heaven, and a new earth; ••no sorrow, nor crying, nor pain, Revel. 21.1, 4. Upon which reasons, and others, I have won∣dred that the divine Drusius should be so caught with the Jewish fable, as to doubt whether Elias be come, or no. Drusi∣us, in his castigations or notes on Ecclesiasticus 48.11. thus, a 1.5 To this day many think and beleeve that this prophesie of Malachi was onely by the Baptist in part fulfilled: and they hold that Eliah shall personally and bodily appeare, toward the second coming of our Lord, before the last judgement. Whether these things be true or false, I determine not: This onely I will say, The Jews do as yet, and to this houre look for Eliah to come with their Messiah: and of him they have this saying, WHEN ELIAH COMETH, HE SHALL TEACH ƲS ALL THINGS. I reply; What part, what syllable in Malachi concerning Elias, was not fulfilled by John the Baptist? If many do now beleeve otherwise, they are such as are Jews, who neither beleeve the words of our Saviour, who said Eli∣as was come; and therefore think Elias shall come, because they think their Messias is not come at all: or at least they do Judäize in this point, whosoever they be that expect the perso∣nall coming of the Tishbite.

Christopher Castrus the Jesuit, on Malach. 4.8. concludeth, That the true Elias shall yet come, because it was the voice of the Jews, and the expectation of the Scribes and Pharisees; who said in the same places, that Elias should come b 1.6 before Christs glorious appearing, as S. Hierom writeth on Matthew. First, I an∣swer, that the Jews did expect the coming of their Messias, to be glorious in all worldly pomp. Secondly, I call not now to minde, that the Scribes, Pharisees, or Jews, ever expected a se∣cond coming of their Messias. Thirdly, whereas our Saviour saith, Matth. 17.11. Elias truely shall first come, and restore all things: though these words were spoken after John the Baptist was beheaded, yet Christ meaneth not, that Elias shall come corporally; but in answering his disciples, he propoundeth the objection of the Jews, which they before alledged more brief∣ly, and speaketh according to their opinion: Elias indeed shall come; and then▪ in the verse following, Christ saith unto his

disciples thus in effect, by way of correction, Whatsoever the Scribes say or affirm concerning Elias his bodily coming, is not lite∣rally to be understood; BƲT I SAY ƲNTO YOƲ, THAT ELI∣AS IS COME ALREADY. And what he saith to his disci∣ples here, he saith to the people, Matth. 11.14. If ye will re∣ceive it, This is Elias which was for to come. He fore-knew that some would not beleeve him; and therefore he said, If ye will receive it, This is Elias; This John, who then did live, this John is Elias; not which shall come (this is the exposition of the Jews:) but this John is that Elias which was to come, and now is come, and the prophesie fulfilled. He that hath eares to heare, let him heare.

The last words (as Hierom well observeth) do evince, that the former, to wit, If ye will receive it, This is Elias, are mysti∣call, and hard to be understood; no plain sense, or manifest sen∣tence. Whence I inferre, that plain and easie it would have been to the Jews, if he would have said, as they did think, That Elias should come bodily; although the Baptist did re∣semble him in vertue and power, and was equall unto him. But here is the mysterie, That Malachi never intended, that Elias should live on earth corporally, against Christs second co∣ming: but that the Baptist was prefigured in Elias; and what∣soever was prophesied by Malachi of Elias, was accomplished by the Baptist: and no other Elias to come, but the Baptist in vertue and power of Elias, and not according to the outward letter. Here is a mysterie, here is depth, which the c 1.7 Jews and Jewishly addicted hereticks (as Hierom styleth them) will hardly beleeve.

3. Bellarmine, de Rom. Pontif. 3.6. draweth the second and third part of his third demonstration from two places of Ec∣clesiasticus: The first is, Chap. 48. vers. 10. Who wast ordained for reproofs in their times, to pacifie the wrath of the Lords judge∣ment before it brake forth into furie, and to turn the heart of the fa∣ther unto the sonne, and to restore (or establish) the tribes of Israel. First, I may answer, Ecclesiasticus is not held Canonicall, but Apocryphall; even by such as, for the many divine and admira∣ble things in that book, could wish (if it were no sinne to wish) that it were truely Canonicall: And Apocryphals are not held sufficient to settle a point of controversie. Secondly, it may be also said, that Jansenius maintaineth, this place evinceth not that Elias shall come personally; because Ecclesiasticus wrote according to the received opinion of those times, which, from the words of Malachi, beleeved that Elias was to come in his own proper person. Bellarmines reply upon Jansenius, is shal∣low in this point, saying, d 1.8 If Jansenius saith truth, it followeth that Ecclesiasticus hath erred, and writ some false things: as if he, who writeth the opinion of others, may not relate an errour,

and write false things; though he erre not himself, nor belee∣veth the false things. S. Matthew, chap. 2.6. wrote what the Jews said concerning the place of Christs birth; the things were miscited, and yet no errour or fault in S. Matthew. The Spi∣rit of truth hath written, that The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Because the fool thought foolishly and un∣truly, God forbid that we should turn fools also, and think that the holy Ghost did erre, because he truely recordeth an untrue opinion, or an untrue thing, true onely in the relation. This have I said, to defend both Jansenius and Ecclesiasticus, against Bellarmine. Thirdly, I might answer, Onely these last words have the shadow of an argument, To restore, or to establish the tribes of Israel: which because John did not do, Elias must do hereafter. For indeed it is but a shadow; since as John the Baptist did turn the heart of the father unto the sonne, (as was be∣fore proved) so he may be also said, to establish, or restore the tribes of Israel; not to any temporall kingdome, which cannot be proved to be intended by Ecclesiasticus, (for in Malachi there is altum silentium, not a word spoken concerning this point:) but to the true service of God, from which they were fallen: for he preached unto some of all sorts; of the two tribes, of the ten tribes, yea of the Gentiles. There went out unto John, Je∣rusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, Mat. 3.5. and Jordan divided Galilee from Judea: yea Christ him∣self came from Galilee to John to be baptized, Matth. 3.13. And he taught both Publicans and Souldiers, and Herod, and some of all sorts thereabouts, Luk. 3.13, 14. &c. and thus did he restore, or establish the tribes of Israel. The Bishops Bible hath the controverted words thus; To set up the tribes of Israel. So Coverdale. Ʋt constitueres tribus Jacob, saith Tremellius; according to the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, translated also by the Inter∣linearie, ad constituendum: or as Vatablus, ad constituendas tribus Jacob, to establish the tribes of Israel. Many are the significations of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but no where doth it signifie, to restore unto a dispersed people their lost kingdome; which is the hope of the Jews, or the exposition of the Jewishly affected: nor is the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so expounded otherwhere, either in the Septu∣agint, or in the New Testament, or in any classicall Authour. It is rendred usually, by constituere; Restituere, is a black swan.

But mine own opinion is, that Ecclesiasticus prophesieth not, what should be thereafter, viz. after the day of his writing, ei∣ther concerning John, or Elias; but onely relateth what was past: and it is an Eulogie, and laudatorie of Elias his worth; as appea∣reth by the antecedent, and consequent narratives; where all runnes in terms designing out times passed and gone, none touch∣ing at the present tense or time, much lesse at the future: and so it can be no prophesie concerning Elias personally to come

hereafter; especially since there is never a passage in Ecclesiasti∣cus concerning Elias, which Elias did not accomplish before his assumption: and more particularly, he reconciled God to his children the Israelites, and turned their hearts to him. Thus did he restore, or establish the tribes of Israel, in his time: for, 1. King. 18.21. Elias said unto all the people (that were gathered out of Israel) How long will ye halt between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him: And then by mi∣racle under God, he established them, or restored the tribes to the right religion, from which they were fallen by idolatrie, the fall of all falls fowlest. Even Bellarmine himself expounds Restituerunt, they restored, by Converterunt, they converted, in this very chapter: thus farre truely proving, that Zuinglius and Lu∣ther were not the Enoch and Elias prophesied of; because Elias was to convert the Jews, and indeed converted many, (as I pro∣ved before) which neither Luther nor Zuinglius did, for ought that I have read.

4. The second place insisted upon by Bellarmine, is Ecclesi∣asticus 44.16. Enoch was translated, being an example of repen∣tance to all generations. The Septuagint have it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Translatus est, exemplum poenitentiae ge∣nerationibus, He was translated, being an example of repentance to following generations, saith the Interlinearie: Nationibus, to the na∣tions, saith Vatablus: Ʋt det Gentibus sapientiam, that he may give wisdome to the Gentiles, saith the Vulgat edition, printed by Pe∣trus Santandreanus, 1614; and it hath in the margin Poenitenti∣am, repentance. But to leave that varietie: the Vulgat is not pro∣perly translated; for it is not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gentibus, to the Gentiles, as opposed to the Jews; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Posteris, or Generationibus, to fu∣ture posteritie. And if it were Gentibus, as Bellarmine readeth it; yet it maketh the more against him, who would have Enoch, and especially Elias, do greater things for the Jews, then for the Gentiles.

Lastly, it is not so much as intended by any word of Ecclesia∣sticus, that Enoch shall hereafter appeare in the flesh personally, and then die; and be an example of repentance to the Nations: for after he had so long pleased God and walked with God in this world, and after he was taken by God from amongst men (and no doubt, much more, then pleased God, and walked with God) if he should come again into this world, here to live; should he sinne again, that he might be an example of repen∣tance? The conceit is vast, harsh, and improbable, if the sup∣posall should have a certain accomplishment: but that this, and all other controverted points of moment, concerning Enoch, or Elias, may be the better cleared, let us examine these que∣stions:

1. Whether Enoch in his life-time, was ever any great sinner?

2. Whether Enoch did ever die?

3. Whether Enoch and Elias now live in and with their bo∣dies, in Paradise?

4. Whether ever they shall die; or do live with glorified bo∣dies in the highest heavens?

Concerning the first, Whether Enoch in his life-time was ever any grievous sinner? First, I answer and say, I speak not of the first Enoch, the sonne of Cain, the grand-childe of Adam and Eve, in honour and memoriall of whom, Cain built a citie, and called the name of the citie after the name of his sonne, Enoch, Genes. 4.17. but of the second and younger Enoch, the sonne of Jared, Genes. 5.18. of the posteritie of Seth.

Secondly, I question not, but that this latter, best Enoch, was a sinner; and in his own estimate, a great sinner: and he might have said, and doubtlesse did say in effect, as David did, and as Adam, and all his of-spring (except Christ) Have mercie up∣on me, O God, Psal. 51.1. and, Create in me a clean heart, O God, Psal. 51.10. O Lord pardon mine iniquitie, for it is great, Psal. 25.11. And in the ballance of God (setting aside mercie) he might have been weighed, found light, and accounted for a main de∣linquent. But this is the Quaere, Whether comparatively, and in respect of other men, even of such whose lives ends also pleased God, he was so notorious a sinner, that he alone was the fittest example of repentance to succeeding generations? My answer is negatively: for I am sure, Adam, and, as I think, Noah, and Lot, and divers other holy Patriarchs, might as well, yea rather, be an example of repentance to future times, then Enoch; especially, if we measure sinnes by the records of Scripture: for the holy Writ hath more amply insisted upon their sinnes, then upon Enochs; and no part of the Canonicall Scripture toucheth at any thing that was extraordinarily of∣fensive in Enoch; but magnifieth his goodnesse, Gen. 5.22. and his faith, Heb. 11.5. Yet, because the divine Writ might omit the offences of Enoch; and because I cannot think that Ecclesiasti∣cus wrote without some ground; let us search what other Au∣thours have conceited, or written, for, or against Enoch.

Some think that Enoch, all the course of his conversation amongst men in this world, lived unblameably, and walked with God. Some Jews held, that Enoch was an incarnate Angel; e 1.9 Whilest he lived, he lived worthy of praise, saith Drusius. Others write, that in his youth he was very wicked; but after repented, and turned heartily to God, redeeming the time. Drusius pro∣veth, that Enoch was a good man still, by these arguments. Josephus, Antiq. 1.5. at the end saith, Seth was a vertuous man, and left f 1.10 issue like himself; and they were all good men: therefore Enoch was so. The posteritie of Seth, according to the best

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Interpreters, are called Filii Dei, the sonnes of God, Genes. 5.2. g 1.11 Augustine accounteth that they were called the sonnes of God, who pleased God. Hischuni also, an Authour cited by Drusius, saith, Because Enoch was just, the Scripture, h 1.12 to dignifie him, used a new phrase concerning him, saying, HE WAS NOT. And, It is a pro∣bable reason, that Enoch was not any time so ill, as some imagine; because he lived with Adam 308 yeares, and ministred so long unto him, as it is in libro JOH ASIN, saith Drusius.

On the other side, i 1.13 Some say he was light and inconstant: sometimes just, sometimes wicked; as is recorded in the great Gene∣sis (a book called in Hebrew, BERESITH RABBA) made by one Ibbo: so relateth Drusius in his book called Henoch, chap. 5. If Ibbo had said, Henochum fuisse modò improbum, modò ju∣stum, That Enoch was now and then wicked, now and then just; I should farre rather have consented: for every just man, except Christ, was sometime wicked. But that Enoch, after he was once just, turned to be extraordinarily wicked, I can never be∣leeve. For the Spirit would never have given him this testimo∣nie, that he pleased God, and walked with him; if he had after returned as the dog to his vomit, or as the sow to her wallow∣ing in the mire. Rabbi Levi the sonne of Gersom thus, k 1.14 Enoch walked with God after he begat Methusalem, 300 yeares: whereby he intimateth that he walked, l 1.15 Not in the narrow paths of the Lord, but in the high wayes of the world: and by that account he might be wicked sixtie fiye yeares of his age, or thereabouts. The arguments of either side are but weak, and may be easily answered. Seths posteritie might do some notable wicked acts; and most heartily repent, and be both holy, and account∣ed the sonnes of God. The phrase used concerning his being taken out of this world, evinceth not, that all the former passa∣ges of his life were just. Thirdly, he might live in Adams time, yet not neare him: and he might live with him, and yet not minister unto him: and he might minister unto him, and yet be wicked before he ministred; yea, even for a time whilest he mi∣nistred unto Adam. Many godly parents have lived to see wicked ones of their of-spring: and it may be that Adam con∣verted him not, till after some time that he ministred unto A∣dam, and had seen evident signes of Adams own great repen∣tance and holinesse.

On the other side, Ibbo writeth like a fabler; and his words were before rejected, as improbable. Rabbi Levi, alledging no∣thing but conjecture, wanteth weight for an argument.

Now, as there is nothing certain, either pro, or contra; so, if my opinion be asked, I shall manifest my self to think, that Enoch was sometimes a grievous sinner; and after, a most contrite repentant, and a most holy man. My reason is, Be∣cause I ascribe more to the books called Apocryphall, then to

any humane Authour: for they alone are, and have been many hundreds of yeares, joyned with the Canonicall Scripture, and read in all Churches, except the Jewish, at set times, as well as the Canonicall; as no other writings of any other are. And if no part of them were divinely inspired: yet were the men that wrote them, both holy and learned; and the Churches of God have dignified them above all other writings.

Now, though the undoubted Canon mentioneth not any evill act or acts of Enoch (as millions of millions of matters are omitted, both in the Old and New Testament;) yet some passages of the Apocryphals bend me to think, that Enoch was sometimes a great sinner: for he was an example of repentance unto posteritie: therefore, in likelihood, his sinne was exem∣plarie, and his repentance proportioned in a sort unto it.

When Christ said, John 13.15. I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you; the precedent actions de∣monstrate, that he shewed great humilitie, and brotherly love, to which he exhorted them. When S. James saith, chap. 5.10. Take the Prophets for an example of suffering affliction, and of pa∣tience; it may be justly inferred, that they suffered great affli∣ction, and were very patient. So when Ecclesiasticus saith, Enoch was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is the same word, that is used in both the former places) an example of repentance; the resul∣tance is fair; Enoch was a very great penitent; otherwise he was unfit to be an example unto others; since exemplarie men and actions have alwayes somewhat above ordinary in their kinde, and are so excellent therein, that they are seldome or never out-gone by any that follow them. As the picture (though taken to life, as they call it) cometh short of the lively bodie; and artificials of naturals: so doth the exempla. tum, the duplicate, or counterpain, of the exemplar, the pattern, or originall. We attain not to that perfection which S. Paul had, though he commanded us to follow his example: nor he to the intire perfection of Christ, whom S. Paul set before him∣self, as the example to imitate.

Let no man nicely insist, that exemplum and exemplar do dif∣fer. I professe, that I weigh not matters to scruples, or half-scruples; but, though I know some take exemplar for the man from whom the example was taken, yet I use the words pro∣miscuously: Enoch was an example of repentance; therefore he was sometimes a great sinner: since as there needeth no repen∣tance where is no sinne; so he is Stoically mad, who thinketh that there needeth as great repentance for small sinnes, as for great. Degrees of sinnes ought to have proportionable de∣grees of repentance. The sacrifices were more chargeable for hainous crimes, then for little offences. Indeed one may cha∣ritably think, that Enoch was no chief delinquent; but did (as

tender consciences will) repent much, even for smaller sinnes: and an inference may be thus made; If Enoch so much repent∣ed for a few motes, for sinnes not unto death; how fit is he to be an example of repentance to us, who have sinned a thou∣sand times worse, and have beams upon beams in our eyes, and repent a thousand times lesse? But I rather think, according to the use of the phrase in other places, that his being an exam∣ple of repentance, proveth, both primarily, that he was a chief penitent; and secondarily, that there was some proportion be∣tween his repentance and his sinne. Which I rather embrace, because of another place, viz. Wisd. 4.10. He pleased God, and was beloved of him, so that living among sinners, he was translated: and vers. 11. Yea, speedily was he taken away, least that wickednesse should alter his understanding, or deceit beguile his soul: and ver. 13. He being made perfect (consummated or sanctified) in a short time, fulfilled a long time.

My first observation is this, That these verses are meant of Enoch; since the Apostle seemeth to have alluded to the place, Heb. 11.5. which I marvell that the learned Holcot and Lyra did not so much as once touch at; but apply the words, with violence, to the generalitie; though the narration be in the passed time, not in the present, much lesse in the future.

With mine opinion Drusius agreeth, expounding the words of Enoch: and the margin of Vatablus, and of the old Bishops bibles, and of Coverdales, and of our last Translations, do de∣signe, and as it were with the finger point at the storie of E∣noch. The second point is in confesso, cleare and evident, That Enoch was assumed whilest he was in an holy estate. The third, That he was sometimes wicked; as may be intimated from these passages:

First, That he lived among sinners: which all men els did, as well as Enoch, unlesse the place be meant of notorious sinners: and though an Abraham may be in Ur; a Lot, in Sodom: yet even both of them in those places contracted some corrupti∣on. They who walk in the sunne, are somewhat sunne-burnt.

Noscitur ex socio, qui non cognoscitur ex se: Who by himself is hardly known, Is known by his companion.

David cried, Wo is me, that I sojourn in Mesech, and that I dwell in the tents of Kedar, Psal. 120.5. The Prophet justly complain∣eth, That he dwelt among a people of polluted lips, Isai. 6.5. If one scabbed sheep infect a whole flock, an unsound flock may infect one good sheep. Sinne is like a gangrene, a leprosie, and the plague; of a spreading and infectious nature. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, 1. Cor. 5.6. Christ himself could not do the good which he would have done, where the peoples unbelief was exceeding, Matth. 13.58. but he went other∣where,

Mark 6.6. There are as well popular sinnes, as epide∣micall diseases; and holy ones have been tainted in both kindes.

Secondly, It is not said, He went out from among the wic∣ked, he separated himself, or fled from their sight or compa∣nie, which had been fitting in such dangerous places; but, God translated him: it was Gods act, not his.

Thirdly, saith the Text, He was speedily taken away: presup∣pose, as Lot was by the Angel pulled out of Sodom by the hand, Genes. 19.16. or Habakkuk by the hair of the head; or as the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, Act. 8.39.

Fourthly, This was done, Lest that wickednesse should alter his understanding, or deceit beguile his soul. m 1.16 The will of man hath a power to be changed, even till death: his understanding unsetled, and easily to be deluded with apparances: the souls of men in this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, theater of temptations, stand upon the ice, consist in lubrico, & in ancipiti, in slipperie and doubtfull places: they who stand, may fall: who have fallen, may recover. He was taken away speedily, to the intent he might not sinne: which the all-seeing eye needed not to have done, if he could not have lost his station: and in likelihood, would not have done, but that Enoch before that time had both turned and returned, was both bad and good; which, in the last place, the thirteenth verse seemeth to confirm: as if his holinesse had continued but a short time; but yet was so intense, and so consummate and perfect, even almost ad perfectionem gradu∣um, to the highest perfection in this life; that in a short time he fulfilled a long time.

n 1.17 Enoch was just; but apt to return to wickednesse: therefore God hastened to translate him, saith Rabbi Solomo. Procopius Ga∣zaeus Sophista in his Commentarie on the place, thus; o 1.18 If then at last Enoch pleased God, after he had begot Methusalem, certainly before he begat him, as the Scripture saith, God did not like him, nor accept of him: Therefore it is to be ascribed to Enochs repentance which he performed, that God made so much of him, and loved him. Though Salianus saith of this testimonie, that p 1.19 his minde was against it: yet there is no impossibilitie, no nor improbabilitie in it; and howsoever it be not apodicticall, yet it is not inepta, foolish, as Salianus censureth it. He addeth, Perhaps Philo the Jew was of that opinion: for in his book de A∣brahamo, speaking of repentance, &c. he bringeth Enoch in, as an example. And it seemeth (saith he) that he followed Jesus the sonne of Sirach, in the words cited: viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ecclefiastic. 44.16. And though he slubbereth over the words and matter (which are to him Canonicall) and saith, that The minde of the Scripture in that place is; that E∣noch shall be an exemplarie penitent, not as David and Manasses, Peter or Mary Magdalene; but as John Baptist: yet, I answer:

First, no Ancient ever said, John Baptist was an example of repentance, and did repent of any enormous sinnes; but was alwayes holy, and most austere, preventing great sinnes, ra∣ther then repenting; and not so much bemoaning his own of∣fences, as dehorting other men, and crying out against their iniquities, with a charge, almost inforcing them to repentance: whilest himself shewed a signe of his being sanctified and il∣luminated, even in his mothers wombe.

Secondly, there is as much joy over a repentant, and God is as much glorified, for point of mercie, in a Marie Magdalene, or a Peter, as in a Baptist, or just man, that needeth no repen∣tance; if not more. Procopius Gazaeus, who imagined the worst of Enochs former part of life, till he begot Methuse∣lah; yet speaketh very good things before, of Enoch, thus; God rested on the seventh day, when he had made the world; q 1.20 and now the same God in the seventh generation of the world, assu∣meth (as a signe of the ending of an age) I say, assumed Enoch as the first fruits of the reasonable creature. He was out of Gods favour for a while; but when he pleased God, he was extraor∣dinarily assumed. Thus in effect Procopius, which the Jesuit had not much cause to finde fault withall. Let this suffice for the first question, Whether Enoch were at any time a very wicked man?

The second question is, Whether Enoch did ever die?

Divers Rabbins maintain that he did die: So Rabbi Solo∣mon on the fifth of Genesis. Aben Ezra saith, His death was sweet, and he felt no pain: which opinion, the Jesuit Corne∣lius à Lapide ascribeth also to Calvin; whether truely or falsely, I enquire not; but the matter giveth me the hint of an excursion.

Moses said from God, Genes. 6.3. Mans dayes shall be an hun∣dred and twentie yeares; and Moses himself died, when he was 120 yeares old, Deut. 34.7. David said, The dayes of our yeares are threescore yeares and ten, Psal. 90.10. and he himself, who prayed to God to teach him to number his dayes, died the same yeare (being the first lesser climactericall yeare, after that great one of nine times seven, that dangerous threescore and third yeare:) for, He was thirtie yeares old when he began to reigne; and he reigned fourty yeares, 2. Sam. 5.4. Both these were most certain Prophets of their own deaths; and, per∣haps, had more especiall reference to their own times; desi∣gning those yeares out in the more generall, which were more appropriate to their own persons in particular. Let me adde two heathen examples, by way of imperfect parallels.

That most exquisite work of nature, her glory, pride, and master-piece, Julius Cesar, preferred a swift and sud∣den death, in his choice, before any other kinde. Suetonius,

in vita Julii Caesaris, in fine, thus of him, r 1.21 When Julius Cesar had sometime read in Xenophon, that Cyrus in his last sicknesse ordered some things concerning his funerals; he hating so lingring a death, wished that himself might have a sudden and quick end. Again, the day before he was slain, as he was at sup∣per with Marcus Lepidus, a question arising, Which death was most commodious, and to be wished for; Cesar preferred a sudden, un∣looked for, and unthought of end. And sutable to his choice and desire, in that respect, did a sudden and unlooked for end be∣fall him.

Likewise, that wonder of Fortune, that darling of terrene happinesse, Augustus, the successour unto the Dictatour, s 1.22 Al∣most as often as he had heard (saith Suetonius in Augusto, in fine) that any one had died speedily without long pain or great torment; he would pray that the like easie departure might befall himself, and his friends. And, saith he, t 1.23 He died according as he alwayes desired, parting, as in a complement, with his most familiar friends; u 1.24 and gave up the ghost amidst the kisses of Livia. This storie hath brought my Miscellanie home to that point, which the Rabbin said of Enoch, That he died without pain.

The New Testament also is thought to afford us such an other example. x 1.25 It is said of John the Evangelist, that he died without any pain, saith Holcot on Wisd. 2.5. and by that instance, saith, concerning those who rose about Christs resurrection, y 1.26 It followeth not, that if they died again, they had or felt any pain∣full death. But because of the strange opinions which are held concerning S. John the Apostle, let me enlarge my discourse a little concerning him.

Melchior Canus, Locor. Theolog. 7.2. saith, We may hold, or de∣ny, z 1.27 without prejudice to our belief, either that he is living, or that he is dead. The reason, why some thought S. John liveth, was, because Christ said to Peter, John 21.22. If I will that he tarrie till I come, what is that to thee? Neither doth it satisfie them, that John himself saith, ver. 23. Jesus said not, He shall not die: for they expound that exposition, John shall not die, namely, till that time that Christ doth come.

Dorotheus, speaking of S. John, hath it thus; John lived 120 yeares: which being expired, he living as yet (the Lord would so have it) buried himself. The storie is enlarged by S. Augu∣stine, Tract. 124. in Joannem, thus; Some report, that in certain Scriptures, though Apocryphall, it is found, that S. John, being in health, caused a grave to be made, and laid himself in it, as in a bed, and presently died: or, as some think, lay down as dead, but not dead; and being thought to be dead, was buried sleeping: and that he sheweth his being alive, a 1.28 by the ebullition of the dust of his grave; b 1.29 which dust is beleeved to arise and to be forced from the bot∣tome of the tombe to the top by his breath. And truly, saith Au∣gustine,

We heard not this of light credulous men. Whereupon he adviseth, c 1.30 Let them who know the place consider whether the earth spring up there, so as is reported. If it be so, saith he, (if the earth or sand bubble up like water; and, that being taken away, other ariseth and boyleth up in the room) it doth so, either to commend the precious death of that Saint; or for some other reason, which we know not. So farre Augustine.

Some such thing, in another case, is recorded by S. Hie∣rom. Heare his own words, Tom. 3. de locis Hebraicis, out of the Acts of the Apostles, d 1.31 Mount Olivet is situated on the East of Jerusalem, parted by the stream of Cedron, where the last foot∣steps which Christ set upon this earth, are imprinted on the ground, and even to this day are to be seen and shewed. And whereas the same earth is taken away daily by the beleeving Christians, never∣thelesse the same holy footsteps presently and immediately recover their old form and fashion. Who also in the same place addeth another strange thing; e 1.32 Whereas the Church, in the midst where∣of these footsteps are, was built of a round form with most exqui∣site workmanship: yet the very top of that Church, as people re∣port, could by no means ever be covered or vaulted over, by rea∣son of our Saviours bodily ascent into heaven: but Christs passage and way by which he mounted from earth even to heaven lieth open, and is visible. But our late traveller M. Sands relateth, That the footstep is on a firm naturall rock, and the passage open at the summitie or top of the temple of the Ascension, is to receive light into that sacred place. For that is covered as the sepulchre (or rather, as the temple of the sepulchre) whose round is cove∣red with a CƲPƲLO, sustained with rafters of Cedar, all of one piece, open in the midst, like the Pantheon at Rome; whereat it recei∣veth the light that it hath, and that as much as sufficeth. Just in the midst, and in view of heaven, standeth the glorified se∣pulchre. So farre M. George Sands. M. Fines Morison saith, On the top of mount Olivet, the highest of all the mountains that compasse Jerusalem, in a Chappel, they shew in stone the print of Christs feet, when he ascended into heaven.

It did a little amaze me, that these our two countreymen, both being learned, and both being there eye-witnesses, do differ so much: the first mentioning a footstep, in the singu∣lar number; the other, feet, in the plurall; (Antiquitie saith, On the Earth; late Writers, On a Rock;) which maketh me rather bear with the good S. Hierom, who relateth from others, that the top could by no means be covered. Open, perhaps, the top was left, and open purposely, by some ex∣quisite workmen; whose skill some credulous ignorants could not discern; and they might report, that what was done, could not be done otherwise. But of this in either of our countrey∣men there is not one word. I return to the old matter.

Sixtus Senensis, Bibliothecae sanctae lib. 6. Annotat. 93. saith, Many most grave and worthy Authours have written, that S. John the Evangelist yet liveth. But Chrysostom, Hom. 66. in Matt. re∣porteth, f 1.33 That he was put to a violent death: and he bringeth in Christ, speaking these words to the two sonnes of Zebedee (of whom S. John the Evangelist was one, Mark 10.35.) g 1.34 YE SHAL DRINK OF MY CƲP, & shall be put to a violent death, and be crowned with martyrdome, like unto me. Euthymius also testifieth, that Chrysostom, in two other places, saith that S. John the Evangelist was slain in Asia: which makes me won∣der, that George Trapezuntius (if he be truely alledged by Sixtus Senensis, ibid.) should interpret Chrysostoms words, of the martyrdome and violent death which John (forsooth) should suffer with Enoch and Elias, under the last persecution of Antichrist: especially since Chrysostom so punctually de∣signeth out the time past, and telleth what was done to John, and where.

Hippolytus, Portuensis Episcopus, in his short Tractate de mun∣di consummatione, saith, As Christs first coming had John the Baptist his forerunner; so the second shall have Enoch, and Elias, and John the Evangelist. This comparison is very lame, and halteth: for it may be applied as well to any, as to John the Evangelist. Others use not so foolish a similitude; but yet em∣brace a wilder opinion: for they say, that S. John died, and rose from the dead, and was assumed into heaven. Nicepho∣rus, 2.42. addeth, DECEBAT, It was fit, convenient, decent and requisite, that he, who kept Christs mother, and was so beloved of Christ, should be so assumed, as Christs mother was. O man, how proud art thou, to judge, what is convenient, or inconveni∣ent for God to do!

Baronius, Tom. 2. Anno Christi 101. numero marginali 2. thus, Sixtie eight yeares from Christs death, S. John died at Ephesus, as Hierom hath it de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, in Joanne. And Po∣lycrates, a most ancient Divine, writing to Victor, then Bishop of Rome, as Eusebius hath it, 1.25. saith of S. John, h 1.35 He di∣ed at Ephesus. Tertullian, i 1.36 S. John died, of whom some conceived a vain hope, that he should live till Christ came again. Eusebius, 3.33. saith, There were two Johns in Asia: John the Apostle, and John the Disciple; and both their sepulchres were at Ephesus. Chrysostom, Homil. 26. in Epistolam ad Hebraeos, saith, The se∣pulchre of S. John is manifest, as of other Apostles: therefore he speaketh of S. John the Apostle: But, k 1.37 Sepulchres belong proper∣ly to them who are dead, as Baronius well inferreth. So much obiter, concerning some unusuall passages about S. John, oc∣casioned by Holcots testimonie of the strange relation of his painlesse death: but this I shall by Gods grace handle much more plentifully in my succeeding books, wherein against Car∣dan,

and his Indian apples, the procurers of death without any pain, as he saith; I shall (I say) under the tuition of the Al∣mighty, prove that the separation of the soul from the bo∣die is painfull: that all death is bitter, in one degree, or other.

And now I return to our Enoch; whom the Jewish Rab∣bin feigneth to have been dead without any pain; against whom, and all other Jewishly-affected, I hope to demon∣strate, that Enoch did not die, but is now living: Heb. 11.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Enoch was translated that he should not see death: Ad non videndam mortem, saith Montanus; Nè vi∣deret mortem, saith the Vulgat. The end, why he was transla∣ted, was, that he might not die: and the reason is annexed, why he did not die; for God translated him. Shall God intend to keep Enoch from death: and did he yet die? shall God be frustrated of his end? shall things come to passe contrary to his will? where is then his Omnipotencie? It holds firmly, God translated Enoch, that he should not see death; therefore he died not, but liveth as yet.

A second argument (though not so sharp-pointed) is this; Of the other Patriarchs it is said, They died: so it is recorded of Adam, Mortuus est, Genes. 5.5. of Seth, vers. 8. of Enos, vers. 11. of Cainan, vers. 14. of Mehalaleel, vers. 17. of Jared Enochs father, vers. 20. of Methuselah Enochs sonne, vers. 27. of Lamech Enochs grandchilde, vers. 31. even of the whole holy Genealogie from Adam to Noah, of every one it is said, Mortuus est, He dyed: except onely, when mention is made of Enoch, and then it is not said, He dyed; but it is remark∣ably varied thus, vers. 24, Et non ipse: which our later transla∣tion hath, And he was not: which words, you must not take in too strict a sense: for if he had died, yet had he had a be∣ing; but consisting of soul and bodie, we may truly say, He was. How then shall we interpret, Et non ipse? I named you the Rabbin, who expounds it, He died not with pain, as other men; but died sweetly. Others thus, He was not on earth, after the same manner, as he was before. This is true, and well strength∣ened, Ecclesiasticus 49.14. Ʋpon earth was no man created like Enoch; for he was taken from the earth; DE TERRA SƲBLI∣MIS ASSVMPTVS EST, He was lifted up on high from the earth, saith Vatablus. This is also certain, that from the di∣vers expressions used concerning Enoch, and of others, in the same Chapter, that were not translated but died, there is more signified of Enoch, then of others; and in that speciall unusuall phrase some speciall unusuall thing is involved con∣cerning Enoch; But no speciall unusall thing is spoken, if it be onely meant of him, as it is of others, that he died: Therefore certainly Enoch died not.

I will not recount more diversitie of opinions; In all hum∣blenesse,

I will present before you mine own conjecture. First, I say that there is an hiatus in the Hebrew; and somewhat to be understood. The Spirit would leave some things doubt∣full, and put us to the search. Secondly, a supply must be made one way or other, if we will fix any sense on the place. Thirdly, I would have wary, and probable supplements; not of imagination, and aire onely. Scaliger, Exercitat. 81. Parag. 2. saith thus, e 1.38 In the tables which Moses brake, one halfe of the let∣ter Samech was in the utmost brink of the table, the other part of it was seen in the aire. Or els Scaliger told an untruth, say I: give me fair likelihood, and not the vastnes of a phansie. Fourthly, I say, the words, Et non ipse, may commodiously be thus interpreted, He was not found. If any one ask, where I finde ground for this Commentarie; I answer, first, it is in the seventy, Genes. 5.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Non apparuit, saith the Interpreter, in Vatablus; or, as himself commenteth, Nusquam comparuit: but it is better rendred, Non est inventus, He was not found. And so it is rendred Hebr. 11.5. where S. Paul hath taken the same words, letter for letter, from the seven∣tie, (whose authoritie, by themselves considered, I esteem somewhat above the ordinary humane) and made them di∣vine; By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death; And was not found, because God had translated him.

Concerning Enoch, these things I do further observe with some of the Fathers, with Aquin, and Cornelius à La∣pide; That he was a type of Christ; so also was Elias: and both their raptures, or translations, were figures of Christs ascension. Again, Hebr. 11.5. Enoch, before his translation, had this testimonie, that he pleased God. He did not onely please God; but it was published, and proclaimed, and, as it were, let∣ters testimoniall from heaven, or a divine certificate was made, that he pleased God. And therefore I hold it very probable, that as Elijahs assumption was known before-hand to the sonnes of the Prophets, that were at Beth-el, 2. Kings, 2.3. and to the sonnes of the Prophets, that were at Jericho, vers. 5. as well as to Elishah himself; so was the translation of Enoch also, known to those of his time, unto whom God testified that Enoch pleased him. And it is conformable also to the Antitype; because Christ before told his Disciples concern∣ing his departure, John 14.28, &c. John 16.5, &c. and vers. 16, &c. and more punctually, concerning his ascension, John 20.17. I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Which words Christ spake, after his resurrection from the dead, unto Mary Magdalen. Yea further, let me expatiate, in shewing the correspondence be∣tween Enoch in the law of Nature, and Elias in the law of

Moses, and our all-glorious Saviour in the law of Grace. Even as Elishah saw the carrying up of Eliah 2. Kings, 2.12. yea, and fifty men of the sonnes of the Prophets beheld the same, (as it is likely 2. Kings, 2.7, 15, and 16 verses:) so it may very well be, that God was pleased to give bodily sight, and evidence of Enoch, at his translation, to those unto whom he gave testimonie before his translation, that he pleased God. And even this fraction the substance of our Saviours ascension doth strengthen and enlighten. For, He was seen, not onely after his resurrection, of Cephas; then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above 500 brethren at once, 1. Corinth. 15.5, &c. but in the act of his ascension, Act. 1.9. While they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight: And, they looked stedfastly toward heaven, as he went up, vers. 10. They stood gazing up into heaven, and they did see him go into heaven, vers. 11.

If any one be so curious to enquire, in what posture Christ was seen ascending; I think it is pointed at, Luk. 24. ver. 50, &c. He lift up his hands, and blessed them: And it came to passe, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. f 1.39 Before he had finished his blessing, saith Lucas Brugensis, on the words. The blessing which he began upon them, and with them, with words and gesture, he continued ascending; that is, with his hands lifted up, not so much upright to heaven, whither, perhaps, his heart, hands, and eyes were sent in prayer to God a little before (for pray∣er is a prime part of all spirituall blessing;) but with his hands lifted up over the Apostles; g 1.40 Not in a posture, as if he were praying to God; but as if he were dispersing his grace, and pouring out a blessing. So * 1.41 Aaron lift up his hands toward the people, and blessed them. So Simon the sonne of Onias used a most solemn form of holy service and benediction, Ecclus. 50.20. where it is said, He lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the children of Israel, to give the blessing of the Lord with his lips: And his lips conveyed it by his hands towards them into their hearts, by a Ministeriall Sacerdotall exhibition. Thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, h 1.42 Christ was taken, not as birds flie, or as men go: but so, as if he had been carried in mens hands, and by little and little lifted upward, saith Brugen∣sis: i 1.43 With an upright posture of bodie leasurely ascending into heaven, saith Barradius. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, k 1.44 He was mounted, not by any other out∣ward help, but his own power, saith Cajetan: l 1.45 Either as he was God: or else by the agilitie which is proper to glo••ified humane bodies, saith Barradius. Yet Aquin well observes, that as Christ is said to rise by his own power, and yet he was raised by the Father; because their powers are one: so may he be said to ascend by his own power, and yet be elevated, or assu∣med by the Father. m 1.46 He moved not (saith Cajetan) leg af∣ter

leg, nor seemed to climbe, or go•• but all parts alike, and he wholly together was lifted up. And, for the greater Majestie, a cloud received him, Descending even to his feet, in the form of a Throne, on which he sat, saith Abulensis. As the royall Chariot declareth the King; so (saith Chrysostom on Acts 1.) there was sent to Christ, REGALE VEHICƲLƲM: which cloud was rather carried up by Christ, then he by it. When Aquinas saith, part. 3. quaest. 57. artic. 4. n 1.47 Christ used not the cloud as men use a coach or chariot, to help them in their want. I understand him of ADMINICƲLƲM NECESSARIƲM, A necessary support or stay (for Christ had no need of such an one:) yet it might be ADMINICƲLƲM SOLENNE, A ceremonious aid, and solemne free assistance: he might assume it as a token of his Majestie: o 1.48 There was seen the signe or seal of his Divini∣tie, saith Aquin himself. Nor is it against the glorie of Christs Divinitie, to make use of a cloud, or clouds. He shall come with clouds, Revel. 1.7. With the clouds of heaven, Dan. 7.13. In the clouds of heaven, Matth. 24.30. This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven, saith the Angel, Act. 1.11. This one cloud might be so great, as many lesser clouds when he ascended; as all the clouds shall be, in which he shall descend at his second coming: or else, more clouds were about him; but one more eminent, on which he sat, and with which he ascended. And the extraordinarinesse of this cloud might te∣stifie his Divinitie; in which regard, to discriminate him from his forerunners, the Apostles worshipped him, Luk. 24.52. which was not, in any likelihood, performed to Enoch or Elias: for they were not carried up in a cloud or clouds. But there ap∣peared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire: — and Elijah went up by a whirlwinde into heaven, 2. King. 2.11. To which is added the fiery nature of the whirlwinde it self, Ecclus, 48.9. He was taken up in a whirlwinde of fire. The manner of Enochs assumption, I confesse, is uncertain. Aquila his Alphabet saith, p 1.49 God took up Enoch in a whirlwinde, as he did Elias: So saith Rabbi Menachem, and the Zoar, on the fifth of Genes. Dru∣sius in his Henoch, cap. 13. saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Tulit eum De∣us, God took him, (which are the exact words of Scripture, con∣cerning Gods taking away of Enoch, Genes. 5.24. both in the fair Hebrew Bibles of Stephanus in octavo, and in the Inter∣linearie, and in Vatablus; though Drusius a little varie the middle word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) q 1.50 by a Jewish gamboll, is all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, r 1.51 In a tempestuous winde did he make him to ascend: including an intimation, that in a whirlwinde they were both rapted. If the Scripture had used the very words in de∣scribing the nature of Elias, I should the sooner have liked the conceit; but the Rabbinicall speculations conclude not; therefore I will.

Lastly, it is improbable, but divers of the Disciples or A∣postles who saw Christs ascending, might, and would have sought and looked for him; but that they were, in a sort, de∣horted by two Angels, who told them, That Christ was ta∣ken from them into heaven, Act. 1.11. and therefore it was vain to seek him any longer on the earth. And most certain it is, that when the sonnes of the Prophets saw Elijah snatcht up, and Elishah parting Jordan with Elijahs mantle; they said unto Elishah, There be with thy servants fiftie sonnes of strength; let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master, 2. Kings 2.16. and accordingly, they sent fiftie men, and they sought three dayes, but found him not, vers. 17. Semblably, we may well imagine, that some also did seek for Enoch, after he was translated; yea, it approacheth nearer to belief, then to imagination, upon this fair resultance; He was not found, say the Septuagint; He was not found, saith the Apostle: therefore he was sought after; there∣fore he was searched for: TƲ NON INVENTA, REPERTA¦ES, I have found thee, whom I could not finde when I sought thee, saith the old Poet: but it is harsh to say, TƲ NON QƲAE∣SITA, REPERTA ES, Thou art found, and wast never lookt af∣ter. Finding implieth precedent search, or going after, most ordinarily: but Not being found, necessarily implieth a for∣mer inquirie: Elias was not found by Ahab; therefore Ahab sought for him. Enoch was not found; therefore they made en∣quirie after him. So much be spoken in defence of my Com∣ment upon the words, Et non ipse: which I have supplied from the Septuagint, and most especially from the Apostle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and he was not found. And with it, is also ended and terminated the second Quaere by me propounded, Whe∣ther Enoch did ever die: with its Answer, That Enoch died not, either a sweet death, or a sowre; an easie death, or a painfull.

5. The third Question followeth, Whether Enoch and Eli∣as now live, in, and with their bodies, in Paradise?

Bellarmine is for the affirmative, That Paradise is now ex∣tant, and Enoch and Elias live in it. More particularly con∣cerning Elias, Rabbi David, in his Comment on 2. Kings 2. re∣ports it, as the common opinion of the Jews, That Elias went with his bodie into Paradise, and there liveth in the same estate that our Parents did before the fall. Others have taken upon them to describe and circumscribe exactly the place of Paradise, in an Island now called Eden, not farre from Baby∣lon, as certain Nestorians of the Greek Church have fabled: I say, fabled; because millions of learned men, both Heathen, Jews, and Christians, have seen Babylon, and lived in it, and round about it, who never had such a thought, or belief, or tradition, so farre as may be gathered by any ancient extant records. Of which Paradise whosoever desireth to see more

at large, let him have recourse to my learned friend M. John Salkeld, in his Treatise of Paradise. I will onely adde some∣what, which he omitteth.

Salianus (the great Annalist, from the creation of the first Adam, to the death of the second Adam, or rather to his re∣surrection and ascension) Ad annum mundi 987, saith, Cyprian, Ambrose, Hierom, Tertullian, Gregorie, Epiphanius, and Hippolytus, acknowledging the translation of Enoch and Elias, are silent con∣cerning the place of their being. Augustine leaves it as doubtfull, and disputable. Chrysostom and Theodoret like not the enquirie. Rupert saith, The Scripture is silent: neither are the words of Pa∣radise, or Eden, in the place of Ecclesiasticus 44.16. in the Greek text; but onely in the Vulgat. So farre Salianus.

But indeed, first me thinks, that the old Translatour should have been constant to himself, and adding somewhat to the words of Ecclesiasticus 44.16. should not have added In Para∣disum, as he doth, without any shadow of ground from any other place: but, In coelum; because it is so written, 1. Macc. 2.58. Elias was taken up into heaven, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, In coelum receptus est, as the Vulgat it self hath it. Secondly, the Jesuit Salianus is somewhat too favourable in that point; for S. Am∣brose, in lib. de Paradiso, cap. 13. saith expressesly, Enoch was r 1.52 caught up into heaven: and S. Hierom on Amos 9. saith, Enoch and Elias were carried into heaven.

Bellarmine, and other Papists, distinguishing COELƲM into AERIƲM, COELESTE, ET SƲPERCOELESTE, Aëriall, heavenly, and supercelestiall, say, Enoch was carried into the aëriall heaven. I must confesse, that the region of the aire, that Ex∣pansum, the aëriall orb, is sometimes called Heaven: The Lord thundred from heaven, 2. Sam. 22.14. God gave us rain from hea∣ven, Act. 14.17. and birds are called the fowls of the heaven, Psal. 104.12. The Lord cast down great hailstones from heaven, (Josh. 10.11.) and they were more which died with hailstones, then they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword. These hailstones came from the middle region of the aire. I con∣fesse also, that Enoch was carried up into the aëriall heaven; but with this distinction, He was taken into it, as his way, not as the end of his journey, not as his habitation, or resting place. The case of Enoch and Elias is so like, so one in this puncto, that you are not to marvell, if sometimes I use the name of one, sometimes of the other: what is said of one, is meant of both; f 1.53 Who knoweth one, is not ignorant of the other. Chryso∣stom in his oration of Elias, is expresse, that he resteth not in the aire: and bringeth in Satan, as wondring at Elias his ri∣ding through and above the clouds: neither is his reason to be contemned. Elias is not there where the devil is Prince: and what should he do among lightning and thunder, hail, snow,

storm and tempest? This is the portion of the wicked to drink. If you flee to the miraculous omnipotent hand of God; why may not I say the like, concerning Gods extraordinary cloth∣ing him with immortalitie, and that by dispensation unusuall, in the act of translating him? God did not let him continue on the earth, or in the aire; but assuming him into the highest heaven, did glorifie his bodie. For concerning coelum coeleste, Bellarmine will not say that he resteth there: nor did ever any afford patrocinie to that conceit. Indeed Seneca, De con∣solatione, sheweth that the Stoicks thought, that the souls of men departed hovered about their bodies, and in the end were carried up t 1.54 to the starry heaven. And Cicero, De somno Scipionis, placeth that heroïcal soul among the starres. Be∣sides that the conceit is heathenish, it nothing concerneth our question of mortall bodies. But if Enoch and Elias are in the orbs, and among the spheres, which is the coelum coeleste; they should be hurried with diurnall motion, from the East unto the West: unlesse you place them upon the Poles, to stand there immoveably: which Poles are as imaginary, as their being there. If there they be in mortall bodies; what strange influences would the heavens poure forth upon them? since, the nearer the Object is to the Agent, the more effe∣ctually the Agent worketh. If they have the same unaltered bodies, either in the aire, or in the coelo coelesti; what meat, what clothing have they? The naturall mortall bodie of E∣lias, yea of Christ himself, after fourty dayes fast, was hun∣gry, whilest he lived on earth. Augustine, De peccatorum me∣ritis & remissione, 1.3. saith, They either live without meat; or, as Adam did, by the tree of life. But Cornelius à Lapide re∣nounceth the latter clause; since Paradise, and the tree of life is starved and dead. S. Hierom, ad Pammachium, and Epipha∣nius, Haeres. 64. say, They live without meat. The fore-named Jesuit fleeth to a miracle; and that is alwayes an help at a dead lift: but he dealeth most injuriously with Epiphanius, cutting him of by the skirts, and mangling his opinion. The words of Epiphanius are these, u 1.55 They live, since their transla∣tion, spiritually, and not as they were wont to do on earth: their bodies and flesh are spirituall, having no need to be fed by ravens; but are nourished by other spirituall food. If the Jesuit will grant they have spirituall bodies, he will let fall his position, and the position of his fellows, That Enoch and Elias shall die.

I reassume the interrupted point, concerning Paradise; Which, Cornelius saith, was taken away by the floud; and, The place continueth not, saith Pererius; directly contradicting Bellar∣mine: and with Pererius stand Salmeron, Sa, Del Rio, and many other. I will help them to this argument: If Paradise did, and doth continue on earth, as it was then; Noah, and his familie,

and all the beasts, might with lesse ado, and more soon, have been brought into Paradise, and there have lived; espe∣cially, there being no great distance between the place where Paradise was, and the abode of Noah when he builded the Ark, if Divines aim right. If Paradise had been on earth in Christs time, would not Christ once have gone into it? Or would the Angels, or could they have kept Christ out? Much, very much more might be said; but Salianus hath saved me all that labour, who, pag. 66. of the first tome of his Ec∣clesiasticall Annals, writeth thus, x 1.56 It is a folly to think that Pa∣radise is in the highest part of the aëriall orb; or to place it by the moon. The rivers mentioned to be in Paradise, are on earth: how shall wee convey, or transchange them to those places? And it is easier to say, then to prove, that the Angels kept Paradise from being overthrown with waters.

Thus doth he reconcile those, which said, Paradise is ex∣tant; and those, who deny it; with a true and good distinction, as I conceive it, in this manner: Let us say that the region and soil, the MATERIALE PARADISI, the place of Paradise, is yet extant; for ONE GENERATION PASSETH AWAY, AND ANOTHER GENERATION COMETH; BƲT THE EARTH ABIDETH FOR EVER, Ecclesiastes 1.4. For, HE LAYD THE FOƲND ATIONS OF THE EARTH, THAT IT SHOƲLD NOT BE REMOVED FOR EVER, Psal. 104.5. Again, Psal. 119. vers. 90. THOƲ HAST EST ABLISHED THE EARTH, AND IT ABIDETH. And saith he, The place is not farre distant from Euphrates, and Tigris. But the delicacies, trees, elegancie, de∣light, order and distribution, ordained for innocencie, are decayed; that it is not to be wondred at, if we cannot finde so much as the footsteps of them: So he. Perhaps, saith Eugubinus, as Jerusalem, and Sion the mountain of God, and the Ark of God; so Eden also y 1.57 is grown writhled and wrinkled with age; He doth well to add, Perhaps; for indeed, it is more likely, that it was not pau∣latim, but suddenly, and wholly defaced, when the Angels left the custodie of it, when the floud washed away its beau∣ty, and bemired it, just like to other places. z 1.58 The same ground and the essentiall place on which Paradise was seated, remayneth still: the beauty, adornation, and delight is vanished, saith Del Rio: And the beddes of the rivers are changed; and the fountains break forth in other places; as Gregorius de Valentia well collecteth. Thus farre, excellently, Salianus.

Now, as I have approved him for saying, a 1.59 Let us ingenu∣ously confesse, That that garden of God, is now no where; the extraor∣dinary beauty and commodities are vanished; though the ground thereof yet remaineth: so have I just cause to laugh more at him, then he did at his fellows for their opinions; since he is so strangely conjecturall, as to say, We may say that Enoch and

Elias are placed within the boundaries, which invironed Paradise of old: and are kept there by the ministerie of Angels: yet so that no man can see them: as Christ now and then among the Jews made himself invisible. Against this I thus argue. First, who∣soever placed Enoch or Elias in Paradise, placed them there, as in a place of extraordinary pleasure and delight. Paradise was ever, by all, taken for locus amoenitatis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an extra∣ordinary place of pleasure; and accounted the garden of God till now: But now there is no such unusuall pleasure, saith Salia∣nus; Therefore they are not now in Paradise.

Even Aristotle, Ethicorum 9.9. could say, b 1.60 An happy man is not to be made an Anachoret; or rather thus, An Hermite can∣not be an happy man. And in the same chapter; c 1.61 No man would enjoy the whole world, on condition to have none in the earth with him. For man was born for civill conversation. And, Pol. 1.2. d 1.62 Man by nature is a sociable creature. Whereupon he well conclu∣deth, A blessed man is not solitary. For e 1.63 he hath whatsoever is naturall; but to delight in company is naturall; therefore he must needs enjoy it. The great S. Augustine, perhaps, met with the same place; I am sure these are his words, De Civit. 19.3. f 1.64 They say that an happy life is a sociable life; which loveth the welfarre of friends as it doth its own good, and wisheth as well to others as to it self. Ludovicus Vives, on the place, saith, They were the Stoicks, who said so: but I rather guesse, they were the Peripateticks; and Aristotle, their cheif Chaunt∣er. Which blessed life the heathen meaned not of eternall blessednes after the resurrection, but of a blessed naturall life in this world, and on this earth: such an one cannot Enoch and Elias have, though they were in Paradise; because they have no more companie of their kinde. Enoch, more especi∣ally, had lesse happines, by this argument (if he be supposed to be in the earthly Paradise) because he was long by him∣self, ere Elias came to him; by the space, I say, of above two thousand yeares.

To the further illustration of the former point, I may tru∣ly say, If Adam and Eve had lived in Paradise by them∣selves alone, without any other companie, at any other time; I should not much have envied, or wished that felicitie; yea, though he had not fallen, whereby he became Radix Aposta∣tica, in the phrase of Augustine. Yea, such a blessednes there is in communication of happines; that the all-blessed, onely-bles∣sed, ever-blessed Deitie of the Ʋnitie would not be without the conjoyned happines of the Trinitie: The singlenes of Nature would not be without the pluralitie of Persons.

Thirdly, do they see those men and women, and their acti∣ons, who now live in the bounds of old Eden, whilest them∣selves, in their bodies, are invisible?

Fourthly, here is a multiplying of miracles daily; that Angels shall keep them, yet so, that they cannot be seen. From Enochs assumption, which is now above 4000 yeares since, have Angels kept him, that he hath not been once seen?

Besides, no one place of Scripture Canonicall saith, they are in Paradise: and it is so farre from a favour, as it is rather a durance and captivitie, if they be kept from all other parts of the world, within the bounds of old Paradise; since many places are now more delightfull then the place or places whereabouts Salianus himself now holdeth Paradise to be si∣tuated. Moreover, Elijah was taken up into heaven. Suppose that to gratifie Bellarmine, we grant, Coelum aerium is there meant: yet must he needs be taken up from the earth, and so not abide on earth, in the circuit of old Paradise, as Salianus foolishly conceiveth. Likewise Ecclesiasticus 49.14. Enoch was taken from the earth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. so Vatablus hath it, and rendreth it, De terra sublimis assumptus est, He was taken up on high from the earth: the Vulgat hath it, Receptus est à terra•• E••terra had been more pithie. When the Apostle saith, He was translated, Heb. 11.5. was he left on the same earth, on which he was before? Or, after he was in heaven did he come again on the earth? It was an excellent and true ob∣servation of our learned Whitaker, That Bellarmine sometimes confuting his fellows answers, confuteth farre better answers then himself bringeth. And I will be bold to say of Salianus, though he doth justly deride them, who make Paradise in the aire, as Cornelius à Lapide, and Bellarmine; or in the orb of the Moon, as others: Yet his crotchet is as foolish, as any of theirs. For, in what part of Paradise were they kept when the floud was? or was not all the earth overflown? The Angels then kept them in the aire; or else, by an other miracle, kept the water from over-flowing that place. That the Angels kept people from entring into Paradise, I have read: that they kept any from going out of it, and kept them in it, I have not read. k 1.65 None can see them, saith Salianus: They may (say I) by the same divine power by which they are invisible; if invisible they be. Can they be seen by none? How was Elias seen by our Saviour, and his three Disciples, at the Transfiguration? Or were all they within Paradise? or was Elias out of the bounds of the old Paradise, when Christ was transfigured on the mount? But these and greater incon∣veniences must these men run into, who will maintain against Scripture, that Enoch and Elias are in earthly or aeriall Para∣dise: that they may uphold an other crotchet worse then this; namely, That Enoch and Elias shall hereafter die, and be slain by Antichrist; and are not l 1.66 in the highest heaven, which is the last question.

6. Let us speak of them severally, then joyntly. Concern∣ning Enoch, the first of them who were rapti, it seemeth to me, that the Apostles words, Heb. 11.5. not onely do reach home to that point, unto which before I applyed them, viz. That Enoch died not: but evince also that he shall never die. For it is not said, Enoch was translated, that he should not die for a good while; but he was translated, that he should not, or might not see death: Therefore he cannot, he shall not die hereafter; since the holy Ghost hath expressed, and signed out the end of his translation, Nè videret mortem, That he should not see death.

Some may answer to that place of the Apostle, first, that he speaketh of THE DEATH OF SINNERS: as if he had meant, with the book of * 1.67 Wisdome, to say, NE MALITIA MƲTA∣RET INGENIƲM EJƲS, LEST HE SHOƲLD BE CHAN∣GED TO THE WORSE: for sinners are called DEAD MEN, according to that saying, l 1.68 WICKED MEN, EVEN WHILE THEY LIVE, ARE DEAD; So farre Drusius. To whom let me adde, that Christ saith, Luke 9.60. Let the dead bury their dead. And 1. Timoth. 5.6. She that liveth in pleasure, is dead whilest she liveth. And to the Angel of the Church of Sardis, the Spirit saith, Revel. 3.1. Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. In all which places wicked men are taken for the dead: yet in the place of the Apostle it cannot be so: for he was speaking of the true lives and deaths of Gods Saints. And if the literall sense can be admitted, we must not flee to the mysterie: but here is no inconvenience in the letter. More∣over the same God, who mercifully placed him in the state of Grace, could as easily have kept him so, without inflicting death on him. Lastly, the Apostle said, Hebr. 11.4. Abel is dead; and then descending to Noah and Abraham, at the 13. verse, These all died in faith. I hope no man will say, the word died is here taken for sinned: but it is taken literally, that their souls were parted from their bodies: So the words, That he should not see death, prove that Enochs soul was not parted from his bodie. Indeed he is one of them that are mentioned between Abel and Abraham; but yet singled out by expresse words, That he was translated, lest he should, or might see death: and therefore he is exempted out of the compasse of that word All, by speciall dispensation; and onely Abel, Noah, Abraham, are the All there meant.

Secondly, saith Drusius in his Preface, It may be said, the Apostle spake m 1.69 of calamities, crosses and sicknesses, which may be ac∣counted as a death: as if he had said, Lest he might see death, that is, THE DISCOMMODITIES AND INCONVENIENCIES, WHICH ACCOMPANY DEATH. For, who are continually sick, are accounted as dead. First, I say this is a forced interpre∣tation;

Enoch was translated lest he should see death, that is, lest he should be continually sick; and, that he might not feel the discommo∣dities, which accompany death. Secondly, that opinion leadeth Enoch to death, but not the dolorous way to it: which indeed rather beggeth the question, then proveth any thing against me. Lastly, there is no circumstance inducing us to think, that the Apostle, by the word death, aimed at the large and extended signification of it, for calamities, or sicknes. Sure, about Enoch his time, there were no such notable calamities upon the Saints: and the generations of the world were then strong and health∣full.

Thirdly, saith Drusius in the same place, It may be said, E∣noch died not; because the Scripture, when it mentioneth his rapture, mentioneth not his death: so the Jews say, Jacob is not dead; because the Scripture useth the word of EXPIRING, not of DYING. This is ridiculous; for, what is expiring, but dying? Genes. 49.33. Ja∣cob yeelded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people: doth not either of these phrases, do not both evince that he died? Oh, but the Jews say, Jacob non est mortuus; I am sure, the A∣postle, Hebr. 11.21. speaking of Jacob, saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as he was dying, he blessed his children; or, when he was a dying, as it is in our last translation. It evinceth, he died within a while af∣ter. And I am sure again, that Christ, Luke 20.37. from the te∣stimonie of Moses, proveth, that Jacob died. I am also sure, that S. Stephen saith, Act. 7.15. Jacob went down into Egypt, and died. Surely these crotchets of misbeleeving Jews should not have the least countenance against pregnant proofs both of the Old and New Testament.

Drusius yet inforceth this third answer, thus; The same Apostle saith of Melchisedech, Heb. 7.3. HE WAS WITHOƲT FATHER, WITHOƲT MOTHER, WITHOƲT DESCENT, HAVING NEITHER BEGINNING OF DAYES, NOR END OF LIFE. Wherefore? without doubt, because in Scripture there is no mention of his parents, and kindred, of his birth, or of his death.

I answer. First, If it be said of all, whose progenitours, issues, kindreds, birth, and death, are unrevealed in Scripture, that they were without father, mother, descent, having neither be∣ginning of dayes nor end of life; we should have many, very ma∣ny more Melchisedechs in those respects; Demetrius the sil∣versmith, and Alexander the coppersmith, and troups of the wicked; Daniel, Sidrach, Misach, and Abednego; Nathanael, and Joseph of Arimathea; S. Mark, and S. Luke, and divers others. For, what mention is there of their parents, their children, their genealogies, their birth-dayes, or of their death∣dayes, in the sacred Writ? Therefore these words may be said of Melchisedech, without any reference at all to that reason:

and the words may not be said of others, though the divine Scripture omitteth as much, as it did of Melchisedech.

Secondly, if we grant, that it is in part the reason, why he is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without a father, &c. yet it may be said al∣so, because no other record, before S. Pauls time, no sacred or profane Authour, no tradition, no book Apocryphall, histo∣rified his parents, or issue (so farre as yet appeareth:) And be∣cause S. Paul, who knew the names of Jannes and Jambres some such way, or by revelation immediate, and by no such way knew Melchisedechs pedegree, he might say as he did.

Thirdly, Erasmus saith, Melchisedech came of obscure parents, not worthy to be named. Before him, Eustatius Antiochenus said the same: and perhaps it may be a reason why David called his Nephews, Joab and Abishai, the sonnes of Zeruiah, 2. Samuel, 19.22. (for Zeruiah was Davids own sister, 1. Chron. 2.16.) and omitted their father, for his unworthinesse; yea, the Divine historie, where David is silent, often mentioneth Joab and Abishai, with the addition of their mothers name; but al∣wayes omitteth the fathers name. This I cannot think to be Melchisedechs case: for being a King, and so glorious a Priest, both in one; it is most unlikely, that he had obscure and poore parents: yet he might descend from cursed Cham; as well as Christ, from Moabitish Ruth, or from Rahab the harlot of Canaan.

Fourthly, the Jews say, He was a bastard: But it is sooner said, then proved; for never bastard attained as called by God, to those two highest conjoyned titles, of King and Priest. Ma∣ny men have thought him to be Noah; and more, to be Sem, Noahs sonne; as some Jews; Lyra, and Abulensis: when indeed he can be neither. n 1.70 Some very foolishly think that Sem was Mel∣chisedech (saith Procopius:) But that is impossible: for when I set down his genealogie, it appeareth that he lived not to the time of Terah, or Thara, Genesis 11.24. So he: who hitteth the truth, that Melchisedech was not Sem: but is out in the genea∣logie; for both Noah and Sem lived in Abrahams time. See Cornelius à Lapide, on the Hebrews; and the learned Helvi∣cus. Noah, saith Helvicus, died the 57 yeare of Abraham; and Sem out-lived Abraham.

That neither Noah nor Sem could be Melchisedech, is de∣monstrable from Hebr. 7.6. Melchisedechs descent, or pede∣gree is not counted, saith the Apostle, Hebr. 7. from Levi, or Abraham, or their Progenitours, who came from Arphaxad, the sonne of Sem, the sonne of Noah. Secondly, both Noah, and Sem, and their genealogie and generations, are perfectly and exactly set down: but Melchisedech is without descent, or pedegree, or genealogie, Hebr. 7.3. as undescribed, say they. Thirdly, we know, Sems father was Noah; Noahs father was

Lamech; but Melchisedechs father is not known. Fourthly, Noah died, Genes. 9.29. and Sem lived not 603 yeares, as it is apparent, Genes. 11.10, &c. Helvicus maketh his death fall on his six hundredth yeare; but there is no end known of Mel∣chisedechs dayes. Origen, in likelihood, fore-seeing the incon∣veniences accompanying the fore-recited, and commonly re∣ceived opinion, inventeth a new trick, That Melchisedech was an Angel. After him ran Didymus. But no Angel was ever a temporall earthly King: no Angel was ever a Priest, offering up bread and wine, and receiving tithes; or had an order of Priesthood annexed to any of them: no Angel had ever pedi∣gree from Abraham, or any other. But Melchisedech, though he had none at all from Abraham or his ascendents, none at all mentioned in any authentick records or tradition; yet had he one or other; of which hereafter.

There was one Theodotus, saith o 1.71 Tertullian, and he brought in a novel opinion, and held, That what Christ doth for men, Melchise∣dech doth for the Angels. But this cannot be; for the good An∣gels needed not any Mediatour of Redemption; no, not Christ himself; nor ever had, nor ever shall have. This Arch-heretick had other Melchisedechians, who taught, that Melchisedech was a certain vertue, or power, greater then Christ; because Christ is said to be a Priest according to his order: So Epipha∣nius relateth, lib. 2. Haeres. 55. Yet this holdeth not for the ma∣joritie, or betternes; but for the prioritie, or typicall resemblance.

Some have held, that Christ was a Priest according also to the order of Aaron; and then, by that argument, the Aaronicall Priesthood should be better then Christs; which is plainly confuted in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Christ accomplished every type of him, and according as they signified, did he fulfill: This doth not prove their betternes, or efficacie, greater then his: no more doth his being a Priest according to the or∣der of Melchisedech, either magnifie Melchisedech above Christ, or any way vilifie Christ.

Varietie of conjectures have been manifold; I hold it pro∣bablest, with Josephus the Jew, with divers late Writers, with the ancient Fathers, p 1.72 Dionysius, q 1.73 Epiphanius, r 1.74 Theodoret, Procopius and others, that Melchisedech was one of the Kings of Canaan, and came from Cham, not from Sem. And this God might ordain purposely, that the Gentiles might not despair of salvation: but, though Christ came of the seed of Abraham, and the Jews were Gods peculiar people; yet Christ himself was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, who descended from the cursed seed.

That Melchisedech was the holy Ghost, was a mad opi∣nion, now forsaken of all. That he was not an Angel, nor a ver∣tue greater then Christ, I proved before: but a man, a meer

man: whose pedigree is not to be reckoned from Abraham, or his predecessours: for Abrahams predecessours dwelt in Ʋr of the Caldees, Genes. 11.28, and 31. and, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the floud in old time, Joshuah 24.2. that is, Be∣yond Euphrates Eastward, even unto the East-Indies, did Sems posteritie reach and multiply; propagating true religion, with the histories both of the Creation, and of the Deluge. In the East-Indian Shaster (which is the Canon of their devotion, esteemed by them, as the sacred Bible is by us) there are now many fables intermixed, savouring more of humane invention, then of faith: yet their rationall traditions make nearer ap∣proaches to the divine truth, concerning the creation, then the more ignorant Theologie of the Romanes, till Christs time; and as good laws and precepts have the East-Indians, for mo∣ralitie, and government Oecomenick and Politicall, if not bet∣ter, for a settled State. And I hold it a most remarkable thing, that the East-Indian language, to this day, hath farre more af∣finitie with the Hebrew, then any one of our Occidentall lan∣guages; yea, then all of them put together. And those Indi Aurorae, or, as one calleth them, Indi Diei, have scarce a word, but it is found in the Caldee, Arabick, or primitive Hebrew: and by perfect knowledge in the Hebrew, one may easily at∣tain to the knowledge of all other the Eastern tongues. Whence we may conclude the prioritie of the Hebrew tongue. See the learned William Postell, in his alphabet of twelve tongues, different in characters: and more specially de Indica lingua. One great errour I cannot omit in the said learned Postellus, in his Tractate de lingua Samaritana; for, from S. Hie∣rom, in prooemio libri Regum, and with him, he maintaineth, that it is certain that Esdras, after the instauration of the temple under Zerubbabel, invented other letters, which now we use; and that the characters of the Samaritans and He∣brews were all one till then: and withall, himself found out a very probable specious reason, why Esdras should forsake the old characters, and framed new: and yet he bringeth in the characters of Hebrew now in use, as delivered by God in the tables given to Moses: whereas (if he would be constant to himself) either God gave to Moses the Samaritan letters, and Esdras invented new ones: or, if God gave these now in use to Moses, the Samaritans may be thought to invent new cha∣racters, that they might differ from the Hebrews, and make their schism more irreconcileable, by the strangnesse of misfi∣gured letters. Moses was farre more ancient then Esdras; and the Samaritans, who received no Scripture but Moses his wri∣tings, in all likelihood used the letters and characters used by Moses: and so, in conclusion it will arise, that the Samaritan let∣ters and the Hebrew were all one a long time; which Postel∣lus

confesseth: and that they were exactly the same which God gave to Moses; which Postellus denieth: and after that, Esdras might invent new characters, upon the ground which Postellus framed, and the Jews (as he saith) approved: and these commonly we enjoy. I cannot omit, that you shall finde other characters of the alphabet of that language which was used beyond Euphrates, different from the Samaritan, but more from the Hebrew: And it is in the Hebrew Grammar of Abra∣ham de Balmis, q 1.75 As I found (saith he) in a most ancient book: and he saith, It was r 1.76 the writing used beyond Euphrates. The characters of both which, I would have described exactly, if I had been sure our Printers had the stamps; for others have not: In regard of which defect, M^r Selden, in the preface to his book called Marmora Arundeliana, excuseth his printing of the Samaritan, the Syriack, and Arabick words and passages used in his Commentarie, by the Hebrew letters, rather then by their own proper characters.

I am come back to Jerusalem, where Melchisedech reigned. And though he was a most holy man, and an extraordinary type of Christ; yet, I say, he came of the cursed seed. For Cham possessed all Canaan; and it was called the land of Canaan, from Canaan the sonne of Cham. And he was one of the Kings in that land: for it had many Kings, Genes. 14. Melchisedech, and Job, and many other, in the old Testament, do prove, that God was not the God of the Jews onely, but also of the Gentiles.

This place of the Apostle, Hebr. 11.5. concerning Enoch, Nè videret mortem, hath occasioned much discourse; but I can∣not leave Enoch yet. Indeed it is said, Genes. 5.24. God took him; s 1.77 that is, God sent for him by death, saith Aben Ezra: and so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken, Ezechiel 24.16. t 1.78 Behold, I take away from thee the desire of thine eyes. Salmanticensis Judaeus, in lib. Johasin, 98.2. saith, u 1.79 Rabbi Emmi died: for death snatched him away. And so it is in the Latine phrases, Rapio, and Aufero, what in the Hebrew is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

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

What God, Octavius, Took the away from us? We will bemoan the death of thee, And of our Romane historie.

So farre Drusius in the preface to his book called Henoch. But this is no good exposition, since God took away by death all the rest of the Patriarchs, as well as Enoch; and yet it is most singularly spoken of Enoch, He was not found, for God took him. By death, saith the shallow Jew: but our divine Apostle saith, He was translated, that he might not see death. What Chri∣stian or rationall man will doubt, but we are to incline to the Apostle?

Again, the third answer brought by Drusius (against his own opinion, as himself professeth) to prove, that VIDERE MORTEM, To see death, doth not signifie to die a naturall death, where there is a true separation of the soul from the bo∣die: and that, NON VIDERE MORTEM, Not to see death, on the contrary, doth not signifie To be kept alive from death, (which I, with Drusius, do say, was the true intent of the A∣postle) draweth to this head, Enoch saw not death, that is, died not; because the holy Scriptures, where they make mention of his ra∣pture, mention not his death. I answer, If all were true, yet it fol∣loweth not, that Enoch is dead, or shall die; which is the point questioned.

Moreover, if Enoch were dead, or to die; the wisdome of the Divine Inspirer, would never have singled out such a phrase, among so many other thousand, as should leade men to think the clean contrary. He was translated, that he should not see death. For there resteth the period. If it had been meant, he should die; it would have been added, He should not see death, for a long time; or, He should not see death, till toward the end of the world; or the like. But, He was translated, that he should not see death; Therefore he shall never see death.

Suarez, in tertiam partem summae, quaest. 59. artic. 6. sect. 1. saith directly, S. Paul meaned, that Enoch should not die in that place, into which he was translated. True; But why should he die in any other place? or indeed why should he die at all, who, above other men, was rapted purposely, That he might not see death? Surely, the deferring of death, for a time, is not so great a favour; The exempting one wholly from death, is a blessing, above ordinary. Again, it is said of Enoch, Genes. 5.23. All his dayes were 365. (where dayes are taken for yeares, as otherwhere in Scripture:) But these are not all his dayes, if either he re∣move from one place of the earth into an other, (which Salia∣nus fondly imagined) or live now in a mortall corruptible bodie.

It is said of our blessed Saviour, Hebr. 5.7. He poured out prayers in the dayes of his flesh; that is, whilest he lived on earth the life of nature, in an elementary, terrene, humane, pas∣sive bodie. And of some other Patriarchs, All the dayes of them were such, and such, Genes. 5.17, 20, &c. that is, all the dayes while they breathed on the earth the breath of life in mortall bodies. Therefore even from the very phrase con∣cerning Enoch, All his dayes were 365. we may inferre, He lived not in a mortall bodie any longer on the earth, He liveth not now any where in a mortall bodie.

Somewhat must I say also of Elias severally. Rabbi Solo∣mon, on the 5 of Genes. saith, When Elijah was hurried up in a fiery chariot, his bodie was burnt up of that fire: and, Other Jews

agree with him, saith x 1.80 Bellarmine. For my part, I say, I will not embrace an unlikelihood, though it runne toward my opinion. I think, the cloke might have been burnt, as well as his bodie; and Elishah could not have escaped scorching, when the fire parted them. Again, the ashes might have fallen, as well as his mantle. And the Jew would account it no great favour, to be burnt alive. That fire, certainly, was rather conservative, then destructive: not penal, and consuming, as the fire from heaven drawn down by Elias, 2. Kings, 1.12. not punitive, and conser∣ving, as the fire of hell, Everlasting, Matth. 25.41. Ʋnquenchable, Mark 9.43. but like the fierie furnace, in which the three chil∣dren sang, Daniel 3.25. or the fire in the bush, Exod. 3.3. harmlesse, yea gracious: or the fire at the consummation of the world, which one calleth Ignem rationalem. The phrase then, 2. Kings 2.11. importeth no lesse: Elijah went up, by a whirlwinde into heaven; Elijah, All Elijah, Whole Elijah, Soul and bodie. His soul had no need of a whirlwinde; Elijah went up. It is varied, 1. Maccab. 2.58. He was taken up into heaven. His rapture excluded not his willingnes: his willingnes had been insufficient without his rapture: his ascension being ground∣ed on assumption: the power being Gods, not his: or, his passive∣ly, and Gods actively.

If it be true what Bellarmine avoucheth, That some other Jews agree with Rabbi Solomon in this, that Elijah was burned; Yet I am sure, y 1.81 Sixtus Senensis citeth the opinion of other Jews, to the contrarie. For they said, that the length of time, from the beginning of man till the end of the world, hath been, and shall be measured by the severall lives of seven men: and, that there was never houre from mans creation to the generall resurrection, but some one of these seven men did or shall live in it. Adam lived to see Methuselah; Methuselah was alive in Sems time: Sem died not till Jacob was born: Jacob li∣ved till Amram Moses his father was born: Amram expired not till Ahijah the Shilonite lived: Ahijah lived with Elijah: Elijah shall live till the end of the world: Therefore they thought Elijah was not burnt, is not dead. But first, the Papists themselves say, that Elijah shall be slain by Antichrist, before the end of world: Therefore this maketh not for them. Se∣condly, the Jews might have tucked up the time shorter, on this fashion: Adam lived in the dayes of Enoch; and Enoch to the end of the world. And so their number of seven might be reduced unto two. But let us leave these Rabbinicall specula∣tions concerning Elijah; and say somewhat of him, not as he was in a Paradise of phansie, but as he was with our blessed Saviour on the mount, at that glorious transfiguration. And this I set down for certain; No passage in the Gospels pro∣veth demonstratively, that his bodie was immortall. It is true,

it is said of Elijah and of Moses, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they appeared in glory: which apparition I hold to be true, and reall; though temporarie. They were z 1.82 seen in glorie, saith Montanus. I adde, that the glorie of their souls could not be seen by the bodily eyes of the Apostles; and that the Apostles could not know them by their souls, but by their bodies. And, questionlesse, the bodily glory was meant, and aimed at. Yet none of this can extort a necessarie argument, that the bodies of Moses, or E∣lijah, were immortall, or impassible.

First, concerning Moses, Del Rio, Magicarum Disquisitionum 2. Quaest. 26. Sect. 2. saith, It is not improbable, but that Moses ap∣peared in an aeriall bodie. Indeed Tertullian cometh somewhat neare to Del Rio (though the Jesuite cite him not) a 1.83 Moses appeared in the similitude of flesh which he had not received: for the denomination is taken from the better part. But, He is called Moses from his soul, which being the better part, and present, gives the denomination, saith Del Rio. True, say I, where both mat∣ter and form are joyned in one: where there is a COMPOSI∣TƲM, An unitie framed of a dualitie, A 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. All the souls which came into Egypt, &c. Genes. 46.27. is spoken of such, as then consisted both of souls and bodies.

Secondly, I confesse, Abraham, Dives, and Lazarus are so called, though their bodies were separated then from them. Yet let Del Rio give me a Scripture instance, where ever any one man or humane soul in an aeriall bodie, is called that par∣tie whose soul it is. The triviall objection of Samuel I pur∣posely balk (because I am so farre flown out alreadie) standing upon this, that either true Samuel appeared not; or, if he did, he appeared in his own bodie.

The question which Alexander asked of the first man of the Gymnosophists, was, Whether the dead or the living made the greater number? He answered, The living: For the dead (said he) are no more men. The reason of his answer, is grounded on these Aphorismes; That the soul is not man: That the bodie is not man: That both soul and bodie do concurre to make a man. Neither doth Christs divine reason contradict any part of this, when he avoucheth, That God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. For Christ spake of the souls onely, or of souls which should have bodies at the resur∣rection; and the Gymnosophist, of men consisting of souls and bodies, who are properly to be termed living men: whereas separated souls, though living, are not truly living men.

Augustine, de Civit. Dei, 19.3. hath it thus, out of the great Marcus Varro: In the nature of man are two things; soul, and bo∣die: That the soul is farre better and more excellent then the bodie, he doubteth not: but whether the soul onely be the man, so that the bodie is but as the horse is to the rider, he enquireth. For the

horseman is not the man and the horse, but the man onely: yet he is called an horseman, in reference to the riding of his horse. Lu∣dovicus Vives cometh in like a busie bodie; and he, from Gel∣lius, Marcellus, and Servius; and they, from Ennius and Virgil, will maintain that an horseman is taken for an horse; and an horse, called an horseman. I answer, Virgil followed Ennius his antique phrase; and both of them Poeticall licence. But Var∣ro used proper Philosophicall terms; whilest their language is improper, and in it self both absurd and untrue. S. Augustine out of Varro still proceedeth; Or whether the bodie onely be the man; being semblable to the soul, as the cup is to the potion: For the cup, and the potion contained in the cup, are not together called the cup: but the cup onely is called a cup, because it is fit to hold the potion. Vives here again cometh in with his over-nice ex∣ception, and criticism: b 1.84 That which men drink (saith he) is termed a cup, especially by the Poets:

Poculáque inventis Acheloia miscuit uvis:

his meaning being, that he did mingle wine in the cups of Ache∣loius his framing. I answer, that the cups in that place, are exactly distinguished from the wine in them, and are not taken (quatenus pocula) for the liquor in them. Secondly, if any one hath at any time so used the word; it is Metaphorically, and not in proprietie of language. For he could not mingle wine with, but in the cups: nor did he properly mingle the cups with the wine.

I passe from the second interruption of Vives, to S. Augu∣stine, out of Varro still; Or whether neither soul alone, nor bo∣die alone, but both togeher, be man: of which man one part is ei∣ther the soul or the bodie; but he wholly consisteth of both, to be a man: as we call two horses joyned together BIG AS; whereof either is part of the pair or couple; but neither is the pair or couple, but both harnessed together. In the end, Varro resolveth, saith S. Au∣gustine, That neither the soul, nor the bodie, but both soul and bodie together is the man. And so the chief blessednesse of man consisteth in the good both of soul and bodie. Which opinion is a divine truth; and S. Augustine approveth it, as may be gathered by his whole discourse, and by the beginning of the fifth chap. of that book. So it was not the true Moses, unlesse the very soul and the very bodie of Moses were present.

Yet Aquinas, 3. part. quaest. 45. thinketh that Moses appear∣ed not in his own bodie: which Suarez confuteth by these authorities; S. Hierom, on Matth. 17. S. Augustine, de Mirab. sacrae Scripturae, 3.10. which is followed by Sotus, in 4. senten. distinct. 43. Hieronymus Natalis the Jesuit, thinks he strikes all sure: for amongst his curious costly pictures upon the foure Gospels, he picturing out the transfiguration of our Saviour, bringeth in Moses with horns on his head; to designe, that it

was the same Moses, and the same bodie which Moses had on the mount; according to the Vulgat, Exod. 34.29. Ignora∣bat Moses quòd cornuta esset facies sua: that is, according to Na∣talis his opinion, Moses knew not that he had horns: and vers. 30. Viderunt filii Israel cornutam faciem Mosis: that is, according to the same mans phansie, The Israelites saw Moses his horns: though intruth the words may be farre better translated. And so vers. 35. Was not the Jesuits face made of horn, or rather of brasse, who published in so seeing and cleare-sighted an age, such an ignorant conceit, with such boldnesse; when indeed the words in the Originall, as they are translated by their own in∣terlinearie, are onely thus, Promicuisset cutis facierum ejus, The skin of his face was sleek: and in the margin is, Resplendebat, did shine: which is also used in the Translation of Vatablus? Like∣wise, in the two other before-recited places, the same phrase is used. The Septuagint have it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. c 1.85 Moses knew not that the splendour of his face and countenance was glorified, as Vatablus translateth the Seventy; Which, he saith, more fully expresseth the Hebrew, and is accordingly followed by the Apostle, 2. Cor. 3.7. for the glorie of his countenance. Indeed the Original 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth pro∣perly signifie an horn: from whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is splendere, radiare, fulgere, to shine. Because (saith Vatablus from a learned Jew, when man beholdeth earnestly, and intentively, the Sunne, or any lu∣minous bodie; the rayes seem to be sent forth of it, like horns, in some sort. But (saith Vatablus) out of the false, or ill-understood version of the Vulgat, they, who were no linguists, made the people falsly be∣leeve, that Moses had two horns on his head; which is most false. So farre Vatablus, though a man of their own, against the brain∣sick faction of the Jesuit; who will maintain the people in any errour, if it be old; rather then suffer reformation. The Caldee hath it, Multiplicatus est splendor gloriae vultûs Mosis, The bright∣nesse of Moses his face increased in glory more and more: Corne∣lius à Lapide the Jesuit, though he strive for the truth of the Vulgat, yet saith, Moses had no horns in his forehead; d 1.86 as pain∣ters place on him. Little perhaps did he think, that his fellow-Jesuit Hieronymus Natalis was one of these painters; yea and that in one of the costlyest editions of the storie of the Go∣spels, that ever was set forth. But the wiser and more succinct Sa, hath it, HORNY, e 1.87 that is, glistering: in the Hebrew, resplendent. And Cajetan, better then he, f 1.88 In the litterall signification we have nothing to do with horn, though perchance there is some allu∣sion to it by a Metaphor.

Concerning which Moses his face, I will end with two ob∣servations.

The first is a very idle one, out of Bellarmine, De Sanctorum reliquiis 2.4. g 1.89 It is very credible, that the dead bodie of Moses

preserved the radiant comelinesse and beauty of his face, which he had in life: as it hath happened to many of the Saints. But he na∣meth no Saint: And if he did, we should hardly beleeve him. And Moses himself died privately: and was buried secretly: no man saw him dying or dead. I acknowledge that some of the Ancients have inclined to this, viz, that Moses his face did shine all his life time, when he spake to the people. So Ambrose, in Psal. 118. h 1.90 So long as Moses lived, and spake to the people, he had a vail before his face: not after death, as Bellarmine thinks proba∣ble. Besides, the Apostle, 2. Corinth. 3.7. termeth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the glorie of his countenance, which was to be done away: There∣fore it continued not after death; if it did till then, whensoever he spake to the people. And our late translation seemeth in part to accord, Exod. 34.33. Till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face: Yet the word Till, is not in the originall: but it may be probably expounded, That when Moses had done speaking, he put a vail on his face (for so the Hebrew, Greek, and Latine runne:) And though Moses ordinarily put off the vail, when he went to speak with God; and put it on, when he returned: yet once, and at the first of all, he might speak unto the people with face open, for more reverence and ma∣jestie.

The second observation is from Origen, Homil. 12. in Exod. circa medium; and it is a good one. In the Law (saith he) Moses his face was glorified, though vailed: but his hand put into his bo∣some WAS LEAPROƲS AS SNOW, Exod. 4.6. i 1.91 In his shining countenance was a figure of the Law: by his hands are works signi∣fied. Now because no man can be justified by the works of the Law, his hand was leprous.— His face was glorified, but vailed: therefore his words were full of knowledge; yet secret, and hidden. — Yea, in the Law, Moses had onely a glorified face: hands and feet were unglo∣rified: — for Moses also put off his shoes, that an other, in after times, might have the bride: k 1.92 and she be called to this day the house of the unshod. — l 1.93 But in the Gospels all Moses is wholly glorified. — It seemeth also to mee, that Moses rejoiceth in this point: because himself in a sort, now layeth aside his vail: being con∣verted to Christ, when those things are plainly fulfilled, which he foretold.

By which glorification you cannot necessarily interpret such a glorification as the Saints shall have after judgement, which never shall have end, where m 1.94 corruptible shall put on in∣corruption immutable: but onely of a temporarie glorification: for Moses layd down his bodie again, as is held most probably.

The authour of that book, which is intituled Altercatio Sy∣nagogae & Ecclesiae, cap. 21. (S. Paul and Gamaliel being inter∣locutours) thus; Jesus Christ after his transfiguration n 1.95 buried Moses. A strange honour, (if true) that the same, who was bu∣ried

by God himself in the Old Testament, should be thus glo∣rified for a while, and after buried by Christ himself in the New Testament.

Furthermore, that there is no absolute necessitie, that either Moses or Elias (though they were seen in glorie) had immor∣tall and impassible bodies by the transfiguration, appeareth by this, That our blessed Saviour himself, after that his transfi∣guration, had a mortall bodie, and did die: especially, if we con∣sider, that his glorie was greater then theirs; as the Masters is above the Servants; and the Lords, above the Attendants.

Barradas on the transfiguration, saith, o 1.96 Christ would have his servants present, transfigured as well as himself, and adorned with singular glorie and majestie: as at marriages and other festivall dayes, the nobilitie richly clad do wait on Kings. Tertullian, adversus Mar∣cionem, cap. 22. saith, Moses and Elias were seen p 1.97 equally bright and glorious. Luke 9.29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; As he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered. q 1.98 Let no man imagine (saith Hierom) that our Saviour lost the nature of a true bodie; onely he converted the outward form and fashion all into brightnes. The like may I say of Moses and Elias; if they had their glorie by redundance from Christs glo∣rie, as Suarez maintaineth: and then there is no necessitie, nor indeed great likelihood, that Christs glorious transfiguration should leave to himself a mortall bodie; and they should be by him then invested in eternall tabernacles of incorruptible flesh.

Now as I have clearely declared my judgement, that it hold∣eth not demonstratively from any puncto, that Elias at the transfiguration had an unchangeably glorious estate of bodie: so I hold it very probable, that Elias did never die properly; but was changed at his rapture; and, at his ingresse into heaven, enjoyed a truly glorified bodie; and both unto the time of Christs transfiguration, and then, and ever since enjoyeth, and liveth in flesh incorruptible; not Animall, but Spirituall, as the blessed Saints shall have after the end of the world.

If any one think to choke me with my former words, That Christs glorie was greater then the glorie of his servants; And therefore, if Elias had an immortall bodie, Christ must have one also; which he had not: I answer, That the hypostaticall union of the Divine Nature to the Humane in Christ, was at all times of greater glorie, then the glorified estate of the Saints shall be after the resurrection.

Secondly, as intensively Christs glorie was greater then Elijahs, though it was eclipsed by Christs voluntarie conde∣scent, that he might accomplish the work of our redemption: so extensively, at the instant of the transfiguration, I doubt not, but the bodily glorie of Christ was as farre above his servants glorie, as the light of the sunne surpasseth the light of lesser

starres. Therefore, all things considered, Christs bodily glorie was greater then Elijahs, though Elijahs was immortall, and Christs then changeable and mortall.

Bellarmine, in his Apologie against the judicious Monitorie preface of King James, esteemeth it as p 1.99 much to be admired at, that the learned King said, Enoch and Elias are now glorified in heaven. Many things indeed might Bellarmine learn by his Majestie, which are & laudanda, & valde admiranda, both to be praised and wondred at: but, taking valde admirandum in the wor∣ser sense, I say, his wonder is full of ignorance and malice. Wherefore, omitting much of what that really-unanswerable Bishop hath copiously alledged, I say, It is no such strange matter; to say, or beleeve, that Enoch and Elias have glorifi∣ed bodies. And yet here, first of all, I will ingenuously con∣fesse that a man, both in soul and in a corruptible bodie, may be in the third heaven: because S. Paul else might have known, that himself was not in the third heaven in his bodie: but his doubting and nesciencie (2. Cor. 12.2, &c. Whether in the bodie, I cannot tell; or whether out of the bodie, I cannot tell; God knoweth) proveth that either might have been. The disjunctive might else have been spared, if it could have been done onely one way: Therefore it is possible unto the Almightie, that Elias might or may have a passive mortall bodie, though he were rapt into heaven, and there be at this present. But, A posse ad esse non valet consequentia: and the reasons and authoritie which place Elias in heaven, in an unpassible bodie, are more pon∣derous and numerous, then theirs which embrace the con∣trarie.

If it be objected, that Elias went not up into the third heaven, because he was carried up in a whirlwinde: and whirlwindes reach not to the third heaven: I answer, By the same cavill they may say, Our Saviour ascended not into heaven, when a cloud received him out of their sight, Act. 1.9. because clouds pierce not to the highest heaven. But we must distinguish be∣tween things ordinarie and extraordinarie. Both the whirlwinde and the cloud had somewhat in them above the common le∣uell of nature, and were not meerly elementarie; but adapted to higher and diviner uses, then common clouds or whirl∣windes.

I remove this passant tabernacle of discourse from an ob∣jection unto the standing mansion of our great Adversaries con∣fessions. Suarez, in tertiam partem Summ. quaest. 53. artic. 3. con∣fesseth in this manner: q 1.100 Some men are in hell both soul and bo∣die, before the generall resurrection: as Dathan, and Abiram, and the like. He is seconded by Peter Morales, another Jesuit, in his fifth book on the first chapter of S. Matthew, Tract. 11. This opinion is somewhat minced by Ribera, upon the words,

Revel. 19.20. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone: who hath his second also, viz. Blasius Viegas; for they say, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were swallowed up alive; but then the earth closed, and they died, and their souls onely were carried into hell. The like they say of Antichrist, and his fore-runner. But this nicetie is contradicted by the Vulgat, which to them is authenticall: Num. 16.33. Descenderunt vi∣vi in infernum: so also in the thirtieth verse; and so the Inter∣linearie rightly readeth it, according to the Hebrew. And if infernus did signifie the grave, in the case of Korah and his complices, as it doth not (for then it had been no such ex∣traordinarie miracle, for people alive to be swallowed up by the earths rupture; since many people, yea, whole cities have often been so punished, and came to destruction: but they were for a signe, Numb. 26.10. that is, for an example; that others should not murmure and rebell against Gods Ministers; as the Genevean Note on the place, soundly, and pertinently, and deeply interpreteth:) yet concerning Antichrist and his false∣prophet, mentioned by them, it cannot be so: for it is said most punctually, Revel. 19.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vivi missi sunt hi duo in stagnum ignis ardentis, & sulphuris, These both were cast alive into a lake of burning fire and brimstone, as it is in their Vulgat. Montanus varieth it thus, In stagnum ardens in sulphure, Into a lake burning in brimstone. They did not descend r 1.101 to the grave, to hell, to the lake of fire, exclusively; coming onely to the brink: but, s 1.102 they descended into hell, into the lake of fire, they were plunged in∣to it. Therefore they did not die by the way, or at the gates of hell; but actually and really entred into those fierie mansi∣ons, or burning chambers. For both Ribera and Viegas will be ashamed to say, that the grave burneth with fire and brim∣stone; which they must be forced to say, if they continue to hold, that Antichrist and his fore-runner leave their bodies in the grave.

Andreas Caesariensis (saith Viegas on Revel. 13.) thinketh that Antichrist and his fore-runner shall not die; t 1.103 but with incor∣ruptible bodies shall descend alive into hell. And as concerning Korah, and his fellow-mutiners; though some think, it can∣not be understood literally, of the nethermost hell; because it is said, Numb. 16.33. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit: but their goods, and their houses went not to hell: therefore not their bodies: Yet I answer, The Text is too much wrung, and strained: for by the like wrench, they may as well prove that their houses and goods were alive: the letter will bear one as well as the other, if they ground on some translation of the Seventie; for of the Originall I shall speak anon. But the true meaning is, They,

and all their things, came to that destruction, which in their nature they were capable of: their tents and goods were swal∣lowed up and consumed; their bodies were hurried to their own places; not of rest (as is the common death of all men, till the judgement generall) but extraordinarily, they endured present punishment.

Our learned Doctour Raynolds, Tom. 1. de libris Apocryphis, praelect. 81. pag. 973. relateth, that Epiphanius, in Ancorato, held; Korah, Dathan, and their rebellious troups, u 1.104 descended living and quick into hell; their souls not disunited from their bodies; no remnant or part left behinde: but they all and wholly, souls and bo∣dies, were delivered up to torment. And thus that most learned Professour discourseth, x 1.105 They descended, with all things that were theirs, alive into hell, as it is in the Hebrew. What is meant by those words, All things? Their Tabernacles, houses, and goods. But I beleeve, the Papists will not say, that their houses and goods descended into the place of souls; but into the place of bodies. Therefore Moses denoteth the place of bodies, not of souls. The honoured Doctour might also have considered, that it may be as well said, that their bodies went to hell, as their souls to the sepulchre; if the place of their descent had been understood onely of the rece∣ptacles of bodies, and not of souls. Secondly, (as I touched be∣fore) may not as well their bodies go to hell alive, as they, and all that appertained to them, went down (as the Seventie in Vata∣blus have it) alive into the pit? Thirdly, did their tabernacles, houses, beasts, and goods go down into their graves? Graves are not the proper places for tents, beasts and goods? but for hu∣mane bodies. Those terms of locus corporum, are obscure; and culled out purposely, for a starting-hole: whereas, if he had said, Moses denoted their sepulchres onely, and not hell (which he doth in effect afterward;) we may presse him with this, That they are much happier then other: for whereas others bring nothing into this world, nor carrie any thing out of it; these men went not to hell, in Moses his meaning; but carried with them, out of this world, their beasts, their goods, yea their very tents. But their miserie and curse extraordinarie is descri∣bed, and not their happinesse.

Lastly, I could wish that the worthy Doctour had through∣ly weighed how divinely the Holy Writ discriminateth seve∣rall matters. Moses prophesied Numb. 16.30. If the earth swal∣low them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit, &c. where you must interpret it, as if he had thus said, The earth indeed shall swallow and cover alike both them and all their goods: but the persons themselves shall go down alive (VIVENTES, living, as the Interlinearie hath it; vivi, as Do∣ctour Raynolds) lower; even to the pit. And accordingly it came to passe, vers. 32. The earth swallowed them up, and their houses, and

all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods: where you see, the earth swallowed all alike; the chief leaders, and their goods; the associates of Korah, and all their goods. Yet for the persons themselves, it is said in the next verse, by way of distinction, remarkably; They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit: which you cannot possibly inter∣pret of their goods, and tabernacles: (for they never were alive; and never could go down alive, no not to the grave, or to any pit whatsoever) but of the principals, and the accessaries; viz. the chief rebels, and their partakers: for diverse men appertai∣ned to them, as is apparent vers. 32. and therefore, what our En∣glish translation hath somewhat dubiously, and ambiguously, They, and all that appertained to them, (where it is not significant∣ly enough expressed, whether men onely, or men and goods are comprised under the words) the Interlinearie hath exactly, and truly determined, y 1.106 They descended, and all the men which lived with them, alive into hell: and Vatablus, z 1.107 And both they descen∣ded and as many men as were their partakers, living and quick into hell: the quot quot having reference to men onely, not to other things: for then it would have been viventia, and not viven∣tes: and therefore in the margin of Vatablus, it is thus varied, a 1.108 All they who belonged to them. Where the masculine gender designeth out the men onely to go alive into the pit. To be plain, I care for no opinion, as it is an opinion of Bellarmines, or of the Pontificians; but if they light upon a truth, I will ac∣cept of it, not as theirs, but as true: b 1.109 Socrates shall be my compa∣nion, Plato my friend, truth my familiar friend: and Vel veritas, vel

— Virtus & in hoste probatur. Or truth, or any vertue do I like, Even in an enemie that would me strike.

And I hold Bellarmines opinion true, That Korah, his par∣tisans and companie, descended alive into hell. And that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Numbers 16.30, and 33 verses, signifieth hell properly. c 1.110 You shall discern by the manifest circumstances of the place, that Moses meaneth some place under the earth fitted or appointed as receptacles of bodies, not of souls, saith Doctour Raynolds.

Herein I must needs dissent. And first, I say, What is this a 1.111 place of bodies? It must be either the grave, or hell; or let him designe us out a third place. A third place he cannot name; especially for humane bodies. Some held concerning infants, That in regard of their innocencie they are to have eter∣nall life: but because they were not baptized, they should not be with Christ in his kingdome. But Augustine saith, That Christ himself confuted b 1.112 this new-invented middle or third mansion: and as he said a little before, more generally, c 1.113 It is impossible for any man to be in any middle place, but he must needs be with the devil, who is not with Christ: so do I say of this Lo∣cus

corporum, It is either hell, or the grave: Tertium locum pe∣nitus ignoramus, We know no third place. The Papists erre, to establish a Purgatorie for the soul, besides hell and heaven: And Doctour Raynolds doth not well, to mention so often a Locus corporum; where he ought to name, Where it is, and What bodies go into it.

Secondly, it is plain, that their souls did sinne, their souls were punished, and went down to hell. Doth not the Apo∣stle S. Jude (vers. 11.) speak of such, as perished in the gain∣saying of Korah; — to whom, not the wo of a sudden death is denounced, but (vers. 13.) the blacknesse of darknesse for ever is reserved? doth not the place stand fair for the damnation of Korah and his fellows? Though Doctour Raynolds minceth it in this doubtfull manner: d 1.114 I denie not but their souls, if they died obstinate in their wicked rebellion, were adjudged to the hell where Dives was. Again, when the Scripture saith, Si creatio∣nem creaverit Dominus, (Numb. 16.30.) If the Lord shall make a new thing, or a strange thing, as new almost, as strange to sight almost, as is the creation (for I take so much to be im∣plyed in that unusuall phrase;) what reason hath that grave Doctour to say, e 1.115 That which is properly meant by the words, IF THEY GO DOWN QƲICK INTO HELL, is nothing else, but that the horrible and dreadfull judgement of God, divinely shall be inflicted on them, viz. in such sort, that whereas others first die, and then are buried, these shall be buried (as it were) a∣live. Why so reservedly and cautelously is it added, As it were, alive? Again, e 1.116 It was the place of bodies, and not of souls, into which Korah, Dathan, and Abiram descended: (as if their souls were in the place appointed for bodies) which he further parallelleth with the burying alive of the deflowred Vestall virgins: though he ought to distinguish between the extraordinary miraculous hand of God, and the ordinary ju∣stice of men in such cases. And the Vestall virgins were farre longer ere they died, then Korah and his companie, ere they were swallowed up.

Let the judicious reader ponder these words of that fa∣mous Doctour, Is nothing else: and Shall be buried, as it were, alive: and, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram descended not into the place of souls (though the souls of all wicked men do so: and their souls, by his reason, should have more priviledge then other wicked mens:) and, I dare say, he will think that Do∣ctour Raynolds might more safely have held the other opi∣nion, That their souls and bodies went alive to hell properly so called.

That Moses denoteth the place of bodies, I denie not: for even that place is in hell, for all the bodies of the wicked in due time, and for these mens bodies, extraordinarily, be∣fore the generall judgement.

But I am loth to say, Moses meant not the place of souls: I am loth to entertain a thought, That the Rebels them∣selves did repent; for, if they did so, they are saved: I would be loth to flee from rationable probabilitíe, to possibilitie; which hath a farre-stretched almightie arm; and to say, as he doth, g 1.117 It may be that some of them were not faultie; or, if they were, repented. That they repented who were swallowed up alive, seems not agreeable to S. Jude, who (ver. 11.) pronoun∣ceth a fearfull wo against such as are like unto them, and perish∣ed in the gainsaying of Korah: In which wo, not temporall bodily punishment alone, but eternall torment of the soul is included. Compare the words with 2. Pet. 2.12. Moreover, none dares denie the possibilitie of repentance; but who can think it probable, That God would send such an extraordina∣rie punishment on such as were innocent, or repented; when as the children of that Luciferian Arch-rebel Korah, were exem∣pted from that destruction? Numb. 26.11. Notwithstanding the children of Korah died not: yea, were eminent and famous a∣mong the Levites; Were over the work of the service, keepers of the gates of the Tabernacle, and their fathers were over the hoste of the Lord: — and the Lord was with them, 1. Chron. 9.19. &c. And they were either excellent Musicians, or Singers, or Pen-men for Divine Service; as may be collected from ma∣ny Psalmes, intituled, To the sonnes of Korah; as, Psal. 42. Psal. 44. Psal. 87. And when the Scripture saith, They descended alive into the pit, I would be loth to varie the phrase as he doth, h 1.118 If they died in their obstinacie. I denie not, but in a large sense, they may be said to die: and the Scripture saith, They should not die the common death of all men, Numb. 16.29. yet also, They descended alive into the pit: which cannot be bet∣ter reconciled, then to say, The state of their bodies was changed; immortalitie swallowed up their mortalitie, in the act of their descending, or passion rather, if you will so call it. There was no true separation between their souls and their bodies; and therefore they died not: their change notwithstand∣ing may be reputed for a death; which perhaps also shall be the case of all the wicked, who shall be alive at Christs se∣cond and glorious coming; and shall be certainly the estate of the righteous, who shall be alive at that great and dreadfull day.

I would be loth also to say, That nothing else is noted by the words, but that, Whereas others die first, and then are buried; these men were buried alive, or as live men: that I may passe by his amphibolous phrase, i 1.119 I denie not, but their souls, if they died obstinate in their wicked rebellion, were sentenced to hell with Dives. Why doth he not specialize where those in∣feri are? and in what place Dives is? or did they go to a

parabolicall hell? for he could not be ignorant that many hold that historie of Dives to be but a parable.

The truth and summe of all is this; By divine power ex∣traordinarie, the houses, or tents, the beasts, and the goods of Korah and his complices, were separated and secluded from the use of men; were swallowed up, and covered in the earth, and came to that end and destruction which they were capa∣ble of: No word of God saith expressely, no inference or reason evinceth, no probabilitie induceth us to think, that their tents, houshold-stuffe, or utensils were alive; or that they, yea, or the beasts of these conspiratours, went into the graves of them, (if graves they had any;) much lesse, did such trash descend into hell, that place of torment, that Tophet prepared for wicked men, that Deep, excruciating and af∣frighting both the Devil and his Angels. That tents, goods, and faculties should go thither, to what purpose were it? but God doth nothing, unlesse it be to some great end or purpose: therefore to the lowest hell their goods descended not. But as concerning the men themselves, it is plainly said, That both the earth did open its mouth, and swallowed them up, (even as it did their tents, or beasts, or goods:) and after that, most distinctly; that they went down alive into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but their souls could not go into the graves, and there reside; and their bodies might go into hell, and there reside; therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, must needes there be expounded, not of the grave, nor of lo∣cus corporum (as Doctour Raynolds phraseth it) but of the hell of the damned, of the locus animarum; which place also must be the receptacle for all humane bodies of the wicked, after the day of doom and retribution; and may be the prison of those reprobate both souls and bodies, whom God miraculously thither adjudgeth, as he did this rebellious rout.

Though Lyra, cited by Doctour Raynolds, thinks the grave is meant, because it is appointed for all men to die, and after that cometh judgement: yet I have many wayes proved, that by espe∣ciall dispensation, and by extraordinarie priviledge, some may receive favour, beyond the common rule or course of nature: and contrarily, I doubt not, but upon so great a commotion, and furious rebellion, God could, and did, by way of exempla∣rie punishment, punish these men bodily, before the usuall time; and sent their bodies to hell, before the generall judge∣ment.

If Cajetan, and Hieronymus ab Oleastro, cited by that Re∣verend Doctour, expound 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the grave; yet they want both weight and age, to put down Epiphanius, before recited, and many other Ancients, who place their bodies in hell.

I accept then of Suarez his confession before mentioned; and agree with him, That Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, are now,

both in souls and bodies, in hell. And upon this ground, I thus work: If they be there, they are there to be punished, and are punished: if they burn in hell-fire, they have no longer mortall bodies: But as at the last day, the bodies of the wicked, that are alive then, shall put on immortalitie; so the bodies of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, were not properly separated from their souls; but were changed, and fitted for such places of punish∣ments, in the instant of their descent: and so they descended alive into the pit of hell.

Then why may not Enoch and Elias be in immortall and glorified bodies, since they were assumed up into heaven? espe∣cially, since Suarez himself again ingenuously confesseth, k 1.120 It is convenient, yea proper to nature, that a glorified soul should be united to an immortall and glorified bodie. And the souls of Enoch and Elias are now glorified, by the like acknowledgement of our learned Adversaries.

Again, where the souls of Enoch and Elias are, there also are their bodies: But their souls are in the highest heaven. For our Saviour saith, John 17.24. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am. And John 12.26. Where I am, there shall also my servant be. But Christ is in the highest heavens: Therefore both Enoch and Elias are, with their bodies, in the third heaven: unlesse you can say, They were not given by God to Christ, and were not Christs servants. Now since they are there in their bodies; it is very unlikely, that they should be there some thousands of yeares in bodies mortall and unglorified. Hierom, ad Pammachium, avoucheth, l 1.121 They enjoy and have the fruition of the Deitie, and are fed with heavenly food: which is not meat for mortall bodies.

Besides, S. Hierom, Tom. 3. Epist. pag. 189. in Epistola ad Mine∣rium & Alexandrum, citeth Theodorus Heracleotes, instan∣cing in Enoch and Elias, as carried to heaven, and as having overcome death. And Apollinarius fully agreeth with the other, with this addition onely, that Enoch and Elias have now glorified bodies. Dorotheus, in Synopsi de Elia, thus, m 1.122 Who was on the earth as other men; now, as a spirit, liveth in heaven with the Angels: therefore he hath not a mortall bodie.

Again, in most of the generall promises that God hath made, he giveth some instance or other, to be as it were a taste of what shall succeed; lest mens hearts should fail, in ex∣pectancie of that, whereof they see no kinde of proof. As for example, because it was promised, that there shall be a resur∣rection, it was figured, not onely more obscurely in Isaac his rising up from the Altar; in the drawing of Joseph out of the pit; in the Whales deliverie of Jonah; in Samsons breaking from the cords; in Daniels escape from the lions; in the waters yeelding and giving up Moses, to live in the Kings house, and

the like: but more evidently, by the reall, and temporarie rai∣sing up of divers dead, both in the Old and New Testa∣ment.

Likewise, the glorification of our bodies being determined by God, and by him promised; yea, Enoch himself prophe∣sying, that God cometh with ten thousands of his Saints, to exe∣cute judgement upon all, Jude 14, and 15 verses; which is not, cannot be executed, without the glorifying of souls and bo∣dies of his servants; we may well think, it pleased God to give to the old world a pledge or two of the generall glorifica∣tion of the bodies of his Saints, by the particular perfor∣mance of the same to the bodies of Enoch and Elias, whom he assumed up into heaven, by way of especiall favour.

To this I may adde, That Enoch and Elijahs raptures be∣ing types of Christs ascension, since Christ ascended in a glo∣rified and immortall bodie, the shadows must be like the sub∣stance: and therefore they ascended in glorified immortall bodies.

Suarez is driven to a great exigent: They were onely (saith he) n 1.123 in a state in which they might merit and increase in grace, till the time in which they were translated: And as they were trans∣lated, they were so confirmed in grace, that they can commit no sinne: And to their old estate of meriting shall they return, when they shall live again amongst men. But who ever heard of such turnings and returnings in any other men or Angels? or that their estate shall be changed from o 1.124 an estate wherein they cannot sinne, to an estate in which they may sinne? and so backward? For supposing they shall live again, and die again; if they can merit, they can also sinne whilest they live among men: and so, when they die, and have their reward in heaven, this shall be no small part of it, p 1.125 To have no power to sinne. But this opinion somewhat resembleth the diversified estate of devils, who shall be saved after the generall judgement, as Origen feign∣ed and fabled; and which the Church hath branded for er∣roneous.

And now I see I have fallen, before I was aware, upon the fourth and last question by me propounded, Whether Enoch and Elias shall ever die, or do live with glorified bodies in the highest heavens? which also I have answered at large, That they never shall die, but do and shall live in glorified bodies. Tertulli∣an, I confesse, said concerning Elias at the Transfiguration, q 1.126 He appeared in true flesh which had never been separated from its soul: and more punctually, de Anima cap. 50. r 1.127 Enoch and Elias were translated: nor is their death recorded, or known; it being adjourn∣ed: they are kept and preserved that they may die hereafter, and by their bloud overthrow and extinguish Antichrist, as Baronius cites him. And the more common opinion of the Papists is,

That they two shall be slain: and they prove it by Rev. 11.7. When the two witnesses shall have finished their testimonie, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomlesse pit, shall overcome, and kill them. The three other places of Scripture, on which Bel∣larmine built his third demonstration, that Antichrist is not come, because Enoch and Elias are not yet come, are answer∣ed before. This last place and passage of Scripture, used by Bellarmine, de Romano Pontif. 3.6. cometh now to be examined: and you shall finde it thus well winnowed by Bishop Andrews, in his Answer to Cardinall Bellarmines Apologie, Cap. 11. That the two witnesses are the two Testaments, as Beda, Pri∣masius, Augustinus, and Ticonius are Authours. S. Hilarius rejecteth Enoch, and puts Moses in his room, and that very peremptorily: Though many have substituted Jeremie in Enochs room, saith Hilarie on Matth. Can. 20. S. Hierom, the next Fa∣ther cited by Bellarmine, is not constant enough for Elias (which I touched at before:) and Rupertus, on Malach. 4. te∣stifieth so much of Hierom: and Bullinger, in Apocal. lib. 3. v. 3. saith, S. Hierom esteemeth them to be Jews and Jewish hereticks, who think Elias shall come again. Lactantius, cited by Bellarmine, in his Apologie, nameth neither Enoch, nor Elias. And Chrysostom, Theodoret, Origen, and Primasius say nothing of Enoch. Hip∣polytus, for the two witnesses, brings in three; one whereof is S. John the Divine: and indeed he is more likely to be one of the witnesses, then Enoch; for unto him it was said, Revel. 10.11. Thou must prophesie again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings: but no such thing was said to Enoch. Others say, Elizeus shall be one of the two witnesses. Hieronymus, saith, r 1.128 Ʋnlesse a man understand this place of the Revelation spi∣ritually, he must needs settle and rest on Jewish fables. Maldonate on the 17 of Matthew, and his learned Interpreter, saith, It is so cleare a matter, that Moses and Elias shall come, that none but a rash and impudent man can denie it. Thus much Bishop Andrews in his Answer to the place of the Revelation, against Bellarmines Apologie; who vaunted of a cloud of Fathers; which cloud is vanished almost into nothing.

Much more of great worth and consequence hath that Reverend Bishop, in the same 11 chapter, concerning Enoch and Elias, living in glorified bodies; to whom I referre the Reader. And this shall suffice to have spoken of Enoch, and of Elias, against Bellarmines third demonstration (as he calleth it) that Antichrist is not yet come. Every part and parcell of which proof is so weak, and so farre from concluding apodicti∣cally; that they scarce deserve a place among probable argu∣ments. And thus is the second main branch of my answers made good and manifested, That some have been excepted from death, viz. Enoch and Elias; though it be objected, that

It is appointed for men to die. The third part of my answer followeth, That others also shall be excepted.

O Fountain of life, and preserver of men, to whom belong also the issues of death: I have deserved to die the first and second death, I have provoked thy long-suffering, I am no more worthy to be called thy sonne; Lord make me as one of thy hired servants, and put me to what labour, to what pain soever, within me, without me, so long as pleaseth thee: onely, I beseech thee for the blessed mediation of thy dearely beloved onely Sonne, Jesus Christ my Saviour, give me grace not to faint under the burthens appointed; and at the end of the day, at my lives end, vouchsafe to give me a penie among thy la∣bourers, and eternall life among thy chosen. Amen.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Malè atque vitiosè in Bibliis Regiis scri∣ptum est, in Translati∣one 70, Ecce, ego mit∣tam vobis Eliam Pro∣phetam.
• b 1.2

  Cùm Graeci utrobique legant, ascendisse Eli∣am, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non In coelum, (quod expressē tamen habetur in Hebraeo) sed, Quasi in coelum.
• c 1.3

  Et eandem Spiritus sanc••••, vel gratiam ha∣buit, vel mensuram: sed & vitae austeritas, vig••rque mentis, He∣liae, & Joannis, pares sunt, &c.
• d 1.4

  Elias quidem ven∣turus est. Ipse qui venturus est in secundo Salvatoris adventu, juxta corporis fidem, nunc per Joannem ve∣nit in virtute & Spi∣ritu.
• a 1.5

  Hodie multorum ••pi∣nio est, credentiū istud Malachiae vaticinium ex parte tantùm in Jo∣anne completum fuisse•• Hi tenent, venturum abhuc Eliam in propria persona, sub adventum Domini, quem vocant alterum, sive secun∣dum; hoc est, ante ex∣tremum judicium: Quae vera, an falsa sint, non decerno: H••c tantùm, Judaeos etiamnum, cum suo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, expecta∣re Eliam, de quo hî•• sermo est: unde dicunt, Cùm venerit Elias, ipse docebit nos o∣mnia.
• b 1.6

  Ante Christum glo∣riosum, ut super Mat∣thaeum ass••rit H••erony∣mus.
• c 1.7

  Judaei, & Judaizan∣tes haeretici.
• d 1.8

  Si it à est, ut Janse∣nius dicit, sequitur Ec∣clesiasticum errâsse, & falsa scripsisse.
• e 1.9

  Vixit, dum vixit, laudabiliter.
• f 1.10

  Nepotes sui simile••.
• g 1.11

  Filii Dei sunt, judi∣cio Augustini, qui se∣cunditm Deum vivunt.
• h 1.12

  Honoris cau••â.
• i 1.13

  Sunt qui insimulan; eum levitatis & incon∣stantiae: nam aiunt mo∣dò justum, modò impro∣bum fuisse. Id relatum in Genesi magno.
• k 1.14

  Enoch ambulavit in viis Domini, postquam genuit Methusalem, an∣nos 300.
• l 1.15

  Non in viis domini, sed in viis seculi sui.
• m 1.16

  Voluntas hominis deambulatoria est us{que} ad mortem, &c.
• n 1.17

  Justus erat Enoch; at mente levis, ut faci∣lè redire potuerit ad vitam improbam: ideo properabat Deus eum tollere.
• o 1.18

  Si tum demum, postquam genuit Me∣thusalem, placuit Deo Enoch, certè antequam gigneret, ut Scriptura docet, non gratus & ac∣ceptus erat Deo. Quòd igitur amore complexus est eum Deus, poeni∣tentiae, quam egit, im∣putari debet.
• p 1.19

  Nescio quomodo ani∣mus aversatur.
• q 1.20

  Et nunc ille idem Deus, generatione se∣ptimâ, accipit (ceu sym∣bolum consummationis seculi) Enochum, ut primitias rationalis creaturae, &c.
• r 1.21

  Quondam, cùm apud Xenophontem legisset, Cyrum ultimâ valetu∣dine mandâsse quaedam de funere suo, asperna∣tus tam lentum mortis genus, subitam sibi cele∣rém{que} optavit mortem: & pridie quàm occide∣retur, in sermone nato, super coenam apud M. Lepidum, Quisnam es∣set vitae sinis commodis∣simus; repentinum, in∣opinatúm{que} praetulerat.
• s 1.22

  Fere quoties audîsset citò & nullo cruciatu defunctum quempiam, sibi & suis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 similem precabatur.
• t 1.23

  Sortitus est exitum similem, & qualem semper optaverat, &c.
• u 1.24

  Et repentè in osculis Liviae defecit.
• x 1.25

  De Joanne Evange∣lista dicitur, quòd dolo∣rem in moriendo non sensit.
• y 1.26

  Non sequitur, quòd, si iterum moriehantur, moriebantur cum poena, vel sentirent etiam poe∣nam.
• z 1.27

  Salvâ fide.
• a 1.28

  Scaturigine pulveris.
• b 1.29

  Qui pulvis credi∣tur, ut ab imo ad superficiem tumuli a∣scendat, flatu quiesoen∣tis impelli.
• c 1.30

  Viderint, qui hunc lo∣cum sciunt, utrùm hoc ibi faciat terra, vel pa∣tiatur, quod dicitur.
• d 1.31

  Cùm Ecclesia, in cu∣jus medio sunt [vesti∣gia] rotundo schemate, & pulcherrimo opere conderetur; summum tamen cacumen, ut per∣hibent, propter Domi∣nici corporis meatum, nuilo modo contegi, & concamerari potuit; sed transitus ejus à terra ad coelum usque patet apertum.
• e 1.32

  Mons Oliveti, ad Orientem Hierosoly∣mae [situs est] tor∣rente Cedron interflu∣ente▪ ubi ultima vesti∣gia Domini humo im∣pressa, bodiéque mon∣strantur. Cúm{que} terra eadem quotidie à cre∣dentibus hauriatur, ni∣hilominus tamen eadem sancta vestigia pristi∣num statum continuò recipiunt.
• f 1.33

  Illum violentâ morte obtruncatum obtisse.
• g 1.34

  Calicem meum bi∣betis, (Matth. 20.23.) id est, Martyrii coronâ potiemini, & violentâ morte, sicut & ego, à vita discedetis.
• h 1.35

  Ephesi obdormivit.
• i 1.36

  Obiit Joannes, quem in adventu Domini re∣mansurum, frustra fue∣rat spes; in lib. de Ani∣ma, cap. 5••.
• k 1.37

  Non nisi mortuorum solent esse sepulchra.
• e 1.38

  In tabulis Mosis fra∣ctis, dimidiati Samech pars altera erat in ex∣trema ora tabulae, altera in aere videbatur.
• f 1.39

  Dum benedictionem nondum absolvisset.
• g 1.40

  Non habitu precan∣tis Deum, sed habitu quasi impartientis & infundentis benedictio∣nis gratiam.
• * 1.41

  Levit. 9.22.
• h 1.42

  Sustollebatur, vel ferebatur, non volantis more, aut gradientis; at ità ac si alior••m ma∣nibus g••status, & pan∣latim su••sum portatus fuisset
• i 1.43

  Corpori•• statu recto, paulatim in coeles ten dens.
• k 1.44

  Ferchatur, n••n alie∣no adminiculo, sed pro∣priâ virtute.
• l 1.45

  Vel per potentiam divinam, vel per agi∣litatem, dotem huma∣nit atis.
• m 1.46

  Elevatus est in coe¦lum, non scandend•• gr••diens, sed totus si∣mul elevatus est.
• n 1.47

  Nubes non praebult adminiculum Christo, per modum vebicul••.
• o 1.48

  Apparuit signum Divinitatis.
• p 1.49

  Deus subduxit Enoch in turbine, sicut Eliam.
• q 1.50

  Sanê in Gematria valet,
• r 1.51

  Cum vento tempestatis ascende∣re fecit eum.
• r 1.52

  Raptus in coelum.
• f 1.53

  Qui unum rectè nôrit, ambos noverit.
• t 1.54

  Ad ipsos orbes astr••s ornatos.
• u 1.55

  Vivunt spirituali∣ter, & non animaliter, propter translationem; súntque in corpore seu carne spirituali, & non o••us habente, ut per corvos nutriantur; sed nutriuntur alio spiri∣tuali alimento.
• x 1.56

  Ridiculum est exi∣stimare, Paradisum es∣se in aëre supremo; aut in lunae concavo collo∣care: codémque flumi∣na, quae in terris visun∣tur, transferre.
• y 1.57

  Vetustate contabuit.
• z 1.58

  Paradisus quoad es∣sentiam, non quood or∣natum, quem olim ha∣buit, superest.
• a 1.59

  Simpliciter fateamur; istum Paradisum pla∣nè nullum esse.
• b 1.60

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.61

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 1.62

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.63

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Eth. 99.
• f 1.64

  Vitam beatam etiam socialem perhibent esse, quae amicorum bona propter seipsa diligat flcut sua, eisque propter seipsos hoc velit quod sibi.
• k 1.65

  Nemiui conspicul esse possunt.
• l 1.66

  In coelo supercoelesti.
• * 1.67

  Wisd. 4.11.
• l 1.68

  Improbi, dum vi∣vunt, mortui sunt.
• m 1.69

  De morte calamita∣tum, & agritudinum; ut sententia sit, Nè videret mortem, hoc est, ea in∣commoda, quae mort••m comitari solent.
• n 1.70

  Quidam admodum stultè opinantur, Sem esse Melchisedechum: V••rùm id impossibile est: suprà enim, cùm ejus genealogiam ex∣plicaremus, patuit, quòd nec Tharrae tempora assequi potuit.
• o 1.71

  De praes••riptione, cap. 53. in fine.
• p 1.72

  Coelestis Hierarchiae cap. 9.
• q 1.73

  Haeres. 51.
• r 1.74

  In Genes. quaest. 63.
• q 1.75

  Prout inveni in libro vetustissimo.
• r 1.76

  Scriptura transitus fluvii.
• s 1.77

  Id est, abstulit eum Deus per mortem.
• t 1.78

  Ecce, ego aufero 〈◊〉〈◊〉 te desiderium oculorum tuorum.
• u 1.79

  Mortuus est Rabbi Emmi, quia rapuit eum mors.
• x 1.80

  De Romano Ponti∣fice 3 6.
• y 1.81

  Bibliothe•••• Sanctae lib. 2. pag. 65.
• z 1.82

  Visi in gloria.
• a 1.83

  Moses apparuit in imagine carnis nondum receptae: nam à parte potiore facieuda est de∣nominatio.
• b 1.84

  Est etiam poculum id quod potatur, praeser∣tine apud poctas.
• c 1.85

  Ignorabat Moses quòd glorificatus esset aspectus faciei ejus.
• d 1.86

  Vtì affingunt ei picto∣res.
• e 1.87

  Cornuta, id est, radios emittens; Hebraicè, ra∣dians.
• f 1.88

  Nihil cornutum, ad literam, sign••ficatur &c.
• g 1.89

  Valde credibile est, Mosis corpus, licèt mor∣tuum, conservâss•• adhu•• splendorem vultû••, & decorem quem antea ha∣bebat; si••ut multis San∣ctorum accidit.
• h 1.90

  Quamdiu vixit Mo∣ses, & alloquebatur po∣pulum, velamen habuit i•• facie.
• i 1.91

  In vul••u ejus sermo legis; in manu opera de∣signantur.
• k 1.92

  Et illa vocar••t••r do∣mus discalceati usque in hodiernum diem.
• l 1.93

  In Evan••eliis autem Moses totus glorificatur ex integro. Gaudere ••tiam mihi pro hoc vi∣detur Moses, quia & ipse quodammodo nunc d•••• ponit velamen, conver∣sus ad Dominum, cùm evidenter, quae praedi∣xit, implentur.
• m 1.94

  1. Cor. 15.53.
• n 1.95

  Mosis corpus sepultu∣rae commendavit.
• o 1.96

  Transfigurationi suae transfiguratos, gloriâque ae singulari majestate ornatos, voluit Christus adesse servos suos: sic solent in nuptiis festis{que} aliis diebus nobiles viri, pretiosis ornati vesti∣bus, Regibus adesse.
• p 1.97

  In consortio clarita∣tis.
• q 1.98

  Nemo putet, Salva∣torem veritatem corpo∣ris amisisse; externam tantùm speciem per∣mutavit splendore.
• p 1.99

  Valde admirandum.
• q 1.100

  Sunt in inserno ali∣qui homines, corpore & animâ, ante generalem resurrectionem; ut Da∣than, Abiram, & similes.
• r 1.101

  Ad sepulchrum, ad infernum, ad stagnum ignis exclusivé.
• s 1.102

  Descenderunt in in∣fernum, in stagnū ignis.
• t 1.103

  Sed incorrupto cor∣pore, vivos ad infer∣num descensuros.
• u 1.104

  D••scendisse viventes in orcum; non corporibus solutis, neque reliquiis traditis, aut parte; sed totis ipsis, cum corpore & anima, traditis in supplicium.
• x 1.105

  Descenderunt ipsi, cum omn••bus quae ipso∣rum erant, vivi in in∣fernum; quomodo babe∣tur in Hebraico con∣textu. Quae sunt illa omnia? Tabernacala, & domus, & cpes ipsorum. Atqui non dicent (credo) Pontificii, domes corum & facultates omnes in lscum animarum de∣scendisse, sed in locúm corporum.
• y 1.106

  Descenderunt ipsi, & omnes, qui eis, viventes in infernum.
• z 1.107

  Descenderúntque ipsi, & quo••quot ad eosperti∣nebant, viventes in in∣fernum.
• a 1.108

  Omnes, qui eis.
• b 1.109

  Amicus Socrates, amicus Plato; sed ma∣gìs amica Verita••.
• c 1.110

  Ex manifestis loci cir∣cumstantiis intelligetis, notari à Mose locum subterraneum, corpo∣rum, non animarum.
• a 1.111

  Locus corporum.
• b 1.112

  —istam (nescio quam) medietatem. De pec∣cator. Merit. & Re∣mis. 1.28.
• c 1.113

  Nec est ullu•• ulli medius locus, ut possit ess••, nisi cum diabolo, q•••• non est cum Christo.
• d 1.114

  Non inflcior, quin eorum auimae, si sint mortui pertinaces in scelerata sua obstinati∣one, adjudicatae sint in∣feris, cum Divite.
• e 1.115

  Illud quod propriè notatur in verbis—De∣scenderínt{que} viven∣tes in infernum, nihil est aliud, quàm, horri∣bile & tremendum ju∣dicium Dei divinitus illis inflictum iri: ut, cùm alii priùs morian∣tur quàm sepeliantur, ipsi quasi vivi sepelian∣tur.
• e 1.116

  Locus fuit corporum, non animarum, in quem descenderunt Corah, Dathan, & Abiram.
• g 1.117

  Fieri potest ut qui∣dam eorum aut offines illi culpae non fuerint; aut si fuerint, poeniten∣tiam egerint.
• h 1.118

  Si sint mortui perti∣naces.
• i 1.119

  Non inficior, quin eo∣rum animae, si sint mor∣tui pertinaces in seele∣cata sua obstinatione, adjudicatae sint inferis cum Divite.
• k 1.120

  Animae gloriosae con∣naturale est uniri cor∣pori immortali & glo∣rioso.
• l 1.121

  Fruuntur divino con∣sortio, & cibo coelesti.
• m 1.122

  Qui humi iucedebat; instar spiritus, cum An∣gelis in coelis agit.
• n 1.123

  —in statu merendi, & potuerunt in gratia cre∣scere, &c.
• o 1.124

  A non posse peccare, ad posse peccare.
• p 1.125

  Non posse peccare.
• q 1.126

  Apparuit in veritate car••is nondum defunctae
• r 1.127

  Translatus est Enoch & Elias, nec mors eo∣rum reperta est; dilata scilicet: Morituri reser∣vantur, ut Antichri∣stum sanguine suo ex∣tinguant.
• r 1.128

  Nisi quis spirituali∣ter intelligat hunc lo∣cum Apocalypsews, Ju∣daicis ei fabulis acqui∣escendum est. In Epist. ad Marcellum.