Ptōchomuseion [sic]. = The poore mans librarie Rapsodiæ G.A. Bishop of Exceter vpon the first epistle of saint Peter, red publiquely in the cathedrall church of saint Paule, within the citye of London. 1560. Here are adioyned at the end of euery special treatie, certaine fruitful annotacions which may properly be called miscellanea, bicause they do entreate of diuerse and sundry matters, marked with the nombre and figures of Augrime. 2.

❧ Praelectio quarta habita die Sab∣bati .xv. die Mensis Februarii. Anno. 1560. Concerning the second generall part.

By whome and after what manner the holy scriptures were first written

* 1.1WE rede not of any scriptures geuen by the inspira∣tion of god before the time of Moyses,* 1.2 which was borne after the creation of the worlde .2368. & died before the incarnation of Christ .1462 his eien be∣ing neuer dim nor his toeth loose. I will not con∣tend with any,.* 1.3 whether there were any holy writ in the church of God before that time or no. Not∣withstāding Eupōlemus (as Eusebius testifieth) affirmeth that Moses was the first, that euer deli¦uered letters to y^e Iewes. Although Iosephus wri∣teth, that Seth the sonne of Adam did firste, en∣graue in two pillers the discipline of heuenly thin¦ges whiche pillers (the one beinge of stone) the sayde Iosephus affirmeth to haue continued in Siria vnto this time.* 1.4 But whe∣ther this be true or no it is oute of question, that there came to our hands and knowledge no scriptures of more antiquitye, then the writings of Moyses. For otherwise Christ himselfe wold not haue begon with the bookes of Moses, when he did expounde the scriptures vnto Cleophas,* 1.5 and his fellow,* 1.6 whose name (as Ambrose sayth was Ammaon) when they went to Emaus beinge aboute seuen miles from Hierusalem: for if any scripture had bene of greater auncientnes, then the bokes of Moses, he would haue begonne at them. As for the booke of Enoch they may affirme it to be before Moses bookes, which sawe Enoch writing it, or did see Noes librarye in y^e Arke. It is of no great force what other affirme saying that this booke was reserued and kept in the churche of the queene of Saba, and had in greater price then the bokes of Moyses. I am not ignorant what Tertul∣lian whych liued about,* 1.7 230 yeres after Christ wrote of Enoch his booke, saying, that this boke was eyther reserued in Noes Arke in the time of the general floud or els beinge loste by violence of the Cateclisme, was restored againe by Esdras (Hierusalem being vanquished by the Babilonians). Other there be whose cen∣sure and iudgment is, that this booke remained vnto the time of the Apostles. And that the Hebrewes after the peregrination and going about of the Apostles throughout the whole worlde, did either conceale and kepe it priuelye, or els did commit it to the fire because it did contein vrgent and vehement authorities and testimonies of Iesu the true Messias which should be condemned of the Iewes.

Origenes vpon the boke of Numery writeth quod libelli Enoch non videntur apud Hebreos in authoritate haberi.* 1.8 That the bookes of Enoch are coumpted a∣mong

the Hebrewes of no authority.

Saynte Austen in his booke, de ciuitate dei,* 1.9 writeth Scripta Enoch vt apud Iudeos, ita apud nos in authoritate non esse, quod fecit nimia antiquitas, propter quam videbantur habenda esse suspecta, ne proferrentur falsa pro veris. That is to say, the bookes of Enoch are of no authority, neither amonge the Iewes neither amonge vs by the reason of long and greate antiquitye for the whiche they are coump••ed suspecte, least false things should be vttered in stede of true

* 1.10Beda affirmeth this booke to be falsely ascribed vnto Enoch.

Obiectio.

Why then did saynt Iude in his epistle alledge this boke, if it be apocryphal, & and not canonicall?

Responsio.

There is nothing in the Epistle of Iude which is not consonant, and may not be found in the holy scriptures, if you do diligently inuestigate and search them.

In dede the most part of writers do hold, that this testimony of Iude is cited out of some booke which was thē numbred inter libros apocryphos:* 1.11 But yet this is no good sequele nor argument, these sayinges are broughte out of the Apocri∣phals, therfore they must be reiected. Saint Paule allegeth testimonies out of ve∣ry prophane authors, as out of Menander of Epimenides & out of Aratus. And here by the way we may gather thē, to be precise & very supersticious,* 1.12 which dare not nor will borow or cite any testimonye out of prophane writers, for when all truth is of god, if any good or godly thing be spoken wel and truly yea though it be of the wicked, it oughte not to be forsaken or neglected, so that it be applied to the glorye of God, and to the furniture of good and godlye manners. But of this thing Basilius magnus entreateth more at large in his oration,* 1.13 * 1.14 ad nepo∣tes. Wherfore this testimony of Enoch produced by the apostle Iude, is not to be contemned: for it may be, that the bookes Apocriphal were then had in some price and estimacion, especially of them to whom the apostle Iude wrote. To our pur∣pose again. It is neither without nor beside reasō, that there was from the begin¦ning of the world vnto Moses, no scripture by y^e inspiracion of god exhibited to y^e church of god, which did teach man the knowledge and true worshipping of god.

A declaration.

WE do euidently se, that it was gods wil, both before the floud vnto the time of Moses, to reuele and declare those things (which wer pertinent and pro∣fitable to fayth, to godly religion and to al piety) to certayne holy fathers, partlye by nightly visions, and partly by dayly apparitions. By the which oracles, visiōs and apparitions it might be beleued, that God had a care, and a fatherly regarde to mankinde, and that they whō he did vouchsafe to instruct of the will of his hea∣uenly grace, might also institute and bring others to the knowlege of God, and to the studying and following of godlynes.

Proues, reasons, and ensamples for the same.

We read in Genesis, how the Lord him selfe spake vnto Abraham: Num cela∣bo (inquit) Abrahamū quae egofacturus sum?* 1.15 Shal I hide frō Abrahā those thinges which I do? seing that Abraham shalbe in dede a gret and a mighty people, and al the nations on the earth shalbe blessed in him: for I knowe him, that he will commaund his sonnes and his houshold after him, that they kepe the waye of the lord to do righteousnes and iudgment. Now before the floud, the world had these 9.* 1.16 holy and worthy wise men.

• ...1. Adam.
• ...2. Seth
• ...3. Enos
• ...4. Kenan.
• ...5. Malalihel
• ...6. Iared
• ...7. Enoch
• ...8. Mathusalem
• ...9. Lamech

THe chiefest of these were Adam and Mathusalem, who did begin and conclude al the yeres of y^e age before the general deluge: which yeres wer in nōber .1656

The yeares of Adams life were .930. He died in the yeare before the floud .726.

Mathusalem, his yeares of his life were .969. He dyed the selfe same yeare that the floud did ouerflowe all the whole worlde, and he liued together with Adam 243. yeares, so that he myght and was aboundauntly instructed by Adam of the begynning of the world, of the word of God, and of his holy will, of the fall of mā, and of his restitution, and of all thinges pertayning to religion, as farre as Adam him selfe was instituted and taught of God.

Those .ii. Patriarches w^t the other .vii. before named, cold & did sufficiētly teach to all that age, true saluation, & also the moste godlie wayes to serue the Lorde.

* 1.17Now after the floud God gaue vnto the world, other famous and renowned men, in nomber .12. Patriarches whose names folow.* 1.18

• ...Noe. 1.
• ...Sem. 2.
• ...Arphaxat. 3.
• ...* 1.19Sale. 4.
• ...Heber. 5.
• ...Pale. 6.
• ...Reu. 7.
• ...Nachor. 8.
• ...Thare. 9.
• ...Abraham. 10.
• ...Isaac. 11.
• ...Iacob. 12.

OF these .12. Noe, and Sem, were the chiefest, and next vnto them of most fame were Abraham, Isaac & Iacob. All the yeares of Noes life in nōber were .950. & in the yeare of the inundatiō of the floud, he was .600. yeare old: he therfore did know and see all the holy fathers whiche were before the floud (thre onely excep∣ted) that is Adā, Seth, and Enos, but he liued many yeres with others, which did both heare and see those three, in so much that he could be ignoraunt of nothyng wherwith Adam did instruct them. Noe dyed that yeare in the whiche Abraham was .59. yeares old, so that Abraham did learne of Noe, those thinges which Noe receiued of Mathusalem.

Now Sem, Noes eldest sonne, was before the floud .96. yeares old, so y^t he both saw and heard not onely his father Noe & his graūd father Lamech, but also his great graūdfather Mathusalē, with whom he liued before the floud almost foure score sixtene yeares, of whom he might be and was instructed, of al things which Adam deliuered to the former Patriarches.

Sem liued in al .600. yeares, & died after the death of Abrahā. 37. yeares, & in the yeare of Isaac .112. & in the yeare of Iacob .52. so y^t these thre Patriarches Abrahā, Isaac & Iacob might haue learned of Sem, the whole & true diuinitie which Adā taught Mathusalem, and which Mathusalem taught Sem, being the third witnes and maister, after Adam.

Now Iacob deliuered to his childrē likewise al these things which he had recei∣ued of his forefathers. Iacob had a sonne borne vnto him in Mesopotamia, whose name was Leui. Leui had a sonne whose name was Caath, who also sawe & herd Iacob. Caath was Moses grandfather and father vnto Amrā, who begat Moses. And thus to conclude this supputatiō, Moses lerned of his father Amrā, Amram of Caath, Caath of Iacob, Iacob of Sem, Sem of Mathusalem, Mathusalem of Adam, so that Moses doth stand in the world, the seuenth witnes from Adam. All the yeares of the world from Adam vnto the birth of Moses were .2368.

Now whē y^e time was come, y^t the knowledge & religion of god should be knowē, set forth & declared not onely vnto priuate families & housholds, but vnto a great populous nōber thorough y^e whole world, god raised & ordeined this singuler & fa¦mous mā Moses, y^t by him al such things y^t were deliuered, as it wer by y^e mouth & hād y^e fathers, shold be brought into letters & writings, & y^t he should also write those things which were done all y^e time of his own life, which was .120. yeares.

And bycause the people, ouer whō he was made gouernor, was a stiffnecked peo¦ple and greatly corrupted in Egipt with the grosse idolatrie of the land,* 1.20 he wrote not onely all the gestes before sayde, but also what soeuer the Lorde reuealed vnto hym, least they might perishe and be out of memory through the obliuion of a dull people, and by improbitie of tyme.

But you must vnderstande that although Moses is sayd to haue written the words of the Lord in the volume of y^t law,* 1.21 which God made vnto the people, yet he by his own hād did not write in the two tables of stone y^e rules of y^e moral law called Decalogus, but toke them of God, not only miraculously made by y^e work of God, but also written by the hand and power of God. So that Moses (I say) did not write out of the mouth of God, but God him selfe wrate the worlds. For as God gaue the way and vse of the Hebrue toung to speake and talke with, so God him selfe first of all others, wrote the figures and formes of the letters. For Mo∣ses had neuer written any thing whē God spake vnto him saying, come vp to me into the mount, & I wil geue thee two tables of stone,* 1.22 & the laws & commaunde∣mentes which I haue written. So Moses in dede was the first after God that euer wrote Scriptures, but the first author of thē was God him selfe. He was the first inuenter, actor and writer of the law conteyned in the two tables, and Moses re∣ceyuing them of God, deliuered them to the people.

Notwithstanding after that the holy Scriptures were written and deliuered vnto the people of god by Moses, yet al reuelations, visions, and apparitions, did not ceasse in Israell.

After the time of Moses, Prophets were sent, vnto whō also god gaue his ora∣cles & answers by visions & reuelations. But the Prophetes did commit to wri∣ting what soeuer they dispersed and taught in Israel before by the worde, least their posteritie might haue had some excuse of ignoraunce, but God preuented al such causatiōs (as it is written in Luke,) habent Moysen & Prophetas, they haue Moses and the Prophetes. If they will not heare them, they wil not beleue if any rise from the dead.

Nor the Scriptures of the olde testament onely were brought in after this sort and order, but in like maner were the letters of the new Testament dispersed and disposed by the Euangelistes and the Apostles, as Ireneus in his first booke Con¦tra hereses writeth. Quae primum (inquit) concionati sunt Apostoli postea per volū tatem dei scripto nobis tradiderunt, eaque literis erant prodita quae ad salutē nostrā videbantur necessaria. (vt Iohannes dicit) haec scripta sunt vt credatis.

What things soeuer the Apostles preached first, the same after by y^e will of god they deliuered vnto vs by writting, and those things were committed to writing which were thought necessary for our saluation (as Iohn sayth) these thinges be written that you might beleue. Also when their writings were dispersed, yet the course of working of miracles, which serued to cōfirme and establish the Gospel, was not sodenly abrupt and taken away. But after the death of the Apostles,* 1.23 mi¦racles were very rare: As s. Austen writeth in his booke De vera religione. Nec mi∣racula (inquit) in nostra tēpora durare permissa sunt, ne anima semper visibilia que re••et, & eorū consuetudine frigesceret genus humanū, quorū nouitate flagraret. Mi∣racles (saith he) ar not permitted to continue vnto our time, least the soule should euer seke & search for things visible, and least mankind should waxe cold with the custome of those things, the newnes wherof they first inordinatly desired.

Chrisostome vpon Mathew. Nūc signorū (inquit) operatio omnino leuata est,* 1.24 ma¦gis autē & apud eos inuenitur qui falsi sunt christiani appellati facta. The working of signes and miracles (saith he) is nowe vtterly taken awaye, and is found to be done rather amonges those whiche are called false Christians.

And to beware of such miracles as are done by the operation of Sathan, saint Paule doth premonishe all the faithfull.* 1.25

If therfore the dispensations of the holy Scriptures, both of the olde Testa∣ment and of the new, be well considered and wayed, it doth plainly and euident∣ly monish vs, that we should not expecte, seeke for, nor desire any other reuelati∣ons or oracles at the hand of God, as pertayning to faith, pietie the knowledge of God eternall life, then such whiche are conteyned in these two holy instruments.

Otherwise we might open a windowe and waye vnto Sathan, who doth often transfigure and fashion him selfe to an Aungell of light,* 1.26 and lykewise we should seeme to maintayne that detestable secte of the Anabaptistes, who (the lyght of the holy Scriptures, being of them neglected) seke more subtill and spiritual, nay, spitefull wayes by dreames and reuelations.

Thus I haue at the ful declared vnto you (most godly auditory) the original of the holy scriptures, and who first did write them: and for this presente lesson this shalbe sufficient, entendyng by Gods grace, at our nexte repayre hither, to entre into the thirde generall limme of my partition. In the meane tyme I committe you to the kepyng of the eternall God. To whom be all prayse honour and glory for euer and euer.

❧ Hic sequuntur Miscellanea Praelectionis quartae.

Moyses. 1.

MOses tooke his name of this worde Maschah, id est extraxit, quasi extract{us} ex aqua. Ioseph{us} lib. 2. cap. 5. writeth, that the Egyptiās cal in their toūg water, Mo and saued yses so that of both the wordes being compound Moyses tooke his name, as if you would sai, saued out of y^e water. For Thermuthis the king of Egipt his daugh∣ter comming to the riuer to bath her self, sawe a litle cradle as it were made with reed, daw∣bed with slime and pitch, she commaūded it to be brought vnto her, in the which she found a litle infant, whom she toke home with her, and did educate and bring it vp as her owne sonne, and callyng for a nurse, the childe woulde sucke no woman of Egipt, vntil his naturall mother beinge an Hebrue was brought vnto hym. At the age of three yeares, he was so amyable and fayre, that euery man was glad and desirous to beholde hym. Thermuthis one a tyme, brought the childe to her father the kynge, who tooke and embraced him, and set his dia∣deme or crowne vpon the childes head. The childe not onely suffred it to fall vpon the grounde, but spurned it also with his foote, whiche did por∣tend no good lucke to the kingdome of Egipt, which after came to passe, as ye may read in Exodus. VVhen he came to mans state, and did se an Egiptian beating an Hebrue, he slue the Egiptiā priuily, and hid him in the grauel or sand, But whē this came to Pharoes ears, Moses left Egipt and went to the land of Madiā, where he sate a while by a well or a pits side, vnto the which well came vij. maydēs, being y^e daughters of Iethro, to draw water to geue to their sheepe, they were often molested of certeine

shepheardes, but by the helpe of Moses the shepheardes were conuerted to flight and driuen away. But whē the maidens came home, and declared this matter to their father, Moses was straight way sent for: who takyng Sephora to wife, became sonne in lawe to Iethro, where he begat two sonnes. As he was on a tyme keeping his father in lawes shepe, he sawe a bushe burning, but not consuming. At the whiche wondring he came nere to it,* 1.27 and herd a voyce out of the bushe saying, that he should come no nigher, but that he should put of his showes, for the grounde in y^e which he stoode was holy. The voyce sayd also, I haue herd the cry of my people, and I am come downe, not onely to releue and ease them from their harde burthens, but also to deliuer them from the oppression of that cruell ty∣raunt. And declaring his name, enioyned that Prouince and office vnto Moses, who at the last (all Egipt & Pharao him self being smitten with the power of Gods rod and many other plages) deliuered the Israelites. And after he hadde slayne the Paschall Lambe, passinge ouer the red sea drieshodde, brought the Israelites to mount Sinai, where he re∣ceiued the lawe of God, and deliuered it vnto them.

Finally, he dyed in the lande of the Moabites, vpon a hill called Nebo, which is also called Abarim. And as Saint Iude sayth, in his Epistle, hys body coulde not be founde, for Michael the Archaungell stroue agaynst the deuil, and disputed aboute the body of Moses, for it is credible that when Moses was dead, the Lorde God sent an Aungell to take away his body, so that no man did knowe his sepulchre (as it is written in the last of Deuteronomie) and that was done that the Iewes should haue no oc∣casion of Idolatrie, for if they had founde hym, they woulde haue wor∣shypped him as God. Therfore the deuill woulde haue had the body to be found, but the Aungell would not for auoiding of idolatrie.

Questio.

Certaine do demaunde whither Moses were a Priest or noby, cause it is writtē in the foure score & ninetene Psalm. Moyses & Aaron inter sa¦cerdotes eius, are amonge his Priestes.

Responsio.

Moses was no Priest, this assertion I wil establish out of the holy scrip∣tures. VVhen God had commaunded Moses, that he shoulde prepare all thinges that were mete and conuenient for the tabernacle of witnes, and for the ornature and decking of the same, then he commaunded him also, that he should institute and ordeyne those whiche should be Gods Priests (as it is written in the .28. of Exodus) but we read not in any of

the fiue bokes of Moses y^t euer Moses toke vpon him that office, nor euer put on y^e priests vesture. For if Moses had bene a priest of y^e old law, there is no doubt, but that the old testamēt would haue made some mention, of whō he had bene consecrate, but it recordeth no such thing, Ergo it may euidently appeare, that Moses was no Priest.

Againe, if he had bene a Priest, either he should haue bene the highe priest, or a priest of the inferiour order.

If he had bene the high priest, he should haue entred once onely in the yeare in sancta sanctorum, that is, into the holiest place of al with bloud (as Paule saith in the .9. to the Hebrues.) But it is most certaine, that Moses neuer entred into that place, Ergo he was not the high priest. If he had bene a priest of the inferiour order, he should haue entred in dai∣ly, morning and euening, into the holy place, to haue offered sacrifice, but there is no man of so dul a minde, or grosse wit, that dare saye Moses to haue executed anye suche office, for why, the scripture doth deliuer no such mention.

Furthermore, Paule calleth the Leuitical priesthood, a priesthood af∣ter the order of Aaron, and not after the order of Moses. Therefore, if Moses had bene a Leuitical priest, Paul might haue sayd, secundum or∣dinem Mosi, after the order of Moses.

Ouer and beside this, who doth not know, that Moses, was a most pru∣dent and wise law geuer, and did handle ciuil causes, and intreate in secu¦lar iudgemēt, and did heare & discusse hard & weighty matters? Now the priests of the old testament, applieng onelye ecclesiasticall matters, were not wont to handle ciuil causes, nor intreate of secular iudgements.

Obiectio.

How did Moses consecrate Aaron, if he were no priest? For priestes be consecrate of priestes.

Responsio.

Lyranus vpon the eight chapter of Leuiticus, handling this question, geueth this answer: Dicendum est (inquit) quod id fecit ex mandato do∣mini, qui (per quemcunque potest) pontificem consecrare. That is, we must say that he did it by the commaundement of the Lord, which can cō¦secrate bishop or priest, by whomsoeuer it pleaseth him.

Questio.

But what shal we say to the Psalmist, who vnlesse Moses had bene a a priest, would neuer haue named or nombred him among the priestes. Besides that, saint Austen in his .23. question vpon Leuiticus, doth graūt that Moses was a priest. His words be these. Cum ergo (inquit) videatur ab Aaron cepisse summum sacerdotium, quid putamus fuisse Mosen? Si ergo sacerdos non fuit, quomodo per illum omnia illa gerebantur, si au∣tem fecit, quomodo summum sacerdotium ab eius fratre cepisse defini∣mus?

quanquam etiam psalmus ille vbi dictum est, Moses & Aaron in sa¦cerdotibus eius, auferat dubitationem quod sacerdos fuerit & Moses, ve¦stem tamen illam sacerdotalem, quae magnum continet sacramentum, A∣arō iubet accipire & successores eius summi sacerdotis. In Exodo ante{quam} omnino aliquid de sanctificandis & quodam modo ordinandis sacerdo∣tibus praecipiatur: quando Mose ascendente in montem, iubentur non as∣cendere sacerdotes, quos intelligere alios non possumus nisi filios Aa∣ron, non quia iam erant, sed quia futuri erant, hoc eius iam scriptura ap∣pellauit per anticipationem, sicut sunt pleraque talium locutionum. Nā & filius Naue, Iesus appellatus est, cum longe postea hoc nomen ei scrip¦tura narret impositum. Ambo ergo tunc sacerdotes erant Moses et Aa∣ron, an potius Moses? Aaron vero sub illo. An et ipfe sūmus propter ve∣stem pontificalem, ille vero propter excellentius ministeriū? nam a prin∣cipio ei dicitur. Ipse tibi quae ad populum, tu, illi quae ad deum.

That is to say. VVhen therfore the high priesthood seemeth to haue be∣gonne of Aaron, what do we thinke Moses to haue bene? If he were no Priest, how were althings done by him? If he were, howe then do we define the chief priesthood to haue begonne of his brother? although that Psalme wher it is said: Moses & Aaron in sacerdotibus eius. Moses and Aaron among his priests, doth take away al the doubt that Moses was a priest: yet Aaron, and the successors of that high priest, were cōmaunded to take the Priests garments, which doth containe a great sacrament, or mistery. In the booke of Exodus it is written, that before any thing was commaunded of the Priests to be sanctified and ordred, when Moses as∣cended vp into the mount, the priests were commaunded to ascend, whō we vnderstand to be the sonnes of Aaron, and no other, not bicause they were then priests, but bicause they were to be made after, the scripture doth so now call them by an anticipation. As there be many such kinde of speches and phrases: For the sonne of Naue, was called Iesus, when the scripture doth shewe that his name was geuen to him long after, there∣fore both were priests, both Moses and Aaron. Or was Moses rather? & Aaron vnder him? Or was Aaron the chiefest priest for the pontifical ve∣sture, and Moses for the more excellent ministery? For it was said to him in the beginning: he shalbe thy spokes man vnto the people, & thou shalt be to him as God.

Responsio.

To this obiection I make three answers. First, I wyl geue one solutiō, both to the saying of the Prophet, and also to the saying of Austen.

Moses was called a priest, bicause he vsed the priestly office in conse∣crating Aaron and hys sons, and of this mind is Lyranus, expounding the same psalme yet he was not called a Priest, as Aaron, nor did put on the priestes vesture, nor did execute any part of the office of a priest, in the Tabernacle of witnes.

Secunda responsio.

Secōdly, Cassidorus declaring y^e same psalm, writeth after this maner: Nota, quia hic Mosen sacerdotem dicit dum sic in hep tatencho non le∣gatur. Qui & si hostias non offerebat sicut Aaron frater ipsius, vota ta∣men populorum coram deo semper exhibuit, {quod} sacerdotis officium esse monstrat. Quapropter merito & hic sacerdos dicitur, quum magnis pre¦cibus irascente domino pro populo supplicauit. That is to say. Note that he calleth here Moses a priest, there is no such thing redde in the bookes of Moses: who although he offered not sacrifices as his brother Aaron dyd, yet did he alwayes exhibite and present the requestes of the people before God, which is declared by the office of a priest. Therfore he is worthely called a priest, which with gret prayers, made supplications for the people to pacifie the wrath of God. And so S. Peter doth call vs priestes, saying:* 1.28 you as liuely stones, be made a spirituall house and holy priesthode, to offer vp spirituall sacrifices to God by Iesus Christ,* 1.29 and (as S. Iohn sayth in his reuelation) he made vs kinges and priestes vnto God.

Tertia responsio.

This Hebrue worde Cohen, doth not onely signifie a priest, but it is a generall name perteining to all that beare authoritie or rule (as we read of y^e sonnes of Dauid which were called Cohenim) therfore Cohen doth betoken a Senior, a great ruler of the people, a noble man or a chief coun∣sailer, and in this signification, Moses was called Sacerdos.

To ende, he that would know what type Moses was vnto Christ, let him reade the booke entituled, Scripturae medulla, in tertia mundi aetate There shall he finde it set out at large.

Seth. 2.

SEth was the thyrd sonne of Adam, and tooke his name of this word Scath, id est, posuit, that is, he hath put or set, bicause god did put Seth in Abels place & rome. The common opinion (as Lyranus writeth) is, that Adam after the death of Abell, pur∣posed not to know his wife, but to liue continent for euer, and so continu∣ed for long time: but being after admonished by reuelation, did know hys wife, and begat of her Seth, of whom Christ should lineally discend, and not of the line of Cain, bicause he was cursed of God. Seth and his Ne∣phewes (as Iosephus writeth) did inuent the science of Astronomy, and the knowledge of celestial things, and wrote them in two pillers, y^t they so might come to the knowledge of other after his death. He was lyke his father both in face & coūtenaunce (as certain learned mē do write.)

Cleophas. 3.

THis Cleophas was the brother of Ioseph, who was betrothed to the virgin Mary (as Egesippus writeth) Cleophas signifieth

omnē gloriā. Theophilactus thincketh, that the other disciple was Luke him self, and he (as Gregorye & Lire doo declare) did suppres his name for humilities sake. Epiphanius saith, that he learned by tradition, y^t Na¦thaniel should be the other disciple. Of this diuersitie of iudgements, two things are to be learned: first it is without all fruit and profite to inuesti∣gate and searche that thing, whiche the Scripture doth concele from vs: The other, that traditions are very vncertaine, and no safe credite to be geuen vnto them.

Emaus. 4.

THis Emaus was the towne where Cleophas dwelt (as S. Hierome writeth) and is a word of three sillables, declined Ema{us}, Emauntis, as Cerasus, Cerasuntis. But Plinie & S. Hierom after him do decline it after y^e second declension. Io¦sephus. lib. 14. cap. 18 sayth, that after the euersion of Hierusalē by the Romaines, it was called Nicopolis, a citie of victory, for in that place the Romaines builded a citie, as a monumente of their victory Tripert. lib. 6. cap. 24. and Emaus signifieth Aurorā, the morning. It was 60. furlonges from Hierusalē. Stadiū, a furlong doth conteine .125. passes (as Plinie lib. 2. cap. 23. doth manifestly declare:) but note also, that euery pase con∣teineth .v. foote, and euery foote iiii. palmes, and euery palme iiij. fingers bredth, and so it was from Hierusalem .vij. miles and an halfe.

Enoch. 5.

THeophilacte vpon the xxi. Chapter of Iohn doth say, y^t although Enoch and Helias be not dead, yet they be mortall: yea and al∣though Iohn be not dead, yet he is mortall. S. Austē agaynst the Pelagiās speaketh after this maner: Neither Enoch nor He lie by so long time are worne and wasted with age, yet I do not beleue them to be chaū¦ged into that spiritual qualitie of body which is promised in y^e resurrectiō which hath gone before in the Lord: except peraduenture y^t they do not lacke these meates which do refresh by their cōuersion and digestion, but since they wer translated, do so liue, y^t they haue the like sacietie y^t He∣lias had by the space of .xl. dayes by a cup of water and a lofe of bread. Or if they haue nede of any such sustētatiō, peraduēture they be fed in para∣dise as Adā was before he went out frō thence for sinnes sake. Agayne in his booke Contra faustū Manicheū, he saith thus: Quid de Helia factū sit nescimus: hoc de illo tamē credimus, quod vera scriptura testatur. Illud sane scimus, hoc de illo factum quod dei volūtas habet quod autē dei vo∣tas non habet, fieri de quoquo omnino nō posse. That is, what was done with Helias, we know not, yet this we beleue of him that the infallible Scripture doth testifie, and this we know, that, y^t was done of him which the will of God would haue done with him, and so forth.

Chrisostome also writeth after this maner: Vt Enoch trāsferetur, cau∣sa fuit, quod deo placuerat, vt autem placeret deo causa erat fides: nisi e∣nim sciret quia recepturus esset retributionem, quomodo placeret Deo? The cause why Enoch should be translated, was for that he pleased god: & the cause why he pleased God, was faith. For except he had knowen that he should haue receiued a reward, how should he haue pleased God? And a litle after hee sayth: Multi autem querunt quo translatus sit E∣noch, & quare translatus sit, & quare non fuerit mortuus, neque ipse, ne∣que Helias? & si adhuc viuunt, quomodo viuunt, & in quali habitu. Sed superuacaneum est ista requirere. Quia vero translatus est iste, & quia sumptus est ille, scripturae dixerunt. Vbi autem sint, et quomodo non ad∣diderunt: nihil autem amplius quam quae necessaria sunt, dicunt.

Many do enquire whether Enoch was translated, and wherefore he was translated, and why neither he nor Helias died. And if they liue yet, how they liue, and in what habite and state. But it is superfluous & vaine to enquire such things. That this was translated, and the other as∣sumpted, the scriptures haue shewed. VVher they be, and howe they be, the scriptures haue not added. They say nothing more, then those thinges which are necessary.

VVhat shal I nede to rehearse here, what saint Hierome, Tertuliā, Ciprian, Cirillus, saint Ambrose, Ireneus, and others doo write of the translation of Enoch?

Chrisostome writing of the translatiō of Enoch, saith after this maner. Iam si quis curiosus rogare velit, & dicere quoipsum transtulit, & num vsque ad presens vixerit, discat non conuenire humanis mentibus curio∣sius ea quae a deo fiunt explorare, sed credere hiis quae dicuntur. &c.

If any man wil aske curiously whether God hath translated Enoch, and whether he liue vnto this present time, let the same learne that it is not mete for mens minds, curiously to enquire and search those things which are done of God, but to beleue those things which are spoken.

Theodoretus likewise writeth after this sort: Sed neutiquam querē∣dum est quo loco translatus sit Enoch, quia scriptum nō est. Quae autem scripta sunt, ea colenda, eisque contenti esse debemus. Ideo autem trans∣latus est, vt typum nobis resurrectionis praeberet, & exemplum diuinae beneuolentiae ac remunerationis erga pie viuentes, quos nouit dominus ab impiis segregare. That is. It ought not to be enquired, to what place E∣noch is translated, bicause it is not written. And those thinges which be written, are to he reuerenced and receiued, and with them we ought to be content. He was therfore trāslated, that he might geue vnto vs a type and figure of the resurrection, and also an example of Gods beneuolence and fauour toward the godly liuers, whom the Lord doth know to sepe∣rate from the wicked.

Certaine of the Rabbines, and namely Auen Esra, doth interpret this

place. Tulit eum deus, id est, mortuus est. That is, God tooke him away, that is to say, he died, and that before the time, least the wickednes of the world should chaūge his harte. But the Latine men do write, that for his holines he was takē away and set in paradise, & that he shall come again to confound Antichrist which they gather out of the xi. chap. of y^e Apoca.

Iacobus Nadātus, that wrote the works entituled, Scripturae medella, doth dissent frō the opinion of thē which say that Enoch and Helie, ar in the paradise where Adā was, & he calleth it an assertiō potius famosā {quam} cōpertam, rather commonly receiued then truly found out, his wordes be these. Constat quidem quod viuunt, & certum est quod inter nos appare bunt ante iudicium, sed de loco vbi fint, res non sine dubitatione est. Nā licet legatur de Enoch quod in Paradisum est translatus, quod locū plane exprimit delitiosum, non tamen scriptū est quod ille in terra sit. &c. Et de Helia legitur, quod est assumptus in caelum, at non dicit empireū, vbi beatorū regio est. Quid ergo? crediderim hos indubie cōseruatos a deo, sed in caelo terra venescius sum, omnia diuinae sunt possibilia maiestati, nec verendum vbi vbi sunt, {quod} sine delitiis non sunt, ob id quod in Paradi so sunt. It is most certaine that they liue, and is most sure that they shall appeare among vs before the iudgement. But of the place where they be, the matter is in doubt, for although it be read of Enoch that he is trans∣lated into Paradise which betokeneth a pleasaūt place, yet it is not writ∣ten that he is in the earth. And it is read of Helias that he was assumpted into heauen yet it is not sayd into that heauen which is called Impirum, where is the region of the blessed saintes. VVhat then? I beleue that they are vndoubtedly preserued of God, but whither it be in heauen or in earth, I know not. All thinges are possible to Gods maiestie, nor it is to be feared that where soeuer they be, they be not without pleasure because they be in Paradise which betokeneth a place of rest.

To make an end of this I will bring onely one testimonie more of the gret learned man maister Caluin, who writing vpon Genesis saith of Enoch, after this maner. Porro si queratur quorsum translatus fuerit Enoch, & qualis nunc sit eius conditio, respondemus nunc priuilegio singulari, ta∣lem eius fuisse transitum, qualis aliorū hominum futurus erat. Et si enim ipsum exuere oportuit quod corruptibile erat, exēptus tamen fuit a vio∣lenta separatione quā natura refugit. In summa eiusmodi raptus placida fuit laeta{que} migratio ex mundo: ne{que} tamen in caelestē gloriā receptus est, sed tantū praesentis viiae misetiis solutus, donec veniet Christus resurgē∣tium primitiae. 1. Corinth 15. cap. 23. Et quum vnū fuerit ex ecclesiae mē∣bris, expectare eum necesse est donec prodeant omnia simul Christo ob∣uiam, vt totum corpus capiti vniatur. Si quis illud Apostoli obiiciat. Constitutum est omnibus semel mori. Heb. 9.8 nō semper diuortiū fit animae a corpore, sed mori dicuntur qui corruptibilē exuūt naturū, qua∣lis erit mors eorū quos dies vltimus superstites inueniet, de quibus disse erit. Paulus Apostol{us}. 1. Thessa. 4. d. 15. Moreouer if it be demaūded whe∣ther

Enoch was translated, and what his condition and state is now VVe aunswere that his goyng hence by a singular priuilege was such, as the state and goyng away of other men shalbe: for although it behoued hym to put of that which was corruptible, yet he was exempt from violent separation, from whiche nature doth flye. In fine his taking away was a pleasaunt and merie departing out of the worlde: Yet notwithstandyng he was not receyued into the celestiall glorye, but onely loosed from the miseries of this present lyfe, vntill Christe should come, beyng the first fruites of them that ryse agayne.

And for asmuche as he was one of the members of the Churche, it is necessarie, that he expecte and looke, vntill al come foorth to mete Christe, that the whole body may be vnited to the heade. If any man will obiect this saying of the Apostle (it is appointed for men once to dye,) the solution is easie, that death is not euer a separation of the soule from the body, but they are coumpted to dye, whiche put of also the corruptible nature, as the death of them shalbe whiche shalbe found aliue at the last day, of whom Paul writeth to the Thessalonians.

Chrisostome writyng vpon Genesis, sayth thus of Enoch. Marke here (I praye you) the vertue of a iuste man, the great goodnes of God, and the diligence of the Scripture. Farthermore Enoch lyued .165. yeares and begatte Mathusalem. And, Enoch walked with God, or Enoch plea∣sed God, after he had begotten Mathusalem. Let all men and women har∣ken vnto this, and let them learne the vertue of a iust man, neither let any man thincke, Mariage to be an occasion, why he shoulde not please God. For the holy Scripture for this cause sayth once or twise: he begat Mathusalem, and then he pleased God. And it doth double and repete the same wordes agayne, saying: And he pleased God after he had be∣gotten: that no man might thincke, that Mariage is an obstacle or let vnto vertue and godlines. For if we be sobre, neither our education and brynging vp, neither matrimonie nor any other thyng, can hynder vs from the pleasing of God.

For Enoch was of the same nature that we are of, neyther was there any lawe as yet written, neyther did the Scriptures teache hym thys, neyther was there any thyng elles whiche might enforce hym to imbrace wysedome and honestye. It sprange vnto hym at home, and it proceded of hys will that pleased God, that it sufficeth hym vntill this daye, that he shoulde not vnto this tyme taste of death.

For if that Mariage and the bryngynge vppe of chyldren were an impediment in the course of vertue, then God would not haue brought

it into the life of man, to hurte vs with a thing temporall and most neces∣sarie. But bycause it doth not onely not let vs to serue God (if we will lyue soberlie) but it bryngeth also a great consolation vnto vs, while it kepeth downe the vnrulie force of our nature, nor doth suffer it to be troubled and tossed lyke the sea, but causeth the boate happely to arriue vnto the hauen, therfore God gaue Mariage as an ayde & comfort vnto mā. The which thing to be most trew, that iust mā declareth. Bicause af∣ter that (saith the Scripture) Enoch begat Mathusalē, he pleased God.

Saba. 6.

SAba was the nephewe of Cham, Noes sonne, of whom parte of Aethiopia toke the name to be called Saba. Saba also is the re∣gall Citie from whence the Queene came to Salomon, whiche Queene was princesse and gouernour ouer great kingdomes, y^t is, Ethiope & Egipt. By her comming to see Salomō, is signified y^e church of the gen∣tils, whiche should come vnto Christ to he members of his Church.

VVriters make mention of many, places whiche are called Saba. For there is one region in Arabia Faelice, whiche is called Saba thurifera, by reason of the wood growing there, whiche wood is an hundred pases of lenght, and fifty pases of breadth, the trees of the same wood being cut in the beginning of the dogge daies, doo bringe forth a certain froth thy hu∣mor, whiche being congeled doth fall down, or els cleauing to the barke, is taken of. There is also an other Saba, which is a great port or hauen of Aethiopia, of the whiche Strabo maketh mention in his .xvi. booke.

Thirdly Saba is an olde auncient Citie in that Iland which the riuer Nilus doth compasse about, and was called after, by Cambyses, Merae, af¦ter his sisters name. The Queene of this Saba was she whiche came vnto Salomon, whō Christ in the Gospel doth call the Queene of the South, by∣cause she reigned in Aethiopia Australi, the south Ethiope.

And here may you learne that women did reigne and did gouerne the Empire, and that the inhabitantes did obey them as the Assirians did obey Semiramis, and as the Scithians were subiect to the women na∣med Amazones.

I shall not neede to recite here Debora whiche was iudge ouer Israell by y^e space of forty yeares, whiche thing I would that some would obserue and note, whiche are so straight against the regiment of women.

Tertulian. 7.

TErtulian was borne of a Centurian, whiche put him vnto lear∣ning, euen in his tender age, & became most expert & conninge

in al disciplines (as Lactantius doth testifie.) He being conuerted to the Christian faith, did geue himselfe wholly to the study of the holy Scrip∣tures, and worte many bookes, and was the thirde man of the Churche whiche wrote in the Latine toung (as S. Hierome writeth) he liued vn∣der Seuerus the father, and Marcus Aurelius Antonius his sonne. He li∣ued vntill he came to a very great and olde age, but at the last he fell into many errors, and specially into the heresie of Montanus, who named him selfe to be the holy Ghost, and became a Montanust. He condēneth the seconde Mariages, beside many other absurde and foolish errors. VVhat was the occasion or cause why he left Carthage, it is vncerteyne. S. Hie∣rome writeth, that he was at Rome and remayned there Priest vnto his middle age, yet was he driuen frō thence (as Saint Hierome doth shew) through the enuies and contumelies of the clergie of Rome, and returned to Carthage, where he wrote certaine bookes against the Churche Saint Cyprian when he minded to read his workes would say to his seruauntes: Da mihi Magistrum, bring hither my maister.

Tertulian was wonte to cause his auditours oftentimes to laugh with merie conceytes and pretie nippes. Some write, he suffred martirdome a∣mong the martirs for Christ.

His stile is very crabbed and hard, and must be read with much ad∣uisement and deliberation.

Arca. 8.

ABout the workemanship of the Arke of Noe, and the length of the cubites, diuerse write diuersely. But Origine Contra Celsum doth say, after the tradition of the Hebrues, that the cubite was not our vsuall cubite, whiche doth consiste of a foote and a halfe, but that Moses did meane the Geometricall cubite whiche standeth of sixe cōmon cubites, and doth make the length of nine feete, so that the Arke was in lenght .20000. and .700. foote.

Lyranus vpon this matter writteth after this sorte: Some say, that these cubites whiche are described in the buildyng of the Arke, were Geometricall. But nowe there riseth a doubte (sayth he) howe this buil∣dyng of so great length and largenes coulde be ioyned together. Agayne he sayth, the Hebrues do write, that they were vsuall cubites, but then (sayth he) riseth an other doubte, howe so many beastes and so muche prouision for them, coulde be placed in so streight a roome. At the laste he concluded, that the feete of that tyme were muche bygger and longer then they are nowe: and in deede Berosus writeth in his antiquities, that Noe was a Giaunt.

Appelles, Martianus his disciple doth compt this narration of the ship to be but a Fable, but what cauillatiōs doth not the wicked seeke, to take authoritye from the holye Scriptures?

Saint Austen in his .15. booke De ciuitate dei, writeth as followeth. These saye, that the quantitie of the Arke could not conteyne so many kyndes of beastes of both the sexes, two of the vncleane, and seuen of the cleane. If we do conceiue that, whiche Origene doth not vnaptly asserte, that is, Moses the man of God and very well learned in Geomotrie, to haue signified the Geometricall cubites, where as one is as bigge as sixe of our vsuall cubites. VVho then doth not see, how much that great vessel could receiue and holde?

Vnto vs whiche do confesse and graunte, that the residue of the worlde was reserued and saued by an incredible miracle, it ought not to seeme absurde, but that there was declared in the buildyng of this Arke the incomprehensible vertue and power of God. And therefore leauyng all maner of questions, you ought to cleaue onely vnto faith, and confesse Gods extraordinarie power.

Cataclisme. 9.

THe Philosophers make much mention of Cataclismus, for they imagine a certeine yeare called Annus magnus, or An∣nus Vertens whiche conteineth .12554. yeares the winter of the same yeares is, say they, Cataclismus a generall floud, the sōmer is Ecpirolis, that is an exustion, or an ardent and burning heat. Io∣sephus calleth the space of .1000. yeares Annus Magnus.

Some doth say, that this floud came by a cause naturall, and not by a supernaturall: for they affirme, that the coniunction of all the moist Pla∣netes in waterie signes, was the cause of this floude, and likewise they say, that the coniunction of the hoat Planetes in hoat signes shalbe the cause of burning the world before the iudgement. Although a particular flould in some part of the earth, may haue a naturall cause, yet a generall flould specially rising so high, that it transcendeth the toppes of all hilles by the space of .15. cubites, cannot come naturally. Therfore the Philoso∣pher Secundo Metheororum doth write, that whē one part of the earth whiche was before drie, is couered with sea, an other part in an other re∣gion, where there was before a sea, is discouered and made drie lande: But that the whole earth should altogether be couered with waters, se∣meth to him vnpossible, and so much of other elementes cannot by any naturall power be conuerted into water, to transmount the toppes of all hilles, specially of such a great heigth. Therfore we must needes confesse, that this floud came supernaturally, and by the miraculous and mighty power of God,

Esdras. 10.

ESdras was of the progenie and stocke of Aaron, well learned in the laws of God, and a noble maister of the Iudaicall peo¦ple, a ryghteous man, and of great might and glorie amongs the multitude whiche came from the bondage of Babilon into Iurie. Eusebius doth recorde the prayse of this Esdras, and specially of his memorie, for he could rehearse without stay or doubt all the bokes of the olde Testament, written before his tyme. And bycause they should not be mingled with the Samaritanes tonge, he changed the Hebrue let∣ters, and founde, as some saye, the pointes called the vowels. The Iewes wrote y^t this Esdras should be Malachi the Prophet (as Saint Hierome doth rehearse In questionibus Hebraicis.) This Esdras in the seuenth yeare of Artaxerxes Longimanus, hauing an Epistle from the kyng for his warrantise, went to Hierusalem and began there to restore agayne the Iewes their publicque weale. Thirtene yeares after that Nehenias came from Babilon, by whose helpe Esdras builded agayne the walles of Hierusalem, and reade to the people the booke of Moses lawe, he wrote foure bookes, but the thirde and the fourth are nombred amonges those bookes which are called Apocryphi. The thirde doth onely repeate the two last Chapters of Paralipomenon, reciteth also the whole first booke whiche was written by Esdras him selfe. The fourth booke doth conteine a disputation why the churche of God was oppressed with so great cala∣mitie, and why the wicked doth florish, prosper, and beare rule. To this question he answereth, that iudgement shal follow, and the wicked shall receyue paynes, and the godly receiue glorie after this life. This is the whole somme of the fourth booke.

Babilon. 11.

THe Cosmographers do consent, that there were two Baby∣lons, one in Assiria or Caldea in the field Sinea, the chief Ci∣tie of the kingdome of the Caldeans, in the whiche was the great palace of Nimroth. It is called Babylon a confusis la∣••••is, bycause the toungs wer first there confounded. It is distant frō Hie∣rusalem towarde the East, a great nomber of miles. In this Citie the Mo∣narchie of all the world began .13. yeares after the floud. This Empire was translated to the Assirians: but in the time of Ezechia, when the host of Senacherib king of the Assiriās besieging Hierusalem, was slayne by the aungel of God, & Senacherib y^e king him selfe murdered of his own sons, one Merodach Baladan did enioye the whole monarchie. After him suc∣ceded

••ēnerodach, after him Nabuchodonozor the first, after him Na∣buchodonosor the great: which vanquishing and ouerthrowyng Hieru∣salem, led the people of Iuda captiue into Babylon, where they were re∣tained seuenty yeares. After him succeded Balthasar, whō Darius & Ci∣rus slue: & ouerthrowing Babylon, translated the monarchie of y^e whole worlde to the Persians. He that will read more of this Babylon, let hym read Iosephum, Saint Austen, Plinie, Strabo, with others. Strabo in his 16. booke doth call it Selentiam.

The other Babylon is nigh vnto Egypt in the costs of Arabia, which is called in the Arabicall toung Chayrum, and now is named Alayer, and is the seate of the great Soulton. Certain writers iudge, that Saint Peter wrote his first Epistle frō this Citie, where he saith: Salutat vos ecclesia quae est in Babylone. The Church that is at Babylon, saluteth you. But there is great controuersie among the learned, of which Babylon Peter here doth speake. Many of the olde writers do thincke, that Rome figura¦tiuly, is signified by Babylon, bicause that as Babylon doth signifie confu¦sion, so Rome is called Babylon, bycause there was the sincke and seat of all filthines, a confusion of all impietie and idolatrie. The Papistes take occasion of this glose, that Peter should seeme to be Bishop and gouer∣nour of the Romaine Churche, but of that I shall declare more at large hereafter. But yet marke the peruerse nature of the Papistes, who pas∣seth not for the infamie and reproch of the name, so it may be lawful for them to haue a pretence, to establish the title of the Romish see. Yea they do not greatly regarde Christ, so that Peter may be left vnto them, nay: I suppose, if they may retayne and maintaine the maner of Peters chaire, they will not refuse to place it vnder the earth (I wil not say in hell.) But marke how they be contrary here one to an other. For some of thē write, that Marke the Euangeliste died at Alexandria, in the .8. yeare of the reigne of Nero, and that Peter was slayne at Rome sixe yeares after, of the same Nero. But if Marke had bene a Bishop any long time of Alex∣andria, he could neuer haue ben at Rome with Peter. And where Euse∣bius and Hierome doo write, that Peter sate at Rome .25. yeares, that same is easely refelled out of the Epistle to the Galathiās. Therfore when Peter had Marke with him, as his companion and wayting fellow, it is more probable that he was at Babylon when he wrote this Epistle, and not at Rome. But (as Luther writeth) vpon the same Epistle Liberū fa∣cio cuilibet, vt quod sibivideatur de hac Babylone, censeat, perparum enim refert quae Babylon illa fuit. I leaue it free to euery man, to thinke of this Babylon, as it shal seme to him best, for it maketh litle skill which Babilon it was.

Hebraei. 12

DIuerse learned men do iudge that the Iewes were called He∣braei of one Heber, who was Sems nephewes sonne. But Oe∣colampadius and others experte in the Hebrew tounge, doo write, that Abraham was called first Hebraeus, of the Cana¦nites and Phenitians, because before he came to thē he dwelled beyonde the riuer Euphrates in Mesopotamia, and from thence passinge ouer the floud, came vnto them (as though a man might say) vir trans Euphratem, a man dwellinge beyonde the riuer Euphrates, and therefore they called him Hebraeus, of this word Aeber, which signifieth commonly to passe o∣uer from place to place, by some meane and middle to passe ouer, as by wa¦ter, hilles, vally, field or desert. And therfore all the posteritye of Abra∣ham were called Hebraei, not onely of the Cananites, but also of the Egyp∣tians and other nations. For the confirmation of which sentence, that ma∣keth much which is written in Iosue .4. Ego tuli patrem vestrum Abra∣ham trans flumen, et duxi illum per omnem terram Canaan. I broughte your father Abraham ouer the floud, and led him throughe all the lande of Canaan.

Concerning the difference betwene these two wordes Hebraeus and Iu¦deus ther is diuersity of opiniōs. Erasmus, who doubtles followed others, doth saye, that one is the name of religion, and the other of nacion. Yet I thinke as touching the originall of these words, that Hebraeus is called of passing ouer y^e floud, & Iudeus toke his name of Iuda, y^e Patriach Iacobs sonne: so that Hebraeus doth properly signify the nation or people of God. For Saint Paule the Apostle, when he did glorye partlye of the nobility of his kindred, partly of the antiquity of his country, against the false A∣p••••••••s doth saye: Hebraei sunt: Sum et ego. Israelitae sunt: Sum et ego. They be Hebrues: I am also,. They be Israelites, so am also I. They be the sedee of Abraham, and I also. As for this name Iudaeus, he maketh no men∣tion of it, but doth omit it as a name more lately inuented, & more base. VVhen notwithstanding in many other places, when he speaketh of the same nation, and doth make difference of it from other countries, he ma∣keth mencion of this word Iudaeus, calling that people Iewes. Ther is no mention of this in the old testament so frequent and so muche, as in the booke of Hester. And thus may you perceiue that the Iewes were called Hebraei, as passing ouer, which name was taken of Abraham, going ouer the floud Euphrates, and not of Heber, which was Sems nephews sonne.

Origene. 13.

OF Origen it is commonly sayd: Vbi bene, nemo melius: Vbi male, nemo peius. VVhere he wrote well, no manne better. VVhere he

wrote ill, no man wurs. He in his infancy being a sleepe, his father Leo∣nides came into the chamber, and taking away the clothes softly, kyssed the childes brest, as a temple hauing within it the holy Ghoste, & gaue thanks to god, who had geuē him such a son. VVhē his Father was put to death, Origen being but a younge child, and desirous of Martirdome, ran among other that were led to be slayn, and by al meanes proffered himself to dye w^t thē. But his mother perceyuing the matter, in the night when he was a bed, stale awaye his clothes, so that he was constrayned to tarye at home.

He gelded him self, which was laid to his charge for a foule reproch: He vnderstode not the mening of Christes saying in the gospel. Sunt eunuchi &c. He was excellently learned and wrote many woorkes, of the whiche certayne are reiected as heretical. Some do write (as Suidas and Epipha∣nius) that he gelded not him self with yron, but with certaine drie medi∣cines, hauing power to exicate & destroy venerial lust, which medicines he applied Locally vnto his priuy partes. He had to his maisters Cle∣mens Alexandrinus, & one Amonius, both a Philosopher & a Christiā. After that he was made a Catechiste by Demetrius, he forsooke the study of Grammer: and perusing all his Philosophicall bokes, sold euery one for an half peny a piece, and after did dedicate and giue him self wholy to the study of the holy scriptures, and wrote many godlye commentaries vpon Gods woord.

One Ambrosius a verye riche and wealthye man, not onelye vrged him to writing, but also ministred vnto him all his findinge and charges. and that his labour should the more easely procede, he gaue him six nota∣ries to write, and certayne young maydens excercised in writing, which wrote successiuely one after an other, by the space of certayn howers. Of thys Ambrose Origene wryteth to one of hys frendes after thys manner. Sanctus dei & eruditus Ambrosius sepe me compellauit, qui existimat me amicum esse & valde sitibundum diuinarum litterarum, conuincit propria assiduirate & amorescilicet ad disciplinas. Vnde adeo me vicit, vt periculosum esset repugnare ipsius propositionibus. Neque enim e∣dere licet, nisi priusquam conferam: neque post sumptum cibum licet ob ambulare & corpusculum reficere, sed & eo tempore philosophari et ex∣aminari cogimur, neque noctem totā ad corporis curā licet nobis dor∣mire, cum ipse cupiditate conferendi ad multam noctem detineat nos. Omitto vero dicere quae matutino tempore, vsque ad nonam & decimā horam fiunt. Omnes enim qui volunt assidui esse, tempora illa ttibuunt inquisitioni diuinorum oraculorum & lectionibus. That is to saye. The learned and holy man of God Ambrose, hath oftentimes called vpon me, which thinketh me his frend, and verye thirstye of godlye letters, doth o∣uercome me wyth hys continuall dilygence and loue vnto learnynge.

VVherupon he hath so perswaded me, that it were daungerous to resist his purpose. It is not lawful for me to eate, before I conferre with hym: & after meate receaued, it is not lawfull for me to walke and refreshe my body, but that time also we are constrained to talke of wisdome, and to be examined: nor it is lawful to sleepe all night, to the good constitution of my body, when he being desirous of conference, doth deteine and holde me vntil it be farre in the night. I leaue of here to shew what things are done in the morning, vntil nine or tenne of the clocke. For all they which wyll be diligente, doo geue them selues that tyme to the seeking out of Gods oracles, and to readinges.

Saint Hierome writeth, that Origene wrote sixe thousand bookes, which he testifieth him selfe to haue sene.

Suidas saith, that after many tormentes and persecutions which Ori∣gene suffred with a strong and a bold minde, he was brought vnto an al∣ter, wher ther was set a most foule and filthy Aethiope, & that he shuld chuse whither he would do sacrifice to the idols, or els suffer his body to be defiled of that foule Aethiope. But Origene, which euer had a philoso∣phical minde, and did alwaies obserue chastitie, did signifie, that he wold rather do sacrifice, then suffer such filthines to be done to his body. Then the rulers putting insence into his hand, he did moue it vnto the aulter, and to the fire: for the which impietie, he was after excōmunicate of the church. And other do write, that after this denial, he slyd from the grace of God, and so fel into straunge opinions, wherefore he was excommuni∣cate out of the church. VVhich contumelye when he could not suffer, he left Alexandria, and went into Iewry. And when he came to Hierusa∣lem, the Priestes firste desired him, and after constrayned hym, that he would either preach or rede in the church. Thē Origen rising (as though he wold haue made some sermon) recited onely these words of .49. psalm. Peccatori vero dixit deus, vt quid tuannuntias iustificationes meas, & vsurpas testamentum meum in ore tuo? That is to say: Vnto the wycked said God: what hast thou to doo, to declare mine ordinaunces, that thou shouldest take my couenant in thy mouth? And straight way he shut the booke, and sat downe with teares and mourning (all the auditory wee∣ping together with him.) VVhat was done of Origen after that, no wri∣ter maketh mencion

VVhen he came to the age of seuenty, or three score and nine yeares, (as Nicephorus writeth) he dyed as it semeth, in great miserye and po∣uerty, and (as some doubt) in desperation, before the age of Hierom. 150. yeares Suidas and Hierom do write, that he died at the Citye of Tyrus, and was also there buried.

Beda. 14.

BEda was an English man, and liued in the time of Iustinian the second And for the modesty of his life, and great labour in stu∣dy, he was called venerabilis Beda. He was also in the tyme of Iohn the sixt, bishop of Rome. VVhen the Sarasens arriued out of Afri∣ca, to inuade Spain, then Bede with his letters sollicited the Princes to recouer it againe. He was very wel learned, both in the Greke & the La¦tin, and wrote many works, and especially one notable worke De natura & temporibus, which is deuided into three bokes. He traueled through∣out al the parts of the earth. For y^e most part, & by the space of .29 yeres laboured in preaching and writing. And being of the age of seuenty and two, died, Anno .734. he had two brethrē, lerned & very famous, whose names were Strabo and Haymo, the one wrote certaine learned home∣lies, and the other wrote vpon Genesis. But maister Bale in his booke De scriptoribus Britanniae, doth saye, that he neuer went out of Englande. And if he had bene in the time of saint Austen, Hierom, Chrisostome, he might haue bene compared vnto them, both in learning and eloquence: he wrote aboue a hundred bookes, of which some he fained in his name.

Iudas. 15.

THis Iude was also called Lebbeus and Thaddeus, as it appeareth in the tenth of Mathew, he is named also Iudas Zelotes, for the great and vertuous zeale that was in him (as saint Ierome in the 4. chapter of the Epistle to the Galathians, writeth) Saint Luke in his sixt chapter, calleth him the brother of Iames. Eusebius calleth him Fra∣trem domini, the brother of the Lord. Epiphanius writeth, that Ioseph had these foure sonnes, Iames, Simon, Ioses, and Iudas, which as he sayth was the youngest sonne of Ioseph. VVe haue no other mencion in the ho∣ly scriptures of this Iudas, sauing in the .14. of Iohn: he demaunded of Christ why he would shew him selfe vnto his disciples, and not vnto the world. To whom Christ aunswered: if any man loue me, he wyl keepe my word, & my father wil loue hī, & we wil come vnto him, & dwel w^t him.

After the resurrection of Christ he preached the Gospel first in Me∣sopotamia, afterward in Ponto, and afterward went with his bother Si∣mon into Persia, wher he was slaine of the heathen priestes.

Saint Hierom writeth, that this Iude was sent to Abgarus the kyng to Edessa, with the vernacle. He wrote one short epistle, which certain old fathers do not count auctentical, but apochryphal. Cercain things are written in it out of the last epistle of saint Peter. He alledgeth certaine sentences as scripture, which be not in the scriptures, as whē Michael dis∣puting with the diuel, did contend about the body of Moses. Also he brin∣geth

a notable testimony of the last iudgemēt out of the sermōs of Enoch.

Of the death of Iude we reade no certainty, sauing that Abdias Vin∣centius, and other do write, that this Iude by the violence of the Bishops and Priestes, was slaine in Persia.

Apocrypha. 16.

APocryphum betokneth in latin absconditum, in english hidden, of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which doth exaggerate the thing, & sig∣nifieth to hide. And that kinde of scripture is called Apocryphal, whose original and beginning is not knowen, and in the which althoughe ther be found some verity, yet for many things which semeth to be false, it hath not the importaunce nor wayght of the Canonicall scriptures. VVhat bookes be apocryphall, you shall finde at the full in the decrees, Distinct. 15. cap. Sancta Romana Ecclesia.

Gelasius, after that he had burned the bookes of the Manichies, by∣cause he woulde seperate the chaffe from the come, doth shewe what bookes are to be receiued of the church, and howe manye are to be taken Apocryphi.

Some write that this word Apocryphum is compounded of this prepo∣sition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth in latin de, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id est abscondo, celo, qua si occultus, as you would say, conceled or kept close, bicause the authour of that boke is not known. Others say, that it is sayd of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signi∣fieth a farre of, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth iudgement, as you woulde saye farre from iudgement, bicause ther can be no certain iudgement, either of the matter there written, nor yet of the author of the booke. But this etimology is farre fette.

Menander Epimenides Aratus. 17.

MEnander was a poete that wrate commedies, he was Theophra∣stus scholer, he was gogle eyed, and was very sharpe of wit, but outragious in the loue of womē. He wrote 80. comedies, & one epistle to Ptolomie the kinge, and wrote also manye thinges in prose. Haec Suidas. Out of this Menander Paul alledgeth .1. Corint. cap. 5. thys saying: Mores bonos corrumpunt colloquia praua.

Epimenides.

Epimenides was a Poet, borne in Creta, who being sent of his father into the field to kepe cattell, did sleepe in a certaine den threescore and fiftene yeares: wherof riseth a prouerbe, Epimenidis somnum dormire, which may be applied to sluggards, and such as do slepe night and day.

The same Epimenides sayd to the Athenians afflicted with pestilēce, that the city must be purged and clensed: and when he came thither, be∣ing demaunded howe it shoulde be done, commaunded white and blacke shepe to be offered in the streete called Areopagus, and when he was

returning homeward, they offred vnto him money, but he refused it. Pla∣to doth make mencion of this man in his first & third boke De legibus. Saint Paule, in his epistle to Tite, alledgeth this mans saying of the Cre∣tensians, although he name him not.

Aratus.

Aratus was an old Greke Poet, which wrate very exactly of Astro∣logie (as Cicero iudgeth) whose worke entituled Phenomena, Cicero be∣ing a very young man, did translate, as he him selfe doth write, in his se∣cond booke De natura deorum. Out of this Aratus Paule cited this text: Act. 17. Ipsius genus sumus, which being spoken of Iupiter, Paule doth apply it to the very true God.

Arator.

There was a christian Poet named Arator, who was deacon at Rome, and wrate the actes of the Apostles in Hexametre verses (as Volatera∣nus doth note.)

Basilius Magnus. 18.

BAsilius Magnus had to his father a priest and a bishop (as Na∣zianzenus writeth) who was called Basilius also, a man of rare vertue, and notable piety and godlines. He had fiue sonnes, wher¦of three were enhaunced to the office of a Bishop.

Basilius was the hishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia, Petrus was Bi∣shop of Sebasta, Gregory was bishop of Missa, they were three worthy men, very famous and excellently learned.

Basilius had to his scholemaster his own father, who taught him the rudiments of godlines, principles of grammer, and the discipline of good maners. VVhen he was a young man, he both did learne and also teach at Athens, and had to his companions Gregorie Nazianzene, and one Li∣banius. After that he had gone through the chiefest churches in Grecia, and al Asia, he returned to Cesarea, wher, for a time he professed diuity. But when a certaine strife and contention was risen betwene him and Eusebius, the byshop of Cesarea, he departed from thence vnto Pontus, wher he spent with his auditours. 14 yeares, in the study of heauenly doc¦trine. But when the Arrians did inuade the Churches wyth their here∣sies, he was called backe againe to Cesarea, and after the death of Euse∣bius, was chosen bishop, and had great conflicts, and very sharpe dispu∣tacions with the Arrians, whom the Emperour Valence maintained and nourished: which Valence commaunded Basile to leaue his office, and to go into exile, yet he would not obey, but being brought before the iudge∣ment seat of the Emperour Valence, and his officers, and being much at∣tempted to obey the threatnings of the Emperour, stood stout and stiffe against him. And when they gaue him a nightes space, to deliberate with

himselfe, Basilius answered: nay (saith be) I will not take that space, but take thou y^t space, to desiste & leaue from thy naughty purpose. And in y^t night the Emperour Valence wife was taken in great dolour and paine, and also one of his young daughters died. Then Valence sent to Basilius, that he would pray vnto God, that he himselfe might be preserued from daunger and death. And so it came to passe that Basilius was deliuered. He that will reade more of the life of Basilius, let him looke in Gre∣gory Nazianzene his worke, called Monodia, where is commended the abstinence, the frugality, & the simple apparel of Basilius, who through continuall fastinges, watchinges, and lying on the ground, could not ex∣ecute his office as he ought to doo. VVhich thing Erasmus in his booke called Concionator, layeth to his reproche. Before he died, his voyce was very vocall and audible, where before he had a verye slender and small voyce. He dyed meekely and peaceably, and when he had named his suc∣cessor, and had spoken these wordes of the prophet (Into thy hands Lord I commend my spirite) he gaue vp the ghost, the yeare of Christ. 387.

Adam. 19.

ADam tooke his name of this word Adamah, which signifieth red earth, for the earth wherof the first man was made, was some∣what redde, as it is in the East part in many places, through the heate of the Sunne.

There is a great controuersie amongest learned men, whither Adam lost the image of God after he sinned.

Epiphanius byshop of Salamine in Cypres, in his epistle to Iohn bishop of Hierusalem (which saint Hierome translated out of Greke into La∣tin) doth say, that Origine amongest his many other errours did affirme Adam to haue lost the image of God after his fall, when notwithstan∣ding that cannot be found nor proued in any place of the scriptures. For if it should be so, all thinges which be in the worlde, coulde not serue man∣kinde as they do (as saint Iames doth testifie) saying: Omnia domantur & subiecta sunt humanae naturae. All thinges are tamed and made subiect to the nature of man. Now al thinges could not be subiect vnto man, if he had not the image of God, by the which he might rule al creatures. It is written in Genesis. cap. 5. Et vixit Adam centum triginta annis, et cog∣nouit Euam vxorem suam, & peperit ei filium iuxta speciem & imagi∣nem eius, & vocauit nomen eius Seth. Adam lyued an hundred and thir∣tie yeares, and begat a childe in his own likenes after his image, and cal∣led hys name Seth. Hec Epiphanius.

This place is of diuers diuersly expounded. For some do vnderstand the image & similitude to be spokē of the shape & nature of mā, which both

Adam after his kinde did spred to his posterity comming of him: but in that sense, beastes also after their kindes do beget, conceiue, and multiply their kinde like to them selues,

Others do iudge, that Moses spake not of the image and similitude of the body, but rather of the minde. And they likewise dissent among them selues: for some vnderstand it of the image and similitude of godlines and righteousnes, which yet was left in Adam.

Others do expound it of the priuation of original iustice and corrup∣tion of the minde, both which Adam by his disobedience did purchace vn¦to him and his posteritye.

Others do refer this image & similitude of Adā (like to the which Seth was born) to those things which wer then found in Adam, when he begat Seth for Adam was endewed with reason, he was made in dignity Lorde of the earth, he was also subiect vnto corruption, sinne, many calamites, and vnto death. Chrisostome saith: Ne{que} de corporalibus picturis et cha∣racteribus scriptura nobis disserens hoc dicit, secundum speciem suam, & secundum imaginem suam, sed de statu animae. Ideo mater nomine imposito filio cum gratiarum actione hoc nomen indidit, & neque na∣turae, neque partui ascripsit natum puerum, seddei virtuti.

Neither the scriptures disputing here of corporall pictures and figures doth say this (after his similitude & likenes) but it speaketh of the state of the soule. Therfore, the mother putting a name vnto her sonne, gaue this name with thankes geuing, and did ascribe the birth of her childe, not to nature, but to the vertue and power of God.

Epiphanius also alledgeth Dauid, writing in his 38 psalm. Veruntamē in imagine perambulat omnis homo, but euery mā doth walke in his image But this text in my iudgement hath an other sense, and is otherwise red in the Hebrew tounge. The hebrew word is Zel, which signifieth proper¦ly Vmbram, a shadow. And the sense of these wodes, In imagine peram∣bulat omnis homo, is no more but this: doubtles mā walketh in a shadow and disquieteth him selfe in vaine: by which words he confesseth the life of man to be not onely short and vaine, but to be also miserable and ful of cares. In the name of a shadow, Dauid vnderstandeth nothing to be firm and sure in mans life, but a certaine vaine apparence of things. Some doo rede In tenebris ambulat homo. The Grecians and the Latines do rede, In imagine. And I am not ignoraunt, that saint Austen doth reade In i∣magine and doth take imaginem here for the image of God. His words be these. In qua imagine, nisi illius qui dixit: faciamus hominem ad ima¦ginem & similitudinem nostram. Cassiodorus also is of that same minde. Hec parerga. To our purpose againe.

If Origen take image to signify substaunce, he is in a manifest error, for if natural things did remainful and whole, as Dionisius testifieth, in

the diuels, whose sinne was a great deale more greuous thē the offence of Adam, they should much more remain in the first man. Ouer and besides, if some shoulde withdrawe anye thing from nature, then sinnes growing vpon sinnes, should at the last consume and waste away the whole nature of the soule.

Victorinus, of whom saint Hierom learned Rhethoricke, in his dispu¦tacion against Arrius, writeth thus: Aliud est iuxta imaginem quod qui¦dem substantia est, aliud iuxta similitudinem esse, quod non est substan∣tia, sed in substantia nomen qualitatis declaratiuum. &c.

It is one thing to be after the image which is a substaunce, and it is an other thing to be after the similitude which is not a substāce, but a name of quality declared in the substaunce. And a litle after he saith: the soule therfore is perfect after the image now in this world, but after the simi∣litude it shalbe perfect afterward in God, and in Iesus Christ it shall be such as it should haue bene if Adam had not offended. Therfore as per∣teining to reson, now it is perfect after the image: but as cōcerning per∣fection to come, it is perfect after the similitude. Hec Victorinus.

Out of the which words it doth euidently appeare, that the image doth greatly differ from the similitude, but not the image nor the soule being sinneful, doth cease to be the image of God, but it cannot attain to the si∣militude of God, vnlesse it be holy. But obserue thou, that the holy scrip∣ture doth not alway take image after that signification, but somtimes in the place and stede of the similitude, so that it doth signifie the purity of the minde by faith in Christ (as Paule writeth to the Colossians:) Expo∣l••antes vos veterem hominem cum actibus suis, & induentes nouum qui renouatur in agnitionem secundum imaginem eius qui creauit eum. Putting of the old man with his workes, and putting on the new, which is renued in the knowledge of him, after the image of him that created him. By the which place it is most euident, that Paule made a difference of the old man from the new, so that the olde man which pertaineth to synne, hath not the image of God, bicause he lacketh goodnes: the newe man whych pertayneth vnto grace recouered by Christe, doth beare the image of God.

Saint Austen contra Adimantum, one of Manichies Disciples, wri∣teth thus: Admonet apostolus, vt exuti consuetudine peccatorum, id est v••••er•• homine, induamur noua vita Christi. &c. The Apostle doth ad∣monish, that we laying asyde the custome of synne, that is the olde man: put on the new life of Christ, which he calleth the new man. And that he mi••ht teach vs, that he lost it sometimes, he calleth it a running. It is to b•• coniectured, that Augustine ment vs to haue onelye lost the per∣fection of that Image, and not the image it selfe: whiche beynge caste

into foule filthines, and tombled in the miery puddle of pleasures, yet it ceaseth not to be the image, although the brightnes and fairnes thereof be obscured, darkened, and couered with the drags of sinne. For Austen him selfe writeth in his retractations, lib. 1. cap. 26. after this manner. VVhen I did expound in my worke of .83. questions, in the .67. question this pece of scripture:* 1.30 Et ipsa creatura liberabitur a seruitute interitus. &c And the creature it selfe shalbe deliuered from the bondage of corrup∣tion: I sayd, that the creature it selfe (that is man him selfe) with the fi∣gure of the image lost through sinne, remained onely a creature, which is not so to be taken, as though man had lost the whole and euery part of the image of God. For if he had throughlye lost it, there had bene no cause to haue bene sayd, be ye renewed in the newnes of your minde, and chaun∣ged into that image. Againe, if he had lost al, nothing had remained. And why should it be said of Dauid, quanquam in imagine ambulet homo, ta men varie conturbatur.* 1.31

Againe in lib. De Genesi, contra Manichaeos, he sayth: Aliquando so∣lent dicere, quomodo accepit homo potestatem piscium maris, & vola∣tilium caeli & omnium pecudum, et ferarum, cum videamus a multis fe∣ris homines occidi, & a multis volatilibus nobis noceri, quae volumus vel vitare vel capere, et plerunque non posse? &c.

They are wont sometimes to say, how hath man taken the power and go∣uernment of the fishes of the sea, and the birdes of the aire, of al cattel & wilde beastes, when we see men to be slaine of many wilde beastes, & our selues to be hurt of many fliyng foules, which we would either eschue or take, and for the most part cannot? How therfore haue we taken power ouer them? Here we must first say vnto them, that they do greatly erre, which doo not consider man after his fall, when he was condemned into mortality of this life, and lost that perfection, in the which he was made after the image of God. But if this gouernment & rule doo so muche pre¦uaile, that he doth rule many beastes (for although he may be destroied of many beastes, through the frailnes of y^e body) yet he can be tamed of none of them, foramuch as he himself doth tame many beasts, yea almost all. If therfore this gouernment of man doo in this so muche preuaile, what may we thinke of his kingdome, which by the voyce of God is promised vnto him, being renued and deliuered from sinne? Hec Augustinus.

Ambrose expounding that place of Paule to the Colossians, doth say, this image to be vnderstande in the conuersation of good life (as Paule saith to the Corinthians) Quem admodum portauimus imaginem eius qui de terra est,* 1.32 ita et portemus imaginem illius qui de caelo est. As we haue borne the image of him which is of the earth, so let vs beare the i∣mage of him which is from heauen. He therefore is the creator of man, whose image he doth commaund vs to beare in holynes and good workes,

which doth descend and come of the knowledge of the sonne of God. Haec Ambrosius. But we may gesse, that Ambrose did take the image, for the excellence and perfection of the image.

Questio.

But what is the image of god? & what is mēt by the similitude of god?

Responsio.

Chrisostome vpon Genesis writeth: Neque enim cum dixit, faciamus hominem secundum imaginem nostram, & secundum similitudinē: hic sermonem finiuit, sed per ea quae adiungit, manifestum nobis facit, quo sensu nomen imaginis posuerit. Quid enim dicit? & dominetur piscibus maris & volatilibus caeli et omnibus reptilibus super terram. Imaginem dixit ergo de principatu & dominio, nō de aliquo alio, quia deus fecit ho¦minem principem omnium quae sunt super terram, et nihil super terram homine maius est, et omnia sub potestate illius sunt. Hec Chrisostomus. Neither when he said (Let vs make man after our image & similitude) he doth here finish the word and sentence, but by those wordes which he doth adioyn, he doth shew manifestly, in what sense he putteth the name of the image. For what doth he say? and let him be lord ouer the fishes of the sea, and the birds of the aire, and al creeping thinges vpon the earth. Therefore he sheweth and meaneth the image of the gouernment and lordship, & of no other thing, bicause God made man prince of al things which be vpon the earth, and nothing vpon the earth is mightier then man, and al thinges are vnder his power and rule.

But saint Austen in his treatie vpon the Epistle of Saint Iohn doth shew, the image and similitude of God to consist and stand in the vnder∣standing and in the inward man: wher when he had shewed the natural power of man vpon those thinges that be on the earth, bicause man was made after the image of God, he addeth this interrogation.

Vbi autem factus est ad imaginem dei? in intellectu (inquit) in mente, in interiori homine, in eo qui intelligit veritatem, diiudicat iustitiam et in iustitiam, nouit a quo factus est, potest intelligere creatorem suum, lau∣dare creatorem suum, &c. Vvhere was he made after the image of god? in vnderstanding, in minde, in the inward man, in that he vnderstandeth the truth, and doth discerne betwene righteousnes and vnrigbteousnes, he knoweth of whom he was made, he can vnderstand his creator, he cā praise his creator, he hath the intelligence of wisdome.

Therfore many, when by ill desires and lustes they did feare awaye the image of God from thē, and did in a maner by the vntowardnes of ma¦ners extinguish and put out the very flame of intelligence, the scripture crieth out vnto them: do you not become horse and Mule, to whom there is no vnderstanding, that is to say: I haue set thee before horse and mule, I haue made thee after mine image, I haue geuen thee power ouer these.

VVherfore, bicause the beasts haue no reasonable minds, but thou by thy reasonable minde, doest perceiue the truth, thou vnderstandest y^t which is aboue thee, and those thinges shalbe vnderneath thee, ouer whome thou art set Lord and Ruler. And bicause through sinne man forsooke God, vnder whom he ought to be, he was made subiect vnto them, aboue whom he ought to be. Thus farre saint Austen, who calleth sometimes the image and similitude of God, the vertue and power of reasonable vn∣derstanding.

He doth also referre the same vnto memory, minde, and will, which being three faculties of the soule, do represent (as he saith) three persons in one substance of Godhead, but this is not the perfection of the image of God. For memory, minde, and will, are not sufficient to that ende, ex∣cept we vnderstand, remember, and wil those things which please God. For the image of God is the new man, which vnderstandeth Gods truth, and is desirous of his righteousnes, (as Paule doth expresly teache in the Epistle to the Ephesians.* 1.33 Induite nouum hominem, qui secūdum deum creatus est in iustitia et sanctitate veritatis. Put on the new mā which is created after God in righteousnes and true holynes) VVhen our minde both hath the knowledge of God, and is beautified with righteousnes and the knowledge of godly thinges. And it is nothing els but a certaine flowing of Gods nature, into our mindes.

The scholemen doo make a distinction betwene these twoo, that is to be Imago dei, & ad imaginem dei, to be the image of God, and after the image of God. For to be the image of God, is to present God himselfe perfectly, which appertaineth to none, but to the only sonne of god. Ther∣fore Paule speakinge to the Hebrewes doth write, that he is the bright∣nes of his glory, and the ingraued forme of his person.

To be after the image of god, is to participate some part of the perfecti∣on of God: Christ therefore the sonne of god is the naturall image of god y^e father, man is after the image of god.

Exemplum.

The image of a king is one thing in his naturall sonne, and an other thing in his coyne. Man therfore is after the image God, quoad naturalia, concerning natural things, as vnderstanding, memory, and wil, but after the similitude of God concerning grace. Therfore great dignity is geuen to man, that he is bothe after the image, and also after the similitude of God. Saint Clement in his epistle Ad Iacobum fratrem domini, doth say: Quod in omni homine est imago dei, sed non in omnibus similitudo, sed vbi est mens pura, & anima benigna. In euery mā, is the image of god, but not in all is the similitude of God, but where there is a pure mynde and a good soule.

Contra Antropomorphitas.

There was a certeine secte of heretikes called Antropomorphitae, who affirmed, that God had a body and members as a man hath, who grounde their errour falsly vpon this text. Faciamus hominem ad imaginē & si∣mitudinem nostram. Let vs make mā after our image & similitude. But against this heresie, not onely holy scripturs, but also the aunciēt fathers doo moste godly and substantially resist and fight.

Chrisostome hath these wordes. Iterum hic insurgunt & pullulāt he∣retici alii ecclesiae dogmata de populantes & dicentes: Ecce dicit secundū imaginem nostram. Et inde volunt, deo humanam formam tribuere, id quod extremi fuerit stuporis, vt is qui forma specie{que} caret, & nulli alte∣rationi obnoxius est, sub humanā redigatur formam, & incorporeo mē∣bra & lineamenta attribuantur.

Here riseth agayne and springeth vp other kind of heretiks, destroy∣ing and spoyling the doctrine of the Churche, and saying: Behold he saith after our image. Vpon this they would giue vnto God the shape of man, which wer extreme madnes and foolishnes: that he which lacketh y^e form and shape of man, and who also is subiect to no alteration, should be dri∣uen vnder mans shape, and the proportion and mēbers of a corporall bo∣dy, should be ascribed vnto him that is incorporall.

S. Austen in his booke De fide & Simbolo, Credimus (inquit) quod sedet ad dexterā dei patris, nec ideo quasi humana forma circū scrip∣tum esse deum patrem arbitrandum est. Vt de illo cogitantibus dexterū aut sinistrū latus animo occurrat, aut id ipsum quod sedere pater dicitur flexis poplitibus fieri putādū est: ne in illud incidamus sacrilegium, quo execratur Apostolus eos, qui commutauerunt gloriā incorruptibilis dei in similitudinem corruptibilis hominis. Tale enim simulachrū deo ne fas est, Christiano in Templo collocare. VVe beleue saith he, that he sit∣teth at the right hand of God the father, neither yet therfore we must iudge or thincke God the father to be compassed about with the shape of man, that when we thincke of him, either right side or left side, should enter into our minde, or for that he is said to sit, we should thincke that to be done with the bowing of hammes and knees, least we fall into that sacrilege wherwith Paule curseth them, which chaunge the glorie of the incorruptible God, into the similitude and lykenes of a corruptible man, for to place such an image vnto God in a Christian Churche, is most wic∣ked and vngodly.

Ther be thre questions concerning Adam, whiche are proposed of lear∣ned men, to the whiche I will now aunswere by the censure and iudgemēt both of the auncient doctours, and also scholemen.

Questio prima.

VVhither Adam was not disceiued (as Saint Paule writeth) and whi¦ther

he sinned in pride and idolatrie, Also whither he sinned more gre∣uously then Eue?

Questio secunda.

VVhither Adam did foreknow his fault, although he had the know∣ledge of good and euell, before he did eate of the tree forbidden?

Questio tertia.

VVhere Adam was buried, whither in Hebron, or els in Golgotha?

Responsio ad primam questionem. An aunswere to the first question.

Saint Paul writeth to Timothie, Adam non est seductus, mulier au∣tem seducta, in praeuaricatione fuit. Adā was not disceiued, but the wo∣man was disceiued, and was in the transgression.

VVhich place Chrisostome expounding, doth say. Quonam vero mo∣do Adam non est seductus? Ergo ne{que} inobediens fuit siquidem seductus non est. Nempe mulier quidem crimē excusans, ait, Serpens decepit me. Adam vero non ait, mulier decepit me, sed dedit mihi de ligno, & come∣di. Par autem profecto nō est, ab ea quae generis sibi societate iungeretur, decipi, & a bestia quae seruituti hominis fuisset addicta. Illud seductio potius ac verius dici potest. Ad comparationem ergo mulieris dicit, il∣lum non fuisse seductum. Illa quippe ab irrationali animante decepta est, hic autem a libera muliere & sibi naturae copulata ratione. Rursum non dicitur de Adam, vidit lignum quia bonum ad comedendum est: sed de muliere tantū modo. Comedit enim (inquit) & dedit viro suo. Non igi∣tur concupiscentiae caedens, sed obtemperans mulieri, praeuaricatus est,

How was Adam disceiued? he was not disobedient if he were not dis∣ceiued. For the woman excusing here fault, said. The Serpēt hath discei∣ued me. But Adam did not say, the womā hath disceiued me, but said she gaue me of the tree, and I did eat And truly it is not like, nor is one thing to be disceiued of her which was ioyned vnto him in felowship of y^e same kinde, and to be disceiued of a beast, whiche was appointed to the seruice of man, therfore the other may the better and more truly be called a dis∣ceiuing. VVherfore in comparison of the woman Paule saith, Adam not to haue ben disceiued, for she was disceiued of an vnreasonable beast, & he of a free woman, whiche was coupled vnto him with naturall reason. Agayne it is not sayd of Adam, he saw the tree that it is good to eate, but onely of y^e woman, for she did eate and gaue to her husband. Therefore he gaue not place vnto concupiscence and lust, but yelding to the woman, did transgresse.

Saint Austen doth not dissent from Chrisostome: for he expounding in his booke De ciuitate dei, how Adā was not disceiued, and in what things he was disceiued, doth write after this maner: Credendum est (inquit) il∣lum virū suae foeminae, vni vnū hominē homini, coniugē coniugi, ad dei legem transgrediendam, non tanquā verum loquenti credidisse, seductū,

sed sociali necessitudini paruisse: Non enim frustra dixit Apostolus, Adā non est seductus, mulier autem seducta est: nisi quia illa, quod ei serpens loquntus est, tanquā verum esset, accepit: ille autem noluit ab vnico con¦sortio dirimi, nec in communione peccati: nec ideo minus reus, si sciens prudens{que} peccauit. Vnde & Apostolus non ait, non peccauit, sed non est seductus, nam vti{que} ipsum ostendit peccasse, vbi dicit, per vnum hominē intrauit peccatum in mundum. Et Paulo post apertius: in similitudinem (inquit) praeuaricationis Adae. Hos autem seductos intelligi voluit, quod id quod faciunt non putant esse peccatum, ille autem sciuit, Alioqui quo modo verum erit, Adam non est seductus, sed inexpertus diuinae seueri∣tatis in eo falli potuit, vt veniale crederet esse commissum, ac per hoc in eo quidem quo mulier seducta est, non est ille seductus.

VVe must beleue that Adam being man, to his woman one to one, man to man, husbande to wife, not beleuing the womā as speaking the truth, to haue ben disceiued in the transgression of the law of God, but onely to haue geuen place to familiar felowship and frendship. For the Apostle said not in vaine. Adam was not disceiued: but the woman was disceiued, sauinge that shee tooke it to be true that the Serpente spake vnto her, and Adam would not be separate from one felowship, no not in participa∣tion of sinne. Yet therfore he was not the lesse giltie, if knowing and wit∣tingly he offended, wherof the Apostle doth not say, he did not sinne, but he was not disceiued. For he sheweth plainly him to haue sinned, where he saith: by one mā sinne entred into y^e world, & a litle after more playn-plainely he saithe: in the similitude of the transgressiō of Adam. And he would haue them to be vnderstand disceiued, which thinke not y^t thing to be sinne, whiche they do. But he knewe, or els how shoulde this be true, Adam was not disceiued. But hauinge no experience of Goddes seueritie, might be disceiued in this, that he beleued his faulte to be pardonable, and so by this he was not disceiued in that thyng or point, in the which the woman was disceiued.

Againe in his boke, De Genesi ad literam expounding this matter more plainely, sayth: Sicut Salomon vir summae sapientiae in simulachrorum cultu nō credidit aliquid esse vtilitatis, sed mulierum amori ad hoc ma∣lum trahenti resistere non valuit, faciens quod sciebat non esse faciendū, ne suas quibus depirebat atque diffluebat mortiferas delitias, contrista∣ret. Ita & Adam. &c.

As Salomon a man of excellent wisedome, did not beleue any profite to be in the worshipping of idols, but was not able to resiste and withstād the loue of womē, drawing and alluring him to this mischief, (doing that whiche he knew ought not to be done,) least he should make sadde and heauy his deadly pleasures, wherewith he doted and was drowned: Euen so Adam, after the woman being disceiued, had eaten of the tree forbiddē,

and gaue to him that they should eate together, he would not make her sadde, whom he beleued might haue pined away without his comforte, if he should haue ben contrarie to her mind, and so vtterly to haue perished in that discorde.

He was not ouercome with the concupiscence of her fleshe, whiche he yet felt not, nor the lawe of his members resistyng the lawe of his minde: but was ouercome with a certayne frendly beneuolence and good will, by the whiche sometyme it is brought to passe that God is offended, least the man should be made of a frend, an enemye. VVhiche thing that he ought not to haue done, the iust end of Gods sentence doth declare and shewe, therefore he was not disceiued after an other certayne ma∣ner. But I iudge and suppose, that he coulde be disceiued no manner of wayes by the subtiltie of the Serpente, by the whiche the woman was disceyued.

The Apostle doth call properly this to be a disceyuing, by the whiche that thyng whiche was perswaded, was thought to be true, when it was false: that is to saye, to thincke, that God did therefore forbidde to touche that tree, bycause he knewe them to be as Gods, if they had tou∣ched it, as though he did enuie the diuinitie and Godhead vnto them, who had made them men. But if any desire to haue experiment, foras∣much as he saw the woman not to haue ben dead, after the fruite, recey∣ued, did sollicite the man through any pryde or arrogancie of mynde, whiche cannot be conceled from God the searcher of all secretes: yet I suppose him, if hee were then indewed with a spirituall minde, coulde by no meanes beleue, that God enuiyng them, did forbid them from the fruite of that tree, but that sinne was perswaded, as it might be perswa∣ded to such. Hitherto Saint Austen.

Concerning the pride of Adam, Saint Austen in his booke De ciuita∣te dei, writeth after this maner. Non ad malum opus perueniretur nisi precessisset mala voluntas. Porro malae voluntatis initium quod po∣tuit esse nisi superbia. Initium enim omnis peccati superbia est. &c.

There could not be a comming to an ill worke, except there had gone before an ill will. Furthermore what could be the beginning of an ill will, but pryde? for pride is the beginnynge of all sinne. And what is pride, but the ambitious desire of peruerse loftynesse? For peruerse loftynesse is in forsaking that beginning, to the whiche the minde should cleaue and sticke, to be as it were a beginning vnto him selfe, and this is done, when one doth ouermuch please him selfe, and so truly he doth please him selfe, when he doth swarue and departe from that immutable goodnes, which ought more to haue pleased him, then he him selfe. Agayne, in an other

place Austen writeth: She said, the Serpent disceyued me, and I did eate. And he said: the woman which thou gauest me, gaue me of the tree, and I did eate. But here soundeth in no place the petition of Pardon, the cal∣ling for forgiuenes. For although these do not denie that which they com¦mitted, as Cain did, yet notwithstanding pride doth seke to referre and cast it vpon other, whiche one hath done naughtily him selfe. The pride of the woman vpon the Serpent, the pride of the man vpon the woman: but it is an accusation, rather then a true excuse, where there is an open transgression of Gods commaundement.

Concerning the idolatrie of Adam, the same Austen likewise writeth at full In questionibus ex nouo Testamento. And thou mayst perceiue, that he is not onely an Idolater whiche doth worship and adore an idoll in the stede of God, but also doth desire equalitie with God by a most im∣pudent arrogancie.

That Adam sinned more greuously then Eue, after a certaine maner, many doctours and learned fathers do defend and define.

Saint Ambrose De institutione virginis, writeth after this sort. Mu∣lier excusationem habet in peccato, vir non habet. Illa vt scriptura asserit a sapientissimo omnium Serpente decepta est, tu a muliere, id est, illā su∣perior creatura decepit, te inferior. Te enim mulier decepit, Illam ange∣l{us}, licet mal{us}. Si tu inferiori non potuisti resistere, quomodo illa potuit superori, culpa tua illam absoluit. The woman hath excuse in her sinne, the man hath not: she (as the Scripture affirmeth) was disceiued of the Serpent the wisest of all beasts, thou of a woman, that is, the higher cre∣ature disceiued her, and the inferiour, thee: but an aungell (although ill) disceiued her. If thou couldest not resiste the inferiour, how could she re∣siste the superiour? thy fault doth acquite her. Hitherto Saint Ambrose. But yet thincke not here, that S. Ambrose ment, that the fault of Adam doth vtterly take away the fault of Eue, as though she sinned not at all. But peraduenture he ment, that the offence of Adam did somwhat miti∣gate the fault of Eue.

The maister of the sentence in his second booke doth say, that Eue to speak Simpliciter, did more offende, then Adā, bycause she would vsurpe equalitie with the Godhead: and beinge pufte vp with to much presump∣tiō, beleued that it should so come to passe. But Adam did not beleue it, but thought of repentaunce and of the mercie of God, when he geuing place to his wife, did consente to her perswasion, not willing to make her sadde, and to leaue her as one forsakē of him, lest she should pine through heauines, and so perish.

Also Saint Ambrose whiche semeth to perswade that Adam offen∣ded more greuously then Eue, writeth in his boke De paradiso: Adam nō

sua culpa, sed vxoris vitio lapsum esse. That Adam did not fal by his own offence, but by the fault of hys wife. Yet Ambrose meaneth not by these wordes that Adam did not offende at all with his owne sinne, for if he would, he nede not to haue geuen place to his wife.

But S. Austen in his booke De ciuitate dei, doth exaggerate the fall of Adam, saying, that Eue tooke it to be true, that the Serpent spake to her, nor thought it to be sinne y^t she did. But Adam did not beleue it to be true, whiche the pernicious enemie did subtilie suggest, & he knew it to be sinne that he did, and wittingly and willingly sinned, and so after a certayne maner, offended more greuously then Eue, but yet not Simpli∣citer, as the scholemen hold.

Responsio ad secundam questionem.

That Adam did not foreknowe his fall, although he had the know∣ledge of good & euill, before he eate of the tree forbidden, S. Austen doth discourse & defend in his .xi. boke vpon Genesis, whose wordes be these: Si praescius fuisset sui peccati vindictae{que} diuinae, quonam pacto beat{us} esse poterit in paradiso? & sic in paradiso fuisset non beatus. Imo vt coniicio miser apprehendendo non infimam in quam inciderit ruinam, & qua a paradisi voluptatibus & delitiis exularet, nec solū a paradiso verum etiā a gratia diuina, quod non exiguum est homini detrimentum. If he had the fore knowledge of his sin, & of the reuengemēt of god, how coulde he be blessed in paradise? For so in paradise he had ben not blessed. Yea (as I coniecture) a miser & wretched in apprehendyng & cōceiuing that, no small ruine, into the which he should fall, and by the whiche he should be banished from the pleasures and pleasauntnes of Paradise, and not onely from Paradise, but from Gods grace whiche is no smal detriment to mā.

Obiectio.

But some men will say: if he foreknew not his fall, but were therof vncertayne, then was he also vncertayne of eternall felicitie to come: whiche if it so fall out, how then was he either blessed or spirituall? and how beleued he with certayne and sure hope, that he should obtain euer∣lasting blessednes?

Responsio.

This argumēt is nothing worth. For the certainty (at the least, the mo∣rall certainty, although not the certainty of the euidence of blessednes to come) and the knowledge therof, should nothing haue withdrawen from the blessednes, (at the least naturall) of Adam being in the state of inno∣cencie: yea it should rather haue encreased and made it cleare and well known: but the foreknowing of his fal, and of his miserie to come, had ex∣tinguished his blessednes not the perpetuall blessednes, but the natural, or at the least should much haue obscured it.

It may be said also, that he was vncertaine of his eternall blessednes to come, so that, that incertainty be cōtrarie to the certainty of euidēce, & so the aūgell being created blessed, was vncertain of his eternall felicitie to come. And although Adā had not the foreknowledge of his fall, it doth not therfore follow, y^t he was not spirituall and blessed. For they had not the foreknowledge of thē, vnto whō the Apostle speaketh, writing to the Galathiās: Vos qui spirituales estis, you that be spirituall, restore such in the spirite of mekenes, considering thy self, least thou also be tēpted. Here may we call thē not vnaptly blessed, because they were spiritual, not in bo∣dy but in righteousnes of faith, reioysing in hope, and patient of trouble.

The scholemē, to proue that Adam neyther was nor could be forekow∣ing of his fall, reason after this maner: the ill y^t is foreknowne & foresene either it pleaseth the will, or not. If it please, then there is fault in it, but it cannot be, that any fault of man should go before the first fault of Adā. If it do not please, then there is paine in it, whiche is not to be graunted, for the paine doth neuer go before the fault.

That Adam had the knowledge of good and euill before he did eate of the tree forbiddē, Chrysostome vpō Genesis doth say this. Merito quis ro∣gauerit, quam virtutē habuerit hoc lignum cuius esus illorū oculos ape∣ruerit, & quare lignū scientiae boni & mali vocetur, ne{que} enim esus ex eo ligno oculos illorum aperuit, nam & ante esum videbant. &c.

One may with good cause aske, what vertue this tree had, the eating wherof did opē their eies, & why it is called the tree of the knowledge of good & euil. For not y^e eating of y^e tree opened their eyes, for they saw be∣fore the eating, but bicause the tast was an argument of disobedience, & a trāsgressing of the cōmaundemēt geuē of God, for the which cause glo∣ry was afterward also takē away, which did cōpasse thē, because they had made them selues vnworthy of such honour, the Scripture obseruing her maner & phrase doth say, they did eate, and both their eies were opened, & they knew they were naked, naked through sinne, naked of y^e clothes of y^e supernall grace, & they felt sensibly y^e spoliatiō therof, that through shamfastnes which came vpō thē, they should certaīly know into what pe¦ril & daūger y^e trāsgressiō of y^e lords cōmaūdemēt had brought thē. &c.

But a litle after, Chrysostome writeth in the same place, sayinge: Sunt contentiosi multi qui dicere audent, quod post esum ligni, scientiā habuerit Adam ad discernendum bonum & malum, non autem antea, id quod extremae fuerit amentiae.

There be many contentious persons which dare say, y^t after the eating of the fruite of the tree, Adam had knowledge to discerne good and il, and not before. which thing were an extreme madnes.

For he that gaue names vnto al beasts, & which obteined y^t marueilous grace of Prophecie, whiche he pronounced of the woman, howe could he be ignorant what was good & was what il? Again, if we graūt it, we shal

bring blasphemies against our creator, for how should he geue cōmaund∣ment to an ignoraunt person, that transgression was ill, but it is not so (God forbid) but Adam knew clearely, for that cause he made him in the beginning to be of a free will, whiche if it had not bene, neither ought he to be punished when he had transgressed the commaundement, neither to haue bene rewarded if he had obserued it, for he was made mortall through transgression, as it appeareth by this cōmaundement, and those things which folow, but before he was immortal. VVho therfore cā suffer or abide that man should first receiue the knowledge of good and euill af∣ter the eating of the tree, which man before was full of so great wisedom and obtayned with knowledge also Propheticall grace? And how cā this be consonant to reason, that he should know the natures of goates, shepe and all other brute beasts, and what herbe should be holesome and profi∣table for meate, and which vnholesome, to seke one and auoide the other, and he him selfe being a reasonable beast, not to know what is good and what is ill? But behold sayth the Scripture, god calleth this tree, the tree of knowledge of good and euill. I am not ignoraunt of it, but if thou wilt learne the properties of the holy Scriptures, thou shalt know wherfore he geueth this name to this tree.

It was not so called bycause it gaue knowledge vnto man of ill, but by∣cause by it the transgression of the commaundement was done, and so through that entred afterward knowledge of ill and shamefastnes, and therfore was it so called.

The scholemen and other later writers do say it was called the tree of knowledge of good and euill Ab euētu, that is, of that which followed the eating therof, for although man did knowe before Speculatiue, what was il, yet he did not know it practice, by experience.

As for example, A Phisition being in good health doth know diseases onely be speculation, but when he is sicke, he doth better know them, by∣cause he doth both know them, and feele them. Euen so Adā, although he knew before what obediēce and disobedience was, yet after the eating of the fruite, he did not onely know, but also felt what ill came by disobedi¦ence, & therfore this tree is called y^e tree of knowledge of y^e good an euil, not bycause it geueth such knowledge of it selfe, but it is so called (I say) Abeuentu, euen as the treee of life is called the tree of life Ab effectu, that is (as some diuines write) that the frute of this tree did conserue the in∣tegritie of mans health, and the radicall moisture that he should neuer be striken with age, with wrinckles, with hore heares, nor with any cor∣ruption, but should haue remained in perpetuall younge age.

Other there be whose iudgmēt is coūpted more true, y^t it is called y^e tree of life, not because it gaue life vnto mā wherwith he was endewed afore,

but that it should be a Simbole, and a memoriall of life taken of God.

Questio.

Saint Austen doth propose and aske, why this prohibition was made, specially when to eate of the tree of knowledge of good and euil, was not ill of it selfe, but onely ill, bycause it was forbidden.

Responsio.

Saint Austen doth aunswere to this question, saying, that it was for∣bidden, not that it should be ill, but y^t it should be good vnto man as tou∣chyng the effect: for that thyng whiche is commaunded or forbidden for obedience sake, is good, as touching the effect.

Agayne, man could not haue knowne that he had a Lord ouer him, ex∣cept some thyng should be either commaunded hym, or forbidden, and so was the eating of the tree forbidden him, for obedience sake.

Responsio ad tertiam questionem.

That Adam was buried in Hebron and not in Golgotha, some do proue, partly out of the old Testament, and partly out of Saint Hierome, and of others which come nerer the truth, as they say.

It is written in the booke of Iosue: Then Iosue blessed him, and gaue vnto Caleb, Hebron for an enheritaunce.* 1.34 Hebron therfore became the enheritaunce of Caleb the sonne of Iephoni, the Kenezit vnto this day, bycause he folowed constantly the Lord God of Israell, and the name of Hebron was before tyme called Kiriatharba. whiche Arba was a great man among the Anachims, thus the land ceassed from warre. VVhiche place the glose (called Glossa inter linearis) expoundeth after this maner: foure of the chiefest Patriarches are buryed there, whō Lyra doth name Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, together with their wiues. And Lyranus commenting vpon the same place, doth say: Adam is a common name, and doth signifie man, yet it is properly applied to the first man, beyng there buried But in dede Adam first and properly is the name of mankind, & doth betoken sometimes both the sexes, as in the .5. chapter of Genesis. In die qua creauit deus hominē, ad imaginem dei fecit eum:* 1.35 masculū & fa∣minā creauit eos, & vocauit nomina eorū Adā, in die qua creati sunt illi. In the day that God created Adam, in the likenes of God, made he hym male and female, created he them, & blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day that they were created: and by geuing thē one name, he noteth the inseparable coniunction of man & wife. Sometime Adam is not a name of kinde, but of one onelye person, which the Logitians call Indiuiduum, as in the .3. capi. Et occultauit se Adā & vxor eius.* 1.36 And Adam hid himselfe with his wife. The Hebrue texte, in Iosue hath not, Et Adam maximus inter Anachim, Adam was greate among the Ana∣chimes, but readeth for Adam, Arba, whiche was a myghty person, and of greate power▪ and was the greatest of the Gyauntes. There∣fore

where the olde texte hath Adam, that worde Adam betokenneth not there the person of the first man named Adam, but it is a nowne ap∣pellatiue, signifiyng man, as Caietanus writeth. Ouer and beside, Saint Hierome discoursing this place of Matthew: Et venerunt in locum quod dicitur Golgotha.* 1.37 That is to say, they came into the place called Golgo∣tha, that is to say, the place of dead mens sculles, doth say thus:

Audiui quēdam exposuisse Caluariae locum in quo sepultus est Adā, & ideo sicappellatum esse, quia ibi antiqui hominis sit conditum caput, & hoc esse quod Apostol{us} dicit.* 1.38 Surge qui dormis, & exurge a mortuis, & illuminabit te Christus. Fauorabilis interpretatio, mulcēs aurem po∣puli, nec tamen vera. Extra enim vrbem & foras portāloca sunt, in quib{us} truncantur capita damnatorum: & Caluariae, id est, decollatorum sump∣sere nomē, propterea autem ibi crucifixus est dominus, vt vbi prius erat area damnatorum, ibi erigerētur vexilla martyrii. Et quomodo pro no∣bis maledictum crucis factus est, & flagellatus est & crucifixus, sic pro omnium salute quasi noxius inter noxios crucifigeretur. Sin autem quispiam contendere voluerit, ideo ibi dominum crucifixum vt sanguis ipsius super Adae tumulum distillaret. Interrogemus eum, quare & alii latrones in eodem loco crucifixi sunt? ex quo apparet, Caluariam non sepulchrum primi hominis, sed etiam significare decollatorum, vt vbi abundauit peccatum superabundaret gratia. Adam vero sepultum iuxta Hebron & Arba, in Iesu filio Naue legimus. Hactenus Hieronimus.

I heard a certayn man expound the place of Caluarie, in the whiche Adam was buried, and that it was therfore so called, bycause the head of the olde first man was there buried, and by this to be ment that, whiche the Apostle sayth: A wake thou whiche slepest, and stande vp from the dead, and Christe shall geue thee lyght: A fauourable interpretation, and pleasing the eares of the people, but yet not true, for the places in the whiche the heades of condemned personnes were striken of, were without the Citie and without the gate, and tooke the name Caluaria, that is, of men beheaded. Therfore the Lord was crucified there, that where the place of condemned men was, there should be set vp the ban∣ners of martyrdome, and as he was made for vs the curse of the crosse, and scourged, and crucified for the saluation of all, he should be cruci∣fied as giltie amongst the giltie. But if any man will contende, that the Lorde was therfore crucified there, that his bloud myght drop vpon the graue of Adam: let vs aske hym, why the two theues were crucified in the same place? By the whiche it appeareth, that Caluaria was not the graue of the first man, but doth signifie a place of personnes be headed: that where sinne did abounde, grace myght more abounde. VVe reade in the booke of Iesu the sonne of Naue, that Adam was buryed by He∣bron and Arba.

Lyranus is vtterly of the same mynde with Hierome, expoundyng the same place of Mathew. Furthermore Saint Hierome entreatyng that place of Paul before aleged, (Surge qui dormis, awake thou which slepest, and arise from the dead and Christ shall geue thee light) sayth. I remember, that I herd a certayne man disputyng in the Churche of this place, which brought into the theater (that is the playeng place) a forme neuer sene before, that he might please the people. This testimonie (saith he) was spoken vnto Adam buryed in the place of Caluarie, where the Lord was crucified, whiche is therfore called Caluaria, bycause the head of the old first man was layed there.

In that time therfore, when the Lord beyng crucified did hang ouer his graue, this Prophecy was fulfilled. Awake Adam which slepest, and rise from the ded. Et nō (vt legimus) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id est, orietur tibi Christus. Sed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id est, continget te Christus, that is, and not as we read Christ shall geue thee light, but Christ shall touch thee, bicause he might be made aliue & rise by the touching of his bloud, and his body hā∣ging there. And then also was the tipe and figure fulfilled in veritie, whē Elizeus being dead, did raise the dead mā. VVhither these things be true or not, I leaue it to the iudgement of the reader.

Truly these thyngs being spoken then among the people, they pleased and were receyued with a certayne gladnes.

One thing, I speake that I knowe, this sence and meanynge doth not agree with the interpretation and text of the same place.

Yet Saint Ambrose in the fift booke of hys Epistles doth say, that Adam was buried in Golgotha. Christus (inquit) animam euangelicam suscepit in Golgotha, vbi Adae sepulchrum, vt illum mortuum in sua cruce refuscitaret. Vbi ergo in Adam mors omnium, ibi in Christo om∣nium resurrectio. Christ (sayth he) brought his Euangelicall soule into Golgotha, where was the sepulchre of Adam, that he might rayse hym beyng dead, by his crosse. Therfore where the death of all men was in Adam, there was the resurrection of all, in Christ.

But this is Ambrose peculiar opiniō, or els he cōsented with thē whiche did litle expende or weigh, what Golgotha and Caluaria did meane.

Neuertheles Origene expounding the place of Mathew before alled∣ged, semeth not to reiect that sentence And although he doth not affirme it, yet he writeth thus: Venit ad me traditio quaedam talis, {quod} corpus Adae primi hominis ibi sepultū est, vbi crucifixus est Christ{us}. &c. There came to me such a certaintraditiō, that the body of Adam the first man, was there buried where Christ was crucified: y^t as all died in Adam, so all might liue in Christ: y^t in that place which is called Caluaria, y^t is the place of heades, the head of mankind should with all the people finde resurrec∣tion,

by the resurrection of our Lord and sauiour, whiche suffred there and did rise. For it was inconuenient, that many beyng born of him, re∣ceyued the remission of their sinnes, and did obteyne the benefite of re∣surrection, that he beyng the father of all men, should not obteyne the same grace.

Theophilactus expounding the same place, doth rehearse almost the like words, nor Ciprian doth not differ from them, writing in his sermon of the resurrection of Christ. Creditur Caluaria Adam sanguine Christi conspersa, qui sub loco quo crux domini fixa est, humatus traditurab antiquis. The head of Adam is beleued to haue bene sprinckled with the bloud of Christ, which Adā is reported of the old fathers to be buried vn∣der y^t place in the which the crosse of the Lord was fastened and set.

Adam was the figure of Christ, and his slepe, and the ribbe taken frō him, did beare the shadow partly of Christes sleping on the crosse, partly of the Church formed out of his side.

Enos. 20.

ENos doth signifie in the Hebrue tounge, a miserable man, subiect to calamitie and heauines. And this was the great intelligence of Seth to call his sonne by this name, Enos. For although he was set and founded of God, that he should be the head of the generation of the godly, yet did he full prudently know, that his posteritie should, in this world be troubled with many calamities and cares. And truly vnto the ende of the world the state and condition of the elect shalbe no other, as long as they liue in the flesh, but that they should be Enoshim,* 1.39 that is miserable and afflicted, for as many as will liue godly in Christ Iesu, shall suffer persecution.

Saint Hierome writeth, that as this name Adam is interpreted mā, so Enos after the varietie of the Hebrue toūg, is expoūded likewise, mā.

Chrisostome writeth, se here (saith he) how they teach an argument of thanckfulnes in naming their sonnes, bycause he saith here, y^t Seth called the name of his sonne, Enos. And furthermore the scripture willing to in∣terprete the appellation of the name vnto vs, doth say: Hic sperauit, inuo∣cando nomen dn̄i dei. He hoped, calling vpō the name of the lorde. Hast thou sene a name more beautifull then a diademe, more noble thē purple? what shalbe more blessed, then he which is beautified with the inuoca∣tion of God, and doth possesse the same for his name? Doost thou se, how that in litle and small appellatiōs are hidden great riches of sentēces? For here is not onely shewed the piety & godlines of parents, but also y^e great diligēce towardes their childrē. Doost thou se, how straight way euē frō

the beginning they taught their children which were borne vnto them, admonishing them to exercise vertue by the very names that they gaue them? They did not as they do now, geue names they passe not how, and without any iust cause or reason. For they say now: let the child be named after his graundfather, or great grandfather, or great grandfathers fa∣ther: but the old auncient fathers did not so, but gaue all diligence to set such names to their children, which shoulde not onely leade into vertue, those which had such names, but should teach al other which should come into the world, following no smal wisdome. Therfore let vs not set vulgar and common names to our children. Let vs not geue them the na∣mes of our graundfathers, and our great graundefathers fathers, and of them which were noble in kinred, but let vs geue them the names of holy men, which did shine in vertues, and had great trust towards God. But yet let neither the Parents nor children trust to the names them selues. For the name profiteth none, in whom vertue is not commended: but we must haue a regard of saluation in euery operaciō of vertue, and neither to be high minded in the operacion, neither in the kinred of holy men, nor in any other, but in the trust of good woorkes, yea and neither of them to thinke much of him selfe. But then we ought to be most humble and mo∣dest, when we haue heaped together great riches of vertues: for euen so shall we kepe our riches gathered together, and obtaine vnto vs the grace of God. For Christ for this cause said to his disciples:* 1.40 when you haue done all thinges, say, we be vnprofitable seruauntes. Therfore in all things, let vs humble our hawtines and pride, and let vs learne to be modest & gen∣tle, and not to be lofty and high in our good workes. And let vs know this to be the greatest vertue, to behaue our selues modestlye and humbly in our good workes. Thus much Chrisostome, for the name of Enos.

Caietanus reading this text after the verity of the Hebrue, doth say, that Moses doth expresse here, not the person of the tyme in saying tunc, then, and not passiue, sed actiue, (in saying to cal vpon) when man began not to cal vpon God (for that did Abel before in sacrifising) but to call vpon God in that name Iehoua, which is a name of four letters. For Mo∣ses doth shew the beginning of al religious actes among the Hebrues, to be in calling vppon this speciall name of God, Iehoua, for the Hebrues do attribute marueilous vertues to the calling vpon this name. And ther¦fore Moses was very careful and diligent about the beginning of the in∣uocation on such a name. And by this texte wee maye learne, that the toung which is called the Hebrue toung, was before the floud. For this name Tetragrammaton, that is of foure letters, was of that same toung, and written with the same characters, but yet it followeth not, that this onely toung was before y^e floud. For the scripture doth not so testifie, but

doth onely say, that the children of Noe after the floud were of one spech and language.

The text of the Hebrues is this: Tunc ceptum est vt inuocaretur in nomine domini. Then began men to call vpon the name of the Lorde. In this text the Hebrue verbe Halal is of the third coniugation, and it is written in the beginning with He, and with a single Lamed, but certain of the Hebrues, following an other signification of this verbe, which is to prophane or to make vnglorious, doo reade this: Tunc prophanatum est ad inuocandum nomen domini. That is: they did prophane and attri∣bute the name of God vnto idols, bicause they began to commit idolatrie. It is referred therfore vnto the time, and not vnto the person (as Aquila doth translate it into the Greeke) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id est, tunc ceptum est, then they began. But ther is no cause known, why the .70. interpretours should translate it after this maner: Hic sperauit inuocare nomen domini dei. He trusted to call vpon the name of the Lord God The Caldie translati on readeth thus: Then began the children of men to praye in the name of the Lord God. Therfore Enos was the first that beganne to cal vpon the name of the Lord, bicause after the iudgemēt of some he was y^e first that found certain images, by the which the deuotion of praier should be stir∣red vp. But that semeth to be false and vaine. The true meaning of this text is this: Then began the hartes of the godly to be moued to restore re∣ligion, which a long time by the wicked had bene suppressed. And by this word inuocare, is signified the true woorshipping of God to be restored, which through impiety was almost lost.

Yet ther is no doubt, but that Adam and Eue, & a few of their childrē, wer the true worshippers of God. And Moses doth vnderstand, that the flowing of impiety was so great in the world, that religiō was almost come to vtter destruction, bicause it remained onely among a few persons.

Now after Seth had begotten a sonne like him selfe, and had his fami∣ly godly gouerned and ordered, then began ther to be a distinct face and shew of the church, & the true worship of God was erected & restored, which should endure to the posterity. Such of late was the restoring of re¦ligion in our time, not that it was vtterly extinguished, but bicause ther was no one certain nation which did truly worship God, but were dis∣persed here and ther. But now thankes be geuē to God, they are restored againe to the profession of their sincere faith and pure religion, as name∣ly this noble realme of England.

Mathusalem. 21.

SOme do record that Mathusalē liued .xiiii. yeres after the floud, but this assertiō may be refelled & refuted, both by the text of y^e holy scripture, & also by the writings of certain holy fathers.

It is written in Genesis, that Mathusalem liued. 187. yeares, and be∣gat Lamech, and after he begat Lamech, he liued. 782. yeares, and begat sonnes and daughters: so al the daies of Mathusalem were. 969. yeares, and so he died.

Then Lamech liued. 182. yeares, and begat Noe. Now from the day of the birth of Mathusalem, vnto the natiuity of Noe, were. 369. yeares, vnto the which if ye adde the. 600. yeares of Noe (bicause in the. 600. yeare of his life, the floud came vpon the earth) it shal plainely appeare, that Mathusalem died in the. 969. yeare of his life, euen in the same yeare in the which the floud began. And this supputatiō of the Hebrewes doth saint Hierom follow in questionibus Hebraicis, vnto whome the suppu∣tation of the 70. Interpretours doth not seme good, nor please. And of this controuersy he writeth thus: Famosa est quaestio, & disputatione omniū ecclesiarum ventilata, quod iuxta diligentem supputationem quatuorde cemannes post diluuium Mathusalah vixisse referatur. Ther is a famous question, and tossed to and fro by the disputacion of al churches, that af∣ter diligent supputacion and accompt, Mathusalem is reported to haue liued. 14. yeares after the floud. For when Mathusalem was. 167. yeares old, he begat Lamech. Againe, when Lamech was. 188. yeares olde, he begat Noe, and vnto the time of the birth of Noe, the yeares of Methu∣salems life were. 155. Now in the. 600. yere of Noes life, the floud came: and by this the supputation had by part, we must cōuince and conclude that the floud in the. 955. yeares of Mathusalems life, did flowe ouer all the world. And wher he is sayd before to haue liued. 969. yeres, no man ought to doubt, but that he liued. 14. yeares after the floud.

But this Hierome doth reporte out of the supputation of the. 70. Interpretours, which he doth impugne and against saye. For he writeth: Et quomodo verum est, quod octo tantum animae in arca saluae factae sūt? &c. And how can this be true, that onelye eight soules were saued in the Arke? It remayneth therfore, that as in many other things, so in this al∣so there may be an errour in the number. For in the bookes of the He∣brues and the Samaritanes, I found written thus: And Mathusalem li∣ued. 187. yeares, and begat Lamech. And after he begat Lamech, he liued 782. yeares, and begat sonnes and daughters. And al the daies of Mathu∣salem were. 969. yeares, & then he died. And lamech liued. 182. yeares, & begat Noe. From the day of the birth of Mathusalem, vnto the day of the birth of Noe, wer. 369. yeres, ad to these y^e. 600. yeres of Noe (bicause in the 600. yeare of his life the floud came) and so it must needes followe, that Mathusalem died y^e. 969. yeres of his life, euen in y^t yere whē the floud came.

Saint Austen in his booke De ciuitate dei, doth geue his assent both to the Hebrues, and to saint Hierome, writing after this maner: Per hanc

autem discrepantiam Hebraeorum codicum atque nostrorum, exoritur famosissima illa quaestio, vbi Mathusalem quatuordecem annos post dilu uium vixisse computatur, cum scriptura ex omnibus qui in teria a tuncfu∣erant, solum octo homines in arca exitium commemoret euasisse diluuii in quibus Mathusalem non fuit. &c. By this diuersitye of the Hebrue bookes and ours, that most famous question doth spring and arise, where Mathusalem is compted to haue liued .xiiii. yeares after the floud, when the scripture doth make mencion, that of all them whiche were then on the earth, onely eight men escaped the daunger of the floud in the Arke, among whom Mathusalem was not. For after our bookes, Mathusalem after he begat Lamech, liued .167 yeares. After that Lamech him selfe (before Noe was borne of him) liued. 188. yeares, which both being ioy∣ned together, doo make. 355. yeres, to these are added .600. yeres of Noe, in the which last yeare the floud chaunced. VVhich yeares make 955. frō the birth of Mathusalem, vnto the yere of the general floud. Al the yeres of Mathusalems life are compted. 9••9. yeres. For when he had liued. 167. yeres, and begat Lamech, he liued after his birth. 802. yeares, which all ioyned together, make. 969. yeres. From the which substract. 955. yeres frō the birth of the natiuity of Mathusalem, vnto the floud, ther remayneth xiiii. yeres, the which Mathusalē is thought to haue liued after the floud. For the which cause many suppose him to haue liued (although not vpon earth, where it doth plainly appeare all fleshe to haue bene destroyed, which nature will not suffer to haue liued in the waters) with his father which was translated, and to haue bene ther vntyll the floud was past. And this they suppose, bicause they will not derogate and take credite frō the bookes, which the church hath taken into so great authoritye, bele∣uing the lewes, rather then those not to haue the truth. For they doo not admit that it should be rather by the errour of the Interpretours, than to be false in that toung, out of the which the scripture was translated in to our toung, out of the Greke. But they say, that it is incredible that the 70. interpretours coulde erre, which altogether at one time and in one sense did agree in their interpretation, or that they would lye, where it did nothing preuaile thē. They say y^t the Iewes which do enuy vs, bicause the law and the Prophets is come vnto vs by interpretations, haue chaun¦ged somwhat in their bookes, bicause they might diminish the authority in our bookes. Let euerye man take this opinion or suspition, as he shall thinke best. But it is most certaine, that Mathusalem liued not after the floud, but died the selfe same yeare, if it be true that is found of the num∣ber of yeares in the Hebrue bookes. Thus farre saint Austen.

Note here one thing, that saynt Austen doth call them our bookes, which then being in latine, the church did vse out of the interpretacions

of the. 70. interpretours, before the interpretation of Hierom was made or receiued: and he calleth them Hebrue bookes, which are translated according to the Hebrue verity.

Yet saint Austen in his questions vpon Genesis, doth say, that Ma∣thusalem is reported in bookes, although fewer (but yet truer) to haue died sixe yeres before the floud, but you must thincke that saint Austen made here onely a mere relation, and yet not to haue bene of the same sen¦tence and minde.

But yet least any should slaunder & cauil against the addition of the seuenty interpretours, it might be said, that their very first and proper exampler (which perchaunce nowe is not extant) not to haue dissented from the Hebrue verity.

Lyranus expounding that place of Genesis, doth consent both to the sentence and iudgement of Hierome and Austen.

Lamech. 22.

TVVo things are to be noted in Lamech, bigamie and murther. For the first, Lamech was the first man y^t ever had two wiues, contrary to the lawful institution of mariage, which is that twoo should be one flesh. The Hebrues do say, that it was the manner before the floud to haue two wiues: the one for the cause of procreation of chyl∣dren, with whom the husband should haue no more to doo, after she was with child, but being set apart, and apparelled with mourning clothes, dwelt alone as a widow. They say that of the two wiues of Lamech, Ha∣da serued for that purpose. The other wife they had to satisfy their lust and pleasure. She was gorgeously apparelled and decked, and that she should not conceiue, nor be begot with child, and so to leese her beautye, drounke often the cup of sterilitye, and with her husband alwayes kept company. And they say that the other wife of Lamech, named Silla, ser∣ued that tourne, who for the continual company of her husband toke this name Silla, quasi sub vmbra illius sedens, as sitting vnder his shadow. For this Hebrue word Sil, doth signify vmbram, a shadow: but it maketh no matter, for what purpose and minde Lamech was entised to take to him selfe two wiues, when he did violate and defile the holy law of wedlocke, which was geuen and shewed forth of God. For God ordained, that ther should be two in one flesh, and this was the perpetuall order of nature. But this cruell man Lamech, with a beastly contempt of God, did cor∣rupt the law of nature, and so the Lord would the corruption of lawfull mariage to come out of the house of Cain, and to begin with the person of Lamech, that Polygami, that is, they which haue two wiues at once, may be ashamed by this example.

That Bigamia, that is to say, the hauing of twoo wiues at once, is a∣gainst the order of nature, it may be proued both by holy scriptures, and by learned fathers.

First, it is written in Genesis: Therfore shal man leaue his father and his mother,* 1.41 and shal cleaue to his wife, and they two shalbe one flesh. It is not here sayde, he shall cleaue to his wiues, but to his wife. And Christ brought forth this most straight law of wedlocke against the Pharises, who vnwisely and impudently did aske of him, if it wer lawful for a man to forsake his wife for euery cause. And Christ to confute them, & shake of their vaine question by the holy scriptures, said: haue you not red, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said:* 1.42 for this cause shall a man leaue father and mother, and cleaue vnto his wife, and they two shal be one flesh, wherfore they are no more two, but one flesh. Let not man therfore put a sunder, that y^t god hath coupled together. Saint Paule speaketh also of the insoluble knot and bande be∣twene man and wife,* 1.43 and of the high mistery signified therby. Know ye not (saith he) that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. Do you not know, that he which coupleth him selfe w^t an harlot, is one body? For two (sayth he) shall be one flesh, but he that is ioyned vnto the Lord, is one spirite. Flee fornication.

* 1.44Againe, in an other place the same Paule saith: So ought men to loue their wiues, as their own bodies. He y^t loueth his wife, loueth him self: for no man euer yet hated his own flesh, but doth nourish and cherish it, euen as the Lord doth the church. For we are mēbers of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leaue father and mother, and cleaue to his wife, and they two shal be one flesh. This is a great secrete that I speake, concerning Christ, and concerning the church.

Saynt Hierome in one of his Epistles, expounding these words (For that cause shall a man leaue father and mother, and cleaue to his wyfe.) This testimonye (sayth he) doth Saynt Paule referre to Christ and the church, that the first Adam in the fleshe, and the seconde in the spirite, should be Monogamus, hauing but one wife. Let one Eue be the mother of al persons liuing, and let one church be the parent of al Christians. As that cursed Lamech did deuide her in to two wiues: so heretickes rent & teare this into many churches: which after the Apocalips of Iohn, are ra∣ther to be called the synagoges of the Deuill, then the counsell house of God. VVe reade in the Canticles, called the ballets of Salomon. Ther are 60. quenes,* 1.45 and. 80. concubines, and of the Damselles wythoute number, but my Doue is alone, and my vndefiled, she is the onelye Daughter of her mother.

Tertulian saith also: Cum apostolus in ecclesiam & Christum, inter∣pretatur, erunt duo in carne vna, secundum spirituales nuptias ecclesiae & Christi, vnus Christus, et vna eius ecclesia, agnoscere debemus duplica∣tam & exaggeratam esse nobis vnius matrimonii tam secundum generis fundamentum, quam secundum Christi firmamentum. &c. VVhen the a∣postle doth interpret these wordes (ther shal be two in one flesh) vpō the church & vpon Christ, after the spirituall mariages of the churche and Christ, for ther is one Christ, and one his church: we ought to know the vertue of one matrimony to be here exaggerated & doubled, aswel after the foundacion of mankinde, as concerning the stabilitye and grounde of Christ. VVe are coūted to be in one matrimony on both the partes, aswel carnally in Adam, as spiritually in Christ. Of twoo natiuities ther is one prescript & rule of Monogamia. He doth degenerate from both, which straieth from this rule of hauing one wife. The number of. 2. matrimonies began of this cursed mā Lamech, being the first which maried. 2. wiues.

Obiectio.

But thou wilt say that the blessed patriarches mingled their mariage, not onely with many wiues, but also with many concubines. Therefore it is aswel lawful for vs to marry as many in number.

Responsio.

It is lawful plainly, if ther remaine yet any tipes of any mistery to come whō the mariages may prefigure & signify. &c. Ther be many wordes which Tertuliā speaketh of this matter ful of high learning, consonāt to thē which say that the holy patriarches might lawfully haue. 2. wiues at once by Gods dispensation, in the coniunction of whō ther lay many tipes & figures hiddē of some mistery to come, but chaūced not vnto Lamech, nor is now mete for vs. Glossa interliniaris, doth say: quod Lamech prius contra naturam & morem adulterium commisit. That Lamech was y^e first y^t cōmitted adultry against nature, & against order. But note here y^t it is lawful to haue. 2. wiues, one after another (as S. Paule writeth to Timothie) wher he doth coūsel & exhort the yonger widowes to mary a∣gaī, bicause (as he saith) in an other place, better it is to marie thē to burn

Saint Hierome him selfe, to whose charge this errour was layd, that he would not haue a widow to marry again, writeth in one of his epistles: Non damno bigamos, trigamos, nec octogamos, I do not condemn them that marry twise, nor thrise, nor eight tymes: yet this is to be vnderstan¦ded, that they marry successiuely, one after an other.

¶ The second note of Lamech.

The second thing to be noted in Lamech, is the murther y^t he cōmitted. He said to his wiues Hada & Silla: hear my voice ye wiues of Lamech, berkē vnto my spech, for I wold slea a mā in my woūd, & a young man in my hurt. If Cain shalbe auenged seuēfold, truly Lamech. 70. times. 7. fold.

This whole text is somwhat obscure and hard, and therfore the He∣brues brought diuers and sundry expositions of it.

The Iewes haue fained of this matter after their maner a foolishe and vaine tale. They say, that Lamech was an hunter & blinde, and that he had a boy which led him by the hand, and that while Cain laye hidden in the bushes, he was stricken through with an arow of Lamech: and that the boy thinking there to be a wilde beast, did direct Lamech his hand, and so tooke vengeaunce of the boy, which by his imprudencye was the cause of the murther.

They which receiued this tale, do affirme, that the wiues of Lamech did abstain from his company, for the death of Cain. Lamech therfore to pacify his wiues, & to ioyn them to him againe, doth shew vnto them hys murther, that it was not done of set purpose, but by chaunce, & therfore no great daūger to be feared. For if pain & vengeance was deferred for many yeares, vnto Cain that wicked and cursed murtherer, he thought that his pain should be deferred vnto him for many moe yeres.

Other suppose, that the wiues of Lamech did auoid his companye, bi∣cause the seuenth generation & age was euen at hand, in the which they thought al the posterity and issue of Cain should be vtterly destroyd, for the death of his brother. VVhich thing when Lamech perceiued, he wyl∣led to ioyne them againe vnto him, for the increase of childrē, and so did endeuour to mitigate them, and did say, that he killed not a young man and a stripling, as Cain killed Abel, and therfore he said: they neede not so greatly to feare, and if I should suffer any mischief or punishment, that the same should be prolonged as yet for many yeares, for asmuche as the pain of Cain, being the first murtherer, was deferred vnto the seuēth ge∣neration. Of this iudgement is Caldeus paraphrastes.

But omitting al these things, this following, semeth to be the very true sence and meaning Lameches wiues, seing that al men hated him for his cruelty, wer afraid. Therfore he braggeth that ther is none so lusty, that wer able to resist him, yea although he wer alredy wounded, and he moc∣ked at Gods sufferance in Cain, iesting as though God would suffer none to punish him, and yet gaue him licence to murther others. Therefore the intollerable violence of Lamech toward mankinde, did feare his wyues, least al men making a conspiracye, shoulde oppresse him, as he was most worthy euery mans hatred and curse. Now that Moses might expres his desperate cruelty, when that the faire speche of wiues is wont sometymes to mitigate and appease the fierse and cruel husband, he doth shew, that Lamech did vomit out y^e poysō of his cruelty, into the bosom of his wiues. The somme is this: he boasted that he had both stomack and strength y∣nough, to vanquish & ouerthrow al that durst assault him, and if ther

be any peril (saith he) I wil safely receiue it on my owne head, and at my peril, chaunce what chaūce may, I redely know away how to escape. And when he saw his wiues stricken with such feare, he is not onely made not the meker, but doth sharpen and edge him selfe forth vnto more cruelty. And such is the beastly rage of cruel men, when they perceiue them sel∣ues to be hated of al men, they are so farre from repentaunce, that they are ready to bury one murther with ten other.

Saynt Hierom writeth, that a Iew shewed him, that it was recorded in certain bookes apochryphal, that. 77. soules came of the stock of La∣mech, which were destroyed in the floud, and that in this number ven∣geaūce was takē of Lamech, whose kinred endured vnto the Cataclisme.

The same Hierome Contra louinianum, writeth: Primus Lamech sanguinarius atque homicida vnam carnem in duas diuisit vxores, fra∣tricidium et bigamiam cataclismi paena deleuit, et de altero septies, & de altero septuagesies septies, vindicatum est: quantum distant in munero, tantum & in crimine. That bloudy and murthering Lamech, was y^e first that deuided one flesh into two wiues, one paine of the floud did put away murther and bigamy. Of the one vengeaūce was taken seuen times, of the other seuenty times seuen: how much these differ in number, so much dif∣fer they in fault.

Saint Austen In questionibus veteris testamenti, sayth: Sed frustra hoc putant, qui arbitrantur quod Lamech hoc dixerit de Cain, occidi vi¦rum in liuorem mihi, & iuuinem in vulnere meo. Iam enim in quinta generatione natus erat Lamech a Cain, id est, de Mathusalem ab nepote Cain. &c. But they doo vainelye suppose this, that Lamech spake this of Cain: I have slain a man in my wound, and a young man in my hurt. For Lamech was borne in the fift generation of Cain, that is, of Mathusalē which was of the fourth degree in linial dissent. But Lamech doth speake this, that he would shew him selfe to be more sharplye punished, which offended vnder a manifest law: and by this, if vengeaunce was taken seuē times after Cain vpon his follower, how much more vengeaunce is to be taken vpon him, whom neither the fact nor correction of Cain, neyther the sentence geuen against him did feare, that it should turne his will frō so wicked and mischeuous a deede?

After Cain therfore Lamech committed murther, whiche withoute doubt suffered seuen reuengements: and what should chaunce vnto him, that doth follow the same after Lamech, he sheweth, saying: Of Lamech vengeaunce shal be taken seuenty times seuen tymes, that for bicause re¦pentaunce didde not follow the yll woorke, hee shoulde be smitten with the strokes of seuentye seuen plages, therefore when Lamech dothe confesse him selfe to haue killed a younge man, and Cain could not liue to that time, or if he didde (which seemeth impossible) he was olde, and

not yong, and therfore Lamech, killed him not. This wuch saynt Austine.

Yet some out of saint Anstens writings do reason and argue, that La∣mech killed Cain: for he graunteth, that Lamech paid the seuen fold ven∣geaunce, but in following the history of Genesis, he should not haue payd or losed the seuen fold vengeaunce, except he had killed Cain, Ergo it may be concluded, that Lamech killed Cain, although the text doth not openly declare it.

Saint Hierome, speaking of the seuen fold reuengement of Cain, doth say, that it is not ment that he which should kill Cain, should be subiect to seuen vengeaunces: but that he that killed him should loose the seuen vengeaunces, which were so long time together in Cain, who being aliue was left wholy and all vnto payne.

Ephrem writeth, that Lamech cōmitted two murthers. Aliud enim (inquit) est vir, aliud adolescens. For (saith he) a man is one thing, and a young man, an other: Yet Theodoretus writeth, that Lamech killed not 2 but one man, of a florishing & lusty age, & not Cain, as many doo fable.

Yet saint Hierom holdeth the contrary, that Lamech killed Cain. For he writeth in his first question Ad Damasum papam: Maiorum nostrorū ista sententia est, quod putant in septima generatione a Lamech interfec∣tum esse Cain. &c. This is the mind of our forefathers, that Cain was kil¦led of Lamec, hin the seuenth generation. For Adam begat Cain, Cain be gat Enoch, Enoch begat Iarad, Iarad, Mahinael, Mahinael, Mathusalē, & Mathusalem Lamech, which was the seuenth from Adam.

But Chrysostom expoūding y^t place of Genesis, doth not graunt y^t La∣mech killed Cain, although he graunt, that he cōmitted two murthers.

Lyranus vpon that place writeth after this manner: bicause Lamech brought in bigamie, he was punished by his wiues, for by what thinges a man doth offend, by those thinges he is tormented. And therefore being made an old man, was il intreated by his wiues. And willing to represse them from the euyls which they did vnto him, he sayd vnto them: bicause I haue killed a mā in my wound. To the vnderstanding wherof, we must know, y^t Lamech waxing blind, had a guide to leade him, & so wēt into y^e fields to hunt, not for flesh (for that time they did eate none) but for the skins, which they did weare. And Cain lay hid among the bushes, bicause he was alwaies in feare: whō the yong man y^t led Lamech, seing (bicause he was of a quicker sight then Lamech) supposed it to be som beast, & ther¦fore said vnto Lamech, y^t he should direct his arow thither, which being don, when he perceiued y^t he had killed Cain, whose killing y^e lord did for∣bid vnder greuous paines, he beat the yong stripling so sore, y^t he killed him, and by this is ment, that he said, I haue killed a man, y^t is Cain, in my wound, that is by a wound geuen of me: and I haue killed a yong mā that

did guide & direct me. And this is the common opinion, saith Lyra.

Other do otherwise expound this sentence: I haue killed a man in my wound (as if Lamech should say) I haue killed a man, and a young man, in liuore meo, in my hart, that is, of enuy, as Cain did, which killed Abel, as though he should say, no.

The Hebrues do say, that this young mā, whom he killed, was his own sonne called Tubalcain, who was the first inuenter of the craft in woor∣king of brasse and yron.

These two wordes vulnus and liuor, after the censure of some, may be diuersly red, either in the accusatiue case, or in the ablatiue case. If in the accusatiue case, thē the sence is this: if ther be any peril, let it light on my bed, & whatsoeuer chaūce, let me smart for it, for I know how to escape.

But if it be red in the ablatiue case, then it maye haue a double sense. The first is this: although I were wounded, yet am I able to kill a man. VVhat wyll I then do, if I be lusty and whole? The other sense is this, which semeth more sound and more agreable. If anye man prouoke me with iniury, or attēpt to bring any violēce to me, he shal wel fele & per¦ceiue, that he hath to do with a strong and valiaunt man: for if he once hurt me, he shal not escape scotfree.

Ther is a great controuersie among the writers, whether Lamech re¦pented and confessed his fault, or no.

Chrisostomus, Rupertus, and Alcuinus holde the affirmatiue part, but other of great learning and depe iudgemente, doo holde the negatiue part, & do write that he reioiced & bragged of his cruelty & murther.

VVhat is to be auenged seuen fold, and seuenty times seuen folde, di∣uers haue diuers iudgements.

Saint Hierome saith, that vengeaunce was taken seuen folde of Cain, bicause he was slain in the seuenth generation, that is, in the time of La∣mech, & did suffer pain for his fault, the space of so many generacions. He liued vpon the earth mourning and trembling, & that the reuenge∣ment of seuenty times seuen fold in Lamech, was the seuenty & seuen ge¦nerations frō Adam vnto Christ. Reade Luke the Euangelist (saith he) & thou shalt find it to be so, as we say. Therfore, as in the seuēth genera¦tion the sinne of Cain was loosed (for God wil not punish twise for one thing) & he which hath once receiued ill in his life, shall not suffer the same torment after his death, which he suffred in his life: so the sinne of Lamech, that is, of the whole worlde, and of the bloud which was shed, shalbe loosed at the comming of Christ, which tooke away the synnes of the world, and washed his garment in the bloud of the wyne presse, and hath troden down the wyne presse alone, & went with red garments frō Edom vnto heauen.

Nicholaus bishop of Rome, writing vnto Lotharius the king, doth sai▪ Art thou not to be smitten with sharpe vengeaunce, which art knowne to haue followed in hauing two wiues, the adultery and wickednes of La∣mech, which the Lord did not put away, but after the seuenty and seuen generations with his healthful comming, when that the murther of Cain was wiped away by the waters of the Cataclisme in the .7. generation?

Other doo expounde these two clauses, seuenfold, and seuenty times seuenfold, for the greuousnes of punishment, bicause (as Saynt Ambrose saith) greater was the fault of Lamech, which did not correct him selfe after an other, which was condemned before him, and because he tooke not hede of that thing, which was rebuked in an other.

Noe. 23.

COncerning Noe, two things are to be demaunded: The first is, whether he is to be accused of dronkennes? The second, whether he was to be reproued in cursing of Canaan.

* 1.46Concerning the first, it is written in Genesis, that Noe began to be an husband man, and planted a vineyard, and he dronke of the wine, and was dronken, & was vncouered in the midst of his tent. And whē Cham the father of Canaan, saw the nakednes of his father, he told his two bre∣thrē without. Then tooke Sem & Iaphet a garmēt, & put it vpon their shoulders, & went backward, & couered the nakednes of their father, with their faces backward, & so they saw not their fathers nakednes.

Chrysostom discoursing this piece of scripture, doth thinke that Noe is not to be accused, but excused, and that by thre reasons. First, bicause he was not supplanted nor ouerthrown by intemperancy: hut they which ar worthy to be noted of dronkennes, are they whō intemperat ingurgitaciō doth accuse. Also the scripture saith not, that the Lord was angry w^t Noe for that dronkennes, but doth in euery place commend his righteousnes.

The second reason is this: he fel into this dronkēnes through ignorāce, which properly is called ignorantia inuincibilis, bicause he could knowe & learn of none the power & strength of y^e wine, & therfore he fel into ebriety ignorantly, and not willingly through a corrupt wyll:

Thirdly, bicause that righteous man had not experience of the nature of wine, nor did know what measure therof he ought to vse, it is no mar∣uel if he became dronken. Chrysostom expounding that also which is ad∣ioined in the same story (that is, that Noe awoke from his wine, & knew what his younger son had done vnto him, & said: cursed be Canaan, a ser¦uant of seruants shal he be vnto his brethren) speaketh after this maner: Et haec dico, non vt iustū incusē, multa enim erant propter quae illi venia debebatur. &c. & I speak these things, not to accuse the iust mā, for ther wer many things, for y^t which pardō was due vnto him, especially bicause

he slid not again afterward into the same fault: which is a great argumēt & presidēt y^t he fel before by ignorāce, & not by negligence, for if it had ben by negligence, he should haue ben entāgled agayn w^t the same fault, whiche happened not. For if that should haue happened agayn, the Scrip∣ture would not haue concealed it, but haue vttered it vnto vs. For this is one scope and end of the Scripture, for it doth not intermit any notable or notorious fact, but doth teach vs the truth: neither through enuie doth passe ouer the vertues of the the righteous, neither for the fauour of the wic∣ked doth shadow and kepe close their sinnes, but doth propose and shewe forth all things opēly and plainly vnto vs: that we might haue therby mo∣numents and certain doctrines, and that when we fall through negligēce into any sinne, we may be made after, more ware, least we fall into the same agayn. For it is not so greuous a thing to sinne, as it is to perseuer in sinne. Therfore, do not onely attend and marke, y^t the righteous Noe was dronke, but note also the same thing did neuer chaūce to him again after.

Now consider those whiche do dayly consume their tyme in wyne ta∣uernes, and (as I may say) do almost dayly die in them. Yet if they come to good aduisement agayn, they do not refraine them selues from the same daunger, but do returne to it agayne, as to their dayly worcke, whiche Noe did not.

Ouer and beside, the name of ebrietie in the holy Scripture is not eue∣ry where spokē of dronckennes, but doth signifie sacietie. Therfore a mā perchaunce may say this, of this righteous man: not that he was droncken through intemperancie, but the same chaunced to him through sacietie. As Dauid speaketh: Inebriabuntur ab vbertate domus tuae, they shalbe made droncke with the plentifulnes of thy house, that is, they shalbe made full.

Therbe many things that declare that righteous man Noe worthy of pardon, which I do not speake as though I would excuse his ebrietie: but do shew, that he was supplanted, not by intēperancie, but by ignoraunce, and that his ebrietie perchaunce to be accused, to haue rather flowne and come of sacietie, then of intēperancie. And here thou seest, that this word Ebrietas, is Homonimon, or equiuocall, signifieng diuerse things. In the seconde of Iohns Gospell it is taken likewise, not for verye dronckennes,* 1.47 but for fulnes: as whē the gouernour of the feast sayd vnto y^e bridegrome: all men at the beginning set forth good wine, and when men be dronkē, then that which is worse. S. Ambrose in his booke De Noe & arca, doth seme plainly to excuse the dronckennes of Noe. Sobria (inquit) erat mens iusti, quando ebria putabatur: est enim praeclarum poculum, inebrians iu¦stis, &c. Then was the mind of the iust man sober, when it was thought dronken. For it is a noble & worthy cup which doth make dronken the

righteous: but he was truly droncken, which laughed at his father: for he that had no consideration of the grace and fauour of the generation be∣fore past, neither of present reuerēce towarde his father, nor of the paine to come of contumely done to his father, was very droncke: & that which he thought to see, he sawe not: for there was in hym a profound, and depe blindnes, which culd not se his father for if he had sene his father, he wold not haue laughed, for the father is not to be laughed at, but to be reuerē∣ced. And how did he see, whiche thought errour of doubtfulnes to be in hym, in whom is the perfect vapour and moistnes of wisedome and other vertues? And whē is the mynd more sober, thē whē it doth so behold & vewe the nature of all thinges, of times present, and tymes to come, that there appeared in him no temporall staggering of dronckennes?

Againe in his booke De Abrabā Patriarcha, saying: Multi se fortes pu∣tant. Num fortiores quā Loth? Num continentiores quam Noe? Many thinke themselues to be strong: but ar they stronger then Loth? are they more continent then Noe: the Scripture doth not spread forth the faults of the Patriarches, whom we read to be ouercome with wine, but y^t thou shouldest learne wherof to beware. He lay naked: this man was open to the errours of his daughters. Noe the iust was disceyued, bycause he was as yet ignoraunt. &c.

Thomas the scholeman in .2.2. where he doth excuse the ebriety of Noe, saith in his first article. Ebrietas dupliciter potest accipi: vno modo vt significet defectum hominis, qui accidit ex multo vino potato, ex quo fit, vt non sir compos rationis. &c. Ebrietie may be taken two maner of wayes. In the firste maner it doth signifie the infirmitie of man, whiche commeth of drincking of much wine, wherby he is made Nō compos ra∣tionis, not hauing ful possession of reason. And this maner of ebriety doth not nominate and signifie the fault, but the penall defect, flowing out of the fault. The secōd maner of ebrietie doth nominate the acte, by y^e which some mā doth fall into the same defect which may cause dronckēnes two maner of wayes. First by the great strēgth of y^e wine, whiche he knoweth not that doth drincke it, and this ebriety may happen without sinne, spe∣cially when it chaunceth not by the negligence of man, and so Noe was was thought to haue bene droncken.

Secondly it doth come of inordinate concupiscence and lust, and of an vnmeasurable vse of wine: and so is ebrietie mortall sinne, and is contey∣ned vnder the sinne of glotonie. Sicut species sub genere, for glotony is de∣uided into surfetting and dronckennes, which Paule writing to the Ro∣mains doth forbid, saying: Sic vt in die honeste ambulemus, nō in comes¦sationibus & ebrietatibus. Let vs walke honestlie as in the day, not in glotonie and dronckennes. To be short, he sayth, that ebrietie is mortall

sinne. As when man drincking wine, doth not thincke y^t it hath so quicke and vehemēt a strength, y^t it will quickly smite and hurt y^e braine, & he yet notw^tstanding doth largely & excessiuely vse it, doth mortally sinne.

S. Austen in a certaine sermon speaketh of dronckennes after this sort: Ebrietas est blandus demon, dulce venenum, suaue peccatum: quā qui ha∣bet, seipsum non habet: quam qui facit, peccatm non facit, sed ipse totus est peccatum. Dronckennes is a flattering deuill, a swete poyson, a plea∣saunt sinne, which, whosoeuer hath, hath not himselfe, which whosoeuer doth commit, doth not commit sinne, but he himselfe wholy is sinne.

Innocētius de vtilitate condition is humanae, hath a notable saying of dronckennes. Quid turpius ebrioso, cui fetor in ore, tremor in corpore? qui promit stulta, prodit occulta, cui mens alienatur, facies transformat. Nullum secretum, vbi regnat ebrietas: faecūdi calices quem non fecere di∣sertum? VVhat is filthier then a droncken man? to whom there is stentch in the mouth, trembling in the body, which vttereth forth folishe things, and reuealeth secret things, whose minde is alienate, and face transfor∣med, there is no secret where ebrietie raigneth: whom hath not plentifull cups made eloquente and talkatiue?

Diogenes when he sawe the house of a certaine man (who was geuen much to drinke) to be sold, by the inscriptiō ouer the dore. Sciebā (inquit) quia tandem domum euomeres. I did knowe (saith he) that at the last thou wouldest easly spue out a whole house.

Aristippus the Philosopher to a certain man, bragging that he could drincke much, and yet not be droncke. Quid (inquit) magni narras, cum idem faciet quo{que} mulus, what great thyng (saith he) doest thou shewe, for a horse, and a mule will do the same? by the whiche pretie saying, he compared this man, geuen so much to drinke, vnto a brute beast.

The second note of Noe.

VVhither Noe did il, in cursing Canaan? The whiche question Chri∣sostome discoursing, writeth after this sort. Ecce prouenimus ad questio nem illam vbique celebrem, multos enim audimus dicentes, quare cum peccauerit pater & prodiderit nuditatem, filius maledictū suscepit. &c. Behold we are now come to that famous question. For we here many say: why doth the sonne receiue the curse, when y^e father offended & shewed his nakednes? I besech you geue diligent attendaūce, and take the solutiō: for we will speake those things which the grace of God wil minister vnto vs for your profit. Noe said: cursed be Canaan, and he shalbe the seruaunt of his brethren. He made not here mention of his sonne Simpliciter, and that for some secrete and hidden reason, for he would chasten his sonne for his sinne and contumelie, which he did vnto him: but yet he would not be preiudiciall vnto the blessing, whiche was geuen him before. For the Scripture saith: God blessed Noe, when he came out of the arke, and his

sonnes. Therfore that he might not seme to haue cursed him, whom God had blessed, passyng ouer him whiche had done this reproche vnto him, brought the curse vnto his sonne. Noe (sayth he) doth shewe this that therfore Cham is not cursed because he tooke benediction before of God: but wherfore doth he suffer pain, when an other hath offended? neither this also is done without reason, because the father had no lesse paine and torment then the sonne. For you know that the fathers often do pray that they themselues might sustaine the paines of their children, and in a ma∣ner it is more greuous vnto them to se their poore childrē tormented, thē if they should be subiect to the same them selues. Therfore this same was done, because he for the nature and loue toward his sonne, did feele grea∣ter sorowe, and that the blessing of God should be kept inuiolate, and lykewise the childe takyng curse, shoulde suffer paynes for hys owne sinnes. For although through the fathers sinne he is nowe subiecte vnto curse, yet it is lykely, that he suffred paynes for his owne sinnes also. For he toke not onely the curse of the sin due to the father, but that he should suffer also greater payne for him selfe. For neither the fathers for the children, nor the children for the fathers, shalbe punished, but euery man shall suffer for his owne sinnes. This we finde written in all places of the Prophetes,* 1.48 the soule whiche sinneth she shall die, and againe the fa∣thers shall not dye for the children, nor the children for the fathers. &c.

This therfore that Chrisostome said, that Canaan, the sonne of Cham suffred payne, not onely for the sinne of his father, but also for his owne sinnes: doth dissolue the argument whiche might be moued and tossed out of these Scriptures, that is, the son shal not beare the iniquitie of the father, nor the sonne shall dye for the father. VVhiche Scriptures are chiefly to be vnderstande of eternall payne, and to be vnderstande also when the sonne hath by no meanes offended nor consented to the sinne of his father.

Saint Ambrose in his booke De Noe & arca, doth consent with Chri∣sostome, saying. Qua ratione Noc cum filius eius Cham peccauerit, nō ipsū sed filium eius seruituti addixit? By what reason did Noe when his sonne Cham had offended, appointe not him, but his sonne vnto bondage and curse?

Responsio.

It may be peraduenture because he was more greued with the iniuries of his sonne, of the which he him selfe was giltie, and the very author, and doth more lament the damnation of his sinne to be payed and satisfied of his sonne, which should be punished, not so much for his owne desert, as for his fathers, And in the end Ambrose concludeth, saying. Ceterū non tam hic homines quam mores comprehenduntur, quorum in vtro{que} vna natura, nam Cham calor, Canaan cōmotio & inquietudo, qui enim cali∣dus

est vti{que} inquiet{us} est et commotior est. In duobus igitur erit vna pas∣sio & vnus affectus. Ita{que} cum alter adiicitur, vter{que} damnatur. But not so much the men as the maners are here comprehended, in both whom is one nature. For Cham signifieth heat, Canaā commotion and vnquietnes. For he that is hote is vnquiet, and somewhat moued. In them two was there one passion and one affection: therfore when the one is named, both are condemned.

S. Austen vpon Genesis doth explicate this matter after an other sort. Queritur (inquit) quare peccans Cham in patris offensa, non in seipso sed in filio suo Canaā maledicitur. &c. It is asked (saith he) wherfore Cham offending his father, is not cursed in him selfe, but in his sonne Canaan: There is no answere, but because it is Prophecied, that the children of Is∣rael which came of the seede of Sem, should take the land of Canaan, and vanquish the Cananites, and driue them from thence.

Saint Austen also rendreth an other answere, in his booke De ciuitate dei, where he writeth, that by Cham being the middle sonne of Noe, be signified heretikes: which remayne not in the first fruites of y^e Israelites, but remaine betwene both.

Lyranus dissouing this, question doth say. Hic nominatur Canaan, quia secūdum aliquos is primum vidit coopertium, Noe, & patri suo Cham iudicauit. &c. Here is Canaan named, because after some he sawe first Noe vncouered, and shewed it to his father Cham: After other because it is entreated here, of the wickednes of Cham, which behaued him self vn∣reuerently towardes his father. Therfore is here also mention made of his sonne Canaan, whiche folowed the euill conditions of his father, and in whom and his posteritie wickednes so much encreased, that afterward the Lord commaunded them to be slain, & their land to be geuen to the children of Israel.

Saint Ambrose doth say, that Canaan was not then borne when Chā saw the nakednes of his father. Other do apply, that Chā had already be∣gotten the fourth sonne, whiche was called Canaan, in the time whē Noe was droncke, or els it should not be written, that Cham the father of Ca∣naan did see the nakednes of his father, but onely Cham had sene it.

Berosus in his antiquities doth cal Noe Iamin, because Iain in y^e He∣brue toung betokeneth wine.

The Iudgement of the later writers concerning Noe.

The writers of this later tyme (whom I cannot commend and prayse to much, both for their great learning & depe iudgement) be of an other minde, concerning the dronckennes of Noe.

The ebrietie (say they) that is attriduted vnto Noe, although it may be excused by certaine reasons, yet it is such in it selfe, that it is worthy

great blame: for what soeuer doth excede measure & meane, is to be bla∣med euen in brute beasts that lacke reason, much more in mā: for after y^t the reason of man is swalowed and supped vp of wine, what part of man∣hode remaineth in man? And by this may we learne, what a detestable and foule thing ebrietie is. The holy Patriarch, which should haue ben a notable example of frugalitie and temperancy, most fowly and shameful∣ly forgetting him self, doth throw him selfe naked vpon the ground, that al mē might laugh him to scorne. VVith what great study therfore ought we to haue sobrenes in prise, least the like or worse happen vnto vs? A prophane Philosopher said in times past: Quod vinū esset sanguis terrae, that the wine was y^e bloud of the earth, therefore when men doo ingurge it vnmeasurablie, they must suffer punishmēt of their mother the earth. This holy mā Noe might truly be pardoned, which taking before great paine and labour, refreshyng himselfe with the drincking of wine, did thincke, that he receiued a iust reward, but God doth marke in him an eternall spot of reproch. VVhat shall we thincke thē, will come and hap∣pen to idle bellies and vnsaciable goulfes of drincking, which onely shote at this marke, in striuing how much wine they cā consume and quaffe a∣way, and haue in no case respect to that curse of God, which is pronoun∣ced agaynst them,* 1.49 whiche ryse early in the mornyng to drincke, and so to continew vntill might.

Truly God would by this ensample of Noe, admonishe mankind to beware of dronckennes, and not to make any pretence of excuse, because the holy man Noe was once subiect vnto dronckennes.

It is permitted for vs to drincke wine, nor it is sinne to drincke it, which the deuils doctrine doth forbid. But in these dayes vnto the Papistes, ebrietie is no sinne: but to eate fleshe on certaine dayes forbidden by the Pope, yea in the time of nede, they counte it a sinne vnpardonable.

Concerning the cursing of Canaan, although Noe had a iust cause to be angrie, yet he semeth to behaue him selfe neither modestly nor graue∣ly: he should at the least secretly haue lamented his fault before God, and haue testified his repentaunce with some shame before men. But now as though he had nothing offended, doth thūdre out a sharper curse against his sonne. But Moses doth not report here the checkes and tauntes, into the which Noe being stirred with coler and anger, doth burst out, but doth bring him in rather speaking with the Propheticall spirite. VVher∣fore there is no doubt, but that the holy mā being humbled with y^e know∣ledge of his fault, did weigh with him self what he had deserued, and also did pronounce with a very bitter sorrow of minde this sentence agaynste hys sonne, for he considered howe merueilously he was preserued among a fewe.

Now therfore when he was constrained by his own mouth to expell hym out of the Church of God, there is no doubt, but that he greuously mour∣ned and lamented for the curse of his sonne. But in this exāple, God doth geue vs a godly doctrine, that we must retaine and kepe the constancie of faith, if we see at any tyme them to faile, whiche be nere ioyned vnto vs, yea, and that we ought not to shrinke nor relent, by no meanes: but so to exercise the seueritie which God commaūdeth, that we should not spare our owne bowels. And note also, that Noe did not pronounce this harde sentence, but by the instinct of God. Here may we gather of the cruelnes of paine, how horrible before God is the wicked contempt of parentes.

Questio.

Here may be demaunded, why Noe did not curse Cham the sonne of him selfe, rather then Canaan the sonne of Cham: for the fault is not im∣puted vnto Canaan, but vnto Cham: and it is not agreable to the iustice of God, to throw the parentes faultes vpon the children.

Responsio.

Although God do prosecute his iudgementes vpon the children and vpon the nephewes, yet is he neuer cruell towardes the giltles, wherfore there is no inconuenience to be graunted, if God do punishe the fathers sinnes, in the reprobate children.

But it is meruell, that Noe cursing his nephew, spake nothing of his son Cham, being the author of the same, but ther is no doubt (that the gre¦uousnes of the payne may more appear) the payn is to be transferred and brought to the posteritie. As if God should openly testifie, that the paine of one man doth not suffise vnto him, but that his curse also should be af∣fixed and appointed to the posteritie, that it may crepe and continew by continuall ages. Cham him selfe is not here exempted, for when he wrap∣peth together his sonne with him, he doth exaggerat his iudgemēt. Ther∣fore cursed was the father in his sonne, to declare and signifie, that he was not cursed onely in his owne person, but that his curse also should be deriued to his posteritie.

Questio.

Here may be demaunded also, why God of many sonnes did chuse one∣ly Cham to be thus smitten?

Responsio.

Let vs beware of to much curiositie, and remember that the iudge∣mentes of God are not vainely called Abissus profunda, a depenes vnser∣chable, and to cry with Paule: Othe depenes of the riches of the wisedome and knowledge of God, he hath chosen whom it pleaseth him, and in whō he doth shew forth examples and tokens of grace and mekenes. He doth appoint other to be the documents and exāples of his wrath & seueritie.

Questio.

There is yet an other doubt to be moued. For when the Scripture doth teach, that God doth reuenge the sinnes of men into the third and fourth generation, it semeth here, to prefixe & appoint a meane vnto the wrath of God: for the vengeaunce, whiche is here mentioned, doth spread her selfe vnto the tenth generation.

Responsio.

In the wordes of the Scripture there is no law prescribed vnto God, whiche it is not lawfull for him to go beyond, as though he should not be fre in punishing of sinnes to go beyond the fourth generation. Here ye must see onely the comparison betwene payne and grace, by the whiche God doth shew him selfe such a iust reuēger of sinnes, that he is yet more prone and ready to shewe mercy, then iustice.

Two thinges in this are to be noted: First, that the originall begin∣ning of seruitude and bondage, began of Canaan, which came through sinne. The second thing to be obserued is, how greuously God did plage and punish them, whiche do not with due honour prosecute and reuerēce their parentes, whiche may be a godly lesson to be learned of peruerse and disobedient children. Thus much touchyng Noe, both by the iudge∣ment of the olde fathers, scholemen, and later writers.

Sem. 24.

COncerning Melchisedech who he should be, there be four opini∣ons. The first is, of them whiche supposed Melchisedech to be of a more diuine nature, then that he ought to be numbred & coūp∣ted in the nature of men, yea they did affirme, that it was the holy ghost him selfe, and that he did appeare vnder the shape of man, and so came to mete Abraham.

The second opinion is of them whiche did iudge him to be the aungell of God, and in this sentence is Origene and Didimus.

The third opinion is, of them, which said that he was a man of Canaā, and the king of the Citie of Hierusalem▪ in this sentence are Hipolitus, Ireneus, Eusebius Cesariensis, Emissenus, Apollinarius, Eustacius.

The fourth opinion is, of the Iewes, whiche iudge, that Melchisedech was Sem the sonne of Noe (as S. Hierom writeth Ad Euagriū) saying: Aiunt hunc Melchisedec esse Sem filium Noe, and that he was at that time when Abraham was born .390 yeares olde. But there be great lear∣ned men, that holde the contrary, yea and doo moue a doubte, who was the first begotten sonne of Noe the Patriarche, whither it were Sem, or no? Yet Saint Austen doth so holde, writing, Restabat commemorare fi∣lios Sem maximi filii Noe. It remayned to rehearse and make menti∣on of the sonnes of Sem, the eldest sonne of Noe. And the Hebrewes

do say, that the same Sem was the hygh Priest of God in Saiē, and was called the king of righteousnes, both by name & office, whiche Salē, was afterward called Iebus, and last of all Hierusalem.

Moyses doth shew, that it perteyned to the dignitie and honour of Sem, that he was the father of all the children of Heber: that by this it might be vnderstand, that he was the father of Abraham, and so the fa∣ther of the elect people of God, and that he was the father of Messias.

I haue no more to say of Sem, but of Melchisedech, of whom I wil en∣treate more by Gods grace in my prelections.

Abraham. 25.

THis name Abraham is compounded of three words, of Ab. id est, Pater, of ram, Id est, excelsus, and of hamō, Id est, mul¦titudinis, as if he would saye, an hygh and noble father of a great multitude. And this is declared in the fourth to the Romaines, to be spoken not onely of the Iudaicallnation, but vniuersally of that innumerable multitude of men, whiche at all times and in all pla∣ces should be of the felowship of the Church, and of eternall life. It is also there declared, that they be called the children of Abraham, not onely whiche were borne by carnall generation, but whiche be of the sayth of Abraham, that is, which beleue the promise of the sede that is of Christ, whiche promise was deliuered vnto Abraham, whereof also Theophila∣ctus speaketh, writing: Cum duo haec Abrahae videantur inesse, praeputiū & circumcisio, per praeputium quidem eorum, qui sunt in praeputio ostē ditur Pater, Vt fides in illis suscepta ad iustitiam computetur, hoc est vt iusti efficiantur. Ex circumcisione etiam Pater esse monstratur circumci∣sionis, hoc est eorum qui sunt circumcisi. Est igitur Abraham omnium pareas, non quidem naturali sanguinis sexu, sed fidei propinquitate, VVhen these two thinges vncircumcision and circumcision were sene to be in Abraham, by vncircumcision he is shewed to be the father of them that be vncircumcised: that faythe beynge receyued in them mighte be coūpted to righteousnes, that is, that they maye bee made righte∣ous. By circumcision, also he is shewed to be father of them that be cir∣cumcised. Therfore Abraham is the father of all, not by naturall kynde of bloud, but by propinquitie and kindred of faith.

Saint Austen, De ciuitate dei, doth aske this question: Cur mutatum est nomen Abrahae? reddita est ratio, quia patrem (inquit) multarum gen∣tium posui te. Hoc ergo significari intelligendum est Abraham. Abram vero quod ante vocabatur interpretatur pater excelsus. VVhy was the name of Abrahā chaunged? this reason is rendred: bycause I haue appoin∣ted thee, the father of many nations, therfore it is to be vnderstand, that Abraham signifieth the same thing. But Abram by the whiche name he was called before, is interpreted, Pater excelsus, a noble father, nothing

discrepant from this sentence, writeth Hilarius, Origene, and Chri∣sostome.

Chrisostome writeth: Sicut prius nomen eius transitum significabat iuxta Hebraeorum linguam, quia parentes eius nomen hoc indiderant, eo quod a patria sua in Cananeam transiturus erat. &c. As hys name before did signifie passing ouer after the Hebrue toung, bycause his parentes gaue him this name, for that he should passe ouer from his countrie into Canaan, euen so his parentes gaue him the name of a Patriarche, decla∣ring immediatly from the beginning, that he should become a straunger, and passe ouer the riuer into a straunge lande. Therfore he sayth: By∣cause the name geuen to thee of thy parentes did fore signifie, that thou shouldest take also the addition of this woorde: that thou maist knowe, that this doth declare vnto thee, that thou shouldest be the father of ma∣ny nations.

Obiectio.

For asmuch as his parentes were infideles, howe came this know∣ledge vnto them, that they should comprehende in this name, that which was to come long after?

Responsio.

Chrisostome maketh aunswere to this obiection, saying, this to be the argument of the wisedome of almightie God, whiche doth dispense and dispose oftentymes, such thinges by infidelles, and finde many such lyke thinges done in other. Let thys name Noe be an example, for his pa∣rentes did not geue him that name without cause and in vayne, but they did fore signifie, that the flould should follow. And his name shalbe called Noe,* 1.50 he shall make vs ceasse and rest from our worcks, and from the paine and grief of our handes, and from the earth, whiche the Lord hath cursed. For Noe in the Hebrue toung is called rest, therfore the floude beyng imminent and nere at hand, he onely shall saue the world, and be the author of the latter world. Therfore he saith, he shal make vs to rest, callyng the floud rest.

Questio.

Many demaund, whither Abraham wer a Prophet and a Priest also.

Responsio.

That Abraham was a Prophet, it is most manifest in the boke of Ge∣nesis.* 1.51 For God spake to the kyng that had taken away his wife: Nunc er∣go redde viro suo vxorem, & orabit pro te, quia Prophaeta est, & viues. Restore now therfore the wife to her husbād, and he shall pray for thee, because he is a Prophet, and thou shalt lyue.

Saint Austen in his booke De ciuitate dei, sayth, Nec sapientia Egip∣tiorum, sapiētiam Prophaetarum nostrorum tempore antecedere potuit,

quemadmodum & Abrahā Prophaeta fuit. Quid autem sapientiae esse po∣tuit in Egypto antequā ei Isis, quam mortuam tanquam deam magnam colendam putauerunt, literas traderet? Isis porro Inachi filia fuisse pro∣ditur, qui primus regnare caepit Arginis quando Abrahae iam nepotes re∣pertuntur exorti.

The wisedome of the Egiptians could not be before the wisedome of our Prophetes, forasmuch as Abraham was a Prophet. VVhat wise∣dome could be in Egipte before Isis deliuered vnto them letters and lear∣ning, whō beyng dead they thought to be worshipped as a great goddesse. Furthermore Isis is declared to be the daughter of Inachus, whiche first reygned ouer the Argines, when nowe the nephewes of Abraham were already borne.

Chrisostome vpon this place of Matthew. Liber generationis Iesu Christi filii Dauid, filii Abrahae, writeth thus: Quia Christus tres dig∣nitates fuerat habitur{us}, Rex, Prophaeta, Sacerdos, Abraham autem habuit duas dignitates. Prophaeta enim fuit, & sacerdos. &c. Because Christ should haue thre dignities, that is, he should be a kyng, a Prophet, and a priest, Abrahā truly had two dignities, for he was a prophet & a priest. A Priest as God sayd vnto him, take an heifer of thre yeares olde, and a she goat of thre yeares olde, and a ramme of thre yeares old, a turtle doue also and a pigeon .&c.

Therfore Christ was called the sonne of Abraham and of Dauid, that he might be vnderstande to be a Prophet and a Priest of Abraham, but a king of Dauid. Therfore he was not onely called the sonne of Dauid, be∣cause Dauid was onely a kyng and a Prophete, but Priest Dauid was none. Read more of this matter In glossa ordinaria, in Lyranus & in Ori¦gen, who do at large proue, that Abrahā was both a Prophet & a priest, but no Priest ordeined of the law, but by the perfectiō of naturall wise∣dome, so Noe was a Priest, and so Melchisedech and Iob were Priestes, who all offred outward Sacrifices vnto God.

Obiectio.

Abraham was a lay man, and no lay man was a priest and endewed with Priestly dignitie. And that Abraham was a lay man, Chrisostom sheweth plainly in one of his orations Aduersus Iudaeos. Abrahā(inquit) progenitor Leuirarū ac Iudascorum sacerdotum sub Melchisedech, qui typum getebat nostri sacerdotii, Laici locū obtinuit. Abraham the pro¦genitor of y^e Leuits and the Iudaicall Priests vnder Melchisedech, which did bear the type and figure of our Priesthode occupied the place of a lay man. And this he proueth two manner of wayes. First, bycause he gaue tythes vnto Melchisedech, for laye men do pay tithes vnto Priests, and not pristes vnto lay men.

Secondly, bycause he receyued the blessing of Melchisedech, for laye men do receiue benediction of Priestes.

Now conclude the argument. If he had ben a Priest, he had not geuen tenthes vnto Melchisedech, nor receiued the benediction of hym: but he both gaue tithes and receiued the blessyng, as the lesse and inferiour of the greater. Ergo, Abraham was no Priest. And that the lesse and infe∣riour person doth receyue benediction of the greater and better per∣son, Paul doth manifestly declare in his Epistle to the Hebrues.

Furthermore in the lawe of nature onely, the first borne men were Priestes, now Abraham was not the first borne and the eldest sonne of Thara, although he be firste named in Genesis, amonge the sonnes of Thara, for it is written there, that Thara beyng of the age of seuentie yeares, begatte Abraham, Nathor and Aram, but he is named there in the first place, not for his age, but for his dignitie, & bicause the promise of Christ was made first vnto him.

Responsio.

It is to be aunswered, there is no absurditie to graunt Abraham in the law of nature to be both Priest and lay man. In taking a Priest in the large signification, that is, for him whiche doth geue, and offer sacri∣fices vnto God with a sincere affection and pure minde, whiche also they did proteste with offring of outward Sacrifices. VVas not Abel a Priest, and yet also a shepheard?

Secondly, where it is to be obiected that he was no Priest because he payed tith, and receyued blessing, it foloweth not, for the Leuites gaue tenth of tenth vnto the high Priest, as it appeareth in the booke of Nu∣meri: but that reason doth onely proue, that he was not the high Priest, but inferiour vnto Melchisedech, of whom as of the chief Priest, the infe∣riour Priest receyued benediction.

Thirdly also Abraham, although he were not the first borne by nati∣uitie, yet he was chief by dignitie, and therfore Priestly dignitie did not vnaptly agree vnto him. Abel was not the eldest by birth, but he was the first by excellencie and dignitie, and yet was he enobled with priesthode.

Thus much touchyng Abraham, who at the first (as Rabanus testi∣fieth and other) was an Idolatre. His wordes be these: Adueniente A∣braham in terram Canaan, quam tunc Cananeus habitator tenebat, ape∣ruisse ei dominus describitur, cui altare ipse edificauit, quia spretis ido∣lis gentium, vnius dei cultor fuit. Abraham commyng into the lād of Ca∣naan, which then the Cananites did inhabite, the Lord appeared vnto him, vnto whom Abraham builded an altar: because forsaking & cōtem¦ning the Idols of the gentiles, he became the worshipper of the true God He died (as some recorde) .35. yeares before Sem died. For Sem lyued vnto the fifty yeare of the age of Esau and Iacob, but Abraham liued on∣ly vnto the .15. yeares of their age.

Isaac. 26.

ISaac was the sonne of Abraham, whom he had of Sara, being a very old woman, and barren, and .90. yeares of age, before she cō∣ceiued him, but Abraham had him of her by promise. He was the figure of Christ, but saint Austen in his booke De Trinitate, calleth hym Christ, saying: Sicut Isaac Christus erat, cum ad se immolandum lig∣na portabat. As Isaac was Christ, when he caried wood for himself to be offred. But vnderstande, that saint Austen meaneth not Isaac to be Christ in dede, but to be a tipe and signification of Christ.

Againe in his booke De ciuitate dei, he saith: Therfore Isaac (as the Lord bare his crosse) so he bare wood for himselfe, to the place of sacri∣fice, vpon the which he should be layd.

Finally, bicause Isaac could not be slaine, after his father was forbid∣den to strike him, who was that Ramme, which being offered, the sacri∣fice was fulfilled with a signifieng bloud. For when Abraham saw hym, he was holden in the bushes by the hornes: who therfore was figured by him, but Iesus Christ, being crowned of the Iewes with a bush of thorns, before he was offered?

Isaac in the Hehrue, betokeneth laughing or gladnes. For Abraham hearing the promise of his sonne Isaac, of whom Christ the promised sede should be born, he laughed in his hart, & seing the day of Christ, great∣ly reioyced. Isaac liued with Sem. 110. yeres, with his father Abraham 75 yeares, with his sonne Iacob. 120. yeres. He died one yere before Io∣seph was deliuered out of prison.

Iacob. 27.

IAcob the sonne of Isaac, was called by another name Isra∣el. He was the father of the .xii. tribes, and of al the people of Israel, who of him wer called Israelites. Iacob betokeneth in Hebrue a supplanter or ouerthrower. For Iacob betokeneth planta, the sole of the foote. For when he was born, he held the sole of his brothers foote in his hand. He was borne .xv. yeares before the death of Abraham, and .li. yeres before the death of Sem. He liued in Egipt with his sonne Ioseph .xvii. yeares.

Concerning this name Israel, diuers men haue diuers iudgementes. Saint Hierom In questionibus hebraicis, writeth thus: Iosephus in hys first booke of antiquities doth thinke, that Iacob was therfore called Is∣rael, bicause he stoode against the Angel, which I diligently examining, could neuer yet finde in the Hebrue. And what shal it neede me to seeke the opinions of euery man, when that he who set the name, doth expoūd the etymologie therof? Thy name (sayth he) shall not be called Iacob, but

Israel shalbe thy name: wherfore Aquila doth interprete it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. id est. Quoniam regnasti cum deo. Symmachus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. id est, quoniam regnasti robore aduersus deum. Septuaginta & Theodo∣tion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. id est. Quoniam inualuisti cum deo.

Saritha, which is deriued of this woord Israel, signifieth a prince, & then this is the sense: Thou shalt not be called a supplanter, that is Iacob: but thy name shalbe called a prince with God, that is Israel. For as I am a Prince and ruler, euen so thou shalt be called a prince, which wast able to wrestle with me. If thou were able to striue with me, whiche am an Aungel: how much more with men that is wyth Esau, whom thou ough∣test not to feare.

That which in the booke of names is interpreted Israel (that is a man or a mynde seyng God) which interpretacion is in euery mans mouth. It semeth to me to be so interpreted more violently, then truly. For Israell in this place is written wyth Iod, Sin, Resh, Aleph, Lamed, whiche is in∣terpreted the prince of God, or directed of God, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But the Hebrue word signifieng a man seing God, is written with these let∣ters. First this hebrue word Ish, which betokneth a mā is writtē w^t these 3. Aleph, Iod, Shin, y^e other hebrue word Raah, which betokeneth seing, is writtē w^t these .iii. letters, Resh, Aleph, He. Thirdly this hebrue word El, which betokneth god, or strong, is written w^t these .2. letters Aleph, & Lamed. Although therfore they be of great authority & eloquēce, (& their shadowe doth seeme to oppresse vs) which translate Israel, a man or a mynde seyng God, yet we are rather led with the authoritye of the scripture, and of the Aungell which called him Israel, then with the au∣thority of any secular eloquence.

Caietanus doth say, that Israel is a compound word of Isra, which be tokeneth to rule, and El, which is God: and of both these woordes ioyned together is signified, Dominabitur deus, God shal bear rule. And of this that Iacob did preuayle in wrestling with the Aungell, and bicause stri∣uing with a man, as with Laban and his kinred, he did preuail: thou shalt therfore be called Israel (saith the Aungel) that is, God shall rule, to sig¦nify, that God shal fight for thee against al, and thou shalt preuayl. The Aungell in this place did not chaunge the name of Iacob into Israel, but thys chaunge was made afterward, in the place called Bethel.

Questio.

VVhither Iacob sinned in bying the birthright and enheritaunce of Esau, and whither he lyed, when he sayd to hys father, I am Esau, thy first begotten sonne.

Responsio.

Saint Austen in his booke De ciuitate dei, answereth after this maner: Primatus maioris transfunditur in minorem, ex pacto & placito inter il∣los: eo quod lenticulam quem cibum minor parauerat, maior immode∣ratius

concupirit .&c. The preeminence of the elder is translated to the younger, by a couenaunt and promise made betwene them, bicause that y^e elder did vnmeasurably desire and lust the potage, which meate the yon∣ger had prepared, and for that price sold his birthright vnto his brother by a solemne othe. VVher we may learne, that no man is to be blamed and accused for eating any kinde of meate, but for the immoderat desire and greedy lust therof. Isaac was old, and through age his sight failed hym. He wuld haue blessed his elder son, & in stede of him (not knowing) bles¦sed the younger sonne: who couering his hands and his necke with goates skins, offred him self to his fathers hands, in the roume of his elder bro∣ther, who was al heary. This disceit of Iacob, that it shuld not be thought any crafty disceit, but rather the mistery of some great thing shoulde be sought therin, the scripture hath declared before, saying: Esau was a mā cunning in hunting. Iacob was a plain man abiding at home. This thing some of our men haue interpreted to haue bene done without disceit: whi¦ther it be without disceit, simply or plainly, or rather done without fay∣ning, which is in Greke Aplastos, what is the disceit of a man without dis¦ceit in receiuing this blessing? And how can ther be disceit in a simple or plain man? And what other faining can ther be of him, which doth not lie, but some profound mistery of truth? And a litle after he saith: Ther∣fore the blessing of acob is the preaching of Christ among all Gentiles. The law and the prophets wer in Isaac .&c. reade the place, & ther shal you finde, that Iacob did not offende, when he bought the birth right of Esau: and that he did not lie, when he said to his father, y^t he was his el∣dest sonne Esau. Saint Austen concludeth in the ende of the same place with this exclamation. O res gestas, sed prophetice gestas in terra, sed cae¦litus per homines, sed diuinitus. O things done, but prophetically done in earth, but heauenly by men, but yet of God, so that you must not consider the bare fact of Iacob, but the prophecy and misterye signified thereby, which doth excuse Iacob from offence and lying. Chrisostome doth not dissent from saint Austen, who writeth vpon that place thus: Ne igitur hoc considera, quod mentita fuerunt quae dicebantura Iacob, sed illud co¦gita, quod volens deus praedictionem impleri, omnia vt sic fiant, dispen∣sauit. &c. Do not thou therfore consider, that the words spoken of Iacob, were lies, but think rather this, that God willing the prophecy to be ful∣filled, did dispence, that al thinges should be so done.

Obiectio.

But Iacob in bying the birthright of Esau, committed simonie, ther∣fore in that fact he offended.

The antecedents may be proued thus: All the first borne as long as the law of nature did floorish (which the old patriarches did kepe) for as yet

the law of Moses was not geuen vnto them that were priests. Forasmuch therfore as priesthood was alwaies holye and spirituall, he that bought birthright of the first borne, was worthily compted to haue committed simonie: besides this euery first borne by the title of his birthright, had two portions of his fathers goods. VVhen Isaac therfore the father of Iacob and Esau, was very rich, it is very likely, that the birthright was much worth, and of great value. And so Iacob obtaining the birthright for a trifle, disceiued his brother, and craftely got great gaines by hym.

Responsio.

Lyranus discussing this reason, doth saye, that the title of the birth∣right was Iacobs, by Gods determination, bicause it was sayd before, that the elder shall serue the younger. Therfore, forasmuche as the interest of this birthright was due by Gods ordinaunce vnto Iacob, he did not dis∣ceiue Esau, nor committed any fraud in byeng or rather recouering the birthright of him. And he is not compted properly to haue bought them, for by Gods ordinaunce they pertained vnto him, and no man doth bye that which is his own. Therfore the sense of this proposition (sell me thy birthright) is this: Geue me those things pertaining to thy birthright, which are myne, and bicause thou wilt not geue them freely, here I offer thee meate.

Rabbi Salomon to excuse Iacob from lying, doth saye, that the texte must be thus poynted: Ego sum, I am he which bring meate vnto thee, but Esau is the first begotten sonne. But this pointing doth corrupt the sense. For if one disceiue another by any craft of words, he cannot be ex∣cused from lying. But the sincere & true explication of the story is this: Although Iacob were not Esau in very person, yet he was in office and dignity concerning the title of the birthright, and the blessing was due vnto Iacob, and the meaning of this enunciation (I am Esau thy eldest sonne) is this: I am he, to whom is due the dignity and office of the byrth∣right And this phrase of spech, Christ him selfe vsed, whē he sayd of Iohn Ipse est Helias, he is Helias. Yet Lyranus doth say, that ther is no great necessity to excuse the fathers of the old testament from lying, speciallye from that kind of lye, which is called, Mendatium officiosum.

Questio.

VVhat do you meane by the birthright of the first borne?

Responsio.

The Hebrues say, that it was the succession of the father in dignitie, honour, and bearing of rule. And that it had the authority of the younger brother, which should rise in the sight of y^e elder brother, & shuld shew obeisaunce, and minister vnto him, euen as children to their father.

Others do iudge the firste begotten to haue receyued of their fathers

goods two portions, and that they call the birth right.

Isidorus with others, do suppose the birthright to be the pri••stes gar∣mentes, which the elder sonne hauing on wyth the fathers bl••ssing, did offer sacrifices vnto God.

Aegyptus. 28.

ALl Africke which is deuided into so many prouinces & coū∣tries, hath not a more noble, more famous and fertile regi∣on, nor beautified with more cities, thē Egypt. And that this region Egypt hath growē so mighty in power & multitude of men, cities, and riches, ther is no other cause of so great her succes, then the incredible plentifulnes of that country, which Nilus that famous ri∣uer, running through the middle thereof, & euery yere once flowing ouer the face of the earth of the whole country, doth bring, making moist and fat al the land. For it raigneth in Egypt very seldom, yea (and as Plato saith) neuer: but the ayre hath a perpetual serenitie and fairenes, & for that cause it was sometime called Aeria. The riuer Nilus doth supply the roume of the early and latter rayne, by the which ther cōmeth so great aboundaunce of corne, that Egypt hath often times aboundaunce therof, when al other regions lying aboue, are subiect to famine and hunger, the which thing not onely the holy scriptures, but also prophane histories do manifestly declare. Of that rose this prouerbe: Aegyptus est totius mun∣di horreum. Egipt is the garner and storehouse of al the world. As long as it was vnder the dominion of the Romanes, the Romanes had not a more richer prouince belonging vnto them, as well for corne & pasture, as also for wine, swete sauours, and precious flowers. The same fertility also is noted in the marueilous plentyfulnes of the women of Egypt, for wher, in other places it chaunceth not very oft, that women bring forth two twyns at once, in Egypt one woman doth bring forth three or foure children at one burthen. And the eight moneth of deliueraūce which pat∣teth our women in daunger of their life: is with them a most sure signe of safegard and health. Therfore for this notable plentifulnes, the Egyp¦tians chalenge to them selues the prerogatiue of the first creation of mā and beast. They affirm also, that the vse of y^e sowing of corn was inuēted amongest them, and the Goddesse of corne, which of the Romanes is cal∣led Ceres, they cal Isidem, and her brother, which was also her husband, they called Osyrim. Isis (say they) beinge preste of Iupiter, for feare of her father, taking certaine frendes with her, went into a shyp, and wyth a prosperous wynde came from Achaia into Egypt: & ther finding rude people, taught them to til the earth, and to sow seede therin, and at the time together the sayd seede, and to make bread therof. That same Isis also is reported to haue founde oute the Aegyptian letters, and to haue

taught the people lawes. Some affirme, that Chameses begat Osyrim & Isidem, and when Isis found on the ground corne growing of it selfe, she sought out the maner, how man might haue the fruition therof, and con∣serue it and encrease it by tillage. And Osyris departing from her, went into Palestine, and to many other countries. This Chameses (compted O∣syris father) was the thirde sonne of Noe, whom the Scripture calleth Cham, to whom Egipt did fal for his part and lot. Some cal him Iupiter, and his sonne Dionysius, of whom (as they report) Hercules was begot, Of this riuer Nilus if you wil learne more, reade Munsterus Cosmogra∣phie: yet note here one thing, that in the riuer Nilus, liueth the Serpent called Crocodilus, whom the Egyptians haue in a wonderfull reuerence, and do nourish the said Serpent, being put in a certain lake, with bread, flesh, and wine, which is brought of straungers, that come to see the sayd Serpent. This Serpent groweth to a huge and great bignes, for his egs are as byg and as great, as Goose egs, out of the which ther commeth a ••i∣tle worme, which groweth to the bignes of .xvi. or .xvii. cubits, he lacketh toung, his body is merueilously defended by nature: for all his back is full of skales, verye harde, he hath a long taile, and hath in bothe sides of the mouth many teeth, of the which two do chiefly appeare oute, he doth not onely eate men, but also rent and teare with his nayles all other beastes of the land, which approcheth to the riuer. His nailes are sharper then the point of any sword or knife, whatsoeuer he biteth with his teeth, it is neuer whole againe. He is very timerous & fearefull, and will fle frō them that pursue him, and doth pursue them that flee from him. VVhen he is about to deuour man, he wepeth, wherof sprang this prouerb, Cro∣codilae lachrimae, which may be applied when any mā doth wepe fained∣ly with his eyes, and yet goeth nothing to the hart, & meaneth some mis∣chiefe. Of this riuer Nilus rose also this other prouerbe: Tanquam canis e Nilo, as the dog lappeth in the riuer Nilus, which may be applied vnto him, that hath taken but a superficial tast, and very slender knowledge of learning, or any other thing, but hath tasted here a peece, and there a peece, euen as the Dogges when they thirst, dare not take their whole draught for fear of the Crocodile, but as they do runne, lappe vp the wa∣ter here and there.

Two tables of stone. 29.

OF what maner of stone these tables were made, it cannot be ga∣thered of the text. Rabbi Salamon doth write, that they were made of the Saphyre stone, & doth say that the Lorde shewed vnto Moses a masse of the same stone, out of the which Moses did hew. 2 tables, and with that which was hewen of, he was made very riche, and therfore it was sayd vnto him: hew to thy selfe. It is in the Hebrue, Dola

tibi ad vtilitatem tuam. Hew to thy owne profite. Haec Rabbi Salamon. But this semeth both fained and false, for if it should be so, he had bene more enriched by the fragments of the first two tables, which he brake before. Also bicause Iosephus maketh no mention of what stone they wer made, there is no certaintie of it, and Iosephus was a long time before Rabbi Salamon.

Note one thing here. God sayde: Ego scribam, I wyll write, by the which words it may be vnderstand, that Moses did nothing in the firste tables, he did neither hew them, nor write in them. But for the secōd ta∣bles it seemeth that he did hewe them, but that the Lorde him selfe dyd write in them the ten precepts.

Angelus. 30.

ANgelus is a word of office, & not of nature, & it is a word com∣mon both to the Latins and also to the Grecians, of whō it is bo∣rowed. It doth signify a messēger, or an embassedor, & therfore it is of a large signification, for the preachers of truth are called angels, as in Malachi & in the apostle Paule, for they are the messengers of the Lord of hostes. Saint Peter also called the deuils angels, & so doth Paul also saying, that the faithful shal iudge the angels,* 1.52 and that the angel of Sathan was sent vnto him. But the scripture properlye calleth the bles∣sed spirites of God, ministers, messengers, soldiours, and angels.

The Saduceis denied that ther wer any angels▪ for Luke in the acts of the apostle saith thus: The Saduces affirm, that ther is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit, the Pharises confes both. But to say the truth, the whole scripture doth testify that ther are angels, which sheweth in many places, that they appeared vnto men, & that they shewed vnto thē the wil & pleasure of God, & to haue executed & done his cōmaunde∣mēt. Christ him self disputing in the gospell against the Saduceis, sayth: ye are disceiued, you know not the scriptures, nor the power of God: for in the resurrection they neither marry wiues,* 1.53 nor anye are bestowed in mariage, but are as the angels of god in heauen Let vs beleue therfore y^t ther ar angels, for the authority of the son of god, & the verity of y^e holy scriptures ought worthely to obtain more credit with vs, then the vaine trifles of al the Saduces & wicked men. Yea the Poets themselues & the Philosophers confessed, y^t there were angels which they called gods. For wher as they fain the gods to haue ben receiued into the house of the iust men, they seme vnto certain learned men to haue ment none other thing, then y^t the holy scriptures do declare, y^t is, Abraham & Lot to haue en¦tertained angels in the stede of straūgers & pilgrims. But howsoeuer it be, it is most certain & true, both by the holye scripture, and also by ex∣perience, that there are holye spirites of god (that is to say) good angels.

But what the nature of Aungels is, it cannot exactly be expressed of a∣ny mortal man. For ther are many things in the order of creatures, the nature of whom cannot be perfectly declared: yet not with standing they may somwhat be opened vnto the capacity of our vnderstanding. Some do say, that Aungels are good spirites, ministers of a fierie nature, crea∣ted for the seruice of God and of good men. Other say, that Aungels are heauenly spirites, whose seruice & obsequy God vseth, to execute al such thinges as he hath decreed. VVherfore we shall not be much disceiued, if we say, that Aungels are good spirites and heauenly, I meane vncorrup∣tible substaunces, created for the ministery of God and man.

The scriptures both prophetical and Apostolicall witnes it, that the Aungels were created of God. For Paule reciteth that sentence of Da∣uid,* 1.54 who maketh his Aungels spirites, and his Ministers a flame of fire. The same Apostle sayth,* 1.55 all things are made by Christ, which are in hea∣uen and in earth, things visible and vnuisible, whether they be thrones, or dominations, or principalities or powers. Vvherfore these heretickes lyed which sayd, that the Aungels were helpers of the creation, and are coeternal vnto the God of all things. For God made both the Aungels & all other creatures in time through his sonne. But concerning the tyme, when they were made and created, whether it were together with the light, before man or after man, and after all the rest of the woorkes of God, let him declare that knoweth any certaintye of it, more then the scriptures do teache. The auncient Expositers of the scriptures, as Epi∣phanius and Augustinus, do confes nothing to be found in the Scriptures concerning that thing. But that which is not touched in the scriptures, is not wythout daunger enquired of, but it is wythout daunger to bee ignoraunte of it. It is sufficiente to knowe, that the Aungels were made, at what time soeuer they wer made. Let vs rather geue God than∣kes, that he hath created such excellent Ministers for mankinde. Let vs lyue an holye and an angelicall life in the sighte of the holy aungels. Let vs take hede, that he do not disceiue vnder a faire shew, that doth trans∣figure hym self into an aungell of lyght.

But now let vs se what maner of creatures aungels be. They are hea∣uenly spirites and incorruptible, and most swift substances: we call them aptly substaunces, that is essentiall creatures. For some deny them to be substances, but faine angels to be nothing els, but certain qualities, mo∣tions, and inspirations of good mindes. But the canonicall scripture cal∣leth them ministers. Our sauiour saith, that when we shall ryse agayne in the last resurrection,* 1.56 we shall be like vnto Aungels. Saint Paul shew∣eth the sonne of God to be more excellent then Aungels, the which wor∣shyp hym as theyr God and creatour.

The same Apostle saith, thou shalt reade no where that the sonne of God tooke vpon him the nature of Aungels,* 1.57 but he tooke the seede of Abra∣ham VVhich testimonies do most manifestlye teache the Aungels to be substaunces, and not qualities and motions in the minde of men. VVhat nede I declare, how oft they appeared vnto men, in the likenes & shape of men? Let vs hold therfore and confesse, the Aungels to be substaunces.

But those bodies both of young men and olde men, in the which often times the aungels appeared vnto our fathers, were not their proper and natural bodies, but they tooke and borowed them some other where for the time, and for the capaciti of our imbecillity and weakenes. But what maner of bodies they were, whose shape they tooke vpon them, or from whence they tooke them, or wher they laid them downe again, after they wer discharged, it is very hard to be declared.* 1.58 Saynt Austin in his Enchi∣ridion which he wrote vnto Laurentius saith thus: who can expres with what bodies the aungels appeared vnto men, which were not onely sene, but also touched and felt, and againe brought certain visions, not of cor∣poral substaunce, but of a spiritual power, to be sene not of the corporall and bodely eyes, but of the spiritual eyes, and of the mynde, & that they spake not vnto the eare outwardlye, but inwardly in the mindes of men, being ther them selues placed. As it is written in the booke of the Pro∣phets, the aungel of the Lord told me, which spake in me: for he sayth not, which spake vnto me, but which spake in me. And they did appeare in their sleepe, and talked with men in their dreames. For we reade in the Gospell: Behold, the aungell of the Lord appeared vnto him in hys dreame, saying. &c.

By this meanes the Aungels declared them selues not to haue pal∣pable bodies. And here riseth a hard question, howe our fathers wa∣shed the aungels feete, and howe Iacob wrestled with the aungell, and touched him sensibly: when such things are had in question, and euery man maketh such coniectures of them as he is able, their wyttes are not vnprofitably exercised, if there be ioyned with all, moderate and quiet disputacion and reasoning of them, which take vpon them to know suche things as they are ignoraunt of. For what needeth it, that those things, or suche like shoulde be affirmed, ordeined, or defined wyth daunger, wher as we may be ignoraunt of them without fault or blame? Thus far saynt Augustine.

In those and like causes let vs acknowledge the omnipotency & mar∣ueilous dispensation of him, who doth what things he will, vnto whom it is no harde matter to create substaunces meete and agreable vnto hys purpose, whereas he made of naught, al visible and inuisible creatures.

The aungels that is, those celestial Legates and heauenly Embassadors, being of their nature most ready and swift spirites, by the diuine wil & working of God, are now conuersant in the heauens, but assone as it shal please the Lord and gouernour of al things, out of hand they are present in the earth with men, vnto whom they are sent from aboue of god, and they remaine in the earth, at one time with one, and at one time with an other. Not that they are not contayned in one place▪ For when the aun∣gell brought tidings vnto the women of the resurrection of Christ, and was at the sepulchre, he was not at the same instant also in heauen: for it is onely God, which cannot be comprehended in one onely place, for he is present euery wher.

Also, the Aungels are not slow like vnto corruptible and mortal mē, neither are they moued, feling any labour or wearynes in their iourney, yet they are aptly sayd in the scriptures, to ascend vp into the heauens, and to descend againe vnto vs vpon the earth. VVe beleue, our soules, as∣soone as they passe out of the body, to enter into heauen. For the Lord said in his Gospel,* 1.59 from death he passed vnto life. And again: To day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. And we read of poore Lazarus: it chanced the poore man to die, and he was caried of the Angels into Abrahams bo∣some. Vnto this end the saying of Daniel doth seme to pertain, who saith: As yet truly I speaking and praying and confessing my fault, & the fault of my people Israell, and pouring out my petitions before the Lord my god, that man Gabriel, whom I saw in the beginning of my vision, came vnto me flying with spede, behold here our soules are caried vp into hea∣uen of the Aungels, the which also in an other place are sayd to be rapt and caried out of hand in a moment into heauen. Furthermore, assoone as Daniel had prayed vnto the Lord, without any long tariaunce, an an∣gell flying most swiftly (for so the scripture doth speake according to our vnderstanding) is present with him praying. Aungels therfore are very swift and speedy, oppressed with no burden, nor hindered by anye let or impediment, from those thinges for the which they are sent from aboue. Although they be conteyned in a certayne place as creatures (albeit not circumscribed) and are moued by a certain way and meanes agreable to that spiritual nature. Perchaūce this treatise requireth, that some thing be spoken of the strength, power, and fortitude of aungells. But to what purpose is it to vse many words in a plain & manifest matter? Since that the Lord which sendeth the aungels is almighty, there is nothing which they in their Messages are not able to doo, ther is nothinge in the worlde that is able to resiste the mynysters of the omnipotente God. Ney∣ther

without some cause are the Aungels called powers and vertues: I wyl recite one thing amongest many, and that shal not be the moste and greatest.

One Aungell in one night, without anye preparaunce or difficul∣ty, slew in the tentes of the Assirians, at the walles of Hierusalē, 185000. of the strongest and most valiaunt soldiours. In Daniel we haue this de∣scription of an Aungell, by the which both the might and woorthynes of Aungels may be gathered. His body was like the Chrisolite, and his face to looke vpon lyke the lightning, and hys eyes as lampes of fire, and his armes and feete were like in coulour to polished brasse, and the voice of his woords was like to the voice of a multitude. So there is no cause why we should vse many woordes, in disputing of the knowledge and wysdome of the Aungels, for the nature of them is vnmeasurable, yet they are but creatures. But as muche as pertayneth to their ministeries and offices, they are most wyse instructed, and perfect. For he that sen∣deth them, is the very eternall wysdome, who infourmeth hys Ministers most perfectly.

¶ Of the orders of Aungels.

Concerning the multitude and orders of Aungels, there be many sut∣tle disputacions. The scriptures do plainly declare, that ther he Aungels innumerable, as it is written in Daniel: Mille millia ministrabant ei,* 1.60 & decies mille myriades stabant ante illum. Thousand thousands ministred vnto him, and tenne thousand thousandes stoode before him.

Christ also sayd vnto Peter: Thinkest thou, that I cannot pray to my father, and he wyll geue me more then twelue legions of Aungels?* 1.61 Saynt Paul also doth write of an innumerable company of aungels.* 1.62 Ye are come (sayth he) vnto the Citye of the liuing god, vnto the heauenly Hierusa∣lem, and to the innumerable company of aungels. The most part of wri∣ters deuide this innumerable multitude of Aungels into nine companies: those companies againe they reduce into three Hierches or holy gouer∣naunces, euery one of the which they affirme to haue thre orders. Of the first order are Seraphim, Cherubin, and the Thrones. Of the second are dominations, verues, and powers. Of the third are principalities. Ar∣chaungels and Aungels.

They declare also what difference is betwixt them, and what is the property of euery order. But Saynt Austen in hys Encheridion, writeth thus: VVhat difference is betwyxt the dominations,* 1.63 principalities and powers, let them declare that canne, if they canne bring proofe of theyr declaration. I confesse my selfe to be ignorant herein.

And agayne, agaynst the Luscilbanistes vnto Crosius, he writeth thus. Truly, saith y^e Apostle, whither they be thrones, dominations, principali∣ties or powers, I beleue therfore most constantly, that ther be in the ce∣lestial furniture, both thrones, dominations, principalities and powers, & I beleue vndoubtedly, y^t they differ in some thing, but what thei ar, & what is their difference, I know not, neither I thinke my self to be in any daunger through ignoraūce therof, as if I should by disobedience breake Gods cōmaundements. And a litle after in the same place he sheweth, that we ought not to be curious and busie in searching such matters. VVhose counsell truly ought to be embraced, seing the scriptures (who containe al thinges necessary for our salution) entreate nothing of these thinges. But this we cannot deny, but that those orders are expressed in the scrip¦tures, wherfore it is mete they were somwhat expounded. These holy ce∣lestial spirites are generally named aungels, bicause they be the messen∣gers of the high God. They be called Archangels, when they are sent in great and waighty affaires of the Lord, bringing tidinges, or executing hard and diuine matters.* 1.64 For so we reade in saint Paule, that the Lorde will come down from heauen, with the calling & the voyce of an Arch∣angel and the tromp of God. For (that we may compare the lesser things with the great) we see kings and princes to appoint none but chiefe per∣sons to execute their waighty busines. They are called Throni, eyther be cause they alwaies stand by the throne of God, either bicause God is said of the prophets to haue placed his seat among his angels, and to be caried of them, as though it were in a princelye littre, according vnto Dauids saying:* 1.65 He bowed the heauens and came down, and darkenes was vnder his feete. And he rode vpon Cherub, and did flie, and he came flying vpon the wings of the wind. The description also of the chariot and the throne of God is wel knowen in Ezechiel. They are called dominations, princi∣palities and powers, bicause god gouerneth his impery, & exerciseth his power in the world through the ministerie and seruice of the Aungels. In like sort also they are called the strength and the host or the heauenlye soldiours of the Lord. For God is compassed about wyth them as wyth a gard, vsing them as his garisons, and is called the God of Sabaoth, or the God of hostes, the Lorde (I saye) of all Aungels, spirites, and creatures, whose seruice he vseth, when, how, and how much it pleaseth him.

Saynt Hierome thinketh, that the Aungels are called Cherubim, of the multitude of their science and knowledge. Other expounde them swifte. They haue this name Seraphim of brightnes, or bicause they are lykened vnto the cleare and shining fire, or bicause they burne wyth loue.

¶ VVhat honor ought to be geuen vnto the aungels.

VVe must beware by all means lest we attribute in any wyse, to much vnto the aungels, agaynste the order of true religion, and that we do not worship, inuocate, or honor them. For when men heare that aungels are geuen them of God, as Ministers, and that by the meanes of them God doth benefite thē, thē they iudge by & by, all honor to be due vnto thē, as vnto God. But true and sincere godlynes teacheth vs, that God is the true and onely author of all goodnes, & that the aungels are but Gods Mini∣sters and instruments, by y^e which he worcketh. As for exāple, we see the Sun, Moone and stars, the Patriarches, the Prophets, & y^e Apostles, to be Gods Ministers. VVho hauyng his ryght wits, will worship or call vpon the sunne or the starres, although they be most excellent creatures, and profitable vnto man? And who (I pray you) beyng of a right fayth, did euer worship the Patriarches, Prophets, or Apostles, with diuine ho∣nor, although they were endued with moste notable giftes, and did many great miracles? VVe geue the honor onely vnto God, acknowledging God to worke in his Saintes, the whiche Saintes with the holy aungels desire nothynge lesse, then to be worshipped of vs.* 1.66 Lactantius hath a true saying in the booke of his institutions: The aungels (sayth he) beyng immortall, will not in any wise suffer themselues to be called gods, whose office onely and dutye is to be at the becke of God, and to do no∣thyng, but at his commaundement. For God ruleth the worlde, euen as a prouince is ruled of a President, whose officers no man will call his fe∣lowes, although thynges be done by their industrie and meanes. And therfore Saint Augustine said not without cause: when the aungels of God heare, then God hymselfe heareth in them, as in his true Churche not made with handes. If we vewe and examine the Scriptures narow∣ly, we shall finde in diuerse places, the name of God and of aungels to be put indifferently for one. For the aungels are as causes remote and in∣strumentall (as they terme it) but God is the most immediate principall and proper cause. For in the Actes of the Apostles we read, how that Stephen sayd: After .40. years ended,* 1.67 the aungell of the Lord appeared in the deserte in mount Sina. And by and by he sayth: The voyce of the Lord came vnto hym, I am the God of thy father. &c. He calleth hym the Lord, whom a litle before he called an aungell, that is, bycause he be∣leued the aungell to say and to doe all thinges, at the commaundement of God: so that thee saying and doyng is to be imputed vnto God as author, and the aungels are but as instrumentes. Likewise in the booke of the iudges he is called the Lord, whiche a litle before was called an aungell.* 1.68 Hagar, the hand mayd of Sara, receyued a great benefite of the aungell 〈2 pages missing〉〈2 pages missing〉

called Petrobrusiani and Henriciani. And this was the first heresie whiche openly condemned the Baptisme of infantes. Affirming stiffely both in word and in dede, Baptisme onely to appertayne vnto the adult, and not vnto infantes. Notwithstandyng they vsed a farre other trade and vsage, then they whiche in our time dwelling in the lower Germany and in Belgica, brought in agayne the heresie of the Anabaptistes For they toke awaye from infantes not onely their Baptisme and their faith, but also their saluation and the kingdome of God, whiche they iudged to pertayne onely vnto them that are baptized and beleue. For these are their wordes as they be rehearsed by Petrus Cluniacensis: He that bele∣ueth and is Baptized, shall be saued. These wordes of Christ do playnly shew, that no man, except he beleue and be Baptized, that is, except he professe the Christians faith, and receiue his Baptisme, can be saued: for it is not one of them alone, but both together whiche doth saue. VVher∣upon although infantes be Baptized of you, yet notwithstandyng, by∣cause they are not able throughe their tender age to beleue, they can in no wise be saued. But these men in our tyme (whiche opinion was neuer heard before) teach and beleue, that all infants, yea the children of the Paganes and infidels without any other meanes at all, and without any pledge of grace, are saued, and obtayn the kingdome of heauē by the ver∣tue of the death and Passion of Christ. And this heresie, although it pre∣uayled for a time, and tooke place among a great multitude in Fraunce, yet notwithstanding, as concerning the error of the Baptisme of infants, and the rebaptizing of such as were of adulte age, it fayled and surcea∣sed. For the Valdenses, whiche otherwise were called Picardi (of whose secte there is a great number remayning in Morauia, and in other places of Bohemia nighe vnto it) although they noted many abuses and enor∣mities in the Romish Churche, for the whiche cause, at this day they are seperated from the communion and felowship of that Church, yet they both alowe the Baptisme of infantes to be agreable vnto the Scriptures, and also vse it and put it in practise. VVherfore this errour lay a sleepe vntill this our age, before that in the yeare of our Lord. 1522. one Tho∣mas Munserus a phantasticall and a seditious man sowed first the seede of this heresie, whiche afterwarde multiplied and increased exceding∣ly, and infected the mindes of many men, beyng of an immoderate and in∣considerate zeale towarde God. Of the whiche heresie, one Melchior Rink, Baltha, Hoebmayer, and Michael Satelar were authors, vntill at the last in the yeare of our Lord. 1532. one Melchior Hofmannus a cour∣rier by craft, brought in this newe contagion, with other more errours into Germany, no lesse pernitious and hurtfull. VVhich errors one Vbbo borne in Friseland, and one Memno a Frisian also afterward much con∣firmed

& published. After y^e death of this Memno one Theodoricus Phi∣lippus tooke his parte, being a man of no lesse zeale then he was, of lyke eloquence, but of greater learning & knowledge: whiche certaine bookes set forth by him of late yeares, doo declare, in so much that it is to be la∣mented, that so good a witte, adourned with so many good dowries, did employ his study rather to establish an heresie, and to maintain scismes, then aduaunce and enlarge the true Churche. Although he be not so euill as some of the same secte be, and doth correct certain absurde and mon∣strous errours of theirs: The folowers of this Memno, to whom succeded Theodoricus, were for the most parte, all they whiche dwelling in the parts of Belgica, and the partes of the lower Germany, maintained this Anabaptisticall heresie. In whom a man may perceiue the argumentes and tokens of a godly mynde, whiche being sturred through a certayne blinde zeale, haue swarued from the true sense of the Scripture, rather through ignorāce, thē through malice, which thing may well appeare by this, that they did alwayes most earnestly resist the cōmotions & sturres of them of the Citie of Monasteir, and of the towne of Baten, who ende∣uoured to place a certayne new kind of the kingdome of Christ, by de∣stroying the wicked by externall force & power, teaching the true re∣storning and enlarging of the Church to consist onely in y^e crosse. VVher∣fore such as these be, may seme worthy rather of pitie and correction, then of persecution and vtter destruction. Vnto whom the saying of Saint Augustine disputing of the Manachies, may be wel applied, whose wordes are these: Although God subuerte and ouerthrow the errone∣ous and false kingdomes, he willeth notwithstāding the men thēselues, for so much as they are men, to be amended, rather then to be destroyed. VVhich thing also Saint Augustine affirmeth of the wicked Donatistes and the Rogatistes, saying: that they were like in this vnto the Iewes, whiche had a zeale towarde God, but not accordyng to knowledge, ex∣cept onely those, whiche with a frowarde minde did fight agaynste the truth, knowyng it to be the truth. VVhose impietie doth passe idolatrie, agaynst the whiche sinne there was a mortall punishement ordeined, but bycause a man cannot easely be conuicted of that crime, which lieth hid in the harte, therfore he iudgeth that all men rather ought with lenitie to be corrected, and no seueritie to be shewed, but onely vnto such as are vnquiet and troublesome, whom Saint Augustin notwithstandyng in an other place would haue rigorously punished by feare and the sworde of the Emperour. &c. VVel, I will spake more of the Anabaptistes, when I shall make aspeciall and proper lecture against their errours.

Notes

• * 1.1

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.2

  Moyses. 1.
• * 1.3

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Eccle •• 6: ca. 13 1 cap. 2. ••quitat.
• * 1.4

  Seth. 2.
• * 1.5

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 24
• * 1.6

  Cleophas. 3. Emaus. 4 Enoch. 5 Saba. 6. Tertullian 7: Arca. 8 Cataclism 9. Esdras. 10 Babilon. 11 Hebrewes. 12. Origenes 13.
• * 1.7

  ••de ha∣•• mulie cap. 1
• * 1.8

  4, hom,
• * 1.9

  Lib. ••••.
• * 1.10

  Beda. 14.
• * 1.11

  Iudas. 15. Apocrypha 16 Menander. 17
• * 1.12

  Tite cap•• Act. 17
• * 1.13

  Basili{us} Mag¦nus. 8.
• * 1.14

  In oratio•• ad nepo••••
• * 1.15

  Gene. ca, ••
• * 1.16

  Adam. 19 Enos. 20 Mathusalē. 21. Lamech. 22
• * 1.17

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.18

  Noe. 23 Sem. 24 Abraham 25 Isaac. 26 Iacob. 27.
• * 1.19

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 10
• * 1.20

  Egiptus. 28
• * 1.21

  Tables of stone .29.
• * 1.22

  Exod ••
• * 1.23

  Austen. 25 et •••• cap. 23
• * 1.24

  Mathe 24 ho••
• * 1.25

  2 The••
• * 1.26

  Angel, 30. Anabaptist 31.
• * 1.27

  Exod 3
• * 1.28

  1, pet. 2
• * 1.29

  Apoc. 1
• * 1.30

  Rom. 8
• * 1.31

  Psal. 38
• * 1.32

  1. Cor, 1••.
• * 1.33

  Ephe. 4
• * 1.34

  Iosue 14.
• * 1.35

  Gen. 5
• * 1.36

  Gen. 3.
• * 1.37

  Math. 27
• * 1.38

  Ephes. 5
• * 1.39

  2, Timo. 3.
• * 1.40

  Luk. 17.
• * 1.41

  Gen. 2.
• * 1.42

  Mat. 19
• * 1.43

  1. Cor. 6
• * 1.44

  Ephe. 5.
• * 1.45

  Cant. 6.
• * 1.46

  Gen. 3
• * 1.47

  Iohn 2.
• * 1.48

  Eze. 18
• * 1.49

  Esa. 5.
• * 1.50

  Gen. 5.
• * 1.51

  Gen. 12
• * 1.52

  Mala. 2. 1. Cor. 12. 2. Pet. 2. 1. Cor. 6. 2, Cor. 12.
• * 1.53

  Math. 22.
• * 1.54

  Heb. 1.
• * 1.55

  Coloss. 1
• * 1.56

  Math. 22.
• * 1.57

  H••b 2.
• * 1.58

  cap. 59.
• * 1.59

  Ioh ••5. Luk. 23. et. 16.
• * 1.60

  cap.
• * 1.61

  Math. 28.
• * 1.62

  Heb. 12.
• * 1.63

  cap. 58.
• * 1.64

  1. Thess. 4
• * 1.65

  psal. 18.
• * 1.66

  Lib. 2. cap. 17.
• * 1.67

  Actor. 7.
• * 1.68

  Cap. 6. Gene. 16.