Theologicall questions, dogmaticall observations, and evangelicall essays, vpon the Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to St. Matthew Wherein, about two thousand six hundred and fifty necessary, and profitable questions are discussed; and five hundred and eighty speciall points of doctrine noted; and five hundred and fifty errours confuted, or objections answered: together with divers arguments, whereby divers truths, and true tenents are confirmed. By Richard VVard, sometimes student in the famous vniversities of Cambridge in England: St. Andrews in Scotland: and Master of Arts of both the kingdoms; and now a preacher in the famous city of London.

§ 1. VERS. 4. [Vers. 4] And the same Iohn had his rai∣ment of camels haire, and a leatherne girdle a∣bout his loines, and his meate was locusts and wilde honey.

§. 1. His meate was wilde honey.] The Pa∣pists [Sect. 1] object this place to prove that Iohn was an Eremite, Iohn Baptist lived in the desart, fared coursely, and was barely apparelled, he eat lo∣custs [Object. 1] (a course kind of diet) and wilde honey,d 1.1 and wore a garment of Camels haire, and there∣fore he was a true paterne of a right Eremite.

I answer first, Iohns life was not so austere as [Answ. 1] they make it: for the place where he lived was not so solitary, but that there were villages and houses not farre off, as it may appeare by the peoples resorting unto him: his diet also in eat∣ing locusts, and wild honey was usuall in that countrey.

Secondly, we denie not but Iohn lived an au∣stere [Answ. 2] life, because hee was a preacher of repen∣tance,

and had a singular office to prepare men for the comming of Christ: therefore his cal∣ling being extraordinary, he cannot bee an au∣thor of an ordinary calling among Christi∣ans.

[Answ. 3] Thirdly, seeing Christ came eating and drinking, lived among men, and was apparelled as others were, why should Christians rather chuse to imitate the Baptist, then our Saviour Christ, whose life and doctrine is for our imita∣tion.

[Object. 2] Secondly, they object this place to prove, that the sufferings and obedience of the Saints, are laid up for Church treasureb 1.2. Iohn (say they) was of a most innocent life, and was subject scarce to the least sin, and therefore hee had no neede of his fasting, austere life, imprisonment, death, to satisfie for himselfe: and therefore these remaine for the satisfaction of others.

[Answ. 1] We answer First, that certainely John was an holy man, and endued with great grace, yet not without his sins and corruptions; and there∣fore he himselfe confesseth, that he had neede to be baptized of Christ, which was for remission of sins.

[Answ. 2] Secondly, his afflictions were not laid upon him as punishments for sin (we confesse) but as Gods loving corrections to exercise his faith, and prepare him for his Kingdome: as the Pro∣phet David acknowledgeth that his vertues were encreased by Gods gracious correcting ad∣monitionsc 1.3.

Thirdly, wee must needes conclude with the [Answ. 3] Apostle, of Iohn, and of all others (excepting Christ that did no sinne) that God hath shut all under unbeleefe, to have mercy on all, and there∣fore none hath either suffered more then their sins deserved, or done more good then was their duty to doe.

[Object. 3] Thirdly, they hence object againe, that a difference of meats is necessarily to be made up∣on some dayes, that is, that it is not onely law∣full to abstaine from some meats, at some times (which wee willingly grant) but that it is a sinne to eate some sorts of meats and not others, at some time (which wee deny,) and they en∣deavour to prove from this verse, thus argu∣ing.

The life of Iohn Baptist was a continuall fa∣sting, he not onely abstaining from dainties in generall, but in speciall from all meats and drinkes whatsoever, except Locust and wilde hony, in this verse.

[Answ. 1] I answer first, Iohns fasting is not described in these words, neither is it true, that his whole life was a continuall fasting: but onely here is ex∣pressed his extraordinary austerity from sundry dainties, so long as he preached in the wildernesse: for Saint Matthew saith plainely here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alimentum ejus, or esca ejus, his foode, or his meat was Locust and wild honey, which phrase signi∣fyes not fasting, but rather feeding.

[Answ. 2] Secondly, the consequence is nought, Iohn did thus, therefore wee must doe thus, is a palpable non sequitur; for this was peculiar unto Iohn in regard of his peculiar and extraordinary cal∣ling.

Thirdly, Iohn abstaines from divers meats (we grant) but that hee was forbidden them as [Answ. 3] unlawfull to use, wee deny, and leave unto the Papists to prove.

Fourthly, these words (his foode was locusts and [Answ. 4] wild honey) doth not signifie that hee never did eat any thing else besides these, or that he eat these onely upon Wednesdayes and Frydayes, but that this was his ordinary foode for the most part: for though some Papists denie that ever hee eat bread, yet some others make no great scruple to grant it.

§. 2. His rayment was of Camels haire.] Was [Sect. 2] Iohn clothed with camels skins? [Quest. 1]

I answer no, [Answ.] but with an usuall course sort of garment made of Camels haire, which they were wont to weare that dwelt in mountanous places, and did not much frequent cities.

Why did Iohn who was Christs forerunner [Quest. 2] goe thus poorely and country-like attyred?

Because, he would shew hereby, [Answ.] that although his calling were great, gracious, and extraordi∣nary, yet he did not affect worldly honours, ex∣ternall pompe, or outward splendor.

Whether is there any analogie or resemblance [Quest. 3] betweene John and the Camell, whose haire hee weares?

I answer, there is, for first, [Answ.] the Camell by na∣ture is ordained unto labour, that is, to carry men and burthens, and is endued with strength to un∣dergoe it; so Iohn was called and appointed by God to sustaine great labour, and to serve men by preaching unto them, and baptizing of them.

Secondly, the Camel is neither armed with [Answ. 2] sharpe nailes, nor teeth, wherewith hee might hurt men, but is an harmelesse creature: so Iohn came not to injure or damage any, but onely to prepare them for the receiving of Christ.

Was there any resemblance betweene Iohn [Quest. 4] and his garment?

I answer, there was, [Answ.] for garments made of Camels haire, seemed more unseemely and base in outward shew, then other garments, but yet were more durable, and lasted longer: so Iohns doctrine seemed not so splendidious at first view, as the doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees, but yet it was firme and perpetuall.

§. 3. His foode was Locusts.] What were these [Sect. 3] Locusts? [Quest.]

First, some say they were the tops of certaine [Answ. 1] hearbs, which are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; as Zaga Zabo an Aethiopike Bishop, thinketh, that John lived only of hearbs.

Secondly, some say that they were certaine [Answ. 2] Crab-fishes, which the fishermen cast upon the shore, out of Iordane, as uncleane meat: but it is not like that John would eat any meat un∣cleane by the law.

Thirdly, Epiphanius (lib. contra Ebionitas) [Answ. 3] saith, that some Jewes would have it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifyeth certaine pleasant confections made of hony: but this is not the truth neither, for Johns foode was a course kind of meate as followeth by and by.

Some object that the Text in this verse is cer∣tainely corrupted, because it is not probable, that [Object. 1] John eat those creatures, that are called Lo∣custs.

[Answ.] I answer indeed some thinke it incredible that John should thus feede, and therfore suppose the place to have beene corrupted by the writers fault, by some slippe setting downe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is Locusts in stead of wild choake peares: others thinke this to have beene the mistake, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Locusts, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 crab-fishes: But what neede is there of this nicenesse, see∣ing by Moses law they were allowed to eate of Locusts, called Arbeh for the multitude of themaa 1.4.

[Object. 2] Some object againe, although it were lawfull to eat Locusts, yet it is not likely John did, be∣cause it was a fruitlesse, and an unholsome foode, for they first afford no nourishment or very small unto the body: Pliny writeth, that they which did usually eat Locusts lived but forty yearesa 1.5: and Galen writeth, that the birds called Seleucidae in Asia, doe voide the Locusts whole, which they had eaten, and seeme to bee little nourished thereby.

Secondly, Locusts are unwholsome foode (ac∣cording to the opinion of some) the eating there∣of making men leane, swart coloured, short lived, and full of liceb 1.6.

I answer, it is not likely that either Locusts did afford so small nourishment to nature, or were so unholsome as these authors affirme; for First, Galen upon Hippocrates his Aphorismesc 1.7, avou∣cheth that Locusts eaten, have great force to nourish. Secondly, Pliny saithd 1.8 that among the Parthians they were counted a pleasant meat, and were very usually eaten. Thirdly, Diosco∣ridese 1.9 saith, that the people called Alphei did ordinarily eat of Locusts, although they had store of other meat, which argues that they were neither fruitlesse not obnoxious to the feeders upon them. Fourthly, Strabof 1.10 maketh mention of a certain people that lived wholy of them; and therefore it is not likely that they were unhol∣some. Fiftly, Belloniusg 1.11, from the report of some authors testifieth, that in Africa they were eaten as dainties, not for Physicke, but even for nourishment; thereby proving it a thing not in∣credible, that John Baptist should eat Locusts. Sixtly, Diodorus Siculus, most fully of all otherh 1.12 declareth this, telling us of certaine Aethiopians called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is Locust eaters, who neither eat fish, nor cattle, but onely Locusts con∣tinually: which at the spring time of the yeare they get in great abundance, and salt them up to preserve them for meat. Seventhly, it is not likely, that the Lord would have prescribed any unholsome meat unto his owne people, as hee did these Locustsi 1.13. Eightly and lastly, this may be granted, that Locusts were a base & course kinde of meat, used onely of the vulgar sort, be∣cause it was a foode common and easie to bee had, as learned Beza shewethk 1.14.

[Object. 3] Some Jewes object, that the Locusts was ap∣pointed to be eaten by the Hebrewes, in remem∣brance of the plague brought upon Egypt by the Locusts, and therefore it was not onely eaten of the vulgar sort: [Answ.] But this is but one of their fan∣cies and idle conceits, and therefore needs no confutation.

Notes

• d 1.1

  Bellar. de Mo∣nach. lib. 2. cap. 39.
• b 1.2

  Bellar. de Indulg. l ••. c. 2. prop. 4.
• c 1.3

  Psa. 119.67.
• aa 1.4

  Leuit. 11.22.
• a 1.5

  Plin. lib. 6. cap. 30.
• b 1.6

  Cardan. lib. de sub∣tilitate Scalig. exercit. 91 Answ.
• c 1.7

  Lib. 2. cap. 18.
• d 1.8

  Lib. 11. cap. 28.
• e 1.9

  Lib. 2. ca. 44.
• f 1.10

  Lib. 16. Geograph.
• g 1.11

  Lib. 2. Observat. cap. 88.
• h 1.12

  Lib: 4.
• i 1.13

  Levit. 11.22.
• k 1.14

  Beza s.