Expository Notes on the Pentateuch, Exposition · Genesis · Chapter 5
Notes on the fifth Chapter.
Queſt. 1. verſ. 2.
It is ſaid, God created male and female, and Gen. 2. 5.bleſſed them, and called their name Adam; How is it then ſaid, That Adam called his wives name Eve?
Eve was the womans proper name, Adam was a name common to them both. Reſp.
Queſt. 2. verſe 3.
Why is it not ſaid that Adam begat Cain or Abel in his owne likeneſſe, as well as Seth?
The opinions of the Learned are divers concerning this expreſſion, he begat a ſonne Reſp. in his owne likeneſſe.
1. Some would have it expounded of the rational ſoul; as we may ſay of any other animal, that it begets a creature according to its likeneſſe, when a creature of its owne kinde is begotten, and brought forth.
But according to this expoſition, Adam begat Cain and Abel, after his own likeneſſe, as well as Seth: for who doubts but Cain and Abel were true men?
2. Some would have it expounded thus; he begat Seth in his own likeneſſe, viz. a good man like himſelfe, viz de imagine pietatis.
But if ſo, why was not this ſaid concerning Abel being a good man, as well as Seth?
3. Others therefore expound it rightly de privatione originalis juſtitiae, & corruptione mentis; He begat a ſonne in his own likeneſſe, viz a ſinfull man like himſelfe; Homo mortalis genuit mortalem, corruptus corruptum: A mortall man begat a mortall ſonne, a corrupt man begat a corrupt ſonne. God at firſt created man in his likeneſſe, but afterwards man fallen begets a ſonne in his own likeneſs, a ſinfull creature like himſelfe.
But this might be ſaid of Cain, and Abel, as well as Seth: Object.
It was not ſaid of Abel, becauſe he had no off-ſpring; and corruption was to run in Reſp. a blood We are all by nature the children of wrath. Nor of Cain, that it might appear, that the righteous ſeed are ſubject to originall depravation, and defilement, as well as others: Holy perſons do not beget children as Saints, and therefore their Saintſhip is not derived to their poſterity, but their ſin.
Queſt. 3. verſ. 3.
Whether the ſoul of man be generated by the Parents, or as the Learned phraſe it, An anima ſit ex traduce, vel per creationem?
This queſtion being full of perplexities, Reſp. I ſhall deliver my ſelfe in ſeverall Propoſitions:
1. Prop.
There is no creature the cauſe of it ſelfe, or the fountaine of its own being.
2. Prop.
That all effects, with reference to their cauſes, are not carried on after the ſame way or manner, v…z.
Some effects are produced by the concourſe of four cauſes, the efficient, materiall, formal, final; and thus are all corporeall ſubſtances.
Some by the concourſe of three cauſes; viz. efficient, material, and final: as for inſtance, formae accidentales, ut nigredo, & albedo, black and white produced by three cauſes. 1. The efficient who workes it. 2. An end propounded in the working of it. 3. Some ſubject matter on which it muſt be wrought.
And this we may obſerve, that theſe accidents depend rather on the material cauſe, then either efficient or finall: they depend on the efficient, and finall quoad fieri, as to their being, but on the material, both as to their being, and continuance in their being: white and black may continue Efficiente, & finali cauſâ ſublatis: When the efficient, and finall cauſe is removed; but this cannot be ſaid of the ſubject matter whereon it is wrought.
Another inſtance may be given in ſubſtantial formes, they (the ſoul of man being excepted) are produced by three cauſes, efficient, materiall, finall; and this we may obſerve, there is a great deale of difference between the ſoul of a man, and the ſoul of a beaſt, reſpectu materiae: the ſoul of a brute can neither exiſt, nor act, viz ſentire & appetere, ſine materia ſua, the ſoul of man is capable of both. Some effects againe are produced by two cauſes, efficient, and finall, thus are Angels, and rationall ſoules.
3. Prop.
That that phraſe, that the Learned make very much uſe of, viz. Eductio formae è potentia materiae, is applicable to the forme of a brute, but not to the forme, or ſoule of a man.
The forme of a brute could not have had its being, but vi paſſiva materià; but the forme or ſoul of a man, licèt in materiam inducitur, non tamen educitur è potentia materiae: God might (if he had pleaſed) have created rationall ſoules, and theſe might have lived, and acted to his praiſe without the concurrence; or aſſiſtance of any materiall ſubſtance whatſoever.
4. Prop.
That the Originall of formes is in profundo, very latent and Myſterious.
This was the reaſon, why the ancient Fathers differed ſo much in this point; Origen was of opinion that all ſoules were at firſt created together with the Angels; and afterwards put into bodies. Tertullian will have the ſoul ex traduce. Auguſtine leaveth this queſtion undecided, neither dares he determine any thing: An eminently elegant, and learned, moderne Auther, tells us, that in this we may, foreign, and that a modeſt heſitancy may be very lawfull here.
5. Prop.
That moſt of our Divines (with whom I humbly cloſe) are of opinion, that the ſoul of man is by creation, not by traduction, or generation; their reaſons are both rationall, and Scripturall. Rationall grounds are theſe.
If the ſoul be by propagation, it muſt Argu. 1 be one of theſe three wayes, vel per multiplicationem, vel per diviſionem ſubſtantiae ipſius animae, vel per generationem à ſemine aliquo: either by multiplication of the ſoul, or by diviſion of the ſubſtance of the ſoul, or prolificâ virtute ſeminis.
Not the firſt way; for,
This action of multiplication, it muſt either be a naturall, or a voluntary action; if it be a naturall action, and not voluntary, how can it be, that a rationall ſoul endowed with underſtanding and will, ſhould multiply it ſelfe, neither knowingly, nor willingly? If it be a voluntary action, then the cauſe of barrenneſſe will be ſeated in the will, becauſe the ſoul will not multiply it ſelfe: If this were a truth, few rich men but would have more, and few poore men that would have ſo many children: Quomodo in Adulteris ſequatur foetificatio, cùm eam maximè nollent?
Not the ſecond way, by diviſion of the ſubſtance of the ſoul; for why ſhould the rationall ſoul be rather diviſible then an Angel: when it is the common judgement of Philoſophers, That ſpirits are indiviſible, Omnis ſpiritus eſt foreign?.
Not the third way, Prolificâ virtute ſeminis, ſi in & cum ſemine gencretur anima, ſemen dici poterit ànimatum; ſi ità, annon anima rationalis erit mortalis, quia non ſempere ffuſo ſemine ſequitur prolificatio?
Nulla virtus activa agit ultra ſuum genus? Argu. 2 There is no agent can produce that which is of greater perfection, and of a more eeminent nature and kinde then it ſelfe; thus the ſoul exceeds the body, therefore nothing materiall or corporeall can produce the ſoul.
If it be objected, nothing materiall can produce ſuch an effect, by its own naturall power, or by the helpe and aſſiſtance of common providence, but by the ſpeciall hand, and power of God: it will a mount to as much as, this aſſertion, anima fit per creationem.
As the diſſolution, or corruption of the Arg. 3 body diſſolveth not the ſoul, neither doth the conſtitution or generation of the body give being to the ſoul: if the ſoul had its being from the body, it muſt decay with the body.
As the ſoul cannot be deſtroyed by any Argu. 4 materiall or phyſicall power, at leaſt by the aſſiſtance of common providence: ſo neither can it be produced thereby: what is the reaſon why all the force on earth cannot reach the ſoul? Becauſe it is of a ſpirituall ſubſtance: now it ſeemes to be as repugnant to right reaſon, for a ſpirituall ſubſtance to be produced by any thing materiall, as to be deſtroyed thereby: Eſpecially if you conſider it is farre eaſier to deſtroy, then it is to build up: there is no ſuch art required in demoliſhing, as there is in erecting of an edifice, thoſe things which are long, and difficulty compoſed, and framed, are ſuddenly extinguiſhed.
Scripturall grounds are theſe.
The creation of Adam and Eve, God's breathing into their face the breath of life, is a Argu. 1 good probable argument at leaſt.
If it be objected, that this proves nothing, becauſe it was neceſſary that the ſoules of Adam and Eve ſhould be by creation, when there was nothing pre-exiſtent, whereby they might be naturally propagated.
Anſwer may be made, that if any thing material had neceſſarily been required to the being of the ſoul of a man, as to the ſouls of brutes, then as the ſoules of other creatures were concreated in and with the matter of which they were made, in the like manner, in all reaſon ſhould God have dealt with the ſoules of men: but we finde it otherwiſe▪ after the body was made, and the matter prepared, then the ſoul is infuſed.
The ſoul of Jeſus Chriſt was created, Arg. 2 and he was in all things like unto us, ſin onelyonly excepted.
If it be objected, that this was extraordinary, that Chriſt might not be tainted with ſin.
We may anſwer, Non magis difficile erat Spiritui ſancto ſemen Joſephi, quám virginis ab omni vitio purgare, &c.
I ſuppoſe Chriſt was borne after an extraordinary way, rather upon the account of the malediction, that was pronounced againſt our firſt parents, in caſe of eating the forbidden fruit, that in the day they did eat thereof; they ſhould die the death, Then upon the account of generation.
Eccleſiaſtes 12.7. Then ſhall the duſt returne Argu. 3 to the earth whence it was, and the ſpirit ſhall returne unto God who gave it: where you have the eſſentiall parts of man, his body, and his ſoul compared one with another. The body that was compacted of duſt, and it returnes to the duſt from whence it was; the ſoul created by God, and that returnes to God that gave it. When the Spirit of God ſpeakes of the body, he makes mention of the materiall cauſe; but when of the ſoul, onelyonly of the efficient: and the word gave it is emp…haticall, and ſpoken by way of eminency, for God gave the body, as well as the ſoule.
Heb. 11.9. Furthermore, we have had fathers of our fleſh, which corrected us, and we Argu. 4 gave them reverence; ſhall we not much rather be in ſubjection to the Father of ſpirits? It appeares by the Antitheſis the Spirit of God makes between fathers of fleſh, and Father of ſpirits, that we receive our body from our parents, but our ſoul from God, he is the Father of ſpirits.
Now marke, how the Apoſtle argues, If to thoſe from whom we receive our worſer part, we give reverence, haw much rather ſhould we be in ſubjection to the Father of ſpirits?
It is worthy our conſideration, that God by a peculiar title, is called the Father of ſpirits: and herein he is oppoſed to the fathers of the fleſh. Now if the ſoul be by traduction, thoſe that are the fathers of the fleſh would alſo be the fathers of the ſpirits, neither would God by this title be diſtinguiſhed from others.
The Objections made againſt this aſſertion are ſuch as theſe.
Gen. 2. 2. On the ſeventh day God ended his worke which he had made, and he reſted on Obje. 1 the ſeventh day from all his work which he had made. This Scripture muſt be underſtood of the workes of creation, therefore the ſoules of men, and women are not now created.
God after the ſixth day ceaſed from the Reſp. creation of new ſpecies, not from the creation of new individuals: Now the rationall ſoules that are now created by God, non ſpecie, ſed numero differunt, differ not in kinde, but in number from the ſoule of Adam, which was at firſt created. Though God ceaſed from the work of creation in regard of ſpecies, yet not in regard of individuals.
Gen. 46.26. All the ſoules that came with Obje. 2 Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loynes beſides Jacobs ſons wives, all the ſoules were threeſcore and ſix: ſoules coming out of Jacobs loines, is the ſame with this, that the ſoul of man is by generation.
The ſoul here is put by a ſynecdoche, for Reſp. the totum compoſitum, for the whole man. Now though the ſoul may not be ſaid to be generated, yet the totum compoſitum, or the man may, as hereafter ſhall be demonſtrated.
If the ſoul of man be not produced by generation, then man is in a worſe condition Obje. 3 then a plant, or a brute, which can and do beget ſoules ſuitable to their kinde, viz. animam vegetativam, & ſenſitivam.
Man is in a better condition then a brute, even in regard of generation, becauſe by Reſp. that very act, Nobiliſſima forma unitur cum materia.
That which is urged advances the condition of man, and not lowers or debaſes it; we may obſerve the leſſe uſe God makes of ſecond cauſes in the carrying on of any work, the more excellent that work is, viz. Adam and Eve exceeded their poſterity in ſoul and bodily perfections: the body of Chriſt, that was formed in an extraordinary way by the Spirit of God, was of a finer make, and a more excellent compoſure then the body of any man or woman in the world, and this may be the reaſon which made his torments on the croſs exquiſitely painfull.
It is true, we read of ſome, that were rolled in barrells ſtuck with nayles, and of others, whoſe fleſh was plucked off with hot iron pinchers, and of others that have been broyled on a Gridiron; their deaths might be more harſh, and ſevere in themſelves conſidered, then the death of Chriſt, and yet Chriſt might ſuffer as much, or more bodily paine, then they: According to the rules of Philoſophy we ſay, That the nature, and quality, and meaſure of paines, muſt be taken not ſo much from the force or violence of the agent, as from the condition and temper of the patient; the fire hath not the ſame operation upon Gold, as it hath upon Lead. The lead ſuffers a great deale more from the fire, then the gold. If a man ſhould deale blowes with an even hand, on a ſound body and on a ſickly crazy body, their pain would be, unequal, though the blowes were equall: now to our purpoſe, without queſtion, the body of Chriſt was ſoft, and tender. Ariſtotle hath this rule, Quò complexio nobilior, menſque dexterior, eò mollior, ac tenerior ſolet eſie caro: The more noble the complexion, and the more dextrous the mind, the more ſoft, and tender the body: The body of Chriſt was of a moſt excellent temperament: Quae fiunt per miraculum excellentiora ſunt, quám quae fiunt per naturam; Thoſe things that are done by miracle, are more excellent, then thoſe things that are done by naturall cauſes; viz. the wine that Chriſt made at a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the body of Chriſt.
If God creates the ſoul of all thoſe, that are Object. begotten then he concurres with whoremongers, and adulterers in the act of generation: Nam fornicariis, & adulterinis conceptibus animas creat, & largitur, quod videtur abſurdum.
A learned Author anſwers a like caſe to Reſp. this elegantly, God is not the author of ſin, and yet there is concurrence of divine providence about ſinon: there is a concurrence of God to a ſinfull action, yet not to the ſinfulnes of an action; to the action, though not to the action as ſinful; To lift a hand up againſt a child of God for righteouſneſſe ſake, is a ſinfull action, yet a man could not do it without the common aſſiſtance of Gods providence; for in him we live, and move, and have our being; the ſtrength of a wicked mans hand, while he ſins is from the Lord, yet the Lord doth not ſtrengthen his hand to ſin. The ſinner hath naturall help from God, but he hath not morall help from God: ſuppoſe a Muſician ſhould touch, or play upon a Lute, that is out of tune, his touching the Lute is an artificiall act; but the ſounding of it, comes from the nature of the inſtrument; the ſound ſimply conſidered is from the hand of him that playes upon it; but that it ſounds, untuneably is becauſe it is out of tune. The Lord by naturall aſſiſtance puts the hearts and hands of wicked men into motion, but that they move irregularly, that they make ſuch harſh muſick, that there is ſuch diſcord in their actions, is from the diſorder, and untunableneſſe of their own ſpirits. To eat was a naturall act in our firſt parents, this was from God, but to eat againſt the command, was a morall act, and this was from man; ſo in this caſe, to beget children is a naturall act, and this is from God, but to act the adulterer or fornicatour in it; is a ſinful act, and this is from man.
Quest. 4. verſ. 3.
How it can be ſaid, that Adam begat a ſon in his likeneſſe, anim a hominis est homo, the ſoul of a man is the man, and therefore if the ſoul be not generated, how can the man be ſaid to be generated?
To this queſtion learned men anſwer ſeverall Reſp. wayes.
1. Some ſay, one man may be ſaid to beget another quia in generatione ſuppedit at materiam ex qua fit homo, but this cannot conſiſt with Principles of Reaſon: For,
1. Then it would follow, that the body of man was onelyonly generated, and not the man
2. It is one thing to afford a Carver matter of which he may make a ſtatue, and another thing to frame it.
3. To beget a man, is tribuere foreign eſſe homini, To give being to a man; now a man doth not conſiſt of ſoule alone, or body alone, but of body, and ſoul united.
2. Others ſay, one man may be ſaid to beget another, becauſe the vegetative and ſenſitive powers of the ſoule are from man, though the intellectual be from God.
But this neither doth not ſavour like Reſp. truth, becauſe according to this opinion one man could not be ſaid to beget another, ſed hoc vivens, et hoc animal.
3. Others more probably ſay that one man may be ſaid to beget another, though the ſoule be created by God, quia ab homine generante ſit ipſa actio, quâ anima rationalis ſubſtantialiter corpori unitur. Becauſe in generation, the rationall ſoule is ſubſtantially united to the body. Quid enim eſt aliud producere hominem, quàm efficere ut exiſtat homo, ſeu ens conſtans exanima, et corpore.
Res eſt per formam. Object.
Eſt per formam potiùs quàm per materiam. Reſp.
But if God create the ſoule, and infuſe it Object. into the body, the uniting of ſoule and body is rather to be attributed to God then to man.
When God infuſes the ſoule into the Reſp. body, the ſoule (I meane ſo far as concerns that art) is united to the body, non ſubſtantialiter, ſed localiter. It is not to be denied, but in the ſame inſtant, wherein the ſoule is locally preſent with the body, it is ſubſtantially united to the body: yet theſe two differ one from the other: an Angell, when it aſſumes a body, is locally preſent with that body it aſſumes, and yet is not ſubſtantially united to it, ut forma materiae, ſo as to be a part of the Angel, as the ſoul is a part of man.
Queſt. 5. verſe 3.
Whether this Doctrine of the creation of the ſoul, may conſiſt with the doctrine of Originall ſin?
Affirmatively we may anſwer, as I ſuppoſe, Reſp. ſafely, though this was that which made Auguſtine to demurre about it: He was very enclinable to the doctrine of the ſoules creation, if it could conſiſt with Original guilt.
The main Objection againſt the doctrine Obje. 1 of the ſoules creation with reference to Original ſin, is this.
If the ſoul of man be by creation, it is either created pure or impure.
Not impure, for ſo God would be the author of ſin.
Not pure, for then it will follow, that it either remaines pure after its union with the body, which nullifies the doctrine of Originall ſin, or elſe that the ſoul may be infected by the body, corpore infici poſſe ſpiritum, which is equally abſurd.
That conſequence is to be denyed, viz. Reſp. 1 if the ſoul of man be by creation, it is created impure, and it is like ſuch a conſequence as this, If God creates the ſoul, creat riſibilem, he creates it in a capacity to laugh: Now a weak eye will ſee the abſurdity of ſuch a conſequence, becauſe riſibility is competible to the whole man conſiſting of body and ſoul; in like manner, Originall defilement is not competible to the ſoul any otherwiſe, then as it is united to the body, and is altera pars conſtituens compoſi…um.
So then, though the ſoul be created by God, and that it be tainted with ſin, immediately after its creation, and infuſion into the body, yet it will not follow God created an impure ſoul; for,
1. The ſoul as created by God, is free from ſinfull defilement.
2. The ſoul immediately upon its union with the body, is corrupted, and infected.
3. That this corruption and defilement, (ſo farre as concernes the creation of the ſoul, is per accidens) though in regard of Gods ordination it admits of another conſideration.
4. That which is competible to the creature per accidens, conſidered as a ſin of Adam, and not as a creature, cannot be charged upon the Creator under that notion conſidered; becauſe this is a perplexed caſe, I ſhall endeavour to illuſtrate it.
A Parent runs in debt, he dies the debt, by the Lawes and conſtitutions of this Nation; is tranſmitted to the heire now though God may be ſaid to be the Creator of the ſoul of the debtor, yet not in the leaſt the author of the debt, becauſe this man is indebted per accidens, and by vertue of his parents not by vertue of Gods creation.
That conſequence is to be taken into conſideration, if the ſoul be created by God, then it is infected by the body, and then we muſt affirme, corpore infici poſſe ſpiritum, which is an abſurdity; for,
1. Though the truth of this axiome be taken for granted, that Corpus non poteſt agere in ſpiritum, yet I conceive we may demurre to it.
For though it ſhould be aſſented unto, that this could not be done by the power of nature, yet it may be done by the efficacy and power of divine ordination.
Eſpecially if we conſider, what a ſtrict union there is between the ſoul and the body, and that according to the various diſpoſition, and affecton of the body, the ſoul alſo is variouſly affected, and diſpoſed: We finde by experience, that children reſemble their parents not onelyonly in their countenance, and the outward lineaments of their body, but in their manners, and inward habiliments of their mind.
We finde, that the ſoul in a great meaſure followes the temper of the body, and that the ſpirits, humors, organs of the body being vitiated and diſordered, there followes upon this frenzy, Melancholy, paſſion, and the like.
The Learned ſay, Potentia materiae eſt duplex.
1. Naturalis, quae educibilis eſt in actum vi alicujus agentis naturalis: There is a naturall power in that which that materiall or corporeall which is educible into act, by vertue of a naturall agent; that is to ſay, wood hath a naturall power to receive heat, viz. vi naturalis agentis ſcilicet ignis.
2. Obedientialis, an obediential power, which is educible into act by vertue of a ſuperior agent; this wood or ſtone hath an obediential power to be formed into aſtatue, for this is not effected by a natural agent (which doth neceſſariò agere; but by vertue of an Artiſt: ſuch a power alſo hath the ſoul to receive ſpiritual gifts, the ſupernatural gifts of the Spirit, as faith, hope, &c.
We ſay the work of converſion is poſſibile naturae, though impoſſibile naturâ; poſſible to nature, though impoſſible to be wrought by a natural power. Obediential power of a ſubject to receive a new form, puts not any cauſall power in the thing or matter to be changed, all ſuch power is without, viz. in the efficient: there is onelyonly a power of reception in the thing or matter, not a power of cauſality.
Now we may take into conſideration whether vi ſuperioris agentis, corpus may not agere in ſpiritum.
To this, I might adde the conſideration of the fire of hell (which, for ought I can learne, may be material, and yet can t…rment ſpirits) as calor naturalis hath two properties, 1. Calefacere, to make warme, and this it acts of it ſelfe. 2. Alimentum in debitas partes diſtribuere, To convey nouriſhment into the ſeverall parts of the body, and this it acts as an inſtrument of the ſoule; ſo Helfire may be conſidered in its ſelfe, and ſo it burnes bodies, or as an inſtrument of divine wrath, and ſo it torments ſpirits.
2. Be it granted, that the ſoule is created pure by God, and that it cannot be tainted by the body, yet it may be polluted ratione ſuppoſiti, by Gods ordination, and appointment, as it is the ſoul of a man, ſon and heir of corrupt Adam.
If you aske me, Suppoſing this be taken for granted, that we are defiled upon the account of divine ordination, as a puniſhment inflicted by God on man, for his apoſtaſie, by what inſtrument or ſecond cauſe, this is effected, or brought to paſſe.
I anſwer, that as there is nothing more ſecret then the forming of the child in the wombe, the union of the ſoul with the body, and the manner how it is united thereunto: ſo this alſo muſt needs be a ſecret, by he mediation of what inſtrument, or ſecond cauſe man comes to be defiled.
There are alſo other Objections urged againſt the doctrine of the creation of the ſoul.
It ſeems not to ſuit with the juſtice, and Obj. 2 goodneſſe of God, to ſhut up a pure, and innocent ſoul into a ſtincking priſon, and to thruſt it as it were into abridewell, that it might be corrupted there.
The conſequence is to be deny'd, for he Reſp. 1 may be ſaid to act unjuſtly, that acts contrary to what he is bound to do according to principles of juſtice: but God is not bound to infuſe the ſoules of the ſonnes of Adam, who ſinned in Adam, and merited thereby eternall death into pure bodies: But rather the contrary, according to the curſe, In the day thou eateſt thereof, thou ſhalt dye the death.
We ſay that God doth infuſe a pure ſoul into an impure body, as the phraſe may vulgarly be taken, for that would imply that our ſouls, before they were united to our bodies, were pure, which ſuits not with our principles formerly mentioned.
Cauſa cauſae, eſt etiam cauſa cauſat…: Obj. 3 The cauſe of the cauſe is alſo the cauſe of that which is cauſed by that cauſe, viz. if God be the cauſe of the union of the ſoul with the body, therefore he is the cauſe of that ſinne that is occaſioned by that union.
This rule is to be underſtood de cauſis Reſp. perſe, not de cauſis per accidens, viz. God is the cauſe of his divine Law, the Law is the cauſe of ſinne per accidens: as the Apoſtle, I was alive without the Law once; but when the Commandment came, ſin revived, and I Rom. 8.9.died. Yet no man will from thence conclude, that God was the cauſe of ſin.
How can Originall ſin be propagated, Obj. 4 and not the ſoul? Non poteſt accidens traduci ſine ſubjecto.
Accidents do frequently tranſire à ſubjecto Reſp. 1 in ſubjectum, non tranſeunte ſubjecto, as for inſtance, hereſie is propaged in theſe dayes, and derived from one to another, but ſo is not the ſoul which is the ſubject of theſe errours.
The ſame numericall accident, cannot tranſire à ſubjecto in ſubjectum; but ſo may the ſame in kind, as appeares in the former inſtance.
Queſt. 5. verſ. 4.
According to what ſpace of time, the yeares of the Patriarchs were meaſured?
The great age of the Patriarchs hath Reſp. enclined ſome to believe, that their yeares did not containe the ſame ſpace of time, with thoſe after the flood, and with ours to this day.
Indeed we read of two periods of time eſpecially, by the ancients called yeares.
1. There was annus ſolaris, or that which they called their ſolar yeare: which was the ſame with ours, and contained. 12. moneths: Now this yeare was called ſolaris, becauſe it was meaſured by the Suns paſſing through the Zodiack.
2. There was annus lunaris, or that which they call their lunar yeares: the ſame with our monethmonth or thereabouts: now this was called Lunaris, becauſe it is meaſured by the Moons paſſing through the Zodiack.
Some think that the yeares of the Patriarchs were Lunar yeares, The dayes of Adam were eight hundred yeares, that is, ſay Gen. 5.4.they, eight hundred moneths, &c.
Now this cannot in any caſe be allowed, for theſe reaſons.
1. Enoch begat children at 65. yeares of age, verſe 21. of this Chapter; now how could this be, if he lived but ſo many moneths?
2. Metheuſelah lived 969 yeares, but if you caſt up theſe by moneths, you will find that in our dayes, ſome might be ſaid to live longer then Methuſelah.
3. Abraham is ſaid to live 175. yeares, Gen. 25.7. and in the next verſe it is ſaid that Abraham gave up the ghoſt, and died in a good old age, an old man and full of yeares. How could this alſo be ſaid, if he lived but ſo many moneths?.
Quest. 6. verſe 4.
Whether in any ſenſe it may be ſaid, that Adam was the longeſt liver amongſt the Patriarchs?
Affir. Vritually, though not formally, Adam Reſp. was created in a perfect ſtate of body, apt for generation, which probably then was not under 60 yeares; for none of the Patriarchs begat children under that age: Now adde 60 yeares unto the time that Adam lived, and you will finde he lived longer then Methuſelah.
Queſt. 7. verſ. 4.
What account may be given of the long lives of the Patriarchs?
For the right underſtanding of this conſider, Reſp.
1. That ſince Moſes time, who was borne in the yeare of the world 2434. when the world was well peopled, and neceſſary ſciences depending upon obſervation perfected, the length of mans age hath little or nothing abated, as appeares by that famous teſtimony of Moſes himſelfe, Pſal. 90. 10.
2. That in all times ſince Moſes we ſhall finde ſome that have exceeded the number of yeares, accounted the utmoſt period of mans life; as Joſhua, Chap. 24.29.
3. That reaſons both naturall and morall are given by the learned, why the Patriarchs lived, by many yeares, longer then thoſe who ſucceeded them in after-ages, viz.
The firſt reaſon is, the feeding of the infant with the milk of a ſtrange breſt.
Now becauſe this is growne into faſhion in theſe licentious, and corrupt dayes, and unnaturall curioſity hath taught all women but the beggar, to finde out nurſes for their children, which onelyonly neceſſity ſhould allow: let it not ſeeme a digreſſion if I propound ſome Queries concerning this practice.
1. Quaere.
Whether God hath not given breſts to women, for this very end, and purpoſe that they might feed, and nouriſh their children?
2. Quaere.
Whether this be not clearly demonſtrated, by the milk flowing into the breaſts immediately after the child is borne, and a great part of the parents meat being converted into that ſubſtance?
3. Quaere.
Whether putting out of children to nurſe, be not the occaſion of unnaturall affection, both in the Mother to the child, and the child to the Mother.
4. Quaere.
Whether God hath not taught us by his diſpenſations to other creatures that the Mothers milke, is moſt kindly and naturall to the child; we ſee other things are nouriſhed by the ſame of which they are bred: the earth yields plants and nouriſhes them, the trees bring forth fruit, and yield ſap unto them: and the ſame alſo may be ſaid of Brutes.
5. Quaere.
Whether ſuch children as are nurſed by the mother do not uſually thrive beſt?
6. Quaere.
Whether parents that might have nurſed their owne children and will not, be not acceſſory to the death of thoſe that are caſt away by the nurſes negligence?
7. Quaere.
Whether this may not be a great cauſe of bodily diſtempers in the parents, the drawing of the breſt, (if moderation be obſerved) having a rationall tendency toward the preſervation of Health?
8. Quaere.
Whether ſtrange milke may not be a cauſe of diſtempers in the childe: for as Contraria contrariis curantur, ſo ſimilia ſimilibus alunter, and whether the blood which was firſt the fabricator, ſhould not be the altor when turned into milk?
9. Quaere
Whether the milke of the nurſe hath not a great influence upon the body of the child? The learned tell us, that take a kid, and let it ſuck an ewe, the hair of it will become like unto wool: and take a Lambe and let it ſuck a goat, the wool of it will become like goats haire we our ſelves finde a difference in the fleſh of creatures according to the courſeneſſe, or fineneſſe of that food with which they are brought up.
10. Quaere.
Whether the ſoul following in ſome meaſure the temper of the body, the milke of the nurſe may not have ſome influence upon the manners, and diſpoſition of the child? Some give us this reaſon, why Tiberius caeſar was a drunkard, becauſe he ſucked a drunken nurſe: and whether in this the parents may not be the occaſion of the drunkenneſſe and exceſſes of their children?
11. Quaere.
Whether when God pronounces it, as a curſe to have dry breſts, it be not an unworthy piece of ingratitude, for parenrs, when God gives them nouriſhment for their child, not to account it worthy of their acceptance? And whether to turne the back upon any courteſy, would not be accounted a piece of incivility among the Heathens themſelves in their dealings one with another?
12. Quere.
Whether when God provides proper nouriſhment for a child to be miniſtred by the breſt of the parent, and refuſed, this act doth not interpretatively charge God with folly; and whether in ſuch a caſe the parent doth not ſet up his, or her wiſdome above Gods?
13. Quaere.
Whether Sarah might not have pleaded as much and more, then the Gallants of our age, for putting out her child to nurſe, being the wife of an honourable perſon, and of a great age?
14. Quaere.
Whether although we read of nurſes in the Scripture, it can be made out, that any good woman put forth her child, when ſhe was able to nurſe it her ſelf?
A ſecond reaſon, why our lives are ſhortened in regard of our anceſtours, is haſty marriages: while nature is yet greene, and growing, we rent from her, and replant her branches, while her ſelfe hath not yet any root ſufficient to maintaine her own top.
The uſe of much phyſick, and little exerciſe,
The preſſing of nature with weighty burdens, and when we finde her ſtrength defective, the help of ſtrong waters, hot ſpices, and provoking ſawces, which ordinarily uſed impaires our health, and ſhortens our dayes That which may for the preſent cheare, and exhilarate the ſpirits, may be an enemy to long life. Hence it is, that the Highlanders in Scotland, and the wild Iriſh commonly live longer then thoſe of a ſofter education, and more tender bringing up. Seneca, Multos morbos multa fercula fecerunt; Variety of dainty diſhes hath bred variety of diſeaſes: A man may die wirh cordials, and fire nature out of its place.
Beſides this which hath been ſaid, I ſuppoſe there may be two main reaſons given of the long lives of the Patriarchs.
1. Propagation of poſterety.
2. Promotion of piety; for at that time the Church having not the Scriptures, but being guided by extraordinary revelations from God, leſt the worſhip of God might be brought into contempt, by poſterity, the lives of Holy men were of long continuance, which might be an expedient to enforce religion on thoſe who ſucceeded.
Let the conſideration of the frailty of our bodies teach us to conſult for the good of our immortall ſoules. We may obſerve many times it ſo falles out, that our rational life is beſt, when our vegetative is worſt; and, we begin to grow in wiſdome, when we ceaſe to grow in ſtrength. As it is with the rationall life, ſo it ſhould be with the ſpirituall: when the life of the fleſh is ready to dye, the ſpiritual life ſhould have ſo much the more ſpirit, and vigour.
Queſt. 8. V. 24.
It is ſaid in this verſe, that Enoch was not, for God tooke him: now the queſtion here may be, whether Enoch was tranſlated in ſoule and body, or whether in ſoule only &c?
Some thinke that Enoch was tranſlated Reſp. in ſoule only, and not in body; and they ſay, he died in the tranſlation, ſo as his ſoule only was taken up to heaven, and his body ſlept in the earth.
I ſhall propound their arguments, and give you the anſwers rendered thereunto.
No mortall body unglorified can enter Argu. 1 into heaven: But there is no mention of his glorification Ergo.
It is a ſlender kinde of arguing, to ſay, that Reſp. 1 a thing is not ſcriptural, becauſe it is not expreſſely mentioned in the Scripture.
The glorification of his body is plainly implied, though not expreſſed; for it is ſaid, he was tranſlated, that he ſhould not ſee death.Heb. 11.5.
Now if his body ſaw not death, it was made immortall, which is a ſpeciall part of glorification.
If the bodies of Enoch and Elias were tranſlated Argu. 2 into heaven, then it will follow that ſome aſcended into heaven, before Chriſt aſcended thither: But this ſeemes not to be allowed; for heaven to us (as Paradiſe to Adam) was ſhut up, till Chriſt opened it by hsme rits.
We readily grant, that the opening of Reſp. 1 heaven, the celeſtiall Paradiſe, is to be aſcribed to the merits of Chriſt.
We confidently deny, that heaven was then only opened, when Chriſt actually ſuffered or aſcended up into heaven: and we cannot but peremptorily aſſert, that the force, and efficacy of the merits of Chriſt extended to Old Teſtament-Saints, long before Chriſts coming in the fleſh; for the Lord Jeſus was a Lambe ſlain from the foundation of the world; Chriſt the ſame yeſterday, to day, and for ever; and our Fathers under Old Teſtament-diſpenſations, ate the ſame ſpiritual meat, and drank the ſame ſpiritual drink, as we do under the Goſpel, viz. the body of Chriſt crucified, and his blood ſhed for the remiſſion of ſinnes: and theſe things though they were future to hope, yet they were preſent to faith, which is the Subſtance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not ſeene.
From, Joh. 3.13. And no man hath aſcended Arg. 3 up to heaven but he that came downe from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven. By which words (ſay ſome) is ſignified that no man bodily aſcended into heaven, untill the time of Chriſts aſcenſion.
This place is to be expounded Metaphorically: Reſp. No man hath aſcended into heaven, ſo as to know the ſecrets of the Almighty, and to lie in the boſome of the Father, but onelyonly Chriſt; and indeed the context gives great light to this Expoſition; for the Lord Jeſus would by this convince Nicodemus, that he was more able to teach him heavenly myſteries, then all the Doctors among the Jewes: as you may perceive, by verſ. 11. and 12. Verily I ſay unto thee, We ſpeak that we do know, and …eſtifie that we have ſeen…, &c. And beſides, Prov. 30. 4. Aſcending up into heaven is made all one with the knowing of holy things.
From, Heb. 6.20. Where Chriſt is called Arg. 4 the forerunner. And Chriſt ſaith, John 14. I go to prepare a place for you. Therefore before Chriſts death, and aſcenſion a place was not prepared.
Chriſt might be called a forerunner Reſp. 1 in reſpect of thoſe who died after his aſcenſion.
Chriſt might be called the forerunner of his Saints under the Old Teſtament, in regard of the effi…acy of his merits.
That a place was prepared for Old Teſtament-Saints by Chriſt, but with reſpect to his future ſufferings, and merits, and therefore though a place might be ſaid to be prepared for Enoch, and Elias, yet it was neceſſary Chriſt ſhould die, and Chriſt ſhould aſcend.
From, Col. 1.15. where Chriſt is called Arg. 5 the firſt-borne of every creature; and, verſe 18. in all things to have the preeminence; and, Rom. 8.29. he is called the firſt-born among many brethren.
The primogeniture of Chriſt doth not Reſp. conſiſt in this, that no man, either in regard of body or ſoul, or both, aſcended into heaven before Chriſts coming in the fleſh; but in this, that no man hath, nor ſhall ever come thither, but by the vertue, and efficacy of his merits; As Chriſt is called the firſt-fruits of them that ſleep, not becauſe none aroſe 1 Cor. 15. …0.before Jeſus Chriſt, but becauſe he alone aroſe by his owne power, and is the cauſe of the reſurrection of all thoſe that have or ſhall ariſe unto glory: ſ… here, Chriſt alone aſcended into heaven by his owne power, and is the cauſe of the aſcenſion of his people unto glory.
To whom be glory for ever, Amen.
foreign,
FINIS