AN EXPOSITION ON THE FOVRTEENE first Chapters of GENESIS, by way of Question and Answere.

COLECTED OVT OF Ancient and Recent Writers: Both briefely and subtilly▪propounded and Expounded.

BY ABRAHAM ROSSE of Aberden, Preacher at St. MARIES neere South-Hampton, and one of his Maiesties Chaplaines.


Printed by B. A. and T. F. for Anth: Vpphill, and are to be sold at the White-Lyon▪ in Pauls Church-yard. 1626.

TO THE RIGHT Honourable, FRANCIS, Lord VERVLAM, Lord high Chauncellor of ENGLAND, &c.

In this Vniuerse (Right Hon:)

THere are only two things that are the objects both of Contemplation and of Admiration, that is, the Creator, & the creature: amongst the Creatures onely two, An­gels and Men; in Man only two parts; the body and soule; in the soule, onely two faculties, the minde and the will; [...] the minde, two things onely; GOD [...] his word: the Word of God is two­fold; [Page] internall and externall: the exter­nall word is two-fold; spoken and writ­ten: the written word hath two parts; the old, and new Testament; the old containeth two, Moses and the Pro­phets; and Moses speaketh of these two we formerly mentioned, which onely are the obiects of our contemplations; euen the Creator, and the creature: the Creator we know via negationis, emi­nentiae, & causalitatis? but we know the creatures, if they be sensible, Cognitione sensitiua? if not, intellectiua: but proper­ly in this life we know not God, in re­gard of his Essence, (for how shall we know him, of whome there can not be framed either Species intelligibiles or sensibiles, seeing that knowledge is per­species;) yet in part we know him, in re­gard we haue some knowledge of his personall and essentiall properties, of his effects and operations.

Which knowledge is but small, be­cause our finite science cannot compre­hend [Page] that infinite Essence. For if a shell cannot contain the Sea, which is a crea­ture; much lesse can our soules him, that is our Creator. The cause then why the Owle can not behold the Sunne, is in the eies of the Owle, not in the Sunne: so, that we cannot know God perfectly is not in God, who is most perfect, but in vs that are imperfect? & quidquid re­cipitur, recipitur admodum recipientis, non ad modum recepti. Then our knowledge is so weake, that wee neither know the first effector, whose essence is most ex­cellent; neither his first effect (I meane the first matter) whose existence is most impotent.

Yet a more eminent knowledge of our Maker haue wee than the Pagans, who only know him by his works, but we by his words: they by contempla­tion; we by inspiration: they by sens­lesse Images, we by his essentiall Image: they by painted and carued stones; we by that stone which the builders did re­fuse, [Page] which became the head of the cor­ner, which was cut out of the moun­taine without hands, which brake all [...]heir Images to powder, vpon which are seuen eies, euen that tried and pre­cious stone, that was laid in Sion: by him (I say) in whome the God-head dwels bodily, in whome are hid al the treasures of wisdome and know ledge, haue we the knowledge of our Creator; with­out whom, our science is but igno­rance, and our meditations, vexations.

This is that internal word, [...], by whome, and by whose spirit was spo­ken and written this externell word contained in the Scripture, [...], in the which word, the Creator and the creature is only to be knowne, not only in all, but in euery part thereof, no lesse than the soule is all, in all the body, and all in euery part of the same: so is know­ledge in this word. Now this externall word differeth from Christ the internal word of the Father, as in vs the word, [Page] which is in our mind, doth differ from that, which is in our mouth and bookes: our internall speech and reason, is ge­nerated in the soule, and of the soule, and is coetaneall with the soule: so is Christ begotten in the Father, and of the Father, ard is coeternall with the Father; but the word that is in out mouth and books, is accidental, and the effect of our internall word; so is that word, which is in the Scripture, and in the mouth of Christs seruants acciden­tall, and the effect of Christ the inter­nall word of the Father; who is both ratio & oratio patris, for [...] is both our soules, cognitione directa, doe vnder­stand many things that are without the soule, but cognitione reflexa, she vnder­standeth her selfe, and then, idem est in­telligens & id quod intelligitur; so God doth know all his creatures, which are but his effects: but in vnderstanding himselfe from all eternitie, he doth be­get that knowledge of himselfe, and in [Page] himselfe, which is himselfe, euen Christ▪ his owne wisedome and knowledge.

Yet there is great relation betweene Christ, Gods internall Word, and the Scripture, his external word, for as none knoweth the Father but by the Sonne, his word internall; so none knoweth the Father & the Son, but by the Scripture, his Word externall. As the internall word was, Principium essendi, the be­ginning of the creatures; so the exter­nall is Principium cognoscendi, the be­ginning of knowledge. As nothing did exist before the word internall, so no­thing was spoken before the word ex­ternall. As by the internall Word the world was created: so by the externall word the world is instructed. As that word was conceiued of the holy Ghost: so this word was inspired by the holy Ghost. As that word was persecuted by the Iewes, and crucified by the Roman Pilate: so this word hath beene falsified by the Iewes, and wounded by the Ro­man [Page] Prelate. As it was held vnlawful for the People to cōuerse with that Word [...] so it was held vnlawfull, for the Lay people to conuerse with this word. As the Iewes did more regard their tradi­tions than that word; so the Romans doe more regard their vnwritten lies, than this Word. As that Word was bu­ [...]ied in a garden▪ and kept sure from his Disciples: so was this word buried in an vnknowne tongue, and kept close from Christians: & as this word, in despite of the Iewes▪ was restored to life; so this word, in dispite of the Popes, is brought [...]orth againe to light.

This is that word, the Author, obiect, subiect, end, and ground whereof, is God, for verity admirable; for antiquity [...]enerable; for sanctity incomparable; for [...]tility inestimable: here is light for the [...]lind, life for the dead, food for the [...]ungry, drinke for the thirsty: here is the [...]ee of life, the fountaines of liuing wa­ [...]rs, Manna the food of Angels, pearles [Page] and other rich Iewels; here is a banquet of many dishes; an Apothecaries shop with many medicines; a sweet garden▪ of many flowres; an Armour-house with many weapons; here is salt to season, milke to strengthen, wine to comfort, and hony to sweeten; here the cold may be warmed, the weary refreshed, the na­ked clothed, and the filthy clensed. If thou desirest light and perfection, here is V [...]im aud Thummim; if the sight of thy sins, here is the golden candle sticke, if thou wilt wash thy handes and feete, here is the brazen lauer? wilt thou bee Purged from they Leprosie? here is the riuer Iordan; wilt thou florish▪like a Bay tree? thou must be planted by this riue [...] ▪ wilt thou bring forth much fruite? thou must be sowne with this seed; wilt thou sacrifice thy sins to God? thou must kill them with this sword; wilt thou goe to the kingdome of heauen? this is the on­ly way; here is the fiery Pillar and the [Page] cloud to conduct thee to Canaan; and [...]ere is the Star that will leade the to find out the Son of righteousnesse, Iesus Christ that bright morning Starte, with whome we shall shine in eternity of glo­ry, as Stars in the firmament.

In this word then must we conucrse both day and night, not in curious [...]earching, and prodigious speculation; but in serious weeping, and religious a­ [...]oration; neither must our minds be op­ [...]ressed with terrestriall and infernal oc­cupations: but they must be filled with [...]elestall and supernall meditations. Therefore if we will profit here, we must last off all carnall affection, that wee [...]ay receiue for our weary soules eter­nall refection: for if no beast could [...]uch the mountaine, and heare Gods [...]aw: why should beastly minds touch [...]e bible, and read Gods Law? And in [...]arching this Word, let vs not in it [...]arch for riches and honour to our [Page] selues, which is to seeke for dirt among [...] Iewels, and poyson amongst medica [...] ments, to ouerthrow our selues: but l [...] vs search for him, who only is sufficien [...] to content our soules within our bodies▪ as hee was the only efficient to presen [...] our soules into our bodies. Therfore w [...] conclude with Augustine, Scriptur [...] & creatura ad hoc sunt, vt [...]pse qu [...]ratur, ip­se diligatur, & qui ipsam creauit, & q [...] illam i [...]spirauit.

The internall and eternall generati­on of the word, was not knowne to th [...] Gentiles: but was obscured with an ob­scure fable of Minerua, begotten of I [...] ­piters braine, by the which also they di [...] signifie learned notions conceaued i [...] the mind, & expressed by word or writ.

Then, to be short (right Honourable) heere I doe offer to your tuition an [...] fruition my Miner [...]a, not begotten o [...] my braine, but in my braine; neither i [...] shee armed with a helmet, [...], and [...] [Page] speare to terrifie M [...]mus; and therefore [...]e more desirous shee is to shelter her­ [...]lfe vnder the shadow of your Honors [...]tronage, being perswaded that you [...]e both a Patrone & a patterne of lear­ [...]ng, the fruits whereof haue not only [...]freshed the-hearts and eares of great [...]rittaine: but with Dedalean wings they [...]ue bin transported beyond the Ocean; [...] that Rhodan [...]s, Betis, and Rhen [...]s, haue [...]asoned their siluer streames with the [...]licious taste of your learned fruits. [...]hen what remaines, quam vt ocior Icar [...]

Visas gementis littora Bosp [...]ri,
Sirt [...]sque Getulas c [...]norus,
Ales Hypereb [...]rosque campos?

Moreouer, your Honor being a Father [...]d Patrone of iustice, if any wrong be [...]fered to her by M [...]mus, she may bold­ [...] fly to the Chancery for succor: there­ [...]re, I hope, that as your Honor hath [...]rmitted your glorious titles to grace [...]r Frontispice; so you wil not refuse to [Page] beautifie her with your gracious aspec [...] and respect. That GOD, which hat [...] exalted you to so great dignities in thi [...] world, preserue your body and soule, and crowne you in the World to come with blessed Immortality.

Your Honours, in all duty, euer to command▪ ALEXANDER ROSS [...]


Q. WHo wrote these bookes of Moses?

A. Himselfe: proofe; hee was the first [...]at writ in the world. Secondly, The holy [...]host testifieth the same, Exo. 24. 4. Deu. [...]1. 9. and Christ, Iohn 1. 45. and 5. 46.

Q. When wrote he this first booke;

A. Before the Israelites went from [...]ypt: R [...]as. 1. Because then, feeding his [...]ather in-lawes sheepe 40. yeeres, in Ma­ [...]ian, he was most at leisure to write. Rea. 2. [...]o comfort the Hebrewes, beeing oppressed [...]ith Egyptian seruitude; for in this Booke [...] read the life and death of their Ance­ours; their courage; patience; vertue affliction, Gods promises to Abraham, [Page] that after 400. yeeres serui [...]de in Egyp [...] they should be deliuered, and inioy the la [...] of Canaan.

Q. How came Moses to the know­ledge of these things contained in th [...] Booke?

A. Either by reuelation from God, [...] by tradition of his Ancestors: for the know­ledge of these things Moses [...]ad from Io­sephs children; they of Ioseph; he of Ia­cob; Iacob of Isaac; he of Abraham and he of Shem; Shem of Noe; h [...] [...] Methusalem; and he of Adam, with wh [...] be liued 243. yeeres.

Questions on the first Chapter.

WAs the world created, or eternal?

Answ. Created. 1. There can bee but one eternall. 2. Al­most all the Philosophers are a­gainst the eternitie of the world. 3. They that hold it [...]ternall, can bring no sound reason. 4. Th [...] most ancient monuments or records amongst [...]he heathen, are not so olde as the f [...]ood of Noah.

Q. Could God make more worlds then one?

A. Yes: for he is Almighty, and hee made it [...]ot of any matter: for that should haue bin ex­ [...]austed: but more he would not, because hee [...]eing one, delights in vnitie.

Q. Why in Hebrew saith Moses, Gods created? joyning the noune plurall, with the verbe singu­lar?

A. To signifie the mystery of the Trinitie, one essence in three persons. 2. It is the proper­tie of the Hebrew phrase.

Q. Why in the beginning of this booke, speaketh Moses only of heauen and earth?

A. Because by the name of heauen, he com­prehends all celestiall bodies, and by the name of earth the 4. elements: for water is in the earth, & fire and aire, as witnesse the springs, exhalations, or earthquakes, and burning mountaines, or hote waters.

Q. Did God create the earth moveable or not?

A. Immoueable▪ Iob. 38. Psal. 39. and 104. this is vnderstood, in respect of the whole earth: yet it is moued in respect of parts, by earthquakes. Iob. 9.

Q. Of what figure is the earth?

A. Round, Esay the 40. This figure is most perfect, capable, ancient.

Q. Is the earth vnder the water or not?

A. Vnder, because heauiest: yet Exo. 20. Ps. 24. and 136. it seemes the water is vnder the earth; but it is to be vnderstood, that a great part of the earth was made higher then the waters, for mans habitation.

Q. Why cannot the whole earth moue?

A. Because hee is in his naturall place, which if it should moue, it should ascend: and this is against the nature of the earth.

Q. What is vnderstood by the spirit that moued vpon the waters?

A. A winde, which often in Scripture is cal­led a spirit, or the holy Ghost, or the power and mighty operation of God: which also is often called by the name of Spirit: in this sense the Spirit of God is sayd to carry Elias to hea­uen; and to haue caught away Philip, Acts 8.

Q. Why is God brought in, speaking in the cre­ation?

A. To shew his absolute power, whose word is his worke. 2. The second person in Trinity, the word essentiall of the Father, by whom the world was created.

Q. Why was the light first created?

A. To beautifie all the rest of the creatures. 2. The world was created in 6. daies, which could not bee distinguished without the light and darkenesse.

Q. Was this light spirituall, such as God is sayd to inhabit, as Christ is called the light of the world, and the Apostles light, the regenerate light?

A. No: but corporall and sensible, first, the darknesse that went before, was sensible: ergo, [Page 4] light. 2. By this light the 3. dayes were distin­guished before the creation of the Sun: but they were sensible. 3. This Narration of Moses is historicall, not allegoricall.

Q. Then what light was this?

A. Not the light of the elementall fire, nor of a light cloud, nor of water, but of the Sun: which was the first day diffused through the whole hemisphere: the 4. was collected into the globe of the Sun wee see. The 1. day this light had but one common property to illuminate: the 4. it had particular vertues to bring out par­ticular effects. 3. The light, the 4. day began to be cause of generation and corruption, the measure of time, the cause of increase, and de­crease in the Moone.

Q. How did this light before the 4. day, di­stinguish the day from night?

A. In moouing from cast to west; and from west to east, by the motion of the 1 sphere.

Q. In what place of heauen was the light [...]re­ated?

A. In the East, for this light returning to this same point of the east, from which it went, made a naturall day.

Q. When was heauen and earth created?

A. Before the first day, in respect of their substance and matter, but in the sixe dayes, in [Page 5] respect of their forme and perfection.

Q. What is meant by the firmament that se­parateth the waters from the waters?

A. The ayre, and starry heauens, with all the spheres betweene, which do seperate the watry clouds, from these waters below: but properly the lower region of the aire doth separate these waters, which are generated in the single regi­on, from the waters below, which low region is called by the name of the whole firmament.

Q. What are these waters aboue the firmament?

A. Not Angels, as Origon, not waters pro­perly so called, aboue the stars, as Basil would haue: for their naturall place is below, and there is no vse of them aboue the starres: neither the heauen called the Christalline, which hath neither the substance, similitude, or qualities of water: but by these waters wee vnderstand the watery clouds, aboue this lower region in the aire. These waters in other places are sayd to be aboue the heauens, that is, aboue the aire, which in Scripture is called heauen.

Q. How made God drie land to appeare?

A. By causing the earth, which before was plaine, to swell with mountaines. 2. By the wa­ters which before were spred ouer the whole earth, to betake themselues to one place.

Q. Then were there mountaines before the flood?

[Page 6] A. Yes: for the flood rose 15. cubits higher then the mountaines: the mountaines are called eternall, Psa. 76. Wisedome is ancienter then the mountaines, Pro. 8. They make the earth the comelier, more fruitfull, more commodious for man and beast: they hold out the seas from ouer-flowing the earth: out of them springs and Riuers proceed: they defend the Valleys from the raging of the windes, that without them, the earth could not be before the flood.

Q. Is the earth or seas highest?

A. The earth: for all riuers run into the seas naturally, because they flowe downewards. 2. Men are said to go downe into the seas in ships, Psal. 107. Againe▪ if the seas were higher, ships should sayle swifter to the land then from it. 4. The farther we were in the sea, we should see the land the better.

Ob. But Psal. 104. and 33. it seemes that the waters are higher then the earth.

A. In Psal. 104. Dauid speakes of the springs that are generated in the mountaines, or of the watery clouds that couer the hills: in Psa. 33. Dauid speakes of the miraculous standing of the red sea.

Q. Were briers, thornes, and poysonable hearbes created before mans fall?

A. Yes: because these are parts of this world. [Page 7] without which it is not perfect: and although poysonable hearbs are not fit for meate, they are good for physicke.

Q In what time of the yere was the world created?

A. In the Autumne, because the Iewes before they departed from Egipt, began their yeere in Autumne, and also before the flood: for the flood began in the second moneth, that is, about the month of Nouember. 2. The Iewes Exod. 23. are commanded to keepe the feasts of Tabernacles in the end of the yeere, that is, in Autumne, when fruits are ripe: and also this same feast in the beginning of the yeere, Chap. 35. nature also shews, that Autumne is the end of the yeere, by the maturity of the fruit, and falling of the leaues from the trees. It is also the beginning of the yeere, as the young seeds bud­ding out of the earth doe testifie. Lastly, in the creation the fruits of the trees were ripe, and ready to be eaten.

Q. Were the starres created the fourth day?

A. Yes, in respect of their light, motions, and operations: but they were made the 1. day in respect of their substance, for they are the thicker part of the spheres.

Q. Why were the stars created after the planets?

A. Because God will shew his power, which in producing of plants, doth not depend on the [Page 8] starres. 2. To keepe the people from Idolatrie, whom he knew would be bent to worship the starres, when they consider their beauty, moti­on and operation, in producing hearbes: now they are inexcusable, because this vertue they haue in producing hearbs, is from God, who in the beginning did create hearbes and plants, without the helpe of starres.

Q. Did God create the Moone in the Full, or in the Change?

A. In the Full, because God created his workes in perfection: now the moone is perfi­test in the Full. 2. Shee was ordained to illumi­nate the night, which she doth most perfecty in the Full.

Q. Haue the starres their light wholly from the Sunne?

A. No: because they haue different effects, therefore different light. 2. There is one glory of the Sun, and another of the Moone, and a­nother of the starres, 1 Cor. 15.

Q. Why are the Sunne and Moone called great lights?

A. Not in respect of quantitie: for some starres are greater: but because they appeare to be greater. 2. In respect of their light, which is greater then the light of other starres.

Q. Of what figure is the heauen?

[Page 9] A. Round: for this figure is most apt for moti­on. 2. The Scripture witnesseth the same. Eccl. 1

Q. How many heauens are there?

A. The Philosophers speake of ten heauens, the Scriptures only of three, to the which, the former ten may be reduced.

Q. Shall the heauens be abolished in the day of Iudgement?

A. Not in respect of their substance which is vncorruptible, but in respect of their moti­on, influence, and diuers operations in this inferiour world: for of these then there shall be no need, because man shall bee translated to a better life, and other liuing creatures shall bee abolished.

Q. Are the starres innumerable?

A. Not in themselues: for they are naturall bodies, but in respect of our ignorance. 2. These starres of greater note are vnnumerable: for the Mathematicians haue reduced the 1022. starres, to sixe degrees of magnitude: for these of lesser note are not numbred, because not knowne.

Q. Is the Sunne hot or cold?

A. Neither: but hee begets heate here be­low, because of his great light, and not because of his motion.

Q. Haue the starres life reasonable, because [Page 10] God is brought in, speaking to them in Scripture?

A. No: if they had, they should be capable of vertue and vice, life or death eternall. God is brought in, speaking to them in Scriptures, and so he is to insensible creatures▪ as the earth, seas, winde, &c. to signifie our stupidity, which are duller to heare, and obey him, then senslesse creatures.

Q. Doe the starres moue of themselves, as it seemeth by these places, Psa. 19. Iob 9. Ios. 10. or are they moued by the spheres▪

A. By their spheres: but the Scripture speaketh rather of the starrs then their spheres, because the starres are better knowne to vs, for the spheres we see not.

Q. Is the heauen and the earth corruptible or not?

A. They are incorruptible in regard of their substance: so witnesseth the Scripture, Eccle. 1. and 3. chap. Psal. 149. and therefore shall not be abolished, but renewed to a more perfect state: for the feruent desire of the crea­ture waiteth when the sonnes of God shall be reuealed. Those Scriptures that speak of the de­struction of the world, are to be vnderstood of the alteration of some qualities to better.

Q. Shall the Sun and other starres moue as they doe now, after the day of Iudgement?

[Page 11] A. No: for now they moue, to distinguish night and day, Summer and Winter: but then of these things there shall bee no need to man glorified.

Q. How are the Sun and Moone signes?

A. They are naturall signes of faire and foule weather, health and sicknesse, sowing and mowing, &c. and supernaturall signes of Gods wrath: for there shall be signes in the Sun, and Moone, and Starres, before the last day. Luke 21.

Q. Were the starres made for signes to the A­stronomers, to fore-tell things to come?

A. They neither should, nor can fore-tell by the stars. 1. They should not, because prohi­bited by the word of God, Iere. 10. Deut. 18. Leu. 20. Secondly, condemned by the Canons, decrees and Councels of the Church, and refu­ted by the Fathers. 3▪ They cannot foretell by these Scriptures, Esay 41. 44. and 47. Chap. Eccle. 8. and 10. Chap. Prou. 27. 1 Cor. 2. Again, the most part of Apollos oracles were false, as witnesseth Porphirius. lib. de oraculis.

Q. Why is this kinde of Astrologie condemned?

A. Because it euerts Gods prouidence, a­bolisheth the liberty of our will, makes all the mysteries of Christian Religion to depend on the starres; it is the cause of all villany and [Page 12] neglect of Gods workes; yea, it makes all the miracles of the old and new Testament, such as the flood of Noah, the fire of Sodom, the birth, actions, and death of our Lord, to depend on the starres.

Q. Can the Astrologers foretell things to come by the starres?

A. No: because they know not the forme, matter, motions force and effects of the starres in the things here below, they cannot explaine the hid causes, and properties of hearbs, stones, and liuing creatures: yea, they know not what is doing now in other countries: and if they know not things present, much lesse things to come.

Q. But if they had the perfect knowledge of the starres, could they no [...] tell what is to come?

A. No: because wee cannot haue perfect knowledge of particular effects, except wee know their particular causes: now the starres are but generall causes. 2. If this doctrine were true, then twinnes borne vnder the same starre at the same time, should bee of the same nature and disposition: but this is false, as witnesseth the birth of Iacob and Esau. 3. It should follow, that all those that are killed in the warres at the same time, should be borne at the same time: which is most false. 4. That all those that liue [Page 13] according to the same lawes and religion, should bee borne at the same time, vnder the same starre. 5. That all the actions of mans free will, should be knowne to them: which cannot be, seeing man can alter and change his will▪ when he list. 6. If men could tell by the starres what is to come, they should bee had in great esteeme: but it fares otherwise with them; for the greatest, both Diuines and Philosophers confute them, Kings and Magistrates con­demne and punish them. 7. If they can tell what befalls to man, much more can they fore­tell what shall befall hearbs and trees, which are more subiect to the starres then man: but this is false: for they cannot foretell how many Peares a Peare-tree shall bring forth.

Q. Are not then the starres naturall signes of things to come?

A. Naturall signes are rather the causes or effects of that they signifie, but the starres are neither. 2. How can the starres which are still the same, be the signes of so many innumera­ble accidents as fall out in the world? yet I ex­cept Comets, which are not naturall starres, but Meteors generated of naturall causes, yet they are supernaturall signes of things to come.

Q. Can the Astrologers foretell nothing true?

[Page 14] A. Yes: often-times ehey fore-tell things truely, but that is not because of the starres, but by the instinct of Satan, with whom they haue commerce: and hee can foretell many things, partly, by Reuelation from God, and partly, because he is a subtile spirit, and of long experience, and hee makes those men foretell things to come, rather by mouing their phan­tasies, or by dreames, or by offering to their eyes the shape, or to their eares the words of those things he will foretell, or by characters. 2. They can foretell things to come, because God permits them, for the greater destruction of those that curiously consult Sooth-sayers: so he suffered Balaam and his Asse to prophesie. 3. Men that are of subtile spirits, may foretell some things by looking diligently into the life, manners, and dispositions of men: as one may foretell, that a tyrant oppressing his subiects, shalbe killed. 4. They may foretell some things which may fall out true, because of the creduli­ty of those that consult with them; for if they foretell good successe to any, this oft-times falls out, because of the feruent desire, and vsing of all meanes to attaine the same: which doth fall out, not because it was fore-told, but be­cause hee to whom it was fore-told, vsed the meanes to haue it.

Q. Is it not lawfull then to consult with A­strologers and Sooth-sayers?

A. No: because in consulting with them, wee derogate from Gods glory, and honour them, in thinking that they can fore-tell all things; which is proper only to God. 2. If it be vnlawfull to conuerse with an excommunicate person, much lesse should wee haue commerce with Satan, who is excommunicated from heauen to the place of darkenesse, and is the pernicious enemy of God and man.

Q. Whether are the beasts or fishes perfectest?

A. The beastes, because they haue more perfect senses, beget more perfect blood in our bodies, than fishes, haue more commerce with men, and are docible in many things; fi­shes are not.

Q. Why then were they created before the beastes?

A. As nature begins at that which is most imperfect in generation, so God in the creation did keepe this course: for man the little world and pattetne of all the creatures, was not crea­ted till the sixth day. 2. God keepeth that course in the 3. last dayes, which hee did in the 3 first: in the first he created heauen, and in the 4. did replenish it with starres: the 2. hee made he seas, the 5. replenished it with liuin [...]g crea­tures.

Q. Why speaketh Moses of the creation of some particular fishes, and not of trees and beasts?

A. Because these fishes are greater then any earthly creatures, therefore wee should the more extoll Gods glory in considering them.

Q. How doe the waters bring forth the fi­shes?

A. The waters are not the efficient cause of the fishes, but the materiall, yet but in part, for fishes are compounded of the foure ele­ments, notwithstanding the waters are the predominant matter of the fishes, not in respect of their substance, for that is earth: but in re­spect of qualitie, moist and cold. Secondly, the temperature of the fishes are waterish. Thirdly, Water is the place of habitation, generation, and conseruation for the fishes.

Q. Why were the birds created the fift day with the fishes, and not the sixth?

A. Because they were created of the water as the fishes. Secondly, because of the great resemblance betweene the birds, and fishes, both in respect of their place, water and aire: for both these elements are perspicuous, humid, moueable, and easie to be changed one into the other. Secondly, In respect of their bodies, for both are light and swift: the finnes of the fishes [Page 17] answer to the birds wings, and their scales to birds feathers; they both want eares, paps, milke, bladder. Thirdly, Many kindes of birds dwell in the waters, as the Sea-meawes, Swans, &c. Fourthly, their mouing is alike: for as the fishes swim, so the birds flie. Fiftly, They both vse their tayle, to guide their flying and swimming.

Q. Were the Birds created of the Water?

A. Yes: but not of the thickest of the wa­ter, but rather of a watery vapour, betweene water and aire, therefore the Birds conuerse in the water and aire.

Q. But it seemes the birds were created of the earth the sixt day, by these words of the 2. chapter. (And the Lord hauing formed out of the ground euery beast of the field, and euery bird of the aire, brought them to Adam.)

A. If God had created them the sixt day of the ground, Moses had not spoken of them the fift day. Secondly, in these words allea­ged, the coniunction (and) hath no reference to the word ground, as though both had beene formed of the ground: but to the word formed: so the meaning is, that not only the beasts that were formed of the ground: but the Birds also which God had created, were brought to A­dam.

Q. How doth the earth bring forth liuing creatures?

A. Not actiuely, but passiuely: for the earth is not the efficient, but the materiall cause of earthly creatures.

Q. What difference is there betweene the beast▪ cattell, and creeping thing? verse 25.

A. By behemah, in Hebrew, is vnderstood the great beasts, as Iob 40. 15. By chaiah, the wilde beasts, in whom there is seen most liuell­nesse: by remesh, creeping things, such as haue no feet at all, as Serpents; and they that haue short and little feet, as Ants.

Q. Why did not God blesse the earthly crea­tures, as he did the fishes?

A. Moses did omit this for breuities sake. Secondly, the blessing of the fishes doth belong also to the beasts. Thirdly, man is blessed, and in him the beasts, as when hee was cursed▪ the earth was also, Gen. 3. And when he was puni­shed, the beasts were punished also, Genesis▪.

Q. Why was man particularly blessed?

A. Not only for multiplication: but also because of the elect. And thirdly, because mans copulation is oftentimes sinfull, and in­ordinate.

Q. Did God create in the beginning, imper­fect creatures, as Bees, Waspes, and such like?

[Page 19] A. Hee did not create them actually, as hee did the perfect creatures, but hee created them in their causes, as hee gaue that faculty to the fiesh of an horse, to beget Waspes being dead.

Q. Were Mules now created, or not?

A. They were not. First, because they were found out by Anah, Genes. 36. Secondly, they are barren: but God created all creatures with his blessing to be fruitfull, &c. Genes. 1. Third­ly, this kinde of procreation is against nature, but God created euery thing according to his kinde, Genes. 1. Fourthly, this is against his owne law, Leuit. 19.

Q. Why was man and the cattell created in the same day?

A. First, Because they both dwell in the earth. Secondly, The earthly creatures are more familiar with man then others. Third­ly, they are more profitable to man then o­ther creatures. Fourthly, They are most like to man of all other creatures.

Q. How doth Gods goodnesse and wisedome appeare in the creatures?

A. Many wayes. First, In the variety of so many thousand diuers kindes of creatures. Secondly, In the comely order that is seene a­mongst them. Thirdly, in that all things that [Page 20] serue for the perfection of the world, is in the world; nothing can bee added, or impayred. Fourthly, In the sympathy and concord that is amongst some, and the discord and hatred that is amongst others of the creatures. Fiftly, In the pulchritude and comelinesse that is in euery creature, as may be seene in the body of man. Sixtly, In the admirable gouernment and administration of the world, in the which there is nothing so euill (whether it be naturall euill▪ as the defects of nature, or voluntary euill, such as is the euill of punishment, and of sin:) but all serues for the glory of God, and the per­fection of this Vniuerse.

Q. How is the power of God seene in the world?

A. First, By creating it of nothing. Se­condly, By sustaining it with his power, Heb. 1. Thirdly, By working many things miraculous­ly, aboue the course of nature; in which we see, that God doth not worke of necessity. Fourth­ly, He is not tyed to the second causes.

Q. Could God haue made the world better then it is?

A. Yes, for his power is not limited: there­fore he might haue made it sooner then he did, and larger, and fuller of Creatures.

Q. Why was man the last of all the creatures created?

[Page 21] A. Because God would make all things fit and prepared for him. Secondly, because he is the Lord and end of all other creatures. Third­ly, Because hee is most perfect: and in order of generation, that which is most perfect, is last.

Q. Wherein did man exceed all other crea­tures?

A. First, In that hee had dominion ouer them all. Secondly, In that God prepared a most pleasant place for man to dwell in, to wit, Paradise. Thirdly, Because of his know­ledge and wit, in giuing names to the creatures according to their natures. Fourthly, In re­spect of his holinesse and innocency. Fiftly, Because hee was made immortall. Sixtly, Be­cause God tooke speciall care in the creating of man aboue the other creatures. Seuenthly, Be­cause the whole Trinity doth consult about the making of man, as about a matter of great weight.

Q. Why speaketh God in the plurall number, Let vs make man?

A. Here is the mystery of the Trinity: for, the Father doth not here speake to himselfe, as the Iewes, nor to the Angels, as some hereticks thinke; but the Father speaketh to the Sonne and holy Ghost.

Q. But how doe we know that he spake not here to the Angels?

A. Easily: Because the Angels cannot create neither soule nor body, for they are but creatures. Secondly, There is no mention in the Word, that Angels created, but that God onely created man. Thirdly, Man was created according to Gods Image, and not according to the Similitude of Angels. Fourthly, God sayes, To our Image: but the Image of God and Angels are not the same, but infinitely di­uerse.

Q. Was man onely created to the Image of God?

A. The Image of God doth shine in euery creature in part, but in man most perfectly of all other creatures; for, he hath not onely exi­stance and life, but also reason and wisedome.

Q. Wherein doth the Image of God consist?

A. The Image of God is most in the soule, which hath existence: secondly, life; thirdly; sense; fourthly, reason: againe, it is incorrup­tible; secondly, immortall; thirdly, it is indu­ed with vnderstanding, will and memorie; fourthly, it hath free will; fiftly, it is capable of wisedome, grace and glorie; sixtly, it hath power of all other creatures: in all which con­sisteth the Image of God.

Q. Whether is the Image of God most to bee seene in Angels or men?

A. In Angels, if wee respect their nature absolutely: for they are of a more excellent nature than Man; but if we respect the dignity of Mans nature (the which is sanctified and assumed by Iesus the essentiall image of the Fa­ther,) the Image of God is most to be seene in Man.

Q. If man be created to the Image of God, may he not be called the Image of God?

A. No: for Christ is onely the Image of God, because hee is of that same nature with the Father, but Man is of another nature; and therefore, he is not the Image of God, but cre­ated to the Image of God.

Q. Is the Image of God seene in the woman as in the man?

A. Yes, equally in both, if we respect their nature; yet the Image of God is seene in man more perfectly; in respect that man is both the beginning and end of the woman. Et finis est praestantior finito.

Q. Can the Image of God be abolished by sin?

A. If wee take his Image for that righte­ousnesse wherein Adam was created, then we say, that Gods Image was abolished by sinne; but if by the Image of God, wee vnderstand [Page 24] mans reasonable soule with the faculties there­of, then his Image is not vtterly abolished, but defaced by sinne.

Q. Why did God create man to his Image?

A. First, to manifest his singular loue and goodnesse to Man: Secondly, that all crea­tures might reuerence Man the more, in that he carries the Image of God, as his badge and armes: thirdly, that Man might loue and serue God the more, for hee weares Gods Image as his Liuerie: sourthly, that Man might know the nature and properties of God more per­fectly; for there is no creature wherein wee may contemplate the nature of God more ful­ly, than in ourselues: fiftly, that God might haue some of his creatures with whom hee might be familiar, for his delight is with the sonnes of men, Prouerbs 8. Sixtly, that Man might be the more capable of eternall felicitie, and more assured of Gods loue: seuenthly, that Gods power might appeare the more, in that hee created such an excellent piece of worke, at which all the creatures may admire.

Q. Had Man before his fall, dominion ouer the creatures?

A. Yes, Genesis 1. Psalme 8. Secondly, he gaue names to them, in token of his power o­uer them: thirdly, Euah conferred freely with [Page 25] the Serpent, without feare: fourthly, it stood with the order of Nature, that some should be superiors▪ and some inferiors; and man was fittest to gouerne, because of his Reason and Wisedome.

Q. Had man also dominion ouer the creatures after the Fall?

A. Yes, Genesis 9. Secondly, because wee kill them, and make them serue for our diuers vses: thirdly, all kinde of creatures were subiect to Noah in the Arke: fourthly, the Lions were familiar with Daniel, but mans dominion ouer them before the Fall▪ was naturall, this mira­culous: secondly, that should haue continued, this is but a while: thirdly, that did belong to all men, this onely to some.

Q. Should not man haue had rule ouer man in the state of innocencie?

A. Yes: because amongst multitudes there can be no order, where there are not some supe­riors, and some inferiors: but the subiection of man to man then, had bin voluntary, plea­sant, ciuill, not seruile, and by constraint.

Q. Why then doth not God speake of this do­mn ion of man ouer man, but of man ouer beasts?

A. Because the dominion of man ouer the beasts, is a part of Gods Image, and did belong to all men, as men; but the dominion of man [Page 26] ouer man doth not agree vnto all, as they are man, but as wiser▪ or better, &c.

Q. Should the wife haue beene subiect to the man in that state of innocencie?

A. Yes: but this subiection of the wife should not haue beene vnwilling, bitter, trou, blesome, as it fell out afterward by sinne.

Q. Should mankinde haue beene multiplyed by carnall copulation, as now?

A. Yes: but without sinne, for the soule and her faculties should haue beene subiect to God, and the body to the soule; therefore God distinguished in man, male and female: se­condly, he saith, Increase and multiply: third­ly, it is said, They shall be both in one flesh: which is onely in respect of copulation.

Q. Should man haue only eaten of the hearbs, and not also flesh in Paradise?

A. Onely hearbs: first, because Gods per­mission is onely extended to the hearbs: se­condly, the hearbs were most naturall and sim­ple foode for that happy estate, and man was not made for food, but food for man: third­ly, the hearbs were sufficient, because, before the earth was cursed, there was great store of all sorts of hearbs; and those very powerfull, and good to feed man: but after the Fall, they lost their force and former goodnesse.

Q. Should the wilde bedstes, such as Lyons, haue fed on flesh, before the Fall, as they doe now?

A. No: but on the hearbs only: first, be­cause heere is no flesh mentioned, but onely hearbs: secondly, if it had beene permitted to them to eate flesh before the Floud, then those rauening beasts that were in the Arke, should haue eate flesh: but in the Arke there was no flesh for them: therefore they did feed on the hearbs.

Q. How comes it now, that these kinde of beasts doe not feed on hearbs now, but on flesh?

A. Because the earth doth not yeeld such comfortable and nourishing hearbs as then: secondly, the temperature of the creature is not so sound now as it was before the Floud.

Q. How is it vnderstood, that all which God made, was very good?

A. All things were good: first, in respect of their substance which is vnchangeable: se­condly, in respect of their perfect estate they were created in: thirdly, in respect of their accidents or properties: fourthly, because of their operations, which brought forth perfect effects.

Q. Why did not God see that all things were very good, till man was created?

A. Because man is the eud of all the crea­tures: [Page 28] secondly, in him, as in a little world, [...]n to be seene all the creatures: thirdly, becaus [...] Christ, who is essentiall goodnesse, was to san­ctifie the nature of man, in taking vpon him his flesh.

Questions on the second Chapter.

Q. DId God create the world at the sa [...] instant, or in the space of sixe dayes?

A. In the space of sixe dayes: first, because Moses narration is historicall, and therefore he speaketh of sixe distinct dayes: secondly, Mo­ses, Exodus 20. and 31. vrgeth the Iewes to worke sixe dayes, and rest the seuenth, because God created the world in sixe dayes, and rested the seuenth; this reason had beene ridiculous, if GOD had made the world in an instant▪ thirdly, if we vnderstand Moses in this place allegorically, then wee must make this whole historie an allegorie: fourthly, if the seuenth day had beene the first (and in it God had cre­ated the world) then how is it vnderstood that God rested the seuenth day? fiftly, how could so many diuers kindes of creatures bee created in the same instant of time? yea, then we must say, that man was created and brought into [Page 29] Paradise, and was cast asleepe, and E [...]ah was formed of his rib the same instant.

Q. How then is that vnderstood. Ecclesiast. 18. He that liueth for euer, created all things to­gether?

A. It is to be vnderstood of that confused masse that God created in the beginning: out of the which afterward hee created the rest of the creatures in their distinct dayes.

Q. Why did God spend so much time in ma­king the world?

A. Not because he was weake, and could not make it in lesse time, but that we might the more seriously consider the order of the crea­tion, distinction, and replenishing of the world; and in these, the omnipotencie, wisedome and goodnesse of God.

Q. Did God make the world of necessitie, or of his owne accord?

A. Of his owne free will, because he made it at that time and manner he thought fittest: secondly, because he, in creating, wrought o­therwise than the course of Nature doth; for he made the heauens without light, then made light: first, imperfect; afterward, perfect: and he made the hearbs before the Sunne.

Q. Can it be gathered from hence, that as God created the world in sixe dayes, and rested the se­uenth: [Page 30] so likewise the world shall continue si [...] ages, or sixe thousand yeares, and after shall be [...] perpetuall Sabbath?

A. No: for this computation is but a con­iecture, or fixion of Elias▪ not the Prophet, but the Rabbin, hauing no ground. Secondly, [...] this were true, we should know how long the world should continue, and fully know the time of Christs comming: which cannot bee: for his comming shalbe as a theefe in the night, as Lightning; his comming shall bee a [...] the comming of the flood: of this houre knoweth no man, not the Angels; the Father hath put in his owne power the times and seasons.

Q. Were the Angels created, or are they eter­nall?

A. Created, Psal. 149. Reuel. 4 & 10. Col [...]s. 1. The Church confesseth; the Fathers con­firme; and generall Councells establish this point. Secondly, onely God is eternall. Third­ly, They are parts of the world, therefore crea­ted.

Q. Are the Angels reall substances, or onely good and bad motions in the minde, as thought the Sadduces?

A. They are indiuiduall substances. First, Their names doe shew this, for they are called Messengers, Watchmen, &c. Secondly, their [Page 31] actions and operations, which onely belong to personall substances: for, they serue God; come to vs; comfort vs; gather together the Elect; an Angell wrestled with Iaacob; con­ferred with Abraham; they were receiued by Lot, &c. Angels declared Christs Natiuity to the shepheards, his Resurrection to the wo­men. Thirdly, some of them stood, some fell, therefore substances. Fourthly, wee shall bee like them: Ergo, they are not bare motions.

Q. What is meant here by the Host of Heauen and earth?

A By those of Heauen, is meant the An­gels, for they are called the heauenly host, Luke 2. also the Stars, Esay 34. Therefore the Stars in their courses fought against Sisera, Iudges 5. By the host of Earth, is meant all the earth­ly creatures: therefore God is called the Lord of hostes.

Q. Were the Angels created before this visible world?

A. No: because God created all things in the beginning: ergo, Angels, and not before, or else this had beene no beginning. Second­ly, They were created for the vse of man, but man was not before the beginning: ergo, nor Angels.

Q. Were they created after the sixe dayes?

[Page 32] A. No: for God rested from all his worke the seuenth day.

Q Then what day were they created?

A. The first, that they might bee the be­holders and admirers of Gods power and wis­dome in creating the World. Secondly, They are called Angels of Heauen in Scripture; not onely because they inhabit, but also because they were created with the heauen the first day. Thirdly, this is manifest in Iob 38. where it is sayd, that the Sonnes of God (that is, the An­gels) did sing and showte when God laid the foundations of the earth.

Q. Where were they created?

A. In Heauen: for some of them fell from thence; And Christ saw Satan like Light­ning fall from Heauen: therefore they are cal­led the Host and Angels of Heauen.

Q. Why doth not Moses speake distinctly of the creation of An [...]els?

A. Because hee did accomodate himselfe to the rude capacitie of the Iewes; therefore hee doth onely speake here of the creation of visi­ble creatures.

Q. What is meant by Gods rest on the Sab­bath day? was he wearie?

A. No: but by his rest, is vnderstood his de­sisting and ceasing to make other creatures.

Q. Did God rest from all his workes?

A. Yes, of creation, but not of preseruati­on: for yet the Father worketh with the Son, Iohn 5.

Q. Did God create no other creatures since the Creation?

A. No: for whatsoeuer seomes to bee crea­ted since, it was created before, either in the matter thereof (as Wormes, Flies, Bees, and such like) or else, in that God gaue faculty to some creatures of diuers kindes, to produce a third kinde, as Mules of the Horse and Asse; & power he gaue to the Starres, to produce some creatures of putrified matter: yet some crea­tures he doth still produce, either by generati­on, as all particular men, and other creatures that are generated, or by creation, either ordi­nary, as the soules of men, or extraordinary, as the Starre that appeared to the Wise men, and the Doue that descended on Christ: so then God rested from creating new kindes of crea­tures, but not from producing the indiuiduall creatures of those kindes that were made in the Beginning.

Q. Why is it said here that God ended his worke the seuenth day, seeing they were ended the sixth day?

A. The creatures were perfected the sixth [Page 34] day, in respect of their substance, qualities, and properties; but in respect of their operation, they were not perfected till the seuenth day, for they did not begin to produce effects till after the sixth day: and seeing operation is the end of the forme, they were not fully per­fected till they began to worke.

Q. How doe you vnderstand that God sanctifi­ed the Sa [...]bath?

A. In that hee separated it from the other dayes, and consecrated it for holy vses, hee would haue this to bee a Day of rest, and wherein we might wholly addict our selues for his seruice.

Q. Did God inioyne Adam to keepe this day holy?

A. No: but this was afterwards comman­ded by Moses: for in that happy [...]state it had not beene needfull to appoint one day for Gods seruice, seeing euery day should haue beene a day of rest, and Sabbath for Adam to meditate on Gods workes. Secondly, it was not need­full for man then to rest from seruill worket, because in that happinesse, mans labour should not haue beene wearisome. Thirdly, we reade of no commandement that was giuen to A­dam: but only one, concerning not eating the [...]orbidden fruite. Fourthly, if this law had [Page 35] beene giuen to Adam▪ it should haue tied, all his posterity to the obseruation thereof: but wee doe not reade, that any one of the Fathers be­fore Moses, did obserue the Sabbath. Fiftly, if the Sabbath had beene kept by the Fathers, Moses would haue mentioned the same, as a strong argument to perswade the Iewes to kee [...]e it▪ Sixtly, the soundest of the Fathers are of this opinion.

Q. What is meant here by she day wherein God made the heauen and the earth?

A. By the day is meant, the whole 6. daies: so, often in the Scriptures, day signifieth time, as the day of saluation, the day of Iudgement.

Q. What is meant by a mist that watered the earth?

A. Not a fountaine: but a vapour, which is the matter of raine.

Q. What is me [...]nt by this, that God made man of the dust of the earth?

A. By man is vnderstood his body: by dust, the matter of his body, to put vs in minde of humility, and of this bodies frailtie: by earth, is vnderstood the 4▪ elements: for man is per­fectly composed of all: but ea [...]th is only ex­pressed, because in mans body there is more earth then any other element. Secondly, when man dies, his body is desolued into earth. [Page 36] Thirdly, he liues vpon the earth. Fourthly, he taketh his clothes and food from the earth.

Q. Why was not the body of man rather made of heauenly then earthly substance, seeing the soule is so excellent?

A. Because the soule of man did require such a body as was capable of senses, by the which as by instruments shee might worke in the body: but the celestiall bodies are not capable of senses: for they are not capable of the first qualities.

Q. Wherein doth the body of man exceed the bodies of other creatures?

A. First, in that the body of man is made straight: that he may behold heauen his coun­try, that his senses might vse their function the better, his hands might bee imployed in wor­king, not in walking. Secondly, in that his senses are more perfect then of other crea­tures, not in the quicker apprehension of the sensible obiect: for other creatures haue per­fecter senses in this regard: but that man can discerne more perfecter by his senses, the diffe­rences of obiects than other creatures. Third­ly, in that mans body is more perfectly com­pounded of the 4. elements, then other bodies: for the bodies of the creatures are more earth­ly, or more waterish.

Q. Of what age created God Adam and Eua?

A. In the prime and flowre of their age. First, because God created all things in their perfect estate. Secondly, because God com­manded them to increase and multiply, which they could not haue done, if they had not bin created of a ripe age.

Q. Whether was the body or the soule of man created first?

A. The body: for God did keepe the same course in mans creation, which nature doth now in mans generation: for first, the body is formed in the mothers wombe, and then the soule is infused.

Q. Why is the creation of mans soule called a breathing?

A. First, to shew vs that the soule was not taken out of the power of the matter: but was created of nothing, and infused in the body. Secondly, to teach vs Gods power, who did as easily create the soule, as man doth breathe. Thirdly, to shew the excellencie of mans soule, which seemeth as it were the breath of Gods owne mouth.

Q. Is the soule of man, of the essence of God?

A. No: if it were, it should be either a part thereof, or the whole: it is not a part; for Gods [Page 38] essence cannot be deuided in parts, neither is it the whole: for then all men should bee but one soule. Secondly, if mans soule were a part of Gods essence, then a part of Gods essence should be sinfull, and subiect to the wrath of God, and paines of hell

Q. Why did God breathe the soule, rather in the face, then in any other part of man?

A. Because, in the face are all the senses, which are the organs of the soule.

Q. Why in the nosthrils rather then in any o­ther part of the face?

A. To teach vs, that hee is the only author of our breathing: secondly; to shew the weak­nesse of our life, which dependeth from the nosthrils: thirdly, because the nose is the most commodious instrument of breathing, by which the soule is kept in the body.

Q. Did God create one soule in man, or three?

A. Only one: first, because one body can haue but one essentiall forme: secondly, the power of growing▪ feeling, and reasoning, are not three soules, but three faculties of one soule: thirdly, the Scripture neuer speakes but of one soule.

Q. Were the soules of men created long before the body, as thought Plato and Origines?

A. No: for God created all things perfect, but the soule of man, being a part of man; [Page 39] without, the body could not bee perfect: se­condly, now in generation the body is no soo­ner formed, but God infuseth the soule; the same order did God keepe in mans creation: thirdly, the soules in all that time should haue either done good or euill: but Iacob and Esau did neither good nor euill before they were borne, Rom. 9. 11. Ergo.

Q. Seeing the soule doth exist, after the cor­ruption, why did she not exist before the creation of the body?

A. Shee doth exist after the dissolution of the body, of necessitie, being immortall: but it was not fit she should exist, before the creation of the body, seeing she is the naturall forme, and essentiall part of man.

Q. Whether are the soules of men infused in the bodies, or are they deriued and propagated one of another?

A. By creating they are infused, and by infusing created: for mans soule being incor­porall and indiuisible, cannot be propagated of any other soule, nor multiplied, that is plaine by Zach. 12. 1. and Coloss 12. 7.

Q. Is the soule of man immortall?

A. It is, because a simple essence voyde of contrarieties, and bodily accidents: secondly, It is created to Gods Image: and mans soule [Page 40] is not like God, only in that it is capable of all sciences, and in that it hath an appetite infinite, which cannot be filled, but with God; and that it hath a will free and indifferent to all parti­cular good: but also in that desire which it hath of immortalitie: thirdly, man hath do­minion ouer the creatures, which consisteth also in this, that his soule is immortall, theirs are not: fourthly, Mans soule is not produced of any matter by generation, but is induced in the body by creation, the soules of all other creatures were procreated of the Elements, for the earth brings out beasts; and the waters fi­shes: this is also manifest by many places of Scripture.

Q. Is the soule of man immortall by nature, or by grace?

A. Internally: that is, as it is a simple im­materiall substance, it is immortall by nature: but externally, as it depends on God, hath it being and subsistance in him, it is immortall by grace.

Q. In what place of the world was Paradise?

A. Not in any other earth separated from ours, by the Ocean; nor higher than the su­preme region of the ayre, as some Fathers thought: but in Mesopotamia and the borde­ring countries to it: for Paradise was planted [Page 41] on the East side of Eden, which is in Mesopota­mia: secondly, that is manifest by the Riuers Tignis and Euphrates, which spring out of the mountaines of Armenia, and flow thorow the countries of Mesopotamia, Assyria, and Chal­dea, and runne into the Persian gulfe, and these are the Riuers of Paradise.

Q. Should man haue remained in Paradise onely, if he had not sinned?

A. No: for Paradise was not so large as to containe all mankinde, being comprehended within the limits of these countries aforesayd: secondly, man had power ouer the whole earth; and all the hearbs of the ground were giuen to him for food; and therefore hee was to reple­nish the whole earth: thirdly, how should the earth be trimmed, manured and made fruitfull, if man had dwelt in paradise?

Q. Then to what end did God make Paradise, seeing he knew that man should presently fall, and be cast out of it?

A. He made it, that Adam, so long as hee obeyed God, might enioy it: secondly, that it might be a figure and type of the heauenly Paradise, and ioyes of the life to come: third­ly, to put him in minde, after his fall, what great blessings he had lost, by losing Paradise.

Q. Is Paradise yet extant, [...]r not?

[Page 42] A. It is not extant: for Paradise was in these Countries of Mesapotamia, Assyria, &c. through the which Tigris and Euphrates the Riuers of Paradise) did flowe: but those coun­tries are still populous, and no signe now of Paradise: secondly, the Floud, Genesis 7. was fifteene cubites higher than the mountaines, therefore it was also defaced with the floud.

Q. Why was the tree of life called so?

A. Because it was the Sacrament or signe of life, both naturall in Paradise, and spirituall in heauen: or as some thinke, because it had power, being eaten, to preserue the life of man, a long time▪ but not for euer: for man was not to liue still a naturall life. Againe, the body of man was corruptible, because it was made of matter the subiect of corruption, of contrary e­lements and parts; as also because the naturall heate of the body, by degrees is extenuated, and the radicall humor exhausted: and in these respects, although this tree had that vertue to preserue the life of the body a long time, yet not for euer.

Q. Why did God forbid man to eate of the tree of knowledge of good and euill?

A. Not because it was euill in it selfe, or hurtfull to man: but because by this command, God would trie mans obedience.

Q. Why was the tree, called the tree of know­ledge of good and euill?

A. Not because it had power either to be­get knowledge in Adam, or to augment his knowledge, as the Hebrewes and Iosephus doe thinke: for Adam was created with perfect knowledge: neither can corporall fruites pro­duce spirituall effects in the soule: but it was so named from the euent: for man knew now what was good and euill by experience, hauing transgressed in eating of this tree. Secondly, it was so named, because of Satans false pro­mise, who inticed them to eate of it, promising they should bee as Gods, knowing good and euill.

Q. What riuers were those, that Moses calls here Phison and Gehon?

A. They were parts of Tigris, and Euphra­tes, which riuer is sometimes named one, be­cause they flow together, and are ioyned in one below Babylon: sometimes two, in respect of the place, from whence they spring and where they end. Sometimes foure, in re­spect of their foure heads, whereof two spring out of the mountaines, and other two emptie themselues in the Persian sea.

Q. Then Phison is not Ganges of India, nor Gehon, Nilus of Egypt?

[Page 44] A. No: for Ganges springeth out of Cau­casus of India, Nilus out of the mountaine of inferior Mauritania▪ but Phison and Gehon, out of Armenia: Nilus exonerateth her selfe in the Mediterranean sea: but Phison and Ge­hon into the Persian Gulfe.

Q. What countrie is this Hauilah?

A. Not a countrie in India, but bordering vpon Palestine, and Assyria, as may be gathered out of Gene. Chap. 25. 18.

Q. What is Bdellium?

A. It is a blacke Tree, the bignesse of an Oliue tree, from the which there runneth a kinde of sweet Gum. Plinius. lib. 12. Chapt. 9.

Q. How is that vnderstood, that God did put Adam into the Garden?

A. Either by the inward perswasion of God hee was led thither, as Christ was led to the wildernesse, Math. 4. or he was caught by the Spirit, as Henoch, Habh [...]cuc, and Philip, or else by an Angell, in the shape of man, hee was led to Paradise.

Q. Why did not God create Adam in Para­dise?

A. To let him know that Paradise did not belong to him by nature, but by grace. Se­condly, to teach him to bee the more circum­spect in obeying God, considering hee might [Page 45] be as well put out of it, as he was brought in, if he brake Gods Law. Thirdly, that hee should haue no cause to accuse God of cruelty, in put­ting him out of that place, which by nature was due to him; therefore he returnes to the place from whence he came.

Q. Then why was Euah created in Paradise?

A. Because Adam, out of whose side shee was taken was now in Paradise. Secondly, she is not now properly created, but formed and framed out of Adams rib: for when Adam was formed, she was created potentia in him, in re­spect the body of Adam was the matter of her body.

Q. Should man haue wrought in Paradise?

A. Yes: but not for need, and with trouble as now: but with pleasure, to keepe himselfe from idlenesse. Secondly, thereby to stirre him vp the more to contemplate heauenly things. And thirdly, to trie the diuers natures of grounds, and of those things that grow on the ground.

Q. Doth these words, You shall eate of euery tree of the Garden, containe a precept or a per­mission?

A. Not a precept, but a permission: for if God did command Adam to eate of [...]uery tree, he should haue beene tied to it▪ Secondly, [Page 46] man hath no need to bee commanded to eate, when he is hungry: for he can doe that by na­ture. Thirdly, he knew that all the trees were created to that vse, therefore he needs no com­mandement to eate.

Q. Was this commandement of not eating the tree of Knowledge of good and euill, inioyned to Eua also?

A. Yes: for so she confessed to the Ser­pent. Secondly, if she had not beene comman­ded to abstaine from it, shee should not haue sinned in eating of it.

Q. How could this precept belong to Eua, see­ing she was not yet created?

A. It was first giuen to Adam, and then by Adam it was deliuered to Eua.

Q. Why did God forbid Adam to eate of this tree?

A. First, to let him know, that he was but a creature and seruant, and therfore had a Lord whom hee must serue and obey. Secondly, to let him see, that hee had free-will and power both to chuse and refuse any thing hee pleased▪ Thirdly, to exercise him in obedience.

Q. But seeing God knew that Adam would violate this precept, and bring himselfe and his po­sterity to perpetuall miserie, why would God in­ioyne it to him.

[Page 47] A. To make him inexcusable: for he made him vpright, and gaue him grace to obey, if he would: dedit Adamo posse, si vellet; non, & velli, & posse. Secondly, Although God knew that man would sinne, yet he did permit him, because he was to conuert that sinne of Adam to his greater good, in sending his Sonne into the world. Thirdly, he suffered him to fall, that his Mercie and Iustice might appeare the more.

Q. How is it vnderstood, that whatsoeuer day Adam should eate of the Forbidden tree, he should die?

A. Hee did not die actually, as soone as hee had eaten the forbidden fruite but now he was subiect to death, and the necessity of dying is laid vpon him▪ Secondly, he may be said to dye actually that day, because then the infirmities of body and soule, which are the fore-runners & causes of death actual, did seaze vpon him: & so mortuus est morte inchoata, sed non completa.

Q. Why did not God expressely threaten Adam with death eternall?

A. Because God in the old Testament spea­keth but sparingly of death eternall, and vnder shaddowes. Secondly, death corporall is better knowne to man (not onely by faith and reason, but also by experience) then death eternall, [Page 48] which onely is knowne by faith. Thirdly, hee would speake of such a death, as did not onely belong vnto him, but to all his posterity, al­though they did repent: and this is the death of the body, whereof all are partakers.

Q. Why did God threaten Adam with death?

A. Because death is the greatest and most fearefull miserie that can happen to man. Se­condly. The name of death comprehends all the miseries and afflictions that doe befall man in this life, because they are preparations to death: Nam vt via ad generationem est ge­neratio, sic via ad interitum est mors.

Q. Then what death is mean [...] here?

A. Both of body and soule, temporall and eternall.

Q. How can death corporall bee a punishment for sinne, seeing it proceeds of naturall causes, as of contrary qualities?

A. It is not the punishment of sinne, as it proceedes of naturall causes, but in respect that God ordained Adam to liue immortally, if he had not sinned: now hauing sinned, death fol­lowes as the stipend of sinne.

Q. Why was it not good that man should bee alone?

A. Because man without the woman could not procreate children, and so man-kinde [Page 49] could not bee multiplyed. Secondly, Christ could not haue come in the flesh. Thirdly, the Elect and Church of God could not haue in­creased, if Adam had beene alone.

Q. How were the creatures brought to A­dam?

A. Either by the helpe of Angels, or by that naturall instinct which the Greekes call [...], by the which euery creature perceiueth what is good and bad for them.

Q. Why did God bring the creatures to A­dam?

A. First, To let him see how much he did excell them, and how much the more he should be thankfull. Secondly, Because hee was the Lord of the beasts, God would haue him to see his seruants. Thirdly, that he might name them. Fourthly, that posterity might know, what ex­cellent knowledge Adam had, in giuing names to the creatures according to their kindes.

Q. Why were not the fishes brought to Adam?

A. Because they doe not so much resemble man as the beasts: secondly, because they could not be such a helpe to man as the beasts: third­ly, because they could not liue out of the wa­ter.

Q. Had Adam the knowledge of all things, as soone as he was created?

[Page 50] A. Yes, because he was created perfect, as well in regard of the gifts of his minde, as of his body: secondly, hee was to be the Father, Teacher, and Gouernour of mankinde, which hee could not haue beene without excellent knowledge: thirdly, knowledge was a part of Adams happinesse, and hee could not haue beene perfectly happy, if hee had beene at any time ignorant: fourthly, if God prepared food and all things needfull for his body; then much more, science and vnderstanding, which is the food of the soule.

Q. Should Adams Pesterity▪ in the state of in­nocencie, haue knowledge ingrafted in them with­out labour?

A. No: for it is naturall to man to attaine to knowledge by his senses and experience, therefore the soule hath receiued a body with senses, which the soule may vse as organs, to beget knowledge; yet man in that happy e­state should haue attained to knowledge soo­ner, and with greater ease than now, because the wit was most excellent, the senses more perfect, the life longer, the body healthier and stronger, and there should haue beene no impe­diment to learning as now▪

Q. Had Adam the knowledge of supernatu­rall things?

[Page 51] A. Yes, or else his knowledge had not been perfect: secondly, without this knowledge he could not haue knowne God, nor the Angels, nor the end of his owne creation.

Q. Had Adam more wisedome than any man euer since?

A. Yes: except Christ. And Adams wise­dome did excellours: first, in that he knew all naturall things, wee but some: secondly, his knowledge did proceed of the causes of natu­rall things, but ours from the effects: thirdly, his knowledge could not bee lost, but ours is often; partly through the infirmity and corruption of our naturall senses, partly by idlenesse and ceasing to study; and partly by the contrary habit of ignorance and false opi­nions.

Q. Had Adam the knowledge of the hea­uens, and their operations, as hee had of earthly creatures?

A. Yes, because his minde was perfect: and knowledge is the perfection of the minde: secondly, the power, wisedome and prouidence of God is seene in the heauenly bodies as in the earthly: thirdly, Adam could not haue had the perfect knowledge of earthly things, if hee had not had the knowledge of heauenly: for the knowledge of the earthly things, de­pends [Page 52] from the knowledge of the heauenly.

Q. What were the effects of that originall righteousnesse, in the which Adam was created?

A. The effects thereof are many, especially these foure: first, the holinesse of his will and reason, which was wholly subiect to God: se­condly, the vprightnesse of the inferiour part, that is, of the flesh and senses, which were per­fectly obedient to the superiour part of the soule; thirdly, perfect inclination to doe good, and eschew euill: fourthly, a perpetuall ioy of the minde, and peace of conscience, raising from this holinesse.

Q. Hath Christ brought vs more happinesse by his Iucarnation, than Adam lost by his trans­gression?

A. Yes: for although sinne did abound, yet grace did more abound, as the Apostle disputeth, Rom. 5. Therefore▪ Foelix fuit Ada culpa cuius delendae causa, tantum habemus Re­demptorem: saith Gregorius.

Q. Was Adam mortall or immortall before his Fall?

A. He was immortall, not simply, but con­ditionally, if he did obey God, if not, then he should die.

Q. How was he immortall?

A. Not as God, who is altogether immor­tall, [Page 53] both internally and externally, because in him there is no mutability: nor as the Angels, who are immortall, because they are not com­pounded of a matter, which is the subiect of corruption: nor as the heauens, which though they haue a materiall substance, yet this is not the subiect of contradiction and contrary qua­lities, as the sublunary and elementall bodies are: but Adam was immortall by grace, and the power of God, who would haue preserued him supernaturally from corruption, although naturally he was subiect to corruption.

Q. Then this gift of immortality which Adam should haue inioyed, was not naturally due to him?

A. No: for if it had bin naturall, it should not haue bin taken from Adam: but sinne did neither abolish nor diminish mans naturall gifts. Secondly, that which is against nature, cannot be due to nature: but for the body to be immortall, is against the nature of mans bo­dy, seeing it is compounded of contrary quali­ties.

Q. Why would God forme Eua of Adam slee­ping?

A. That Adam should not feele any paine in losing his rib. Secondly, to signifie a great mysterie: for as Eua was formed out of the side of Adam sleeping: so the Church was reformed [Page 54] by water and blood, out of the body of Christ dying.

Q. Why was Eua made rather of the side, then of any other part of the body?

A. Because the side is the middle of the bo­dy; to signifie that the woman must be of equall dignitie with the man, therefore shee was not made of the head, nor of the foot, for she must neither be superior, nor inferior to him.

Q. Of what side was she taken out?

A. It is probable, that she was taken out of the left side, for the heart inclineth to that side [...] so man and woman should imbrace each other with hearty loue. And as the left side is weakest, so is the woman the weaker vessell: also the males are conceiued in the right side, the females in the left; and as the sides are de­fended by the armes, so must the woman by the husband.

Q. Why was Eua made of the man, and not of the earth, as Adam was?

A. Because Adam should loue his wife the more, not only because she is of that same na­ture with him, that shee is ioyned with him by carnall copulation, that shee doth bring him sorth child [...]en: but also because shee is a part of his owne substance. Secondly, Eùa was made of Adam, to shew that Adam is the be­ginning [Page 55] of the woman, and of all mankinde. Thirdly, that we might learne from hence, that mysticall coniunction betwixt Christ and his Church.

Q. What is meant by the rib?

A. Not the bare bone: but bone with the flesh thereof, as Adam testifieth: Thou art bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.

Q. How did God of one rib make a whole wo­man?

A. Either by rarefaction, or multiplication of the same rib, or by some addition of some new matter: as Christ did feed 5. thousand men with 5. loaues: for God can of nothing, or of euery thing make any thing.

Q. Was this rib, whereof Eua was created, one of Adams naturall ribs, or was it a superfiuous rib?

A. It was one of Adams naturall ribs: for [...]ow elsé could hee haue said of Eua, Thou art bone of my bone? or how could Eua bee sayd, to be formed of Adam? Neither was Adam im­perfect, although he wanted his rib: for God did fill vp that place with flesh.

Q. If Adam lost one of his ribs, how comes it▪ that the posteritie of Adam haue all their 24. ribs?

A. Although Abraham was circumcised: yet he begot his children vncircumcised; and [Page 56] a maimed man doth beget a whole man: for nature, if she be not hindred, retaines her owne force and vigor, and brings forth the perfectest effects she can.

Q. How come it, that Adam▪ in losing his rib, did not feele paine?

A. Eyther in regard of his deepe sleepe, for those that are in a lethargie. doe feele neither stripes nor wounds; or else, because God did sus­pend, and hinder the act of feeling, which is in the nerues.

Q. Why doth not Moses speake as well of the creation of Eua's soule, as of her body?

A. Because her body was otherwise crea­ted, then the body of Adam: but the manner of the creation of her soule, is all one with that of Adams, therefore there was no need of re­petition.

Q. Why was Eua brought to Adam?

A. To signifie, that shee was Adams com­panion. Secondly, a helpe to him to beger chil­dren. Thirdly, that the man is not for the wo­man, but the woman for the man. Fourthly, this bringing signifieth, that they are now con­tracted and married.

Q. Had Eua [...] reasonable soule as Adam had?

A. Yes: because she was made for a helpe to [Page 57] man, which shee could not haue bin without a reasonable soule: secondly, both receiue a Law, vpon both was inflicted punishment for the breach thereof; both their bodies are alike: re­demption is promised to both; and both doe expect glory.

Q. Why did not God create Eua as soon as Adam?

A. That Adam liuing a priuate life a while, might the better perceiue the comforts of the married life. Secondly, that he might loue God the more, who prouided such a comfort to him, when he was alone.

Q. Is man and woman of the same kinde?

A. Yes: for male and female make no essenti­all difference. Secondly, if they were not of the same kinde, how could they procreate children? Thirdly, they both haue the same definition and essentiall properties. Fourthly, wee reade that maides haue become boyes, which could not be if they were of diuers kindes, Plinius lib. 7. Cap. 4. Gellius. lib. 9. Cap. 4. &c.

Q. How could Adam and Eua bee married, seeing they were so neere a kin?

A. The neerenesse of kin, which forbiddeth matrimony, is that which ariseth of carnall copulation, and Eua was not begotten, but cre­ated of Adam: therefore she was not his daugh­ter, but his wife.

Q. Why was there but one woman created?

A. Because that one woman is sufficient to bee a helpe to one man. Secondly, to teach posterity, that God doth hate Polygamy. Thirdly, that the loue of man might bee the greater to his wife.

Q. How is man and woman one flesh?

A. Because they are ioyned together to liue one commonlife. Secondly, in respect of their carnall copulation. Thirdly, in respect of pro­creation of one flesh: for the childe is the flesh and substance of the father and mother, and both their flesh is vnited in their children, Fourthly, because of the right and power the Husband hath ouer the body of his Wife, and the Wife ouer her Husband, 1. Cor. 7.

Q. Why was not Adam and Eua ashamed of their nakednesse?

A. Because that externally, neither heat nor cold, nor any thing else could hurt their body, internally there was no inordinate affection in the soule: but perfectly the inferior part of the soule did obey the superior. And thirdly, because there was nothing to bee seene in their bodies, but that which was comely and decent; and therefore, Nihil putabant velandum, q [...]ia nihil [...], Aug. [...]. 11. de Gen. Cap. 1.

Questions on the third Chapter.

Q. WHat is meant by the Serpent?

A. Not the diuell: for so these words should bee metaphorically vnder­stood: but this is a historie, and no allegory, nor the image of a Serpent, for it was not a picture, but a reall Serpent that was cursed, neither was it a naturall Serpent that did speake: for speech and reasoning doe naturally belong to men, not to beasts: for they neither haue reasonable soules, nor the instruments of speech: but it was the deuill that spake in the Serpent, vsing the same as his instrument to deceiue. So then, there was both a Serpent, which is proued both by the speech of Moses, and the punishment inflicted on the Serpent; and besides, the diuell, which is knowne both by his speech and reasoning with Eua, as also by the testimonie of Christ, calling the deuill a man-slayer from the beginning. Iohn 8.

Q. Why was not Eua afraid to conferre with the Serpent?

A. Because the serpent (as all other creatures) was subiect and obedient to man, neither durst they, nor could they afray him or hurt him, nei­ther [Page 60] was there any place for feare in that happy estate.

Q. Why did Satan vse rather the Serpent, then any other creature?

A. First, because God did not suffer him to take any other creature. Secondly, because the Serpent, of all other creatures, is most subtil, deceitfull, prone to hurt, and deceiue a man: the Serpent is prudent to saue it selfe: therefore it is said, Be wise as Serpents, Math. 10. and crafty to deceiue others, as Paul saith, The Serpent by his craftinesse deceiued Eua, 2. Cor. 11. Chap.

Q. Seeing it was the diuell in the Serpent, that deceiued Eua, why doth not Moses signifie so much?

A. Because Moses writeth a history, and not a commentary, therefore all that is spoken here, he doth attribute to the Serpent, because Eua saw the Serpent, and conferred with the Serpent: but Satan we saw not.

Q. What doe these words meane, Your eyes shall be opened▪

A. This is meant of a further degree of knowledge, which Eua had not as yet: for the eyes of the body were opened already, and good and euill is not the obiect of bodily eyes, but of the minde, which is the eye of the soule.

Q. What is that, You shall be as Gods?

A. By Gods, may be vnderstood Angels, which are called Gods in Scripture: But here is rather meant the persons of the Trinity: as vers. 22. Behold, Adam is become as one of vs.

Q. Did not Eua see that this tree was good till now?

A. Yes: she saw before but simply, but now she seeth it with an ardent desire to eate of it.

Q. Why did God suffer Eua to be tempted?

A. That there might be an occasion for the manifestation both of Gods iustice in puni­shing the wicked, and of his mercy in sauing the repentant. Secondly, to shew vs, that al­though shee had all happinesse in that estate. yet she should not haue beene free of tempta­tions. Thirdly, that we might learne to arme our selues against Satan: for if he durst tempt in the estate of innocency, and in Paradise, what will he not doe to vs now, being driuen out [...] Paradise?

Q. What was the first sinne of Eua?

A. Incredulity, in not beleeuing God threatning. Secondly, Pride, desiring to be like God. Thirdly, alye, saying, that Godd forbid to touch the tree. Fourthly, Gluttony, desiring the fruit which was forbidden. Fift [...] ▪ scandall, in drawing Adam to the same sinne. [Page 62] Sixthly, a foolish excusing of her sinne to God.

Q. Why was the Diuell so earnest to tempt Eua?

A. Because he hated God, and would not haue man to glorifie, but to anger him. Second­ly, because of his pride and enuy: for he could not abide that man should be in such happinesse, himselfe being in misery.

Q. Why did Adam eate of this fruit?

A. Partly, through the instigation of his wife; partly, through curiosity, desiring to try what kinde of fruit this should be, which God did prohibit: so

N [...]timur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata.

Q. Was Adam deceiued also, as the woman was?

A. No: Adam was not seduced, but the woman, 1. Timo. 2. For Eua did not deceiue Adam, because shee thought all was true that Satan spoke: but Satan deceiued Eua, because he made her beleeue that, which he knew him­selfe was false. Secondly, Eua confessed that she was deceiued, but Adam doth not say that hee was deceiued, but, The woman gaue to me, and [...].

Q. Was the same of Adam and Eua the grea­test, [...]?

[Page 63] A. If we doe consider one sinne with ano­ther, then wee say, that Adams sinne was not the greatest, for the sin against the holy Ghost i [...] greater; but if we respect the circumstances of Adams sinne; to wit, the place, Paradise, where no occasion of sinne was; the time when he sinned, immediately after his creation, at the first encounter yeelding to his enemy; the ex­cellencie of the person that sinned, Adam, be­ing created to Gods owne Image: if wee re­gard also that infinite hurt and misery that hath falne vpon mankinde, by that sinne of Adam; we must confesse, that it is the greatest sinne that euer man committed.

Q. Whether was the sinne of Adam or Eua greatest?

A. If we consider both their persons, then Adam did sinne more grieuously, because hee was wiser and stronger than Eua, and hee was the head af the woman: for this cause saith the Apostle, that by one man sinne entred into the world, Rom. 5. yet in two respects, Eua's sin was greater than Adams: first, in that she did beleeue the Serpent more than God; which Adam would not haue done: secondly, in that she did entice Adam to the same sinne.

Q. How were their eyes opened after the ea­ting of this fruit?

[Page 64] A. They were not blinde before, nor ha [...] they now more libertie of will than they had, or greater knowledge: but now they know [...] ­uill by experience, which before they knew by science; and their eyes are said to bee ope­ned, because they perceiue, their nakednesse is ignominious, and their affections inordinate, which before were decent and holy.

Q. Why did they couer their members, after the eating of the forbidden fruit?

A. Because they were ashamed of their na­kednesse: secondly, by this they thought to hide their sinne, but in vaine: for none can hide sinne but God; therefore blessed is he whose sinne is couered, Psal. 32.

Q Why did they couer their priuy members?

A. Because their inordinate lust began most to appeare here: secondly, these are the instru­ments of generation, which then became sin­full; therefore all people are ashamed to see those parts, because sinne comes by generation. Hence circumcision (the signe of generation) was on this part of the body, Genesis 17.

Q. Why did they [...] the leaues of the Figge tree?

A. Because the leaues of the Fig-tree are broadest, or else, because their guilty consci­ences accusing them; and being in feare, they [Page 65] tooke of the leaues of this tree which was neerest.

Q. What is meant here by the noyse of God?

A. This sometimes signifieth thunder, Ex­odus 9. sometimes any sound. Ezek. 12. some­times Gods distinct voyce like thunder, Iohn 12. here it signifieth some fearefull noyse and sound, by which God would signifie; that now he was comming to encounter with Adam.

Q. What signifieth the winde of the day?

A. This is a description of the euening: for at the going downe of the Sunne in those places, that are neere the Mediterranian Sea, commonly the winde doth blow from the Sea; and as God came to iudge Adam in the eue­ning, so will hee come to iudge all man-kinde in the euening of the world, with the sound of the Trumpet.

Q. How did God speake to Adam here

A. God speaketh in Scripture sometime internally by his Spirit, sometimes externally, either by Angels, or by men. Here then it is like, that Christ spake in the forme of man; for in this forme he did oftentimes appeare to the Fathers of old; and in the fulnesse of time, this word was made flesh, and dwelt with vs.

Q. Why did not God accuse Satan, as hee did the man and the woman?

[Page 66] A. Because Satan was alreadie condemned for his pride, but the other two were to receiue the sentence of condemnation; therefore hee would not condemne them, till hee had con­uicted them.

Q. Whether did God curse the Diuell, or the Serpent?

A. He cursed both: the Diuell mystically, and the Serpent literally; the Diuell as the prin­cipall agent, and the Serpent as his instrument: but this Curse is pronounced of the Serpent onely, because it was the Serpent that Eua did see and speake to, and the Diuel did lurke with­in the Serpent.

Q. How could the creeping on the belly, and the eating of the dust, be a punishment and a curse, seeing this was naturall to the Serpent before mans fall?

A. The Serpents creeping before, was plea­sant, now it is painefull; then it was comely, now it is base, execrable, and contemptible.

Q. Why did God curse the Serpent?

A. To augment Satans griefe the more, who vsed him for his organ in this wicked ten­tation. Secondly, because the Serpent being Satans instrument, was the occasion of mans fall; as the beast with whom any man did lye, was to be stoned, Leuit. 20. Thirdly, because [Page 67] by this God will shew, how much he abhorreth sinne, in punishing for mans wickednesse dumbe and senselesse creatures: therefore the Earth was cursed, for Adams sinne; the beasts and fowles were drowned, sor the sinne of the first World; the Cities that entice the Israelites to Idolatrie, must be burnt; yea, the Cattell, and euery thing in those Cities, Deut. 13. yea, the dumbe creatures, for mans sinne were dayly of­fered vp in sacrifice.

Q. What is meant by the Womans Seed, and the Serpents seed?

A. By the Womans Seed, is meant especially Christ, the Womans Seed, according to the flesh; and with him, all the faithfull: by the Ser­pents seed, are meant both the rauenous beasts, which naturally hate mankinde, as also wicked men, which are called Serpents in Scripture, and generation of Vipers.

Q. What is meant heere by the Head, and the Heele?

A. By the Head of the Serpent, is meant the power of the Diuell, sinne and death; by which he woundeth vs: by the Heele, is meant the humanitie of Christ, and his members, which Satan did hurt, by the death of the Crosse; and woundeth yet, by persecuting his members.

Q. How can the multiplication of the womans consceptions be a punishment for sinne?

A. The conceptions of the woman are a punishment, because sometimes their concepti­ons are imperfect and deformed: secondly, many children being conceiued, doe perish be­fore they come to maturitie: Thirdly, many children are wicked and rebellious, not regar­ding the wombe that bare them with anguish, nor the pappes which suckled them with dan­ger. These are great punishments inflicted on women for the sinne of Eua: fourthly, her conceptions are a punishment; for many infir­mities doe accompany a woman that is with childe, as swimmings in the head, tooth-aches, perturbations in the minde, vitiosities in the stomacke; as to refuse good and wholesome meares, to desire to eate those things which Nature (being sound) abhorreth.

Q. What is the reason that women doe bring forth their children in sorrow?

A. Gods decree in punishing the sinne of Eua: secondly, the narrow passage of the bel­ly, with a dilatation and stretching out of the internall parts thereof, causeth most sharpe and sensible paines: hence the Scripture compares exquisite sorrow and paine, with the sorrowes of the child birth, Psal. 48. Mica. 4. Reu. 12. [Page 69] but this paine should not haue been in the state of innocency.

Q. Wherein was the ground cursed for Adams sake?

A. In that it did not bring forth fruite of it owne accord, as it should haue done, if Adam had not sinned, or at least, with little labour. Secondly, in that it brought forth noxious, and fruitlesse, and poysonable hearbes after the Fall.

Q. Why did Adam call his wife Eua, the mother of liuing?

A. Because by this name hee would testifie his faith, in beleeuing that Christ, the Seed of the woman, should bring that life againe to man, which he had lost by his sinne.

Q. Did God make coates of skinnes for Adam and his wife?

A. Yes: but whether God killed some beast, or whether he created the skinnes of no­thing, or of some matter, it is vncertaine; how­soeuer, by those skins he did put Adam in mind of his mortality, and that he had need of clo­thing, both for his body, which now was to be subiect to infirmities, as also for his soule, which now was defiled with sinne, and there­fore must bee clothed with the righteousnesse of Christ; which garment hee did put on by beleeuing that Christ, the Lambe of GOD, [Page 70] should be killed to clothe his naked soule, as this beast was killed to clothe his naked bodie. These skinnes also doe signifie our mortificati­on; for, as these beasts were killed, so we must kill our sinnes: for this cause, the skinnes of the Sacrifices were giuen to the Priests, Leuit. 7. Elias and Iohn Baptist with many other Saints, did weare skinnes, Hebr. 11.

Q. Why did God clothe them with skinnes?

A. First, to shew them that it was lawfull for them to kill beasts, although not to eate, yet to clothe their bodyes. Secondly, to teach vs sobrietie; for those were Skinnes, not Silke, Purple, or Cloth of Gold, which are not worne so much for necessitie, as for pride. Thirdly, that this first Adam might in some sort be a type of the second Adam, IESVS: for this was cloa­thed with the skinnes of dead beasts, so Christ with our dead sinnes; for hee became sinne for vs, that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him: and so our Iacob tooke our flesh and skin, and in it receiued the blessing for vs.

Q. Was it needfull that Adam should be cloa­thed now after his Fall?

A. Yes: first, to hide his nakednesse: secondly, to desend his bodie from the iniu­ries of the ayre: thirdly, to assure him, that although hee was a sinner, yet God would not [Page 71] quite forget him, and cast him away.

Q. Why did God say, that Adam was like to him?

A. By these words, God would shew how worthie Adam was to be scorned, who thought to be like to any or the three Persons in the Trinitie, for eating of the forbidden fruit: so this word (vs) doth not signifie Angels, but the three Persons of the Trinitie.

Q. Why did God driue Adam out of the Garden?

A. To let him see how foolishly he had done, in giuing more credit to his Wife, than to him. Secondly, to keepe the Tree of Life from him, lest he should abuse it, by thinking to haue life by it, seeing he had now violated Gods Law: for although this Tree was a signe of life before his Fall, now it is none. Thirdly, that by driuing him from this Tree of Life, he might seeke for a better life than this Tree could yeeld, euen that heauenly life, which is hid with Christ in God.

Q. When was Adam cast out of Paradise?

A. That same day he sinned: for he being now a sinner, and rebellious against God, was not fit to stay any longer in that holy place: but what day of the week [...] he was cast out, is vncertaine; yet it is thought, the eighth day af­ter his creation, he was cast out, in the euening of that day: for Satan did not suffer him to [Page 72] stay long there vntempted: yet I doe not hold that he was cast out that same day he was crea­ted: for so many things as fell out betweene his creation and casting out of Paradise, could not be done all in such a short space as a piece of a day; for the beasts were created the sixth day, before man was. Secondly, in such a short time Adam could not haue perceiued the plea­sures and happinesse of that place; therefore he was not cast out that same day hee was crea­ted.

Q. Why would God haue Adam to till the ground?

A. Because now the ground was cursed, and would not yeeld fruite without hard la­bour. Secondly, by this seruill worke, hee would put him in remembrance of his sinne, which brought him to this misery: yet after­wards God mitigated his hard labour, in free­ing euery seuenth yeere from his tillage, to put them in mind [...] of that ease they lost by sin, which was restored again spiritually by Christ.

Q. What is meant here by the Cherubins and the siery Sword?

A. Not fearefull visions, nor the torrid Zone, nor a fire compassing Paradise like a wall, neither the fire of Purgatory, as Treodoro­tus, [Page 73] Aquinas, Lyranus, and Ambrosius doe i­magine but by the Cherubins we vnderstand the Angels which did appeare often times with wings as Daniel 1. 9▪ and the figures of these were wrought in the tabernacle, Exo. 25. By the fiery sword we vnderstand most sharpe and two edged swords which the Angels in the forme of men did shake by the which shaking and swift motion the swords did seem to Adam to glister like fire for more terror lest he should attempt re-entrance there the Angels also haue appeared at other times with swords in their hands as we read Numbers 22. of the Angel that met Balaam: and of that An­gel that Dauid did obserue with a sword in his hand▪ 1. Chro. 21. 16.

Q. Why are these Angels called Ch [...]rn­bins?

A. Because they did appeare with wings in the Tabernacle and the Temple they were wrought with two wings: they appeared to Esay, with 6. wings, who are called in the 6. of Esay, Seraphins because they are inflamed with the loue of God: they appeare with wings to signifie there swiftnesse and diligence in execu­ting Gods commandements.

Questions on the fourth Chapter.

Q. WHat is the subiect of this Chap­ter?

A. Concerning the propagation of man­kinde, especially of Caine and Abel; in who [...]e persons were to bee seene the wicked, and the Church of God. Caine signifieth Possession: this is a fit name to the wicked; for they seeke no­thing else but Possessions and Honours in this world; and therefore Came built a Citie: so the wicked laboureth to be secure, to haue rest and ease in this world. But Abel signifieth Vanitio and Sorrow: so is the estate of the godly, their life hee [...]e is but vanitie, and they account all things but vanitie; their life is sorrow, they weepe for their sinnes, and for the vanities of this world, and because they are persecuted by the posteritie of Caine.

Q. When was Caine borne?

A. After Adam was cast out of Paradise; for the [...]e [...]ee remained but a short while: ney­ther was it [...]it, that in Paradise, a place holy, and the type of Heauen, any carnall copulati­on, which now was sinfull, should be com­mitted.

Q. Why did Eua say, I haue obtained a sonne of the Lord?

A. Because she was glad, thinking she had borne the promised Seed, that should tread downe the Serpents head: but she was deceiued; for hee was reiected, although hee was the first borne, and therefore a King and Priest; and Abel, whom she counted vanitie, was chosen, and his sacrifice accepted.

Q. Why is it said, that Abel was a feeder of sheepe?

A. To signifie that Abel was the figure of Christ: for as hee was killed by his brother Caine, so was Christ of his brethren the Iewes: as Abels sacrifice was receiued, so was that perfect Sacrifice of Christ accepted of the Fa­ther, as a full Propitiation for our sinnes: and as Abel was a shepheard, so was Christ the true Shepheard, that laid downe his life for his sheepe sake.

Q. Wherein was Abels sacrifice better then Caines?

A. In that it was of the best and fattest; sig­nifying, that the best things must be giuen to God: secondly, it proceeded of faith and loue that Abel carryed to God, Heb. 11.

Q. How did Cain know, that God respected the sacrifice of Abel?

[Page 76] A. By some visible signe, as by fire from heauen consuming the sacrifice; for so hee vsed to shew afterward, that he liked the sacrifice by sending fire, as Leisit. 9. Iud. 6. 1. Chron. 21. 1. Kings 18.

Q. Why doth God say, that Abels desire should be subiect to his brother?

A. Because Caine was the first borne, and therefore, by nature, had great priuiledges o­uer his younger brethren; which words God speakes, to restraine him from hurting Abel▪ for though God accepted Abels sacrifice, yet he would not take away the honour of Caines Birth-right, and the priuiledges that followed the same.

Q. Why did Caine kill his brother Abel?

A. First, for Enuie, because God accepted his sacrifice; and therefore he thought, that A­bel should haue obtained his birth-right: se­condly, by the instigation of Satan; who consi­dering the holy life of Abel, thought, that of him should com [...] the promised S [...]de; so hee began [...] to persecute Christ.

Q. Wherein was Caines answer to God, euill?

A. In [...]hree things: first, in that it was a lye: secondly, in that it was impious; for hee lyed not to m [...], but to God: thirdly, in that it was [...], Am I my brothers keeper?

Q. Why is it said, that Abels bloud did crie to God?

A. To expresse the wickednesse of this sinne. In Scripture foure kindes of sinne doe crie to God: first, Murther, as in this place: se­condly, that fearefull sinne of Sodome, Gen. 18. thirdly, the oppression of the poore, Exodus 3. fourthly, the keeping backe of the labourers hire, Iames 5.

Q. What is Caines punishment?

A. First, he was accursed; that is, depriued of Gods loue and fauor, and hated of all good men, and he was the first man that was cursed: as the Serpent his father was the first creature that was cursed, because both the Diuell and Caine were murtherers; Adam was not cursed, but the Earth for him. Secondly, the Earth also is cursed for Caines sinne, and made vnfruitfull. Thirdly, he is made a vagabond, and fugitiue; signifying, that he should be so troubled with the sting of his guiltie conscience, that he should be in continuall feare.

Q. Was Caines sin [...]e greater than he could heare?

A. No: for his sinne was not greater than Gods mercie, and his punishment was not grea­ter than Gods iustice could inflict: and so, by these words hee eyther accuseth God of iniu­stice, [Page 78] in saying his punishment is greater than he can beare; or else he despaireth, if he say, his sinne is greater than he can beare: and so he sin­neth now more fearefully than before; for be­fore, he sinned against his neighbour, here he sinnes against God.

Q. What meaneth Caine, when he saith, he shall be cast out from Gods face?

A. By Face, either he meanes his presence in the Church; and in this sence, to be cast out from Gods face, is to be excommunicated out of the Church: or by his Face, wee may vn­derstand his fauour and protection, as often in Scripture: also in this sence, to be cast out from Gods face, is to lose his loue, care, and fauour; as to haue his face, is to haue all bles­sings.

Q. Why wa [...] he afraid to be killed, seeing there were no more men now but Adam?

A. Although Moses doth not mention other men at this time, because his drift is to speake only of the propagation of the Church, yet we must know, that now when Abel was killed, mankind was multiplyed; for he was killed the 129. as some, or the 130. yeere of the World, as others doe thinke.

Q. What is meant by the seuen-fold punish­ment, that they shall suffer who shall kill Caine?

[Page 79] A. By this is eyther vnderstood, that they shall be punished to the seuenth generation; or else, by seuen-fold is vnderstood manifold, as often in Scripture▪ So then, hee that did kill Caine, should be most seuerely punished, not onely for murthering a man, but also for mur­thering such a man as was marked by God, that he should not be murthered.

Q. But why would not God haue Cain killed?

A. First, to shew that he abhorres murther: secondly, hee would haue him to liue long in feare and torment: thirdly, that by him, liuing so long in torment and miserie, others might be warned to abhorre murther: fourthly, that hee might haue the longer time to repent him for his sinne.

Q. What marke was this, that God set vpon Caine?

A. Whether it was a marke on his bodie, or madnesse, and feare in his minde, it is vncer­taine; yet it was some reall and visible signe, that men might be warned by, not to meddle with him.

Q. How is it vnderstood, that Caine went out from Gods presence?

A. Heere his presence doth not signifie his knowledge and power; for none can flee from that: as, Whither shall I [...]lee from thy presence? [Page 80] Psalme 139. and Ionas thought to haue fled from this presence, Ionas 1. But his presence doth signifie heere, the place of his worship, where he shewed his presence, and that is his Church; or else, he went out of Gods presence, that is, he was depriued of Gods loue and fa­uour.

Q. Why did Caine build a Citie?

A. For his better securitie, for hee was in continuall feare: secondly, because hee was worldly-minded, placing his happinesse in the cities and forts of this world, and not looking for that city whose builder and maker is God: thirdly, that he might the more securely tyran­nize and prey vpon other mens goods and lands: for he is the first King and Conquerour in the world: and therefore Kings should not delight in Conquering kingdomes with bloud, least they be counted the suc [...]ssours of Caine and Nimrod, that mighty Hunter; for, Mag­na imperia sunt magna latroci [...]ia.

Q. When did Caine build this Citie?

A. Not when Henoch was borne; for then there was no great need to build, seeing there were but few persons in the world: but in his old age; for Caine liued a long time, and now man-kinde was greatly multiplied.

Q. Why did [...]ee call his Citie Henoch, and [Page 81] not by his owne name, Caine?

A. Because his owne name was odious to the world, in respect of his murther; therefore he would not disgrace his Citie, and those that dwelt therein: secondly, because he loued He­noch exceedingly; therefore he would immorta­lize his name.

Q. How is it vnderstood, that Iabel was the fa­ther of them that dwelt in Tents, and had Cattell?

A. He was the inuenter of Shepheardry, and of feeding of Cattell now Abel being dead: for Tents heere signifie such Tents as Shepheards doe vse, and not those that Souldiers doe vse in Warres.

Q. Who were the first Inuenters of Musicke, and Smiths Craft?

A. Not Pythagoras, Linus, Orpheus, or Uul­can; but Iubal, and Tubal-Caine, the posteritie of Caine: so wee see, that in externall things, Caine and his posteritie were blessed, as the wicked are generally in this life; but the inhe­ritance of the Saints is in heauen.

Q. Was it lawfull for Lamech to haue two wiues?

A. No: for it was against the first instituti­on of Marriage: secondly, against the Law of Nature; which doth shew, that one should be content with one: thirdly, this pluralitie of [Page 82] wiues did arise of incontinencie and lust, and not of desire to propagate to the encrease of the Church, as many Saints haue done.

Q. What is meant by these words, I would slay a man in my wound, &c?

A. Heer [...] Lamech perceiuing that he was hated for his crueltie, b [...]aggeth to his wiues of his strength, That although he were wounded, yet hee were able to kill a man: this hee did speake, to make his wiues and others feare him the more. The Hebrewes thinke, that Lamech did kill Caine in the Wildernesse, thinking him to be a wilde beast; and perceiuing that it was Caine, he killed also the young man that decei­ued him.

Q. What meaneth these words, If Caine shall be auenged seuen-fold, then Lamech &c.

A. Eyther hee speaketh this, to affray o­thers from killing him, although he was a mur­therer, and so making a derision of Gods iudgement hee had layd vpon Caine; as if hee would say, If hee that killeth Caine, shall be punished seuen-fold, then hee that killeth me, shall be punished seuentie seuen-fold, that is, a great deale more: or else, by these wordes hee seemeth to repent for his murther; as if hee would say, Was Caine punished so hardly for his murther? then I am worthie of a [Page 83] seuentie seuen-fold worse punishment.

Q. Was Sheth the third sonne of Adam? or had he any more besides those three mentioned in Genesis?

A. It is credible, that in the space of an hundred and thirtie yeeres, (for in the hundred and thirtieth yeere Sheth was borne) Adam had many more children than those three; be­cause that Adam and Eue were created perfect, and apt for procreation: So also it was ne­cessary that the world should be multiplyed, according to Gods Decree, Increase and mul­tiplie. But these three Moses onely nameth, because of all the rest, they were most emi­nent: Abel, the type of Christ, and the Church, which are Abels, that is, mourners in this life: Caine, the type of the Diuell, and his Church, and the father of the wicked: Sheth, the origin and roote of the Church, the Father of Christ; yea, the origin of all mankind, after the floud: for Abel was killed, and Caines posteritie drowned.

Q. Why doth Eua say, that God hath put ano­ther Seed to me, in stead of Abel; speaking of Sheth, and not of any other of her sonnes?

A. Because Sheth was likest Abel. of all Eua's children, both in Religion toward God, vprightnesse of life towards men, and in loue [Page 84] and reuerence towards his Parents.

Q. What did Enoch signifie?

A. Sorrowfull, or miserable: he also was a type of the Church; which is pressed, although not oppressed with sorrow and miserie in this life.

Q. Why doth Moses say, that in his dayes men began to call on the Name of the Lord?

A. To signifie, that now men began to worship God more publikely then they did before, to exhort the people to repentance, to preach openly. But wee must not thinke, that God was not worshipped at all, till now: for Adam did worship God, and taught his sonnes Abel and Came to sacrifice; and Sheth also was an holy man, and a type of Christ, and of the Church.

Questions on the fift Chapter.

Q. WHy doth Moses rehearse the ten ge­nerations of Adam?

A. First, to shew the Genealogie of Christ, the promised Seed: Secondly, because hee is to speake of Enochs translation, therefore hee would shew his generation: Thirdly, to shew that amongst these multitudes▪ God had his [Page 85] Church, although it was then small; for God hath neuer wanted some, since the Creation, who doe worship him, and call vpon his Name.

Q. Why doth Moses say here, that God did both create and make man? and what is meant by Adam here?

A. He doth distinguish creation from ma­king: for to be made, is to be formed of some pre-existant matter; but to be created, is to be produced of nothing: then both these words he vsed, to signifie the diuers producing of the soule and body. The soule is created, because it is produced of nothing; the body is made, be­cause of something. And by Adam, hee mea­neth both the man and the woman▪ giuing them one name, to signifie that they are both of one flesh.

Q. How is it vnderstood, that Adam begat a sonne after his image?

A. First, by his image, we vnderstand his nature and substance; secondly, his reason and power he had ouer all other creatures; thirdly, the corruption of his nature: so that now A­dam being sinfull and mortall, begetteth sinfull and mortall children. Then Sheth was begotten after the image of Adam▪ a man indued with reason, and dominion ouer the creatures; [Page 86] subiect to sinne and death, as Adam.

Q. Why is it not sayd, that Adam did beget Caine and Abel after his image?

A. Because a part of this image doth consist in bearing rule ouer the creatures; which domi­nion Abel had not, being taken away by vn­timely death: and from Caine this power was taken away, because he was accursed; and the Earth commanded, not to yeeld her encrease.

Q. What doth this name Sheth signifie?

A. To be set, or appointed in stead of Abel; and as Abel was the type of mortalitie, so Sheth is the type of our resurrection: for Adam see­med to be dead▪ Abel being killed, and Caine accursed; but in the birth of Sheth, hee seemes to reuiue againe: and as he in Sheth was reui­ued, so we all in Christ shall be made aliue; and in that Adam giueth the same name to his sonne that Eua did, they both testifie their faith and hope they haue in the promised Seed.

Q. Why are the yeeres of Adam and the rest called Dayes?

A. To signifie, that although our life bee neuer so long, it shall consume as dayes; for all yeeres are composed of dayes: therefore euerie day wee should be mindfull of Mortali­tie, and thinke, that euerie day is the last; and wee must beseech God, that hee would teach [Page 87] vs to number our dayes.

Q. What is the cause, that Adam, and the rest here named before the Floud, liued so long?

A. First, because they liued soberly, and were contented with simple dyet; not pampering their bellyes, as now, with varietie of Dishes. Secondly, the constitution of their bodyes were better than ours, stronger, and not subiect to Diseases. Thirdly, they had more experience and skill in the nature of Hearbes and Fruits which they did eate, than wee haue. Fourth­ly, the Earth then brought foorth excellenter Hearbes for the food of man, than it hath done after the Floud: Fiftly, God would haue them liue so long▪ that Man-kinde might the more be multiplyed. Sixtly, that man might the more commodiously finde out Arts and Sciences; which they could not doe, without long expe­rience. Seuenthly, the moderate temperature of the ayre was then greater. Eightly, they did liue so long, that Adam night teach them the Creation of the World, his happinesse in Para­dise, and reiection from thence, &c. that the knowledge of God and Religion might the better be established amongst them, and pro­pagated by them.

Q. What kind of yeeres were those that Moses mentioneth here?

[Page 88] A. Not the yeeres of the Moone, which we call Moneths: for by this computation, we should confesse, that Kenan and Enoch did be­get sonnes and daughters before they were se­uen yeeres old; and that Abraham being 17. yeeres of age, was a very old man: but Moses meaneth the yeeres of the Sunne, which were equall with our yeeres; as we haue prooued in the Preface, vpon the second book of our Iew­ish Historie.

Q. Why did Moses subioyne vnto euery one of their liues this Particle (and he died?)

A. First to shew the ineuitable punishment and consequent of sinne vpon all Man-kinde. And from hence we may conclude, that euerie one that dyeth, is a sinner, euen children; for death is the wages of sinne: I except Christ; who dyed, not because he sinned, but because he came to destroy sinne, and death, and Satan, that hath the power of death. Secondly, to shew the vanitie of this life, which is so short. Thirdly, to put vs in minde of our mortalitie, that wee might prepare our selues for our end. All must die; euen those are gone, that liued so long: and although that we thinke they liued many yeres, yet we may truly say, that they did not liue one whole day; for none of them liued 1000. yeeres, which to God is as one day.

Q. What is the cause of the great difference be­tweene the Hebrew Copies, and the translation of the Septuagints, in the computation of the yeeres betweene Adam and the Floud?

A. Wee cannot say, that those seuentie In­terpreters, which Ptolomey did imploy in tran­slating the Hebrew Bible into the Greeke Tongue, did erre in their computation, seeing they vse no figures, as the Greekes and Latines doe in this computation, but they vse the names of their numbers. But rather wee thinke, that those that copyed out the translation of the Septuagints out of Ptolomeus Librarie, did erre, in mistaking the Greeke figures; for one letter, or figure, may easily be mistaken for another: or else they were somewhat negligent, because they thought these numbers of yeeres not to be necessarie. But we must adhere to the Hebrew veritie: or else, if wee follow the Septuagints in their computation, wee must yeeld, that Methusalem did liue after the Floud sixteene yeeres, which is directly against the truth of Gods Word; which affirmeth, that eight soules did onely escape the Floud, that is, Noah and his Family.

Q. Did Henoch die▪ or not?

A. Hee did not die: so witnesseth Paul. Heb. 11. and Moses also in this place: for hee [Page 90] subioynes to euery one of their liues that liued before and after Henoch, vntill the Floud (and he died;) but of Henoch hee speaketh no such thing.

Q. Why did God translate Henoch, that hee should not see death?

A. First, that he might assure the faithfull of their resurrection, and life eternall: secondly, because the World did degenerate, and came as it were to the height of impietie; therefore hee tooke him away, lest he had beene desiled with their wickednesse, and so be made partaker of their plagues: thirdly, because God would shew the World, how highly he esteemeth those that walke with him; that is, that obey, loue, and feare him.

Q. Whither was Henoch translated?

A. Not to the earthly Paradise; for that was destroyed with the Floud: but he was transla­ted to that heauenly Paradise, whereof Christ speaketh to the good Theese on the Crosse, and whither Elias was caught: now, although hee dyed not, yet his translation was in stead of death.

Q. What signifieth Noe?

A. Rest: which name his father Lamech gaue him, because of the comfort hee should haue of him, thinking that he was the promi­sed [Page 91] Seed, that should tread downe the Serpents [...]ead; or rather, because that he perceiued by the Spirit of Prophecie, that he should be the type of Christ: for as Noe restored the World after the Floud; so did Christ, after the floud of his Fathers wrath, restore the World to spiritu­all life: secondly, as Noe did build the Arke; so hath Christ built the Church: thirdly, as Noe offered sacrifice, whereby God smelled a sauour of Rest, and said hee would curse the ground no more; so in Christs Sacrifice which hee of­fered on the Crosse, is the Father well pleased, and he will not be angry with his Church for euer.

Q. How was Noe a comfort to Lamech, con­cerning the sorrow and worke of his hands, and touching the Earth, which the Lord cursed?

A. By Sorrow, and the workes of our hands, may be vnderstood Sinne, which is our owne worke, as holinesse is the worke of God; by the Earth, which was cursed, we vnderstand the barrennesse of the Ground and the hard la­bour of the Husbandmen: for the Ground was cursed twice; once for Adams sake, and once for Caines: but now Lamech comforteth him­selfe, that Noe shall be acceptable to God; who▪ for his sake, appointed times and seasons for sowing and reaping, and gaue Noe the skill [Page 92] to finde out Wine, that comforts the heart [...] man: and also, in his time, God did sweepe [...] way the sinnes of this age, which did grieue [...] mech, with an vniuersall Floud.

Q. Which of Noes three sonnes were eldest?

A. Iapheth is the eldest; as it is plaine, Gen. 10. 21. Cham the youngest, Gen. 9. 24. but Shem is first named: First because in dignitie he is preferred before his brethren, Gen. 9. 26. so Abraham is named before his elder brother, Gen. 11. 26. Iacob before Esau, Gen. 28. 5. E­phraim before Manasses, Gen. 48. 20. Secondly, Shem is first named; because of him, Abram and his posterity, the Israelites, descended: of which Moses is purposed to speake most.

Q. Why did the Patriarchs here named, [...] ­staine so long from begetting children; as Noe, till he was 500. yeeres old, &c?

A. As they liued longer then wee, so they were not readie so soone to beget children, as we are: for now, when a man is thirtie, he is in the prime of his yeeres; but then, none was sayd to come to mans estate, till he had bin a hundred yeeres and more. Secondly, Moses drift here is not to set downe the names of all the sonnes of these Fathers, but of such as Abraham and the Israelites came; and therefore he omits those first borne, of whom Abraham came not, and [Page 93] [...]peakes of the youngest: as Matthew, in descri­bing Christs Genealogie, speaketh of Isaac, not of Ismael; of Iacob, not of Esau; of Iudas and Dauid, not of their elder brethren, because of them came not the Lord.

Questions on the sixt Chapter.

Q. WHat is vnderstood by men, that be­gan to multiply?

A. By men, we vnderstand the sonnes of Caine: who, because they tooke many Wiues, did en­crease faster then Sheths posteritie; and as they multiplyed, so did their sinnes multiply: for the multiplication of mankind is a blessing; but we see, the more blessings God bestoweth on vs, the worse we are.

Q. What is meant here by the sonnes of God?

A. Not Angels, neither good nor bad, neither with bodies, nor without bodies: for they being spirits, are not moued with carnall lust; neither was it to drowne them, that God sent the floud, but to destroy man: therefore by the sonnes of God, is vnderstood men; for of them only doth God speake here, throughout all the Chapter.

Q. What sort of men were these, that are called the sonnes of God?

[Page 94] A. Some thinke, they were very tall an [...] mighty men: therefore they are called the sonn [...] of God▪ as the Mountaines of God, the Cedar [...] of God, that is, high and tall Hills, and Cedars▪ others thinke they were the sonnes of Princes▪ and Iudges, which are called gods in Scripture [...] others againe say, that they are those whereo [...] Paul speaketh, Rom. 8. They that are led by th [...] Spirit of God, they are the sonnes of God▪ that they were holy and iust men: but they are of soundest iudgement, that by them vnder­stand the posteritie of Sheth; who although they degenerated, yet Moses giueth them that honourable title, to shew their ingratitude, in forsaking their heauenly Father.

Q. Why is the posteritie of Sheth called the sonnes of God?

A Because God had separated them from the rest of the World, as a peculiar people to himselfe; they did serue him and reuerence him as their heauenly Father: secondly, because Sheth, their father, was an holy and iust man, and by consequent, the sonne of God, both by ad [...]ption, and imitation; therefore God doth honour his posteritie, in calling them the sonnes of God, for their father Sheths sake: So wee see what an honour it is, to haue holy Pa­rents.

Q. Was it vnlawfull for the sonnes of God to take to themselues wiues of the daughters of men?

A. Yes: for those daughters of men were Caines posteritie, excommunicated from the Church; for they were the sonnes of old Adam, because they were not borne againe by the im­mortall Seed of the Word: now it was vnlaw­full for Sheths posteritie to marry Caines daugh­ters, being of a contrarie Religion. This kind of Matrimonie was forbidden afterwards, Exodus 34. and Deuteronomy 7. For this cause, Abraham and Isaac would not haue their sonnes marrie with Canaanites. Secondly, they tooke those wiues, not for multiplication of Man-kinde, but to satisfie their immoderate lust; therefore this copulation was vnlawfull: for they should not haue defiled their bodies; as knowing they are the Temples of the Holy-Ghost.

Q. How doe we know, that these were not An­gels, which are called here the sonnes of God?

A. Because Angels are Spirits, not compo­sed of any Physicall matter, nor enclosed into bodies, as the soules of men▪ therefore they can­not be moued with carnall lust.

Q. Some do thinke they haue bodies, and there­fore are here vnderstood to haue taken them wiues of the daughters of men: how then is it, that they haue no bodies?

[Page 96] A. If they had bodies, they should be eyther Celestiall, or Elementall. Celestiall they are no [...] for heauenly bodies haue but one kind of moti­on, which is to turne round; but Angels ascend and descend, & haue all other kinds of mouing. Elementarie they are not: for whatsoeuer i [...] composed of Elements, is corruptible; but the Angels are not. If they say, that Angels haue in them but one Element; then I would know, which it is: againe, they should graunt, that the bodies of Angels are more ignoble then the bo­dies of men; because in sublunarie bodyes, the more Elements they are composed of, the no­bler and perfecter they are: and if their bodies are baser, then their mindes are imperfecter; for there is a proportion betweene the forme and the matter.

Q. Cannot Angels beget children?

A. No: for they haue no seede fit for pro­creation, because they feede not; for seede is a part of our foode. Againe, if they could pro­create children, they should be distinguished in male and female; for both these must concurre in procreation.

Q. What is meant by these words. My Spirit shall not alwayes striue with man?

A. By the word Spirit, is not vnderstood Gods prouidence, nor God himselfe, taken es­sentially; [Page 97] nor his wrath and indignation; nor mans soule: but Spirit is taken for God him­selfe personally, or for the Holy Ghost, the third person in the Trinity; by which Spirit, Christ preached in Noe, to the disobedient spirits of the old World, 1▪ Pet. 3. The meaning then is, My holy Spirit shall not contend alwayes (or a long time) with sinnefull man, by exhorting, conuincing outwardly, and inwardly by the checkes of conscience, because he is but flesh, that is, fleshly-minded; walketh after the flesh, and not after the spirit.

Q▪ What then is meant by flesh heere?

A. Not flesh properly so called: second­ly, nor as it is taken for the nature of man, as Iohn 1. 14. Christ the Word, is said to be made flesh; but heere it is taken for the corruption of mans nature. Here then God calleth man, whome he hath made to his owne Image, flesh, to make him ashamed that he hath so misera­bly falne from his first integrity: for Adam was made a liuing soule.

Q. Why saith God, that the daies of man should be an hundred and twenty yeeres, seeing that after the Floud, many did liue till they were aboue?

A. It is true, that Sem liued fiue hundred yeeres after the Floud, some foure hundred, some two hundred; and many, till Moses time, [Page 98] liued an hundred and thirtie yeeres. So that these words must not be vnderstood, as though God, after the Floud, did prolong mans life onely to an hundred and twentie yeeres; but these one hundred and twentie yeres, are meant of that time that God gaue to the first world to repent in: so long Noe preached, and buil­ded the Arke.

Q. It seemes there was an hundred yeeres from the vttering of this speech, till the Floud: for Sem, after the Floud immediatly, was an hundred yeeres old; and hee was borne when this speech was vt­tered.

A. From the vttering of this speech, vntill the Floud, there was an hundred and twentie yeeres: but this was spoken when Noe was foure hundred and fourescore yeeres old, that is twentie yeeres before he was fiue hundred▪ and before Sem was borne: yet Moses spea­keth of Sems generation, before the vttering of these words; because speaking of the gene­ration of the Fathers, from Adam, vntill the Floud, he would not leaue out the generation of Sem, although he was borne twentie yeeres af­ter the vttering of these words of God.

Q What were these Giants that are here men­tioned?

A. They were men of great stature of bo­die, [Page 99] and therefore strong and powerfull; as also cruell, wicked, ambitious: in Greeke they are called Gigantes, that is, engendred of the Earth; not as though they were the sonnes of the Earth, as the Poets thought, but because of a great deale of earthly substance they carryed about in their bodyes; as also, in respect of their minds, being earthly-minded: in Hebrew they are cal­led Nephilim, from falling, because as Apostates they fell from God; and being cruell, they fell on men, and caused many, by feare, to fall before them.

Q. Then is it true, that there haue beene such mightie men of great stature, which wee doe call Giants?

A. Yes: both sacred and prophane Histories doe testifie so much. Augustine saith, Lib. 15. de Ciuitate Dei▪ That he saw a Tooth of a man as great as an hundred of ours. Pl [...]nie recor­deth in his seuenth booke, That in Creta, out of a Hill, was digged the body of a man, of six and fortie cubites. The Spyes that were sent to Canaan, reported, That they seemed Grasse­hoppers, In comparison of the Giants of that I and, Num▪ 13. The y [...]on Bed of Og▪ King of Bas [...]an, was nine cubites long, and foure cu­bites broad, Deuteronomy 3. Goliah of the Phi­listins, was a mightie great Giant: And many [Page 100] more examples might heere be alledged.

Q. But were these Giants begotten of Diuels and women, as some haue thought?

A. Seeing these Giants were of the same substance and nature that other men are, diffe­ring onely in the quantity of their bodies from others, which is no essentiall, but accidentall difference, they were men, and begotten of men and women▪ secondly, if diuels had be­gotten them of women, they had beene ney­ther men nor diuels, but a third kinde, diffe­rent from both; for when two of diuers kindes couple together, they bring forth a third kind, different from both: as the Horse and the Asse beget a Mule, which is neither Horse nor Asse: now, diuels and women being much more dif­ferent in nature, could not bring forth Giants, seeing these were men: thirdly, diuels being spirits, cannot procreate, as is already proued.

Q. What was the sinne of the first World?

A. Moses in the fift verse of this Chapter describes their wickednesse, that it was great: secondly, it was vniuersall, and not amongst a few: thirdly, it was volu [...]tary, of purpose; their whole s [...]udy was bent to wickednes: fourth­ly, it was not for a while, but all the daies of their life. So then, it was not without cause that God sent a floud of water, to cleanse the earth [Page 101] from that floud of sinne, with which it was o­uerflowed.

Q. How is it vnderstood, that God was sor­rowfull, and repented?

A. God properly repenteth not, 1. Sam. 15. for it is contrary to his prescience: neither is he mooued with sorrow, because he is vnchange­able, Iam. 1. 17. But these, and such like speech­es, are attributed to him, after the manner of men: for man, when hee repents, changeth his deed; so God is sayd to repent, when he chan­ges that which he did before: and as man, when he destroyeth that which he loueth, is gree­ued; so God is sayd to be mooued with sor­row, because he commeth to destroy man, whom he so highly loued, and aduanced ouer all the creatures.

Q. Why did God say he would destroy the beasts and the fowles?

A. Not because they sinned: but because they being created for mans vse, man their Lord and maister being punished, they must al­so suffer with him: for by this, God will shew how hee abhorreth sinne, in punishing dumbe beasts for mans sin: so the beast that lyeth with man, must be killed, though it haue no wit, Leu. 20. 2. When man was drowned, there was no vse for the beasts. Thirdly, to augment mans [Page 102] punishment, and make it the more fearefull; when not only he, but all his goods and possessi­ons are seized vpon by Gods wrath.

Q. What meane these words; Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord?

A That is, God was fauorable and mercifull vnto him. So this phrase is vsed of Lot. G [...]n. 19. of Moses, Exo. 33. of Dauid▪ Acts 7. of Mary, Luke 1. Heere wee see, Gods children shall not want their commendations, howsoeuer the World despiseth them: Noe is heere hated of the World, but hee found grace in Gods eyes. Secondly, wee see, that God will not destroy all mankind, but will saue a few, for propagation of his Church. Thirdly, there was no time so corrupt, in which God had not some to worship him.

Q. Wherein did Noe find grace in Gods eyes?

A. In that he was preserued from the floud, when the World was destroyed. Secondly, in that Man-kinde was preserued and restored by him. Thirdly, in that his dominion ouer the creatures was restored, as it was to Adam. Fourthly, in that hee receiued a larger Patent then Adam had, to eate flesh. Fiftly, in that God did smell a sauour of Rest in his Sacrifice. Sixtly, in that God maketh a Couenant with him, conf [...]ed by the Raine-bow, that hee will [Page 103] neuer destroy the World againe with Water-Seuenthly, in that hee was a type of Christ and his Church. And many other prerogatiues had Noe, which were as many pledges of Gods fa­uour to him. In Hebrew, Noe signifieth Grace, the order of the Letters being changed.

Q. What is meant here, by the Generations of Noe?

A. His off-spring, and things that befell him: of which hee doth not speake immediately, but of his vertues, that he was a iust and perfect man, &c. And at these words the Hebrewes doe be­gin a new Section, which reacheth to the 12. Chapter: so that they diuide the whole Law into 54. Sections, or Lectures, which they read in 52. Sabbaths; and Genesis is diuided into 12. Chapters, or Lectures.

Q. How is Noe called a iust and perfect man?

A. Not absolutely so, but in respect of that [...]roward generation. Secondly, because he en­deuoured to be so, and made a conscience of his wayes: for God accepts the will, for the deed; and a part, for all. Thirdly, because of his Faith: for wee are iustified by Faith, and the iust liueth by Faith. Now Noe was made heyre of Righteousnesse, which is by Faith, as it is in the Hebrewes 11. And this doth the more commend Noes righteousnesse, that in [Page 104] such a [...]roward age, he was iust and perfect.

Q▪ H [...]w is [...] vnderstood, that the Earth [...] before God?

A. By the Earth, we vnderstand Men, both because they are the inhabitants of the Earth, as also because they were earthly-minded: and here▪ to their disgrace, they are called Earth, as before, Flesh, who should haue beene spiritually and h [...]auenly-minded (before God) that is, o­penly, in his sight. Or Elohim may signifie Prin­ces and Iudges, here: so that in the open sight of their Iudges, they wrought wickednesse. Hence then we see, that it was not the Starres, or any naturall causes, that raysed the [...]oud; but onely God, being prouoked by sinne.

Q. Why is it said now, that God looked on the Earth?

A. Not, as though he did not looke before, (for all things are naked before his eyes:) but now he is said to looke on the Earth, because he commeth to punish the Earth. And this sheweth vs, that God did not rashly and vnaduisedly pu­nish the Earth, but he looked vpon it first; that is; hee did seriously consider, there was great cause to punish Man-kinde?

Q. What is meant here, by all Flesh?

A. Man-kinde, [...], and not the beasts also, as the Iewes thought; for they can­not [Page 105] properly be said to corrupt their way, be­cause they want reason. Lawes are not made for them; they are not capable of life eternall, they are not subiect to sinne, and not lyable to punishment.

Q. What is meant by Way?

A. Their Religion, and Faith; as Acts 18. secondly, their Manners, and course of Life: as Malice is called the Way of Cai [...]; I [...]de, verse 11. Couetousnesse the Way of Balaam. 2. Pet. 2. 15.

Q. How is it vnderstood, that God destroyed the Earth?

A. The Earth was destroyed for the sinne of man; as in other particular iudgements, mens goods perished with them, Numb. 16. 32. Ios. 7. 15. yet the Earth was not destroyed, in respect of her substance, but of her ornaments and fertilitie; which was much diminished by the salt water.

Q. Why would not God saue Noe by some other meanes, but by the Arke?

A. Because, by this meanes, God would haue the World to see, that his iudgements were comming, when they beheld the Arke preparing: and if they would not repent, they might, at least, be made inexcusable; who both seeing the Arke in making, and hearing Noe [Page 106] preaching, did not repent. Secondly, because by this meanes hee would exercise Noes Faith the more, which was very great; that although the rest of the World did scorne him, and followed their owne courses, yet hee beleeued that God would performe his promise. Thirdly, although God at all times may worke miracles, yet most times hee worketh by naturall causes: there­fore in the Desart he fed his people with Man­na, when he might haue fed them with nothing; so he might haue giuen them Canaan, without their owne helpe, yet he would haue them fight for it: and here he might haue preserued N [...] more miraculously, but this way he thought fittest.

Q. Was this Arke like our Ships?

A. No: but this was like a Chest or Cos [...]in, made not to sayle, but to swimme; and this forme was most commodious, and capable of so many kindes of creatures: and this Arke was admirable, both in respect of the long time it was in building, in respect of the greatnesse thereof, of the end, it was made to preserue all kind of creatures; of the wonderfull preserua­tion thereof in that dangerous Floud; as also of many things, whereof it was the type. Concer­ning this Arke, the Poets haue stolne much out of this place.

Q. What kinde of Tree was the Arke made of?

A. The word Gopher doth signifie the Cedar, Firre, and Pine-trees; so it is vncertaine which of those it was made of, neyther is it much ma­teriall: but this word is not found in any other place of Scripture.

Q. How large was the Arke?

A. The length was 300. cubits, the breadth 50. and the height was 30. cubits. Now a cu­bit is the measure from the elbow to the fingers end, containing a foot and a halfe: but if the men of that time were bigger then now (as it is like) then the cubit was also bigger. Then wee must not thinke with Origen, that those were Geometricall cubits, whereof euerie one containes 6. common cubits; for Moses doth not speake heere of any other cubits, then hee doth elsewhere: and of no other kind of cubit doe wee reade in Scripture, then of those com­mon cubits aboue-named▪ as Ex [...]. 27. Deut. 3. 1. King. 17. &c. So then the Arke, by this rec­koning, was sixe times as long as it was broad, and ten times so long as it was high. But how so many creatures could be contayned in so little roome, was not impossible for him, that miraculously sent the Floud, and deli­uered Noe from the [...]ame: yet if wee duely [Page 108] consider the bignesse of the Arke, we shall finde there was roome sufficient for them all.

Q. How could Noe and his three sonnes build so great an Arke?

A. Although they were the chiefe builders, yet we must think, there were many more vnder them hyred, who laboured in building for their wages, although they beleeued not, and so they perished with the rest.

Q. Was there a Window in the Arke?

A. Yes; but the Hebrew word is Zohaer, which signifies Light: therefore the Hebrewes thought that this was no Window, but some precious Stone that was hanged in the Arke, to giue light to the creatures therein. Yet we must not deny, but that there was a Window; for Noe, in the eight Chapter, is sayd to open the Window, and let out the Rauen and Doue. Others say, that this Zohar was a Lamp, or Can­dle, appointed to burne so long as Noe was in the Arke, because the Sunne did not shine all that time: but this is fabulous.

Q. What is this (And in a cubit thou shalt finish it aboue?)

A. That is, Thou shalt bow the roofe of the Arke but a cubit, so that it may bee almost flat; but yet so, that the water may easily slide off.

Q. How many Roomes, or Stories, were there in the Arke?

A. Three Roomes: the highest, for Man and the Fowles; the next, for all kinds of meat and prouision for the creatures; the lowest and third roome, for the beasts. These three are onely mentioned here: therefore Origen was deceiued, that thought there were fiue Roomes. As in this Arke there were three Roomes, so in Moses Tabernacle, and Salomons Temple, were also three. The Church also (figured by the Arke) hath three states; before the Law, vnder the Law, and vnder Christ.

Q. Why would Gool establish his Couenant with Noe, before the Arke was built?

A. To confirme Noes Faith the more: for he had need of such a promise, that went about such a hard and dangerous worke, as the buil­ding of the Arke was. And here wee see, that God neuer imployeth his seruants in any hard worke, but hee giueth them comfort, strength, and courage to performe it: And so it is our part, to relye on Gods promises, with Noe, and not to encline eyther to the right or left hand.

Q. What Couenant was this, that God made with Noe?

A. That he would preserue him and his Fa­mily [Page 110] in the Floud: and this is a type of the Co­uenant which God hath made with vs in Christ. Now this Couenant belongeth to Noe, and his Family: so all Gods Couenants to the faithfull, and their children also. As for Noes sake, his Family was saued: so for the companie of one holy man, many shall escape in the day of Gods wrath. For Pauls sake, all that were in the ship were saued. Here, this is called Gods Couenant, because he bindes himselfe to saue vs: so else­where it is called our Couenant, Zach. 9. 11. be­cause on our part, we are bound to beleeue and obey him.

Q. What sorts of creatures was Noe com­manded to receiue within the Arke?

A. All those that could not liue in the wa­ter; as Men, Beasts, and Fowles: Fishes then and [...], that is, those creatures that can liue both on the land and in the water, were not receiued. Secondly, the perfect creatures; that is, such as are procreated by commixture of male and fe­male (for the male and female are here mentio­ned.) Then Mice, and such like, as are engendred of corruption, were not receiued. And heere Noe is commaunded to receiue two of euerie sort, which in the next Chapter is better ex­plained: for of the vncleane, two are receiued; of the cleane, seuen; three males and females [Page 111] for generation, and one male for the Sacrifice. Here we see, that God, for Noes sake, saueth all those sorts of creatures; extending his mercles euen to the beasts, for his seruants sake.

Q. How did Noe gather together all these creatures? did he hunt for them?

A. No: but they came of their owne ac­cord, the Lord leading them thither; and here they are brought to Noe, as before to Adam: yet, although God brought them to the Arke, notwithstanding, Noe must bring them within, and place them in the Arke. Noe is the type of Christs Ministers: who doe not leade Christs Sheepe to the Church; because, being mooued by Gods Spirit, they come of their owne ac­cord [...]: yet the Minister gathereth them toge­ther, and doth vnite them by the Word and Sacraments.

Q. If all kindes of meate were layd vp in the Arke for the creatures; then whether, or not, was there also flesh for those creatures, that liued onely on flesh?

A. First, before the Floud, neyther man nor beast did eate flesh; but this power of eating flesh, was giuen after the Floud: secondly, we doe not reade of any beasts that were brought into the Arke, for meate, but onely for genera­tion and sacrifice: thirdly, if there had beene [Page 112] beasts in the Arke, for eating, and so many as might serue for a whole yeere, surely there could not be roome enough for them; besides, their flesh would haue putrified, and that had beene filthie and loathsome to man: therefore they did not eate flesh at that time, but eyther grasse, fruits, or seedes; for these they fed vpon, when flesh was wanting. Besides, God, that caused them to come to the Arke, of their owne accord, and to remaine so long obedient to Noe, could also sustaine them so long without flesh, onely vpon hearbs; for those were better, at that time, then now, and the temperature of those [...]easts was sounder.

Q. Why was God so carefull to prouide foode for those dumbe creatures?

A. To let vs know and admire his infi­nite Goodnesse, in not onely creating them for mans vse, but also, in preseruing them to the same end: secondly, that by this carefulnesse of his, wee may be enduced to loue him the more: thirdly, to depend on him in our ex­tremities; for if he had a care of them, when they could not care so themselues, much more will he be carefull of vs, in our necessities: fourthly, he would not saue them in the Arke, as he did the Israelites in the red Sea, and as Ionas in the Whales belly▪ miraculously; but [Page 113] he would haue heere both man and beast, to vse the meanes of the Arke, and of the foode he gaue them, for the preseruation of their life: to teach vs, that we should not dispise the or­dinary meanes that God hath appoynted for the conseruation of our life: fiftly, to teach all Christians that haue children, wife, or family, to prouide for them things that may sustaine their naturall life: seeing God had such care to maintaine the life of these creatures, which are not so deare to God as men are.

Q: What is the commendation that Noe hath heere in the end?

A. That he did according to all that God commaunded him; therefore he became heire of the Righteousnes that is by faith, Hebr. 11. Then heere was his glory, not in that he knew Gods commaundements, but in that he did them: secondly, he did not a part, but ac­cording to all that was commaunded him: thirdly, his faith and obedience was won­derfull: if we should consider the circum­stances thereof; as the bignesse of the Arke, the long and tedeous space of an hundreth yeeres, cutting and bringing together so ma­ny trees, the taunts and scornes hee did in­dure of men, the feare he was in, for preach­ing they should all be drowned, the care and [Page 114] sollicitude he had, to gather together so much prouision for man, beasts and fowles: yea, to bring into the Arke so many sorts of wilde beasts; and lastly, to inclose himselfe therein for a yeare, as in a Sepulcher: all these being considered, shall make vs acknowledge, that his Faith and Obedience was worthy of eternall commendations

Q Whereof was Noe and the Arke a ripe or figure?

A. Of Christ and of the Church: for Noe was the tipe of Christ, in that Noe is rest: so Christ is our rest, & in him we haue rest for our soules, our consciences haue rest from the gilt and punishment of sinne, from the condemning and commanding power thereof, and after this life, we shall rest from our labors, euen in the bosome of Abraham Secondly, as Noe preser­ued some from the flood, so hath Christ from the floods of Gods wrath. Thirdly, as Noe in the Arke of wood did saue them, so Christ vp­on the Crosse of wood, hath saued vs. Fourth­ly, as out of the Arke there is no safety, so out of the Church there is no saluation. Fiftly, as the Arke was made of diuers sorts of trees, so is the Church of diuers sorts of men. Sixtly, as the Ark was a long time in building, so hath the Church a long time in making. Seuenthly, as in [Page 115] the flood God drowned s [...]nners, so in baptism [...] (whereof the flood was a tipe) God drowneth our sinnes. Eightly, as the plankes of the Ark [...] were ioyned together with pitch? so should the member [...] of the Church be ioyned toge­ther with loue. Ninthly, as Noe not only built the Arke, but entred therein▪ so Christ not only built the Church, but dwels therein▪ Tenthly, as in the Arke were all sorts of crea­tures, so in the Church are all sorts of Christi­ans. Eleuenthly, as in the Ark were more beasts then men, so in the Church are more bad th [...]n good. Twelftly, as in the Arke was all kind of corporall food for the creatures, so in the Church is all kind of spirituall food for Christi­ans. 13. As in the Arke was a window to giue light to the eies, so in the Church is the word to giue light to the minds. 14. As there was a doore for the creatures to enter into the Arke, so Christ is the doore, by whom we enter into the Church 15. As in the Arke were diuers roomes or stories, so in the Church are diuers degrees & orders. 16. As the Arke was great and large for all sorts of beasts▪ so is the Church for all sorts of men. 17. As there was out one Arke, one doore, one window? so there [...]s but one Church, one Christ, one Scripture. [...]8. As the Rauen went out and came not a­gaine, [Page 116] but the Doue could finde find no rest, till [...] returned to the Arke? so the wicked care not for the Church: but the godly, who represent the nature and qualities of the Doue, can ha [...] no rest for their soules but in the Church. 19. A [...] the Arke was tossed vp and downe in the wa­ter with the wind, yet was vpheld by God: so the Church is tossed vp and downe in the sea of this world, with the winds of Satan, of sinne, of wicked men and of the flesh: yet the Lord vpholds her. 20. A [...] the Arke at last rested on the mountaines of Armenia? so shall the Church on Moun [...] Sion, in the Kingdome of glory, when the waters shall settle, and the winds shall cease? then those that seemed to be dead in the Arke, shall come out of the graues? and with ioy shall inioy that happy Immortality.


TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE, AND REVEREND FATHER in God, IOHN Lord Bishop of Lincolne, Lord Keeper of the Great Seale of England, and one of his Maiesties most Honorable Priuie Councell.


THE Athenians while they were in doubt whom they shold chuse to be the Patron of their Citie, at last [...] that [...] was preferred, because of her wisedome and learning to Neptune [Page] the rich god of the great Ocean, for they thought their could be no grea­ter glorie then to haue a learned Pa­tron, therefore they preferred her peaceable Oliue, to his warlike horse, her peare to his three-forked Scepter, her virginitie, to his ample authoritie, her Dragon to his Triton, and her learning to his vaste dominion, and good reason, for according to the Co­mic: [...]. Euen so this little Booke could not finde a fit­ter Patron to grace and defend her, then your Lordship, in whom wit and learning, greatnesse and goodnesse, sci­ence and conscience haue met toge­ther. Truly, God hath inriched your Honour, with a great measure of lear­ning and other excellent parts, that it was not without iust cause, that our great Mecenas and immortall glorie of the Muses hath aduanced your Lordship, that vnder him you might see learning aduanced. Whose Life so [Page] long as the God of Iacob doth conti­nue we neede not feare, that illiterate Lacedemonians, or ignorant Thraci­ans, shall beare rule either in our Church or Common-wealth, [...], no Marius shall be countenan­ced, to condemne the Greeke, Latine and Hebrew tongues; no Caligula to abolish the verses of diuine Virgil and Homer, or the workes of Liuius and Seneca; no Caracalla to persecute Phi­losophers and burne the works of great Aristotle; no Licinius to account lear­ning the pestilence of the state, but the Muses shall sit and sing securely vpon Helicon, and knit garlands of Laurell to Crowne his sacred head, and sing eter­nall Peans to the honour of there great Peace-maker, Qui Musis haec otia fecit, and amongst the rest,

Si quid mea carmina possunt,
Nulla dies vnquam memori eum eximet [...]uo.

Receiue then Right Honorable, this Athenian client vnto your tuition, in [Page] whom although there be neither [...] nor [...], yet if your Lord­ship be pleased to approoue her, shee cares not who reprooue her. So be­seeching God who hath made you great in this kingdome, to make you also great in his Kingdome; I humbly take my leaue and will continue,

Dum res, & aetas, & Sororum,
Fila trium patiuntur atra.
Your Honours to command, Alexander Rosse.

To the Reader.

WAspes we know can sting, although they can neither make honie nor waxe: so now adaies there are many carpin [...] Critickes, who can reproue and cen­sure the workes of other men, when in the meane while, either they can not, or at least they will not bring forth the like fruits, whereby they may profite the Church and Common-wealth. Nil tam facilè quam otiosum & dormientem de aliorum labore & vigilijs disputa [...]e. Hieron. in Oseam. These men saith Augustin, Magis amant vi­tuperareAug. [...] dom. in mo [...]. & damnare quam emendare & corrigere, quod vitium vel est superbiae vel invidiae. Therefore I doubt not but such Viti­litigatores [Page] will giue their sensure of this booke, before they reade it: affirming that be­cause some haue written already of this subiect, therefore there is no vse of it, but I desire them first to reade and conferre this with others, for according to the Greeke prouerbe, [...], then after they haue read and conferred let them censure. For [...] is a foule vice, and let them remem [...] that the pro­uerbe is true: [...].


Question. WHY would God haue Noah and his familie to enter into the Arke?

Answ. First, to pre­serue them from the flood: For this was the ordinarie meanes which God vsed to Saue Noah, although he could haue saued him; without this meanes, and as out of the Arke they could not be preser­ued; so out of the Church we can not be sa­ued. Secondly, God by this doth shew his care to his Saints, that in their greatest [Page 2] dangers he is readiest to helpe them; for now the flood was at hand, and Noe had most need of comfort now. Thirdly, he saues the family for Noes sake. So then God for one iust mans sake doth blesse a great many.

Quest. How was Noah righteous before God?

Ans. Not by the workes of the Law, for so no flesh is iust before God, Rom. 3. but by Faith, Heb. 11. beleeuing in the promised Seed, and that God would performe his pro­mise in sending the flood, and Noah was iust, not before men, as hypocrits are, who desire onely to please men, but he was iust before God, only studying to haue his approbation, now God saued him not because he deserued it, but because hee would crowne his owne worke.

Q. How many cleane beasts were rere and in the Arke?

A. Not fourteenth of euery kinde as Iustinus Martij, Origen, and others do thinke, but seauen of euery kinde, that is three cou­ple for p [...]ocreation, and one Male for sacri­fice, [...]ow to thinke that foureteene were brought into the Arke, is vaine, both because so many of euery kinde would haue ouer­charged the Arke, as also because seuen were sufficient.

Q. Why would God haue more cleane then vncleane beasts in the Arke?

A. The vncleane were preserued onely for propogation, but the cleane. First, for pro­pogation. Secondly, for man to eate. Third­ly, for sacrifice. Therefore God would haue more cleane then vncleane, besides, by this God would teach vs two things. First, that there should bee more cleane then vncleane in the Church, as there was in the Arke, that is, more good then bad; for we are chosen to be holy and without blame. Ephes. 1. al­though it falles out otherwise that in Christs field there are more weedes then corne. Se­condly, his loue and care, in that he will haue but few of the vncleane saued, because the most part of them are wilde and cruell to man; and hurtfull to the cleane beasts, there­fore there are more Doues then Hawkes, Sheepe then Woolfes, yet some of these Sa­uadge beasts hee would preserue, that hee might vse them as instruments to punish mans rebellion.

Q. How is it vnderstood that some beasts are cleane some vncleane?

A. By nature all beasts are cleane because good. Gen. 1. 31. and there is nothing vn­cleane of it selfe, Rom. 14. 14. but some are [Page 4] called vncleane, because men doe account them so. Secondly, because they are not vsed for meate. Thirdly, because afterward by Moses Law they were excluded from being offered vp in sacrifice. Fourthly, because in them are some euill qualities and properties which God will haue vs to shunne.

Q. Was there any distinction of cleane and vncleane beasts before the flood?

A. Yes, Moses indeed did establish this distinction, but it was in vse amongst the fa­thers before him, and many things else. As, offering of the first fruits, Gen. 4. building of Altars. Gen. 8. paying of Tithes to the Priest. Gen. 14. yet all things that Moses comman­ded, were not obserued by the Patriarckes. For Moses did forbid to marrie with two si­sters: yet Iacob did with Leah and Rachel. Gen. 29. and he commanded to abstaine from some kinds of flesh, yet God giues permissi­on to Noe to eate of euery kinde of flesh. Gen. 9.

Q. How kn [...]w the fathers before Moses which were cleane and which vncleane?

A. Either by tradition of their Ancestors, or by reuelation from God, and not by any positiue law; yet we must obserue that this distinction was not in vse, in regard of [Page 5] meate, for it was lawfull to eate of any flesh. Gen. 9. but in regard of Sacrifice, and so Beeues, Sheepe, and Goates were only cleane for Sacrifice of beasts, and of fowles, only Turtle-doues, and Pigeons.

Q. Why would God haue seauen cleane beasts saued, and neither more nor lesse?

A. Besides that the number of seauen sig­nifieth sufficiencie and perfection in the Scripture, especially in sacrifices, as Numb. 23. 1. 14. [...]9. 1. Chron. 15. 26. &c. these seauen did containe three couples and one odde: one couple for procreation, an other for foode, and the third for sacrifice, the odde one which was a Male was ordained for that sa­crifice which Noe was to offer presently after the flood: which was rather a Male then a Female, because the Male is perfecter, and so all that we offer to God must be perfect.

Q. Why in the sixt Chapter speaketh Moses but of two, and here of seauen?

A. Here hee speaketh of the number of the cleane which is seauen; there hee spake not of the number, but of the order how they should be receiued, which was two and two, that is, the Male and his Female; and not ei­ther more Males or more Females.

Q. How were so many kinds of creatures [Page 6] brought into the Arke?

A. Noe did not wander vp and downe the world to gather them as Philo thought, for that required long time, and intollerable la­bour; neither did they swimme to the Arke when the flood came as others thinke, for they were in the Arke before the flood came, and the doore of the Arke was shut vpon them also before the flood, but they were driuen thither by the power of God, and the ministry of Angels, Non hominis actu, Sed dei natu saies Augustin. lib. 15. de Ciuit. cap. 17.

Q. Why was God so carefull that euery Male should haue his Female?

A. By this, God doth the second time con­firme marriage, for hee hath ordained it in Paradise, and confirmed it now; which to prohibite is impious, Christ did honour it with his first miracle, it is that type of that Vnion betweene Christ and his Church, it is the meanes to propagate mankinde and en­large the Church, and a remedie against for­nication, &c. therefore as here euery Male hath his Feamale, so euery man must haue his wife.

Q. Why doth God giue to Noe yet 7. daies?

A. Not that Mathusalem should be ho­nourable buried and mourned for seauen [Page 7] dayes as the Iewes doe babble; but first that Noe now may make all things the sooner ready knowing the certaine day of the flood: secondly, to show how vnwilling God is yet to destroy the world, if they will [...]epent, therefore he giueth yet seauen dayes, to see if they will forsake their euill waies.

Q. Why would God haue it raine fortie dayes.

A. So long time God did send raine be­cause he would destroy all the creatures with water: secondly, hee would not drowne all the world at an instant, but in the space of fortie dayes, that they might now haue the more time to consider how iust God was in performing his promise, and that it was no Fable that Noe did preach to them concer­ning the comming of the flood, and as God was fortie daies in pooring down his wrath, so was Moyses, Elias and Christ forty dayes in fasting, fortie yeares did the people wan­der in the Desart, fortie dayes respit was giuen to Niniue, fortie daies did Ezechiel beare the sinne of Iuda, fortie daies did Christ conuerse with his Disciples after his resurrection, and thrice fortie yeares, that is a hundred and twentie were giuen to the old world to repent.

Q. What yeare of the world was the sloud s [...]nt?

A. The 1656 yeare of the world, which was the 600. yeare of Noah in the which yeare Mathusalem died, then the compu­tation of the Septuagints is false, which ma­keth their yeare to be the 2242. yeare of the world.

Q. What month was this which Moses calleth the second month?

A. Some doe thinke that this is not the second moneth of the yeare but the second moneth of Noahs life, So that now Noah was 600. yeare old and two moneths. O­thers againe thinke that this is the second month of the yeare, the which had two be­ginnings, the one at the moone which was next the equinoctiall vernall:—the other at the equinoctiall autumnall, that beginning of the yeare was sacred and appointed by God. Exod. 12. 2. this beginning wa [...] ciuill, then in ecclesiasticall matters, April was the second moneth, but in ciuill affaires, October was the second, and which of these two Mo­ses meanes here it is vncertaine, yet it is most probable that he meaneth of April. 1. to ex­ [...]ol Gods power the more, who did then send the [...]lood when naturally the springs doe be­gin [Page 9] to dry, and the ayre to be clearer from cloudes. 2. to aggrauate their punishment the more, who then were drowned when the earth began to bee most pleasant and glori­ous. 3. to [...]each vs, neuer to be secure but still watching, for Christ will come as a theefe in the night, and when the wicked do say peace then shall sodaine destruction come.

Q. What is meant by the great deepe?

A. The deepe sometimes in Scripture sig­nifieth the Ocean sea. Iob 38. 16. Psal. 106. 9. Sometimes the waters that are vnder the earth. Deut. 8. 7. Psal. 33. 7. but in this place the deepe signifieth both.

Q. What is meant by the windowes of hea­uen?

A. This speech is metaphorical and it signifi­eth the wōderful falling of the violent waters from aboue, these (windowes) then may sig­nifie the clouds, and (heauen) the middle re­gion of the aire. Some haue thought that these waters were aboue the heauens, but it is absurd to thinke that waters can be aboue the heauens, and that they should breake through so many heauens of the planites, and that of the fixed starres, for it is against the nature of the waters to consist so high, see­ing the lower parts of the world are his [Page 10] place, and it is against the nature of the hea­uen to be broken or opened with raine.

Q. What doth this flood signifie?

A. 1. The afflictions of the Church, for as this flood lasted but for a while, so doth af­flictions; as this flood was sent onely by God, so are afflictions, the higher the flood lifted the Arke, the neerer it was to heauen, so the more we are afflicted, the more wee loath this world and seeke for heauen. Noah is saued and the wicked are drowned in this flood, so afflictions are meanes to saue the Godly but destroy the Wicked, therefore great afflictions are called waters, Psal. 69. 1. 2. 15. vers. Secondly it is a type of our baptisme, 1. Pet. 3. 21. and both the flood and our bap­tisme are types of our▪ spirituall regenerati­on, for as Noah was saued and the wicked drowned. So we are saued and our sins are drowned in the blood of Christ.

Q. How high was the water of the flood?

A. 15. Cubites it was higher then the mountaines, yea Olimpus Atho and other mountaines of whose incredible height ma­ny false things hath beene recorded, were drowned in the flood, so then Gods wrath spareth not the mountaines, neither will hee spare the mightie potentates, learned and [Page 11] [...]ise men of the world, how great and emi­ [...]ent soeuer they seeme to be, when his anger [...] kindled.

Q. Did all the creatures dye that were not [...] the Arke?

A. The Rabbins thinke that the fishes also [...]erished because the waters did waxe hotte, [...]ut this is vncertaine, wee know that all that [...]id breath died, but the fishes do not breath, because they want the instruments of brea­thing. 2. There is no ayre in the water for them to breath. 3. If they would breath in the water, so could men and other creatures. 4. If they did breath ayre in the water, then they would not dye when they come out of the water into the aire, therfore it is proba­ble that they were not killed; but whether these men that were drowned were also con­demned eternally or not, it is not for vs to inquire, yet those that did repent were doubt­lesse saued; as the theefe on the crosse.

Q. Was this flood all one with that of Ogy­ges and Deucalion.

A. No, for this flood was vniuersall, that of Ogyges was onely in the country of Atti­ca, and that of Deucalion in Thessalia. 2. The flood of Noah was in the 1656. yeare of the world, but that of Ogyges was almost 540. [Page 12] yeares after, which was about the 90. years of the Patriarch Iacob, and the flood of De [...] ­calion was almost 770. yeares after the de­ludge of Noah, that is 230. after the flood o [...] Ogyges about the 50. yeare of Moses.

Q. Was this flood sent by Gods immediate power, or was it wrought onely by naturall can­ses?

A. It was not wrought by nature, 1. be­cause that which nature worketh, commeth to passe of necessity, without any intent of good or euill, now this flood was sent be­cause of the iniquity of that time, which na­ture knoweth not. So that if this flood had onely depended vpon nature, it would haue come whether the world had sinned or not; 2. if the starres were the cause of this flood, then they may be the cause of an other vni­uersall flood; but they cannot. For God hath promised that hee will not destroy the earth any more with water, Ergo. 3. the starres can­not extract, and the earth cannot yeeld such a quantity of vapors as may suffice to make anvniuersal flood to rise 15. cubits higher the the mountaines: 4. as the flood did not cease by the power of nature, but by the power of God that sent out a wind to dry the ground, so it was not sent but by the power of God, [Page 13] [...]. in this narration God is onely nominated [...]s the sole authour of this flood, the refore it [...]as by his power onely that the flood was [...]ent.

Q. How long did the flood preuaile vpon the [...]arth?

A. A hundred and fiftie dayes, but whe­ther these dayes are to be reckoned from the beginniug of the flood, as Lyrane, Ambrosius and others haue thought, or else from the end of these 40. dayes, in the which it did [...]aine as Chrysostome, and some of the Iewish Rabbins doe thinke is vncertaine, but if wee meane the mountaines and all other parts of the earth, ouer which the waters did pre­uaile, then we must not reckon these dayes from the beginning of the flood, for all the earth was not so suddainely ouerflowed with water, but by degrees, therefore God did cause it to raine fourty dayes, at the end of which fourty dayes these hundred and fif­ty take their beginning, for so long did the water preuayle ouer all the parts of the earth.

Questions on the eighth Chapter.

Q. HOw did God remember Noah and the creatures?

A. Remembrance is the knowledge of things past, but to God all things are present, therefore properly hee doth neyther remember nor forget, but these words are vsed for our better vnderstanding, then because God did suffer Noah to remaine so long in the Arke as in a dungeon amongst stinking beasts, and tossed with the flood, he might be said to be forgetfull of him: and now because hee helpes and deliuers him from his troubles and miseries, he is saide to remember him, here wee see the Lord will not forsake his Saints altogether, he may leaue them for a while, but in his owne good time, he will come againe to them for their euerlasting comfort.

Q. Why did God remember also the beasts?

A. Not for their owne sakes, but because they were ordayned for the vse of man: yet [Page 15] two wayes God remembers the creatures. First as they are the works of his hands, so his prouidence is extended to all things, for a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without the will of our father. Mat. 10. Secondly, as they are made for the vse of man, and so God hath a more speciall care of them then if God remember the beasts, much more will he be mindfull of man.

Q. Was this a wind that God vsed to dry the earth, or was it the immediate power of the holy Ghost?

A. The Hebrew word Ruach signifieth both a spirit and the wind, but here it signi­fieth a wind onely, which he vseth to dry vp the waters, as afterwards he did to diuide the red sea for the people of Israel; yet we can­not say that this wind was generated of na­turall causes, as other winds are; or that na­turally it had that power to dry vp all that huge quantity of water, but this wind as it was sent extraordinarily by Gods immediate power, so it had an extraordinary and mira­culous force to driue away the waters from the face of the earth, yea contrary to the quality of other winds which causeth the water to rage, but this winde did asswage them.

Q. Why did God stay the raine and stoppe the windowes of heauen?

A. First, because now it was time, and hee had sufficiently reuenged himselfe vpon that rebellious world: secondly, to show his won­derfull goodnes, and to teach vs that he will not shut vp his mercy in displeasure for euer: thirdly, to show his mighty power, for at his command the fountaines of the deepe, were broken: and the windowes of heauen ope­ned, and at his command they are stop­ped and the raine restrained: fourthly, to teach vs obedience, for if these dumbe, deafe, and senselesse creatures doe with such alacri­tie obey Gods command, much more ought man indued with sense and reason: fifthly, to show vs what we should doe with our sinnes, as God stopped the fountaines that the wa­ter should flow no more, so should we stoppe the fountaines of sinne, least they burst forth into great floods and drowne both body and soule in euerlasting perdition.

Q. What mountaines are these which are called Ararat?

A. They are hils in Armenia, which coun­trey lyeth neere Assyria and Mesopotamia, these are thought to bee certaine toppes of the hill Cancasus, and though the Arke rested [Page 17] there, yet it followeth not that these were the highest hills in the world. And it is also ridiculous to thinke that some fragments of the Arke were found here in Hieromes time.

Q. How doe wee reckon this seuenth month in which the Arke rested?

A. Some reckon it from the beginning of the flood, but it is more probable, that it is to bee vnderstood from the beginning of the yeere, for so Moses doth vse it euery where in this narration, and to thinke that Moses should else-where in this natration speake of the moneths of the yeare, but hereof the moneths from the flood, were to make him speake ambiguously and doubtfully.

Q. Why did Noah open the window for the Rauen and the Doue, and did not looke out of it himselfe?

A. First, because hee was so stricken with feare of that fearefull iudgement that hee durst not: secondly, because he could not see farre and remote places, whether they were free from the wate or not, but these fowles could flie abroad and so discerne.

Q. Why did Noah send out the Rauen, ra­ther then any other fowle?

A. Because the Rauen delighting in dead bodies, would bee allured by their smell to [Page 18] flie abroad, and so to giue a sure warrant of the setling of the water.

Q. Did the Rauin returne againe into the Arke or not?

A. The Latine and Greeke translations haue, that shee returned not, but by the He­brew it is doubtfull, yet it is thought of the most learned that shee did not returne. The Rauin doth resemble the Law which giueth no euidence to mans conscience, that the waters of Gods wrath are setled, because we cannot fulfill the Law; but the Doue resem­bleth the Gospel; who returning with an Oliue leafe doth signifie the glad tidings of peace, and reconciliation, which Christ on whome the holy Ghost discended in the forme of a Doue, hath brought into the world.

Q. How is it vnderstood that the Doue could finde no rest for the sole of her foote?

A. Indeede the tops of the mountaines were seene fortie daies before, yet although the waters were diminished and gone, the earth notwithstanding was slime, and mire as yet, therefore the Doue would not rest in the [...]e, and dirt, and she resembleth Gods Saints, that can finde no rest, but in the Church. Againe heere is the spectacle of [Page 19] Gods fearefull iudgement, that the Doue can not haue so much roome as to rest her foote, where before there were so many pleasant roomes for all the creatures to rest them­selues, so the end of sinne is Gods wrath, and the end of this is desolation.

Q. What signe did the Doue giue to Noah that the waters were abated?

A. Shee brought in her mouth one Oliue branch in the euening. That Doue resem­bleth the Preachers, the Oliue branch the Gospel, which is the tidings of peace; her mouth the preaching thereof, and the eue­ning, this latter age of the world, now it is thought because of Hieromes translation that this branch was greene, and this is probable enough, for though the waters did all this while preuaile vpon the earth and deface the same, yet the Oliue might be preserued, be­cause it is one of these kinde of trees that are still greene, the Iewes prate that the Doue flew to Paradise and got this branch, because that onely was free from water, so Rab. Lenni. babbles that this branch was brought from the mount of Oliues, because that Iudea was not drowned with the flood, but these dreames are scarce worthy of reci­tation, much lesse of refutation.

Q. Why did Noah send out the Doue so often?

A. Because he will not venter to come a­broad till he be fully assured that the earth is drie, which now hee knowes fully, because the 'Doue returned not, so he would not rash­ly cast himselfe into danger, although he had beene so long in the Arke as in a stinking dungeon; but patiently did waite till the earth was drie, and the Doue was often im­ployed because of his good seruice; this should teach seruants to be faithfull to there Masters as the Doue was to Noah, and not to be like the Rauen. 2. This oft returning of the Doue doth show vs that when God is reconciled with vs, he will make his dumbe creatures to comfort vs rather then we shall want. 3. This practise of the Doue doth teach vs gratitude, for he labours to comfort and bring good newes to Noah, because of the care he had of him being in the Arke, so we should neuer forget a good deede. 4. We must bee louing and mercifull euen to the beasts, for we know not what extraordinarie comfort they may afford vs. 5. As the Doue returned no more into the Arke, hauing done her message, so when we haue finished that seruice which God hath inioyned to vs, [Page 21] wee shall leaue the Arke of this Militant Church and shall goe thither where our re­ward is reserued for vs.

Q. How can this stand, that the ground was drie in the first day of the first moneth of the 601. yeere, as it is set downe in the 13. verse, and the next verse showeth that the earth was dryed on the 27. day of the second moneth?

A. Both is true, for the first day of the first moneth the earth began to drie, so that the waters were quite remooued, but the earth was not perfectly drie till the 27. day of the second moneth, and by this reckoning also we see that Noah was in the Arke a full yeere, that is, 365. dayes: for he entred the Arke the 17. day of the second moneth in the 600. yeere, and there continued till the 27. day of the 2. moneth in the yeere 601.

Q. Why did not Noah goe out of the Arke till God spake to him?

A. Although it was now time for him to goe, seeing the earth was drie, yet such was his modestie and obedience, that as he did not enter the Arke without a warrant from God, so hee will not goe out without the same warrant, so should we depend on Gods mouth and doe nothing but what hee com­mandeth: for obedience is better then sa­crifice: [Page 22] secondly, wee see that many are the troubles of the righteous, but the Lord de­siuereth them out of all; Noah had suffered much griefe, sorrow, and feare, but now be­hold here is an end.

Q. Did the beasts also come out of the Arke at Noahs command?

A. Yes, for these dumbe creatures were obedient to Noah, because he was obedient to God. Againe, the beasts came out that they might increase and multiply, this bles­sing was giuen to the creatures in the creati­on, and the same is now renewed in the re­stauration of the world, and in that none of the creatures did wagge till Noah gaue way, and came out first himselfe, in this we haue the patterne of a well-ordered family, for there is the grace of God where the seruants obey their Masters, the Master feareth God, and all are ioyned together in loue and con­cord.

Q. What is the mysticall signification of the comming out of the creatures?

A. The Arke may signifie the Sinagogue, the beasts cleane and vncleane, the Iewes and Gentiles, their comming out doth signifie that both Iewes and Gentiles which beleeued in Christ, should come out of the Sinagogue, [Page 23] that is, forsake the Iewish ceremonics.

Q. Why did Noah build an Altar to God?

A. That by offering sacrifice on it, hee might testifie his thankful mind vnto God, 2. to teach his posteritie how they should serue God for any blessing receiued, he offered sa­crifice for his deliuerance vpon an Altar of earth, and we must offer the sacrifice of prai­er and thanks-giuing vpon our Altar Christ. He offered to God the cleane beasts, and wee must offer to him cleane soules and bodies, which is our reasonable seruing of him, his sacrifice was a burnt offering, and ours must be a broken spirit.

Q. Of what matter was this Altar made?

A. It is most like that it was made of earth, for this law was giuen after by Moses; Exod. 20. verse 24. An Altar of earth thou shalt make to mee: secondly, this kinde of Altar was most vsuall, euen amongst the Gentiles, Hic viuum mihi cespitem, hic verbe­nas pueri ponite thuraque, Horat. lib. 1. od. 19. thirdly, by this Noah will teach vs, that God delights not in external pompe and splen­dor; he loueth the giuer more then the gift, and the widdowes mite more then the rich mans sinnes. For nunquam est manus vacua à munere, si area cordis repleta sit bona voluntate. [Page 24] Gregorie in Hom.

Q. Had Noah any expresse command to build an Alter?

A. We doe not reade that God did ex­pressely command this, yet wee may gather by consequence that Noah did not this with­out warrant. First, it was ancient to serue God after this manner, as we see in the per­sons of Caine and Habel. Secondly, Noah did nothing without Gods warrant, without this he did not build the Arke, nor enter therein; nor come out from thence, much lesse would he build an Altar. Thirdly, we see that God smelled a sauour of rest in his sacrifice, which could not be if it had beene offered without Gods direction. Fourthly, Noah knew that the seauenth beast was receiued into the Arke not for procreation but for Sacrifice. Fifthly, he did questionlesse beleeue in Christ our perfect Sacrifice, therefore he could not testifie his faith better then to build an Altar and offer a sacrifice.

Q. Why would God bee worshipped by Sa­crifices?

A. First, because he will haue them by this kinde of exercise, to vse themselues to bee thankfull to him, for though hee be a spirit and delighteth more in a contrite spirit, then [Page 25] in burnt offerings, yet because of their dul­nesse, he would haue them worship him with visible offerings. Secondly, these sacrifices were types of Christ, whose body was to bee offered for them; and no sacrifice without relation to Christ could be acceptable. Third­ly, Least the people wanting these visible signes, should fall to idolatry, seeing other nations vsed sacrifice and they not.

Q. Where did Noah offer this sacrifice?

A. The Iewes thinke it was vpon Mount Sion, where Cain and Abel did offer before; and on which Isaac was to be sacrificed, but it is more probable that this was done vpon the mountaines—of Armenia, where the Arke rested.

Q. What doth it signifie that God melled a sauour of rest in Noahs sacrifice?

A. That it was acceptable vnto him, not in respect of the offering it selfe (for it is im­possible that the blood of calues and goates should take away sinne. Heb. 10. 4.) but God did accept of it; because it was offered in faith, secondly, with a willing minde, thirdly, because it had relation to Christ, who had giuen himselfe to be an offering and sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour vnto God. Eph. 5. 2.

Q How is it vnderstood that God would curse the earth no more for mans sake?

A. That is that God would not at any time ouer whelme the earth with water; de­priue her of her fertility, inhabitants and or­naments as he had before, yet this doth not exclude particular cursings vpon particular houses, townes, or countries, nor that vniuer­sall fire by which the world shall bee purged in the last dayes; and this couenant that God made with Noah concerning the wa­ters, is the figure of that euerlasting coue­nant of peace which the father hath made with vs in Christ.

Q. Which is the imagination of mans thought euill from his youth?

A. Because of originall sinne; which all men drawes from Adam, for hee was the roote of mankinde, and such a nature wee haue from him, as he had himselfe; that is corrupted with sinne: then all mankinde is subiect to this euill, because all are from A­dam. Secondly, all the nature of man, that is his body with the parts thereof, his soule with the faculties thereof are defiled. Third­ly, it bindes all men to death both temporall and eternall. Fourthly, it depriues vs of Gods image and of all his blessings, and is [Page 27] the cause of all our infirmities and of all our actuall sinnes.

Q. Why will not God destroy all liuing things as he did?

A. Because mans imagination is so euill from his youth, that if he should punish him as he deserued, hee should euery age send a flood, for there is none that doth good, no not one. Psal. 12. So then that hee spareth vs, it is to be attributed to his mercy, not to our merits.

Q. Is God the cause that mans imagination is euill from his youth?

A. No, he made man holy, but hee fell of his owne accord, God then is the cause of mans heart and of his imaginations, but not of the corruptions and vitiositie thereof, and yet he doth permit sinne, because he vseth it for a scourge to the wicked, and for a means to aduance his owne glory.

Q. What doth God besides promise Noah?

A. That all the dayes of the earth, seede time and haeruest heate and cold, &c. should not cease, in which words he sheweth vs the renouation of the world, which answers to the creation. Before the creation there was confusion and darkenesse, and so likewise be­fore this renouation, in the creation God [Page 28] made the lights of heauen, now hee restores them: then he gaue man dominion ouer the creatures, now he restores the same, as God gaue man foode then, so he doth now, man was then created to Gods image, and the same is now mentioned, God made a lawe then that man should not eate of the forbid­den tree, and here hee commands that man shall not shed blood, they receiued a bles­sing then to increase and multiply, the same they now receiue?

Q. Shall there be summer and winter, night and day, &c. so long as the earth remaineth?

A. Yes, so long as the earth remaineth in that state it doth now; subiect to generation and corruption in the parts thereof, and ob­noxious to many imperfect qualities, which at the last day shall be abolished, the sub­stance remaining for euer, and then the sum­mer and winter shall cease. Againe, that which is spoken here, is meant of the world in generall, and not of particular countries and times, for there was neither seede time nor haruest for the space of three yeares sixe moneths in Eliahs time, and in the land of Egypt there was no distinction of day and night for three dayes, because all that time there was darkenesse, and in the dayes of [Page 29] Iosua the sunne stood still a whole day.

Q. Why doth God speake onely of summer and winter, and not of the other two parts of the yeare?

A. Because these are the two principall parts of the yeare and most opposite, the o­ther two depends on these, and participates of their qualities, the spring then and haruest being both hot and cold, in the one they a­gree with Summer, in the other with Winter. So likewise here is mentioned onely heate and colde, because these two qualities are more actiue and forcible in generation, and because more sensible, then moyst or dry, so seede time and haruest are onely named, be­cause sowing and mowing are the most vsu­all and profitable actions amongst men.

Q. Doth God promise to Noah onely these temporall blessings, as heate and cold, summer and winter, and not spirituall?

A. Hee promiseth these temporall bles­sings, and vnder them spirituall. For as the stability of the world is promised, so the sta­bility of grace in Christ is included, and vsu­ally in Scripture vnder earthly shadowes spi­rituall blessings are couenanted. Canaan was a type of heauen. Dauids kingdome of Christs spirituall kingdome. Solomons temple [Page 30] of Christs Church, therefore altars, priests, and sacrifices of Christ our golden Altar, our high priest, our sweete smelling sacrifice, a­gaine we must note that oftentimes God al­tereth the seasons and qualities of the ayre, but it is for our sins, therefore when wee see cold summers, hot winters, raging stormes, excesse of heate and cold, drinesse and moist­nesse, let vs leaue to trouble God without sinnes, and he will leaue to trouble vs with his plagues, moreouer let vs not fixe our chiefest happinesse in these temporall bles­sings. But let vs looke to him that is the gi­uer and the end of all, euen Iesus Christ the authour and finisher of our faith. And last­ly, let not these blessings be motiues of secu­rity, but rather stirre vs vp to be thankfull to him, that prouides all things necessarie for this life, and a crowne of righteousnesse for the life to come.

Questions on the ninth Chapter.

Q. VVHy doth God first of all blesse Noah with increase of children?

A. Because of earthly blessings this was the greatest, the earth being now voide of mankind, and Noah knew not till now, whe­ther it was lawfull to beget children, seeing God had destroyed mankinde. Secondly, to teach vs to account our children chiefe ef­fects of Gods blessing, and to bee thankfull to him for them, behold children are the in­heritance of the Lord, and the fruite of the womb his reward. Psal. 127. 3.

Q. Is this blessing all one with that which Adam had in paradise?

A. Yes, in respect of the matter, but not of the manner, for then procreation of chil­dren should not haue beene painefull. Se­condly, not inordinate, thirdly, not imper­fect.

Q. How could this blessing belong to Noah, [Page 32] seeing he had no children after the flood?

A. Although this blessing was fulfilled in his children, yet it is giuen to him, because he beeing the roote, their increase was his in­crease. Secondly, because he was found righ­teous before God, and God smelled a sauour of rest in his sacrifice. Thirdly, to let his children know that this blessing did belong to them onely for their iust fathers sake.

Q. Is euery increase the blessing of God?

A. All that are lawfully procreated are Gods blessings both in respect of the childe begotten, and in respect of the manner of be­getting, but those that are not begotten in marriage doe not proceede of Gods bles­sing, in regard of the manner of procreation, howsoeuer in themselues they may bee the effects of Gods blessing. Secondly, the in­crease of all other creatures doe proceede of Gods blessing, but for mans sake for whom they were created.

Q. Which is the second prerogatiue that God giueth now to Noah and his sonnes?

A. That their feare and terrour may bee vpon al the beasts, fowles, fishes and creeping things, this dominion had Adam, but after a more excellent manner, for the creatures were subiect of their owne accord, now of [Page 33] feare and by constraint, and although that man hath power to rule ouer the beasts with feare, yet great men must not rule their infe­riour brethren with feare, but rather with loue, for Viri sancti non praeesse gaudent homini­bus sed prodesse. Greg. mor. lib. 21, cap. 11.

Q. Hath man this dominion ouer all the creatures and at all times?

A. No: For the wilde asse derideth the multitude of the Citie, and heareth not the crie of the driuer, Iob 39. 10. the Vnicorne will not serue, nor will he tarrie by the crib, verse 11. the hawke doth not flee by our wisedome; neither doth the Eagle mount vp at our command, vers. 29. and 30. we cannot draw out Leuiathan with an hooke, neither peirce his Iawes with an angle Chap. 40. ver. 20. and 21. Againe, many beasts are feare­full to man, and often times noy some, as Ly­ons, Woolfes, Beares, &c. God threatneth to send wilde beasts amongst his people which should spoyle them. Leu. 26. 22. the Pro­phet was slaine by a Lyon. 1. King. 13. 24. two Beares did teare in peeces 42. children, 2. King. 2. 24.

Q. Then how is it that the feare of man is vpon the creatures?

A. First, in that they cannot doe that [Page 34] harme to man which they would, because God restraines their power: secondly, they do not offend man but when he offends God: thirdly, in respect that euery nature of wilde beast, &c. hath beene tamed of the nature of man. Iam. 3. 7. fourthly, euen the most sa­uadge beasts stand in feare of man; they flee his companie, they shun his arts and snares, they feare his voyce and shadow: fifthly, be­cause they serue man and submit themselues to his will, the Horse yeelds his mouth to the bridle, the Oxe his necke to the yoake, the Cow her dugges to our hands, the Sheepe her wooll to the sheerers, &c.

Q. Seeing then God hath deliuered the crea­tures into our hands, may wee vse them as wee lust?

A. We may vse them, but not abuse them: first, wee must not cause them to trauell on the Sabbath day, Exod. 10 10. secondly, we must not couet our neighbours beast. Exod. 20. 17. thirdly, wee must not vse them vn­mercifully, for we shall not muzzle the Oxe when he treadeth out the corne. Deut. 25. 4.

Q. Which is the third prerogatiue that Noah hath?

A. That it shall bee lawfull for him to vse euery liuing thing for meate: whereas be­fore [Page 35] the flood it was not vsuall to eate flesh, because the hearbes were sufficient, and the people were then of a stronger constitution of body; but now God giueth libertie to eate flesh: first, because mans strength began to decay: secondly, the earth was not able to yeeld that increase of hearbs which it did before: thirdly, because God will incourage Noah and his family the more, being out of heart to see the miserable state of the earth▪ fourthly, because hee will tye them to bee more thankfull to him; for the more bles­sings we receiue, the more are we bound to serue God: fifthly, because hee will by this teach man that it is abomination to worship any beast in respect that we must eate them, and that which we eate cannot be God.

Q. Is flesh more conuenient for mans body then hearbes?

A. Yes, else it had beene no great blessing to haue receiued the vse of flesh, and that flesh doth nourish more it is knowne by the Phisitians, who prescribe flesh to their pati­ents but not hearbes: secondly, we see by ex­perience that those who feede most on flesh, are more lustie and strong, then they who feede on hearbes: thirdly, that is best foode which is most neere to the nature of him [Page 36] that eates it, but flesh is neerer to the nature of mans body, then hearbes: fourthly, that foode is best, which is most temperate in heate and colde, because mansbody is of this temperature, but this is flesh; for hearbs doe exceede in the qualities of heate and colde, drinesse and moystnesse: fifthly, those that doe macerate their bodies, doe vse common­ly to abstaine from flesh and not from hearbs and fruite.

Q. Is it lawfull then to eate flesh?

A. To him that is pure all things are pure; Gods children may eate any thing if it be re­ceiued with thankes, for the beasts were created not only to serue but also to feede man; and good reason hath man to kill the beasts for his foode: both because God hath giuen him authoritie so to doe. As also, be­cause Noah preserued in the Arke the beasts from drowning, and man doth yet preserue their life in prouiding and caring for them. Therefore he should receiue this benefite of them; but as for the wicked they haue no interest other then ciuil in any of Gods crea­tures, they eate and drinke not by right, but by vsurpation, if wee consider the freedome of grace.

Q. Was it not lawfull before the flood, to eate flesh?

[Page 37]A. In my opinion it was lawfull, because there was no law against it: secondly, the beasts were created to be eate: thirdly, their flesh then was as nourishing as now: fourth­ly, they before the flood had their flockes of sheepe not only to cloath their nakednesse with their skinnes: but also to satisfie their hungers with their flesh: but although it was lawfull, yet it was not much vsuall, especial­ly amongst the Saints: first, because they had no positiue law to eate flesh as now: se­condly, the earth then beeing in her full vi­gour yeelds store of excellent hearbs: third­ly, mans nature then was stronger, but now after the flood his strength begins to decay and his yeeres to shorten. For before the flood some liued till they were 900. yeeres and vpward; but after the flood, Arphaxad who was first borne, liued little more then 400. yeeres, and after Abraham none liued longer then Isaac, and hee did not exceede 180. yeeres, and Moses consesseth that in his time their yeeres were 70. Psal. 90. 10.

Q. How shall we lawfully eate flesh?

A. First, if we eate it with thanksgiuing, acknowledging God the benefactour. Se­condly, if we eate it with sobrietie, not with ryot. Thirdly, if we eate it not at these times [Page 38] which are prohibited by the Church and the Magistrate. Fourthly, if wee eate it so that we bee not vnmindfull of Christ when hee is hungred in his members. Fifthly, if wee re­member that God gaue vs power to kill and eate flesh after the flood, that we may learne to kill and destroy our fleshly nature, after our Baptisme.

Q. How is it vnderstood that blood is the soule or life of the creature?

A. Blood is not properly the life, but be­cause it is the signe of life, therefore it is cal­led life figuratiuely: as bread is called Christs body. Secondly, because the animall life is in the blood, and preserued by the blood: therefore here continens is taken for contentum.

Q. Why is the life preserued in the blood?

A. Because the life consisteth in heate and moisture, and such is the temperature of the blood: secondly, the vitall spirits wherein the life doth most consist are generated of the blood: thirdly, because the life cannot continue without nourishment: but blood is the last and chiefest nourishment of the creature.

Q. Why did God prohibite the eating of blood?

[Page 39]A. Because by this he will teach vs to ab­staine from murther and crueltie: secondly, in that the life consisteth in the blood, hee will teach vs that he hath onely power ouer the life, and therefore ouer the blood: third­ly, to shunne Idolatrie and offering of blood to images. For if we must not eate the blood much lesse may we offer it: fourthly, to teach them sobrietie in eating: fifthly, by interdi­cting of blood he will accustome them to be obedient to him, to acknowledge him as their Lord. Therefore he will haue them to eate that which he pleaseth, and to abstaine from that which he prohi [...]its; for this cause he did forbid Adam to eate of the tree of knowledge of good and euill: sixthly, be­cause he hath giuen it to be offered vpon the Altar to make an attonement for our soules. Leuit. 17. 11.

Q. Is it not lawfull for Christians to eate blood?

A. Yes, for abstinence from blood was ceremoniall amongst the Iewes, which is a­brogated by Christs comming: therefore not onely haue we power to eate blood, but Christ also saith, Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood, yee can haue no life in you. Ioh. 6.

Q. Then why did the Apostles prohibite ea­ting of blood. Act. 15.

A. Because the Iewes did abhorre the ea­ting of blood: therefore least they should giue an occasion to the Iewes to seperate themselues from the Church; they in wise­dome thought it fit that the Christians for a while should abstaine from blood, so then in matters indifferent we must bee carefull that we offend not our weake brethren, o­therwaies that which entreth in at the mouth cannot defile the man. Matth. 15.

Q. What is meant by this, that God will re­quire the blood of our liues?

A. This is the reason why he will not haue them to eate blood: because he will not haue them to shed mans blood: which if they doe he will require it, that is, he will seeke it out and punish the shedding of it; so then God is he that maketh inquisition for blood. Psal. 9. 12. And by this wee see his fatherly care of vs, who is our defender and the reuenger of our blood: secondly, that none hath pow­er to reuenge shedding of blood, but God and his vi [...]gerent the magistrate: thirdly, that it is a fear full sinne to shed blood, whe­ther it bee our owne or the blood of others. For God will surely inquire and punish it.

Q. May wee not then shed our owne blood vpon a iust occasion?

A. No occasion should cause vs to shedde our owne blood. For if we cannot murther our brother, much [...]esse our selues: neither must we murther our selues because Sampson did so; for he did not intend to kill himselfe by pulling downe of the house, but to kill the enemies of God. Againe, he was an extraor­dinary person, and the type of Christ in this, and therefore not to bee imitated, neither must we kill our selues vpon pretence to bee with Christ, because we must so long remaine in this warfare till our captaine Iesus com­mandeth vs to depart.

Q. How is it vnderstood that God will re­quire our blood at the hands of beasts?

A. By the beasts here we vnderstand not the diuels, as Origen [...]s, nor cruell and sauage men as others doe thinke, but these words are to be vnderstood of beasts so called pro­perly, that if they shed mans blood, they shall be killed, as it was afterward ordained by Moses law, if an oxe gore a man, hee shall be stoned, &c. Exod. 21. 28. and this should teach vs to abhorre shedding of blood, for if the beasts shall bee killed for shedding blood, much more shall man.

Q. How will God require the life of man at the hand of a mans brother?

A. By brother here is meant any other man, for God made all mankinde of one blood. Act. 17. 26. and this word brother doth teach vs mercy and loue, for it is vnna­turall for one brother to kill another, and if all men be brethren by nature, much more are Christians in Iesus Christ, and therefore hatred and murther amongst them is more fearefull then amongst others that knowes not Christ.

Q. Shall his blood bee shed that sheddeth the blood of man?

A. Yes, it should be shed both by the laws of God and man; this same is mentioned. Mat. 26. Reu. 13. yet oftentimes it falleth out that murtherers doe escape the magi­strate, notwithstanding they cannot escape the hand of God; for men of blood shall not liue out halfe their dayes, Psal. 55. 24.

Q. Then what shall we say of the magistrate that sheddeth blood, and of him that sheddeth blood against his will?

A. The magistrate is Gods vicegerent appointed not to shed the blood of man, but the blood of the manslayer, he beareth not the sword in vaine, for he is the minister of [Page 43] God, a reuenger to execute wrath vpon him that doth euill. Rom. 13. 4. as for him that killeth vnawares, the Cities of refuge were prouided that they might flye thither. Num. 35. 11. but he that presumptuously killeth, must be taken from the Altar that he may dye. Exod. 21. 14. and if this kinde of mur­ther be prohibited, much more is that wher­by wee murther our brothers soule, eyther with poysoning them with false doctrine, or else by prouoking them to sinne, therefore Satan is called a man-slayer from the begin­ning.

Q. Why must not the blood of man be shed?

A. Because hee is made in the image of God, therefore he that spoiles and abuses the Kings image disgracefully, doth abuse the king himselfe, and much more is God a­bused when his liuely image is defaced. Se­condly, wee see that the image of God in man after the fall is not vtterly abolished, but some reliques yet doe remaine. Third­ly, it is not for any worthinesse in man that God will haue his life preserued; but because of his owne image. Fourthly, if man bee made to Gods image, then let not the rich despise the poore; nor the learned the igno­rant, nor the wise the foolish, nor great men [Page 44] their inferiours, because they were all made in the image of God.

Q. Why doth God againe repeate this bles­sing of increase and multiplication?

A. To signifie that euen for this hee doth abhorre murther, because it is an hinderance to multiplication. Secondly, to teach vs that as multiplicgtion proceedes of his blessing, so destruction and mortality doth insue of his wrath. Therefore when God hinders multiplication, either by famine, plague, or sword, we may be sure that he is angry with vs.

Q. Why did God make a couenant with Noah?

A. To confirme his faith the more, al­though his word is sufficient, yet for our comfort and strengthening he many times is forced to confirme his promises by oathes and couenants. Therefore he will not haue Noah and his posterity to thinke, that sup­pose he sends cloudes and raine many times, that he will destroy the earth any more with water. Secondly, by this couenant he signi­fies and represents the internall and eternall couenant of grace, made and confirmed by the blood of Christ. For if hee be carefull to saue our bodies from water, much more to [Page 45] saue our soules from eternall fire. Thirdly, in that he maketh his couenant, not onely with Noah, but with his seede. It sheweth that our children are not excluded from the couenant of grace. Fourthly, in this coue­nant we see the largenesse of his loue who is not contented to make it with one person, fa­mily or countrey, but withall Noahs posteri­ty, then who is able to comprehend the bredth and length and depth and height of the loue of God.

Q. Why did God make a couenant with the beasts and foules?

A. Not for their owne sakes, but for man, for as God made them for his sake, so for his sake he blesseth them and makes his couenant with them; Secondly, to teach vs that if he hath such care of the beasts; farre greater care will he haue ouer vs, Oh we of little faith.

Q. Why did God confirme his couenant with a signe?

A. For the confirmation of our faith and strengthening of our memory, as commonly he vseth; so he confirmed our mortification by circumcision, heauen by Canaan, the death of Christ by sacrifices, our regeneration by water; our spirituall foode by bread and [Page 46] wine, &c. and these are the signes of grace, or rather seales different from these miraculous signes of glory, as the fierie piller, the cloud, the firie bush, the rod of Moses; the dry­ing of the red sea, the rocke that yeelded wa­ter.

Q. Which was this signe of the couenant?

A. The raine-bow which is called his bow. First, because he made it, secondly, be­cause of the wonderfulnes thereof; therefore it is called by the Poet Thaumantia proles, thirdly, because he by his speciall ordinance did ordaine it; to be a sacramentall signe of mercy; againe it is called the raine-bow, be­cause it is in the cloud, in the day of raine. E­zech. 1. 28. Secondly, because it signifies that the world shall neuer be drowned any more with raine, moreouer, it is called a bow, be­cause of the likenesse it hath with a bow. Se­condly, because as a bow in Scripture is vsed for a signe of wa [...]s, so the raine-bow natu­rally is the signe of waters, although God hath now made it a signe not of waters, but of deliuerance from waters.

Q. Why did God set his bow in the clouds?

A. That it might bee the more conspicu­ous and in the sight of all. Secondly, because it is a watrie meteor generated in the clouds [Page 47] by the reflexion of the sunne. Thirdly, for our greater comfort, for there God would place it, where the greatest feare and danger of water is, to witte in the clouds. Therefore now we neede not feare the clouds, because their waters are sealed with this bow, that they shall not any more drowne the earth. Fourthly▪ the clouds are oftentimes the signe of Gods presence and fauor, as here the bow is set in the clouds, a cloud went before the Israelites, the Lord gaue the law in a cloud vpon mount Sinay, the Tabetnacle was filled with a cloud, and in a cloud God appeared in Salomons Temple, the clouds are his pauilion, Psal. 18. and his charret. Psal. 104. Christ was transfigured in a cloud; in a cloud he as­cended, and in the cloudes of heauen hee shall come againe to iudge the quicke and dead.

Q. Is that opinion of Ambrose sound, who thinketh that this bow is not meant of the raine­bow, but rather figuratiuely of the secret power of God?

A. No: for here it is expresly meant of that bow which is in the clouds, which is none else but the rainebow; Secondly, this narration of Moses is historicall, but that o­pinion of Ambrose is allegoricall. Thirdly, his [Page 48] opinion is contrary to the opinion of all the greeke and latine Fathers.

Q. Doth the raine-bow naturally signifie that the earth shall not bee drowned with wa­ter?

A. No: for although the raine-bow in respect of the matter and generation thereof be naturall, yet as it is a signe of Gods mer­cy and deliuerance from water, it is superna­turall, then there is no naturall relation be­tweene the raine-bow and an vniuersall flood, because such a flood cannot proceede of naturall causes but onely by Gods power, yet naturally it doth signifie some moderate raine to follow, because it is generated not when the whole face of heauen is couered with thicke clouds, but when there are some thinne and dewey cloudes opposite to the sunne.

Q. Why did God rather make the raine­bow the signe of his couenant, then any thing else?

A. Because amongst the celestiall bodies, there is none more wonderfull, conspicuous and glorious then this; and therefore fittest to be the signe of such a couenant betweene God and vs; Secondly, the couenant is, that God will restraine the waters from drow­ning [Page 49] the earth againe; this is seene in the bow, wherein there is water but temperated with light, with light heate is ioyned, and heate is that which restraines immoderate raine: thirdly, the effect of his couenant is peace and reconciliation, and this is signified by the Raine-bow; which wanteth both string and arrow. For hee shot his arrow a­gainst the first world, and hath broke the string because he is reconciled to vs: fourth­ly, the Raine-bow naturally signifieth a mo­derate raine, therefore it was fittest to signi­fie supernaturally restraint from inordinate raine; fifthly, the flood proceeded from the clouds, and this Bow is generated in the clouds: therefore fittest of all to assure vs that wee shall not bee drowned with the im­moderate raining of the clouds.

Q. Was the Raine-bow before the flood or not?

A. It was in respect of the matter there­of. For seeing before the flood, the Sunne and the Clouds were, which are the causes of the Raine-bow, it could not be but that the Raine-bow was also. Yet it was not till now, in respect of that sacramentall relation it hath with Gods mercy, for it was no signe of the couenant till now.

Q. Shall there be no Raine-bow as some haue thought, fortie yeeres before the last iudgement?

A. If this were true, then the time of the last iudgement should bee knowne; but of that houre and day knoweth no man: se­condly, if in that space there should bee no Bow, then there should be neither raine nor clouds: but famine, miserie and mortalitie, but Christ testifies the contrarie, for men shall be eating and drinking, marrying, &c. and therefore there shall be great ioy and plentie: thirdly, the Raine-bow is the signe of that couenant which God made, not only with Noah, but with all his posteritie, and therefore shall continue till the end of the world.

Q. What relation is there betweene the Raine-bow and Christ?

A. As the Raine-bow is the signe of that olde and temporarie couenant, so is Christ the Angel of the new and eternall couenant: secondly, as the Raine-bow is generated of the light of the Sunne, which light is all one with that, which is in the bodie of the Sunne. So is Christ begotten of the substance of his Father, light of light, God of God, from all eternitie: thirdly, as the Raine-bow doth consist of the light of the Sunne, but some­what▪ [Page 51] obscurer, because couered with a cloud: So Christ doth consist of the nature of God, which for a while did lurke vnder the vaile of his humanitie: fourthly, as God did ma­nifest himselfe vnto Ezechiel in the Raine­bow; so he hath reuealed himselfe to vs in his Sonne Christ: fifthly, as the generation of the Raine-bow is wonderfull; so is the two-fold generation of Christ more wonder­full. Yea his name shall be called wonderfull, Isaiah 9. 6. sixthly, as in the Raine-bow there are three colours, so in Christ there are three offices, to wit of a King; of a Priest, and a Prophet: seauenthly, as in the Raine­bow there is the colour of fire and water, so in Christ there is fire to purge vs, and water to coole and manure vs: eighthly, as the Raine-bow (Reuel. 4.) did compasse the throne round about: so doth Christ, with his power and prouidence defend the Church which is his throne: ninthly, as we should looke vpon the Raine-bow, and comfort our selues, when we feare any inundation of wa­ters; so should we with the eyes of faith, looke vpon our Redeemer when we feare the inundation of his Fathers wrath.

Q. What vse should we make of the conside­ration of the Raine-bow?

[Page 52]A. First, it should comfort: for if God was so carefull to confirme this temporall couenant with a signe, much more carefull will he be to confirme that couenant which he hath made with vs in Christ: secondly, when wee see it, let vs with the Iewes lift vp our hands and hearts to him; that not only made the couenant, but hath also euer kept it till now: thirdly, let vs learne to feare him, and auoide sin; that as we haue escaped the s [...]ood, which is signified by the waterish colour; so wee may escape that deuouring fire which shall destroy the beauty of this world, represented to vs by that fierie colour which we see in the raine-bow. Fourthly, let vs acknowledge our owne imbecility and in­credulity seeing God is compelled to con­firme his couenants and promises by such like externall signes. Fifthly, as the raine­bow hath no light nor beauty, but that which it hath from the sunne. So let vs acknow­ledge, that we haue no grace nor perfection but that which we receiue from the sonne of righteousnesse. Sixthly, let vs in beholding of the raine-bow, acknowledge that the mer­cy of the Lord is aboue all his workes, for in a litle wrath and for amoment he hid his face from vs, but with euerlasting kindness he hath [Page 53] had mercy vpon vs. Es. 54. 8.

Q. How will God remember Noah when he seeth the bow?

A. God doth not properly remember, because he doth not forget, and hee cannot forget, because he is most perfect, and all things are present to him; yet for our better vnderstanding hee is said to remember and forget after the manner of men, yet this and such like attributes are in God not subiectiue as they are in vs, but Causaliter; then he will remember, that is, he will cause vs to remem­ber.

Q. Nhy doth Moses make mention of the three sonnes of Noah?

A. First, to let vs see the effect of Gods blessing in the multiplication of mankinde, how that of these three the whole world was so suddainely replenished. Secondly, to let vs know the propagation and increase of the Church, which is his chiefest drift. Thirdly, to let vs see the wickednesse of Cham to his father, and the cruelty of his posterity against the Church of God. Fourthly, that we might know that the propagation of mankind doth not depend on fortune, or the starres, or that they were from eternity.

Q. Had Noah any more sonnes besides [Page 54] these three?

A. No: for if he had, the Scripture would haue named them, as well as the children of other Patriarches, at least in generall, that they begat sonnes and daughters. Secondly, Moses in this and the next chapter sheweth that these three did multiply the world, ther­fore it is not likely that he had any more.

Q. What was the cause that Noah had no more children?

A. Not because he was gelded by his son Cham as the Hebrewes thinke, for that is fa­bulous. But first because these three were suf­ficient. Secondly, he was now very old & not fit for procreation. Thirdly, he did enioy the blessing of multiplication in his children Fourthly, because of his chastity and tempe­rance which hee did more regard then the propagation of children.

Q. Why amongst all the children of Cham, onely Canaan is named here?

A. Because amongst all Chams children, Canaan and the Canaanites were most noto­rious in wickednesse. Secondly, because Ca­naan and his posterity were cursed, of which he speaketh here, verse 25. Thirdly, to ani­mate the Iewes (for now the time was neere, that they should take possession of their [Page 55] land) to goe with courage against them, see­ing they were an accursed nation.

Q. Was Canaan borne in the Arke as Chrysostome thinketh?

A. No: for eight persons onely went in­to the Arke, and onely eight came out from thence; Secondly, in that dolefull time that they were in the Arke, neither man nor beast did giue themselues to procreation.

Q. How is it vnderstood that Noah began now to be an husbandman?

Q. Not that he was none before, but that now he began againe after the flood to fol­low that calling, so we reade that Christ be­gan to say, Luk. 12. 1. and he began to cast out them that bought and sold in the Tem­ple. Mark. 11. 15. that is, he did say, and did cast out, &c. or, he began to be an husband­man, that is, he inuented some other way to till the ground then before, or thirdly, he be­gan, that is, he did more painefully till the ground then before, because it was made more barren by the flood: here then we see, that although Noah was righteous and an old man, yet hee doth not giue himselfe to idlenesse, and neglecteth his calling, so no pretence should hinder vs from following our vocation so long as we are able.

Q. Was Noah the first inuenter of drinking wine?

A. Yes: for if it had been in vse before the flood, Noah had not beene ouertaken with it immediately after the flood. Secondly, we doe not reade that there was any drinking of wine till now. Thirdly, seeing the earth did bring forth most excellent and comfortable hearbs, and the fountaines did yeeld most pleasant waters, and the bodies of men were stronger, there was no such neede of wine before the flood as after; yet we deny not but there were grapes before the flood, and men did eate of them, as they did of other fruits?

Q. But seeing the earth was spoyled with the flood, whence had Noah vines?

A. As other herbes and trees did spring out of the earth being warmed by the sunne. So questionlesse did vines, although not so excellent as before the flood; and Noah by his tillage and husbandry made them better, but we must not thinke that he gaue himselfe altogether to planting of vines neglecting other trees and hearbs, but here is onely spoken of vines, because Moses is to speake of Noahs drunkennesse, and the effects there­of.

Q. Why was Noah so desirous to plant a vineyard?

A. Because he knew that the strength of mans body began to decrease, and wine doth strengthen. Secondly, the earth did not yeeld that increase which it did before. Therefore wine would supply in a manner the defect of hearbs and plants. Thirdly, he knew that wine did comfort the heart, and at that time he stood in neede of it, because questionlesse he was much giuen to sorrow and griefe to see the desolation of the earth.

Q. Did Noah ill in drinking of the wine?

A. No: for who planteth a vine and doth not eate of the fruite thereof? 1. Cor. 9. 7. it is lawfull to vse the creatures of God with thanksgiuing, for euery creature of God is good, &c. 1. Tim. 4. 4. Wine was created to comfort mans heart. Psal. 104. Yea Paul de­sireth Timothy to vse a little wine for his sto­mackes sake. 1. Tim. 5. 23. Christ did drinke wine himselfe, and ordained that in the sa­crament vnder the signe of wine, wee should drinke his blood, then Noah did not sinne in drinking, but he sinned in not regarding the manner no [...] the measure of his drinking?

Q. Did Noah drinke wine a purpose to make himselfe drunke, as our Priests of Bacchus [Page 58] now adayes doe, that altogether do sacrifice their throates and bellies to him?

A. No: for hee till now, knew not the force of wine, but they know it by dayly ex­perience. Secondly, he was exceeding olde and weake at this time, therefore was quick­ly ouercome, but the most part of them are young and strong to drinke wine. Thirdly, he neuer drinking wine before, knew not how much he should drinke, therefore was sud­dainely ouertaken, but they by drinking e­uery day doe know what should bee their measure; and yet doe drinke beyond all measure. Fourthly, he was drunke but once, but they are drunke daily. Fifthly, he repen­ted for his sinne and was ashamed, but they both glory in their sinne, and doe defend it.

Q. Is Noah then to be excused for his drun­kennesse?

A. No: for although he had beene igno­rant of the effect and force of the wine, yet ignorance excuseth no man. Secondly, hee beeing a learned man doubtlesse and wise, could not be altogether ignorant of the ver­tue and power of grapes; as of other herbes and fruites. Thirdly, excesse in eating and drinking in all creatures is a sinne. Fourthly, [Page 59] if he had beene excusable, then God had not punished him by suffering his owne bowels to mocke him, yet because he did not drinke of intemperance, but to comfort his heart, neither had vsed to drinke wine before, hee may bee partly excused, for ab in experientia profecta est ebrietas, Noe, non ab intemperan­tia, Theod. q. 65. in gen.

Q. Seeing Noah a iust man fell into this sinne but once, and that partly of ignorance, why would not Moses conceale it?

A. As the vertues of the Saints are set downe in Scripture for vs to imitate, so their vices are not omitted, that we might learne to slee and eschew them: secondly, that wee may all learne to see our owne imperfecti­ons; for the iustest man that is, doth fall seauen times a day; our righteousnesse is like a stained cloath: thirdly, that we might see what a damnable vice drunkennesse is, euen a short furie and a voluntarie diuell, as Chry­sostome calles it: Yea cause of sicknesse in the bodie, disquietnesse in the minde, pouer­tie in our goods, negligence in Gods seruice, want of reason, and in a word, the roote of all mischiefe: fourthly, that wee may see from whence proceeded the miserie of the Cana­nites, euen from Noahs drunkennesse: for [Page 60] drunkennesse was the cause of his nakednes▪ nakednesse of derision, derision of Canaan [...] curse: fifthly, to shew the sinceritie of Gods word, that neither for feare nor fauour will conceale the truth.

Q. What relation is there betweene the sinne of Adam, and this of Noah?

A. Adam the father of the first world, sinned shortly after his creation, and Noah the father of the second world, sinnes shortly after his preseruation: secondly, Adam transgressed by eating the fruite of the for­bidden tree, and Noah transgresseth by drin­king the fruite of the vine tree: thirdly, the sequel of Adams sinne was nakednesse, and the sequel of Noahs sinne is the same: fourth­ly, Adam was ashamed, and the shame of Noah is deliuered: fifthly, Adams nakednes was couered with skinnes, and Noahs naked­nesse is couered with a garment: sixthly, a curse vpon Adams posteritie, is the effect of Adams eating, and a curse vpon Canaan, Noahs posteritie, is the effect of Noahs drin­king.

Q. Wherein did the greatnesse of Chams sinne consist?

A. First, in that he did not reuerence his father, in couering his nakednesse: secondly, [Page 61] in that hee tooke pleasure in seeing those members, whereof all men by nature are ashamed: thirdly, in that hee mocked him that was not only his father, an old man, and him who was righteous before God, but also him, for whose sake hee was preserued from the flood: fourthly, in that he had so soone forgot the iudgements of God vpon the first world for such like sinnes: fifthly, in that he did not onely mocke his father, but also told his brethren of his fathers nakednesse: sixth­ly, in that Cham at this time was no childe, but a man of an hundred yeeres and vpward, therefore should haue had more grace and discretion: seauenthly, he was a father him­selfe, therefore should haue knowne what was the dutie of a childe: eighthly, in that he was so quicke to spie the moate in his fa­thers eye, and could not see the beame that was in his owne, I meane his witchcraft, ma­lice, contempt of religion, leacherie, and o­ther vices which are recorded of him.

Q. Wherein were Shem and Iapheth wor­thie of commendations?

A. First, for their pietie in couering their fathers nakednesse: secondly, for their mo­destie in going back-ward least they should defile their eyes in seeing of his filthinesse. [Page 62] Wherein we see that Sem the yonger is first named: because it seemes he was principall in this businesse: secondly, we see the diffe­rence of Noahs children, and suppose he was a good man, yet he is plagued with a wicked sonne: thirdly, in these children we see the state of the Church. For if amongst these eight persons that were deliuered from the stood, there was one hipocrite, what wonder is it to finde in the Vniuersall Church many thousand hypocrites: fourthly, in Cham we see the type of wicked children, and in Sem and Iapheth a patterne for good chil­dren: fifthly, if Sem and Iapheth were so carefull to honour their earthly father, then much more diligent should wee bee to reue­rence our heauenly Father.

Q. How could Noah know what his yonger sonne had done to him?

A. Either by reuelation from God, or else by the relation of Sem and Iapheth: and here we see that as Cham is yonger in yeeres, so hee is yonger in grace and manners: se­condly, in Noahs awaking we see the state of the godly, that though they sleepe and fall, yet they awake and rise againe: thirdly, in Noahs sleeping we see the state of the world, for when men are drunke with wine, that is, [Page 63] filled with worldly blessings, then they fall asleepe and waxe carelesse and secure: fourthly, in that Noah awoke and knew what was done: wee should learne to doe good to all men, and not to harme them ei­ther sleeping or waking, for there is nothing so secret which shall not be reuealed.

Q. What reward had Cham for scorning his olde father?

A. He was accursed by his owne fathers mouth, which curse he vttered not of malice or in his anger, but being mooued by Gods spirit, did speake it by way of prophesie: secondly, wee must consider that he vttered this with no small griefe of minde; that hee should be compelled to curse his owne childe for his wickednesse, who not only was his childe, but his yongest, whom he loued most deerely, and hauing but these three, who were with him wonderfully preserued in the Arke, and that he should vtter this curse not onely against him, but also against the Ca­naanites his posteritie: thirdly, here wee see the zeale and constancy of Noah, that makes no bones to curse his childe because he disho­noured God, yea more zealous then Brutus that killed his sonne for the loue he carried to his countrey: fourthly, in this wee see [Page 65] what a fearefull thing it is for children to dishonour their parents: who to them are instead of God, certainly the fruite of this sinne is a curse.

Q. Why is Canaan cursed and not Cham?

A. In that Canaan is cursed, Cham the fa­ther is not exempted, but rather his curse is aggrauated, as Sem is not exempted from the blessing in the verse following: although God be named, so Iacob is said to blesse Io­seph. Gen. 48. 15. when properly he blessed Iosephs children. verse 16. and Canaans name is here vsed, not Chams, to let him see the greatnesse of the curse; which did not end with him, but did increase as his posteritie increased: secondly, because Canaan did fol­low his fathers foote-steps in wickednesse: thirdly, for our instruction, that wee may learne to feare him, for his iudgements are a great deepe, they are past finding out, his wrath is like a consuming fire, and when hee curseth, he will not onely curse vs, but also the fruite of our body. Deut. 28. 18.

Q. Wherein was Cham accursed?

A. Not onely in that hee was a seruant, but also a seruant of seruants, and that vnto his brethren, and although this seruitude could not be presently seene in the posteritie [Page 65] of Cham, yet at last it was fully manifested, when the posteritie of Sem had the full pos­session of the land of Canaan.

Q. Is it then a curse to serue?

A. There is a foure-fold seruice. 1. diuine, which all creatures owe to God by right of creation. 2. naturall, which is nothing else but the subiection of inferiours to their superi­ours proceeding of loue for order sake, and this should haue beene in the state of inno­cencie: thirdly violent, when men are con­strained to serue, and this kinde of seruice is hatefull and bitter: first, because it is con­trarie to the libertie of mans nature: second­ly, because it is contrarie to the end of mans creation, for man was created to rule and not to serue: thirdly, it is repugnant to the image of God, a part whereof doth consist in ruling and commanding, and this seruice is a curse laid vpon man for sinne: the fourth kinde of seruice is diabolicall, when a man doth serue his sinnes and mancepate him­selfe to his owne affections, for whosoeuer committeth sinne, is the seruant of sinne. Ioh. 8. 34. and he that serueth such masters may be called a seruant of seruants, and such ser­uants were the Canaanites, seruing not onely their brethren, but also their owne abomi­nations, [Page 66] for which their land did spue them out.

Q. Seeing then inuoluntarie seruice is the effect of sinne, is this a pretence for seruants to reiect altogether there seruice?

A. No, for many things haue and doe proceede of euill causes, which God doth turne to good vses: secondly, seruice is a pu­nishment for sinne, and therefore should not bee reiected, but with patience indured: thirdly, it is a meanes to beate downe our pride, and contempt of God; and this means God vsed against the Israelites, when he cau­sed them to serue the King of Aram eight yeeres, and Eglon King of Moab 18. yeeres. Iudg. 3. Seruants then should comfort them­selues, that though in externall and ciuill matters they are inferiour and subiect to there masters; yet in spirituall blessings, and in respect of Christ, they are equals: second­ly, Masters should not be cruell to their ser­uants, seeing they also haue a Master in hea­uen. Ioh 6.

Q. What reward hath Sem for couering his fathers nakednesse?

A. First, he is blessed of his father, which is no small matter. For the blessing of the father establisheth the houses of children. [Page 67] Eccle. 3. 9. Secondly, hee hath this honour, that he is the first man that is blessed vnder the name of God expressely: thirdly, by calling God the God of Sem, he shewes that onely Sem and his posteritie shall onely wor­ship and know the [...]true God: fourthly, of Sem came Christ according to the flesh; who here is called the God of Sem: fifthly, in this blessing is included the land of Canaan, which then Sem in his posteritie did inioy, when Canaan became his seruant: sixthly, in that he doth not blesse Sem in his own name, but vnder the name of God, it showeth that eternall life is implied herein; for God hath prepared for them a Citie of whom he is not ashamed to be called there God. Heb. 11. 16.

Q. What is the reward that Iapheth hath for his duty to his father?

A. First, that God will enlarge him, that is, multiplie his posteritie, for he had more sonnes, then either Sem or Cham, and these sonnes of his did spread ouer more nations then Sem or Chams children: to witte ouer Galatia, Scythia, Media, Graecia, Italie, Spaine, Mosco [...]ia, Thracia, and many more countries: secondly, that Iapheth shall dwell in the tents of Sem, that is, that the Gentiles Iapheths posterity, shall embrace the religion [Page 68] of the Iewes Sems posteritie: and this was accomplished when the partition wall was broken downe by the preaching of the Gos­pell, then the Gentiles that were afarre off were made nigh by the blood of Christ. Eph. 2. then, as Christ foretold, Ioh. 10. there was but one Shepheard and one sheepfold: third­ly, that Canaan should be his seruant, which then was fulfilled when the Graecians and Ro­mans Iapheths posteritie had subdued the most part of the world habitable, but if by Canaan we vnderstand the wicked; and by Sem and Iapheth the Church; then it is most true, that the wicked nill they will they, are but seruants to Gods children.

Q. What is meant heere by the Tents of Sem?

A. The Church of God, which is called Tents: first, because Tents are mooueable, and not still in one place, so is the estate of the Church in this life, for here we haue no continuing Citie Heb. 13. 14. secondly, Tents are most vsed in warres, and our life is a warfare, Iob 7. 1. thirdly, Tents are weak­ly built, and not able to resist those iniuries of the a [...]re that houses can: so the Church in her selfe is weake, though in the Lord shee be strong, and these weake things God hath [Page 69] chosen to confound the things that are mightie. 1. Cor. 1. 27. fourthly, the Church is called a Tent, in relation to Moses Taber­nacle. For as there God was worshipped, sacrifices were offered, and the presence of the Lord was to be seene: so in the Church we worship God, offer vp spirituall sacrifi­ces, and doe inioy the presence and comfort of his spirit. Againe the Church is called the Tents of Sem, because he was the father of the Iewes, amongst whom God onely had his visible Church; so shee is called the Tents of Iudah. Zach. 12. 7. the Tents of Iacob. Mal. 2. 12. and also the Tents of the Saints. Reu. 20. 9.

Q. Wherein was Noah the tipe of Christ?

A. As Noah built an Arke, so did Christ the Church: secondly, as Noah did offer a sacrifice, whereof God smelled a sauour of rest, so did Christ: thirdly, as God for Noahs sacrifice did curse the ground no more, euen so for Christs sacrifice, God did curse the Church no more: fourthly, as Noah planted a vineyard, so did Christ plant the Church which is his vineyard. 5. as Noah was drunke with wine, so Christ who is the true wine, and who troad the wine-presse alone, who turned water into wine, and who was coun­ted a drinker of wine, was drunken with the [Page 70] wine of his fathers wrath, in commemorati­on whereof he hath commanded vs to drink wine in the sacrament: sixthly, as Noah af­ter his drinking fell asleepe, so Christ after he had drunke of the Cup which his Father gaue him, died; for death is a sleepe: seauenth­ly: Noah was made naked in his sleeping, and so was Christ in his suffering: eighthly, Noah was mocked by his owne sonne, and so was Christ by his owne people the Iewes: ninthly, Noah fell asleepe in his owne Tent, and Christs died in his owne country Iudea. tenthly, Sem and Iapheth couered Noahs bo­die with a garment, so Ioseph and Nicode­mus couered Christs bodie with linnen cloathes: eleuenthly, Noah awoke from his sleepe, and so did Christ from his graue: twelfthly, Cham was cursed for scorning his Father, and the Iewes are yet accursed for killing their Sauiour.

Q. How long liued Noah after the flood?

A. Three hundred and fiftie yeeres, euen till Abraham was about fiftie yeeres of age, or 58. as the Hebrews, and others doe thinke, and in that Noah liued so long after the flood, it sheweth vs, that long life doth nei­ther depend from the starres, the tempera­ture of the ayre, the constitution of the bo­die, [Page 71] the excellencie of meate and drinke, nor any thing else, except from Gods bles­sing, for neither had the Starres that influ­ence, nor the ayre that temperature, nor mans body that strength, nor the hearbes that nutriment, which they had before the flood, yet Noah liued after the flood 350. yeeres, and his sonne Sem 500. secondly, God would haue him liue so long after the flood, not onely to see the effect of Gods blessing in the multiplication of his posteri­tie, but also to instruct the world with the knowledge of the true God; and of these things that were done before the flood.

Q. How olde was Noah when he died?

A. Nine hundred and fiftie yeeres, the oldest man that euer liued, except Iared that liued 962. yeeres, and Methus [...]lah that li­ued 969. yeares, yet for all his long life, he is not exempted from death; Nam omnes vna manet nox, & calcanda semel via lethi Againe, what was all this long life of Noah, but a long tragedie full of sorrow and miserie, hee was vexed with the wickednesse of the world before the flood; and made a mocking stock, in the Arke tormented with the horrour of that fearefull iudgement; after the flood, mocked by his owne sonne, and grieued with [Page 72] the idolatrie not onely of Cham and Iapheths posteritie, but also of Sems family, whom hee had so highly blessed, and this was not a small griefe to see wicked Cham whom hee had cursed with his posteritie, so to flourish and abound in wealth and power. Surely we are made saith Iob, to possesse moneths of vani­tie, and wearisome nights are appointed to vs, therefore let vs learne to contemne this foolish world, for the graue at last must be our house, and our beds must be made in the darkenesse. Iob. cap. 7. 3. and cap. 17. 13.

Questions on the tenth Chapter.

Q. WHat is meant by this word Generation, which is so of­ten vsed in the Scripture?

A. First, it signifieth the originall and be­ginning of things, as Gen. 2. 4. these are the generations of heauen and earth: secondly, the historie of a mans life and of those things that doc befall him, as Gen. 6. 9. these are the [Page 73] generations of Noah: thirdly, a genealogie or supputation of ones posteritie, as here in this Chapter, these are the generations of the sonnes of Noah: fourthly, it is taken for the people that doe liue in such or such an age; as Gen. 15. 16. in the fourth generation they shall come againe: fifthly, for an age it selfe as Matth. 24. 34. this generation shall not passe, &c. sixthly, for ones natiuitie, as Mat. 1. 18. the generation of Christ was thus, seauenthly, for a nation as Matth. 12. 39. an euill generation seeketh after a signe, eighthly, for a kinde or fashion, as Luke 16. 8. the children of this world are wise in there generation, &c.

Q. Why doth Moses set downe this genea­logie, seeing Paul doth command vs not to giue heede to genealogies. 1. Tim. 14.

A. Paul doth condemne these genealogies that are endlesse, and which minister questi­ons, not edifications: secondly, he doth com­mand vs not to giue heede to them; neither to account them apart of Gods worship as the Iewes did, but this Genealogie of Noah and such like in Scripture, are profitable for vs to know, and therefore are not con­demned.

Q. What profit is it for vs to know the ge­nerations [Page 74] of Noahs sonnes?

A. They are profitable. First, because by them we see how the world is multiplied. 2. by them we may refute the fabulous genea­logies of Poets, Phylosophers, Egyptians, Ae­thiopians and others that doe bragge of their antiquity. 3. in this genealogie we see the ef­fect of Gods blessing in multiplying man­kinde. 4. by this genealogie we know so much the better what these nations are, that are often named in the Scripture. 5. we know al­so from hence how Christ came of Sem ac­cording to the flesh, and how Noahs curse tooke effect in the posterity of Cham.

Q. Was this propagation of mankinde by Noahs three sonnes in so short a time, miracu­lous?

A. Miracles are those workes which doe exceede the power and force of nature, and these are of two sorts, pure miracles which in all respects exceedes the course of nature, as the standing of the sunne in the dayes of lo­suah, his going backe in the diall of Achaz. the conception of the Virgin, &c. or els they are mixt miracles, which in respect of the thing it selfe which is produced are naturall but in the maner of producing, and in respect of other circumstances are supernaturall: [Page 75] such as the thunderings that discomfited the Philistines at Samuels prayer. 1. Sam. 7. 10. the raine that fell at the prayer of Elias, 1. King. 18. 45. and such like, then this propaga­tion of mankinde in so short a space is a mi­xed miracle, for it is naturall in respect of the worke it selfe, but in respect of shortnesse of time, and the multitude that were begotten, it is supernaturall.

Q. Doth Moses rehearse here all the heads or fathers of the Nations?

A. No: but those onely that were most famous; Then of Sems progenie hee recko­neth 26. of Chams 31. of Iapheths 14. which in all are 71. and many of these names here mentioned, were changed by the Greeks, who not onely changed their rites and ceremo­nies; but also in signe of seruitude altered their names.

Q. What order keepeth Moses in rehear­sing this Genealogie?

A. He beginneth first at Iapheth, because he was last spoken of in the precedent chap­ter; and here he speaketh last of Sem, because the rest of this historie is spent about his po­sterity, and in the middle Cham is placed, which doth represent to vs the state of the Church visible in this world, which hath in [Page 76] her bosome many hypocrites and reprobate Chams.

Q. What was Gomer?

A. The father of the Cimmerians as He­rodotus thinketh, or rather as Iosephus the fa­ther of the Galatians, who first were called Galles, and hauing left their owne countrie, seated themselues in Asia-minor, where be­ing mingled with the Greeks, they were cal­led Gallo-greci, and afterwards Galatae; vnto these Galatians, Peter writ his first epistle; in this country Paul trauelled sundry times and preached, afterward hee beeing captiue at Rome, from thence writ an epistle to them. Gomer also was the name of Diblaims daugh­ter the wife of Hosea, Hos. 1.

Q. What was Magog?

A. The father of the Scythians, a rude and barbarous people, inhabiting many coun­tries in the north part of the world, from them the Turkes haue their originall, which now to the great shame of Christians, and o­uerthrow of our religion, haue by our vnna­turall discords, obtained those kingdomes and glorious Churches in Europe and Asia: sometimes famous and sanctified with the presence of Christ, and preachings of the A­postles; beautified with miracles, adorned [Page 77] with all arts and sciences, illustrated with the learned pens of many orthodox fathers, and besprinckled with the blood of many thou­sand martyrs but now alas their habitation is desolate, their Churches are become habita­tions for diuels, the holds of euery foule spi­rit, and cages of vnc [...]ane and hatefull birds. Magog is taken for the hidde and secret ene­mies of the Church. Eze. 38. 2. and 39. 6. Reu. 20. 8.

Q. What people came of Madai?

A. The Medes, a mightie people, who did inhabite the country lying betweene the Caspian sea and Persia, they were first sub­iect to the Assyrians, afterward refusing the gouernment of the effeminate Sardanapalus, they made Arbactus their King, who with his successours for the space of 350. yeares did gouerne Media vntill Cyrus the Persian, who obtained the Empire of the East. Then Media was annexed to Persia and Assyria; in the cities of the Medes the Israelites were kept as captiues. 2. King. 18. 11. to the Medes and Persians the Babylonian Monarchie was giuen. Dan. 5. 28. the Medes who were at Ierusalem with many other strangers heard the Apostles speake in their owne language. Act. 2. 9.

Q. Of what people was Iauan the father?

A. Of the Greeks, a people sometime in­famous for their inconstancy and vanity, yet glorious for their lawes and gouernment, their arts and sciences, their mightie townes and cities, for the Monarchie of the world that was stablished the [...], but especially for the light of the Gospell, but now in stead of science there is nothing but ignorance, in stead of ciuility, light and liberty; barbarity, darkenesse and thraldome haue seated them­selues there, so that they haue forgot to speak their owne language, and where the Muses sometimes did raigne, now there is not a schoole to be seen. First, they were a free peo­ple, till they warred one with another, then they were made seruants; for Cyrus, Xerxes and other persian Kings did vexe them; the Macedonians did subdue them, afterward the Romans, then the Empire being deuided, they became to be vnder Constantinople, till the Gothes, Bulgares and Saracens had wasted them; and at last they are subdued and liue in slauery vnder the Turke the Christians scourge, except a few Ilands subiect to the Venetians. The Grecian King is resembled by a Goate, Dan. 8. 21. vnto the Grecians the Israe­lites were sold. Ioel 3. 6.

Q. What people came of Thubal?

A. The Italians as the Iewes thinke, and Spaniards as Iosephus, which people inhabited that country which of old was called Hespe­ria, which name was common both to Italy and Spaine; it hath beene fatall for these ma­ny yeares, for Thubals posterity to be great; the Italians in subduing the old world, and the Spaniards in subduing of the new, not known nor heard of by the ancient Romanes. So then we see that God hath enlarged lapheth, and not onely▪ hath perswaded him to dwell in the tents of Sem: for now Iesus Christ the sonne of Sem is knowne amongst the barba­rous Indians, but as Thubal was an enemy a­gainst the Iewes in Ezechiels daies. Ezech. 38. 2, 3. so Thubal is an enemy still against the Christians, who doe not approoue of their doctrine and ceremonies.

Q. What people came of Meshec?

A. The Moscouians, who first dwelt in A­sia, afterward they remooued farther North; and doe at this day inhabite that great con­tinent lying betweene Tartaria, Liuonia, Po­lonia and the North sea, they are of the greci­an religion, they giue the sacrament in leaue­ned bread, and doe not deny the cup to the lay-people; they thinke it in vaine to pray [Page 80] for the dead, they beleeue no purgatory, they reade the bible in their owne language, Au­gustine, Ambrose, Hierome and Gregory, are in great request amongst them, their Metropo­litan is subiect to the Patriarch of Constanti­nople, and aboue all things they cannot abide to here Rhetoricall sermons in their pulpits, accounting these verball preachers, which doe study more for fine words then true diui­nity, not worthy of the name of preachers, and I wish they were so accounted amongst vs; who no [...] being contented with the plaine and simple stile of Gods word doe spend much time in filling the itching eares of phantasticall people with their owne words.

Q. Who were the sonnes of Thiras?

A. The Thracians, a people sometimes fa­mous for their strength in warres, they doe inhabite the country Thracia, otherwise cal­led Romania, where Constantinople is situated, the Gospell shined sometimes in this coun­try, and happy might they haue beene, if they could haue knowne their owne happi­nesse, but by their miserable discords they haue lost their ancient glory, and Constanti­nople which was the Queene of the Easterne Cities and sometimes the house of God and vineyard of Iesus Christ, is become now a [Page 81] cage for Mahomet, the diuell and his excre­ments, the Turkes who as it seemes were on­ly borne to be a plague to Gods people.

Q. Which are the three sonnes of Gomar here mentioned?

A. Ascanaz of whome came a people which did inhabite▪ Ascania, a countrey in Asia-minor, in which there was a lake of the same name, euen in the time of the [...] Kiphath of him came the Paphlagons, a peo­ple also in Asia, which name they had of Paphlagon, the sonne of Phi [...]eas. Thogar [...] of him came the Phrygians, a people in Asia▪ neere to Bithinia, Lydia and Misia▪ they are called by the Hebrewes, as Iosephus saith, Thy­grammanes from this Thogarma.

Q. Which are the foure sonnes of Iauan?

A. The first is Elishah, of him came the Aeolians, a people of greece, who leauing their country went to Asia, and seated themselues in Mysia, which they called Aeolia, from their owne name. Elishah sold blew and purple to the Tyrians, Ezech. 27. 7. His second sonne is Tharshish▪ whose posterity inhabited Cilicia, now called Turcomania, where that famous City Tarsus was built as is thought by Sar­drnapalus, in which Paul was borne. Act. 21. 39. hither [...] fled, [...]. 1. 3. the people of [Page 82] Tharshish were famous for shipping. Ezech. 27. 12. therefore Pompeius vsed their helpe in his sea fight against Caesar, and the mede­teranean sea is called Tarsis, from them, Psal. 48. 7. The third sonne is Citti [...], of whom came the Cyprians, who did inhabite the I­land Cyprus, not farre from Syria and Cilicia, therefore the Iland was called Citica, the Hebrewes call it Chitti [...], and here was the ci­ty Citiu [...]. This Cyprus was many yeares vn­der the gouernment of the Venetians, but now they are vnder the seruitude of Magog the Turke. His fourth sonne is D [...]danim, of whom the Rhodiant came, who inhabited Rhodus an Iland in the Carpathian sea, famous for the citie Rhodos, which was possessed by the Christians many yeares. But at last proud Nabuchadnezzar the Turke, by our negligence tooke both the city and the I­land.

Q▪ What is meant by the Iles of the Gen­tiles?

A. Not onely the plots of ground which are compassed about with the sea, but also countries and regions within the continent, for the whole earth may be called an Iland, because it is all compassed with the sea; the Iles are giuen them with the rest of the earth [Page 83] to the sonnes of men, the Iles are inuited to praise God. Isa. 42. 10. The Iles shall waite for Christ. Isay 51. 5. the kings of the Iles shall offer gifts to Christ. Psal. 72. 10. and this was accomplished when God perswa­ded Iapheth to dwell in the tents of Sem. Gods children in this world may be likened to Iles, for as Iles are separated from the rest of the earth, so Christ hath chosen his Saints out of the world. Ioh. 15. Secondly as Iles are compassed about with the sea, and most sub­iect to stormes, so the the Saints in this world are most subiect to afflictions. Ioh. 16.

Q. Which was Chams first sonne?

A. C [...]sh, the father of the Aethiopians, of whorn mention is made. Isa. 11. Ezec. 29. and 30. Amos 9. Nah [...]m. 3. Soph. 2. and else-where, but the name of Aethiopia is sometime giuen to Arabia, sometime to India, because of the commerce that was betweene the Aethiopi­ans & these countries; as also because they in s [...]merare both black, but Aethiopia properly [...] in Affrica, vnder which name not only the country of the Abissines is cōprehended, but also the Southeast part of Affrica, from the meridionall line, to caput bon [...] spei, and this confusion of the name hath caused many er­rors amongst the learned, then this name [Page 84] of Cush and Aethiopia so often vsed in Scrip­ture, is rather to bee vnderstood of Arabia which was neere to India, then of the remote countries of Affrica, therefore Moses wife being a Madianite is called an Aethiopian, Numb. 12. Theodoretus thinketh that the Queene of Saba who came to see Salomon, was Queene of Aethiopia. Quest. 22. in Num. The Aethiopians did vse to call their Queenes Candaces, whose chiefe gouernour the Eu­nuch was conuerted by Philip. Act. 8. Mathi­ac the Apostle did preach the Gospell to the Aethiopians as thinketh Sophronius?

Q. What was Mizraim?

A. The father of the Aegyptians, who are still called by this name in the new Testa­ment; but in the old Mizraim, and because Mizraim was Chams son, therefore in Scrip­ture▪ Aegypt is called the land of Ch [...]. Psal. 105. 23. and 78. 51. If Mizraim was the fa­ther of the Aegyptians, they neede not brag so much of their antiquity. This country was first gouerned by their owne kings, wh [...] they called Pharaoh, then they were subdued by the Aethiopians in the dayes of Hezekias. After that Cyrus the Persian ouercame them. But vnder Darius Nothus, they fell away from the Persian and were gouerned by their [Page 85] owne kings, till Alexander subdued them. Af­ter his death it fell to Ptolomeus, by whose name their kings were called, till Cleopatra, after whose death the Romans made it a Prouince, after them the Saracens had it, and now it is vnder the Turkish slauery. This country was famous for Abraham, Ioseph, the Patr [...]kes, the birth of Moses, the deliue­ry of the Israelites, for arts and sciences, fruitfulnesse and riches, townes and schooles, for Christ and his mother who fled thither, for many Martyrs and Christian professors, for the first Monks and Eremites who from thence did ouerspreade all Europe. But as before it was infamous for idolatry, so now it is for Mahomet [...] blasphemous herefie.

Q. What people came of Phut?

A. The Lyrians, a people in Affrica, neere Mauritania, where there is a riuer called Phut. They are called by this name. Eze. 27. and 38. cap. But they are called by the name of Lybia. Act. 2. and Dan. 11. in Lybia there hath beene famous Churches, but especially Carthage renowned for that learned Bishop and glorious Martyr Cyprian.

Q. What was Canaan?

A. The cursed sonne of Cha [...] of whom came the Canaanites, which did inhabite that [Page 86] land, which was called Canaan, the land of promise, Iudea, and now the holy land, it was deuided in Iudea, Samaria and Galile, in it God was once well knowne, but now instead of God Mahomet is worshipped.

Q. What was Seba?

A. The sonne of Cush, and father of the Sabeans, a people in Arabia-felix, but there is a twofold Sheba; the one in Arabia, the o­ther in Aethiopia, this in Hebrew is written with S [...]mech, that with Shi [...], from this the Queene of Saba came to Salomon, from that the wise men came to worship Christ, both these places are mentioned. Psal. 72. 10. the Kings of Sh [...]ba and [...] shall giue gifts?

Q. What other sonnes had Cush?

A. Hauilah the father of the Getulians, Sabtah of whom came a people called Saba­th [...]i dwelling in Arabia-felix, Raamah and Sabtecha, whose posteritie also did inhabite Arabia-felix, and mingled themselues with the Sabeans.

Q. What sonnes had Raamah?

A. Sheba, whose posterity dwelt in Aethi­opia, and Dedan whose off-spring did possesse a part of Arabia-felix, not farre from Idu­mea, of Ded [...]n mention is made. Ier. 49. 8. E­zech. 27. 15. and 38. 13.

Q. What was Nimrod?

A. He was also the sonne of Cush, and the first tyrant in the world, who is mentioned here apart, not because he was a bastard, as some thinke, but because Moses is to speake of his tyranny and greatnesse. Secondly, Nimrod heere is saide to bee mightie in the earth, that is, bloody and cruell, for power and greatnesse is from God, and therefore good, if it be free from crueltie and blood: but so was not Nimrods greatnesse, and all bloody conquerours are Nimrods successors. Thirdly, Nimrod beeing of the posterity of Cham, should haue rather beene a seruant then a Lord, but it fals out many times that the wicked in this world doe flourish like a greene bay-tree, when as the godly are ap­pointed as sheepe to the slaughter.

Q. Why is Nimrod called a mighty hunter before God?

A. Because he was a persecutor and op­pressor of his brethren, for such are called hunters in scripture, and sometimes fowlers; for as hunters and fowlers vse all the snares and tricks they can to take away the life of the beasts and foules, so doe the mighty ty­rants to kill and destroy men. Of these fow­lers, Dauid speakes. Psal. 61. 3. & Psal. 1 [...]4▪ 7. [Page 88] of the hunters, Ier. 16. 16. where such perse­cutors are called alfo fishers (before God) that is openly and without feare of God, so tht now he became shameles in oppressing, and cared not though God tooke notice of his wickednes, this is the qualitie of impu­dent Lyers.

Q. Is Nimrod all one with Belus, of whom prophane histories make mention?

A. Yes: for both are said to build Babi­lon: Secondly, both were mighty men and op­pressors: thirdly, they are both said to liue about 200. yeeres after the flood in Babylon: fourthly, they were both the inuenters of i­dolatry: fifthly, as the histories acknowledge no king in Babel before Ninus but Belus, so the Scripture acknowledgeth none but Nim­rod.

Q. Which are the four [...] cities that were sub­iect to Nimrod?

A. Babel the chiefest city of Chaldea, where Nimrod began the Tower. Belus his successor built the city which was amplified by Semi­ramis the wife of Ninus, and at last Niniuie being conquered, was reedified by Nabu­chadnezzar. The secōd i [...] Erech a city beyond Euphrates, otherwise called Edessa and Hie­ [...]. The third is Accad, otherwise called [Page 89] Nisibi [...], a city vpon the riuer Tygris. The fourth is Caln [...]th a city of great note as wee may see, Amos 6. 2. this was called Seleucia and Cresiphon: in this towne the Parthian kings did vse to winter, and these cities were built in Chaldea and Mesopotamia called here the land of Shinar, and Mich. 5. 6. the land of Nimrod.

Q. Who was the builder of Niniuie.

A. Assur the sonne of Sem, who to auoide the crueltie of Nimrod left Shinar, and for his greater securitie built Niniuie, which af­terward was the chiefest citie of the Assyrian Monarchie, and here we must not thinke that Assur was a mightie hunter like Nimrod, in that he built a strong citie; for hee did not build it to that intent, that Nimrod built Ba­bel; but onely to secure himselfe from the crueltie of Nimrod.

Q. When was Niniuie built?

A. Three hundred yeeres after the flood, and 2000. before Christ, about the time that Abraham was borne, by Assur whom the histories call Ni [...]; this Citie was famous for the greatnesse, beautie, and riches there­of; a [...]d for the preaching of Ionas. It did continue in great glorie for the space of 1400. yeeres and more, till it was destroyed [Page 90] by Nabuchadnezzar, at this day Niniuie hath many goodly buildings and spatious streets in it, compassed about with walles, the inha­bitants thereof are for the most part Nesto­rians.

Q. What other cities built Ashur besides the great citie Niniuie?

A. Recoboth, a citie by the riuer Euphrates mentioned also Gen. 36. 37. Chalah the chie­fest citie of the countrey Calacina in Assyria Resen, the citie Bess [...]ra also in Assyria.

Q. What sonnes had Misraijm?

A. He begate Ludim or the Lydians men­tioned. Ier. 46. 9. who inhabited the coun­try of Lydia in Asia-minor, famous for that rich King Craesus, and the riuer Pactol [...]: secondly, Anamim, they did inhabite as it is thought the countrey Pentapolis in Lybia: thirdly, Lehabim, they possessed Libia in A­frica: fourthly, Naphtuhim, they were the people Napatei in Aethiopia: fifthly, Pa [...] ­sim, they were the people Pharusij in Africa beyond Mauritania, mentioned Esay 11. Ezech. 29. sixthly, Casl [...]him, they inhabited the countrey Casiotis in Syria, from them the Philistims came who possessed the land of Canaan. Amos 9. 7. where they remained, not cast out to the great griefe of the Israelites: [Page 91] seauenthly, Caphtorim a people called Cap­padoces, who did destroy the Philistims and dwelt in their land. Deut. 2. 23. Ier. 47. 4.

Q. What posteritie had Canaan?

A. Of him came Sidon father of the Sido­nians, hee built the citie Sidon in Phenicia, which was after allotted to the tribe of As­ser: secondly, Cheth of him came the Che­thites, or Hittites, who inhabited the places about Bersabae [...], and of whom there were Gyants, their land onely is promised to the Israelites. Ios. 1. 4. because they were most a­fraid of them: thirdly, Iebus or the Iebusite, he founded the Citie Iebus, which after was called Salem, and last of all Ierusalem. Iudg. 19. 10. Gen. 14. 18. they were not vtterly subdued by Israel, but continued till Salomons time, who made them Tributaries. 2. Chron. 8. 8. fourthly, the Emorite or Amorites, a peo­ple high as Ceders and strong as Okes, A­mos 2. 9. whose King was Og, they were dis­persed into diuers parts of the land, for some of them possessed Libanus, some Mount Ga­laad, and others the hillie countrey of Pha­ran. Therefore the whole countrey beareth their name, Gen. 15. 16. when the Prophet would expresse the sinnes of Israel, hee sayes their father was an Amorite. Ezech. 16. 3. [Page 92] fifthly, the Gergasite or Gergasins. Matth. 8. and Gadarens. Luke 8. sixthly, the Hiuit [...] of whom came the Gibeonit [...]s whose liues were spared by Iosua. Iosh. 11. 19. seauenthly, the Arkit [...] who dwelt in the citie of Arc [...] in mount Libanon: eighthly, the Sinite or the people of Sinai mentioned by Iosephus, 1. An­tiq. 6. ninthly, the Aruadite, from them a part of Canaan was called Aruad, mentioned in Ezech 27. 8. tenthly, the Zemarite, they in­habited [...]emarim which after fel to the Ben­iamites. Iosu. 18. 22. eleuenthly, the Hama­thite from whom two cities beare the name, the one is Annochia, which Amos cap. 6▪ cal­leth Hamath Rabba, or Hamath the great, once the Metrapolitan of Syria, the other is Hamath the lesse, called also Epiphania from Antiochus Epiphanes, this citie stood on the north side of the Israelites ground. So these are the eleuen nations that came of Canaan: in the 15. chapter of this booke, there are reckoned vp but ten, and Deut. 7. 1. Act. 13. 19. there are counted but seauen, for it see­meth that some were wasted or mixed con­fusedly with the rest, before the Israelites did possesse the land.

Q. Which were the borders of the land of Canaan?

[Page 93]A. Sidon on the North-west allotted to the tribe of Aser. Gaza on the South-west, a citie which befell the tribe of Iuda. Sodom with the other cities that were destroyed. Gen. 19. on the South-east, and these are the bounds of the whole land of Canaan. Ioshua onely describeth the West part thereof. Iosh. 13. 3.

Q. Why is Sem called the brother of Iapheth here, and not also of Cham?

A. Some are called brethren by nature, as Iacob and Esau, some by nation, as the Iewes were Pauls brethren, some by affinitie as Christ and his kins-folkes. Matth. 12. and some by religion and affection as all Christi­ans. Then Iapheth and Sem are called bre­thren, because they were not onely so by na­ture, but also in affection. So Si [...]eon and Leui brethren for their affection in euill. Gen. 49. Then though Cham by nature were Sems brother, yet God accounts him not so, because he was not of his affection and reli­gion, euen so wicked and prophane Christi­ans though they are accounted our brethren in the iudgement of the world, yet they are not so in the iudgement of God.

Q. Why is Sem called the father of the sons of Heber onely, seeing he had more sonnes then Heber?

[Page 94]A. As Cham is called the father of Can [...] ­an onely▪ because his curse was visibly exe­cuted on him, so here Sem is called the father onely of Hebers sonnes, because his blessing was visibly powred on them. Gen. 14. 19. Se­condly, because they onely retained the faith and religion of Sem: thirdly, by this God will show that Sems blessing did not belong to all his posteritie, but onely to those that retained his faith. Neither can we be parta­kers of the blessings of our Elder brother Christ, except we be followers of him, and holy as he is holy.

Q. Which are the sonnes of Sem?

A. Elam of whom came the Elamites, so called from him, but afterwards Persians from Perseus their gouernour: secondly, Assur, father of the Assyrians who were ene­mies to Israel. Assur is also the name of a ci­tie in Iudea built by Salomon: thirdly, Ar­phaxad, his genealogie and countrey are not spoken of in Scripture, but that he is the Fa­ther of Christ. Luk. 3. yet it is thought that Chasdin or the Chaldeans are of him: fourth­ly Lud, of him came a people in Africa neere Aethiopia: this I know is contrarie to the receiued opinion, for this Lud is thought to be the father of the Lydians in Asia, and Lud [Page 95] the sonne of Mizraim is thought to bee the father of this people in Africa: but wee must not thinke that the world was so deui­ded among the sonnes of Noah, as though Sems posteritie did onely possesse Asia. Ia­pheths Europe, and Chams Africa precisely without entermingling, for as Madai thought Iapheths sonne did inhabite Media in Asia, and Canaan who came of Cham did possesse Palestina in Asia; so why may not Lud though Sems sonne inhabite Lidia in Africa: fifthly, Aram of whom came the Syrians, called Aramites from him, and their land Aram in the old testament, but Syria in the new; the chiefest citie of this land is Damascus.

Q. What sonnes had Aram?

A. Hus whose sonnes possessed the land of Hus: Iobs countrey, Iob 1. 1. which was a part of Idumea. Lam. 4. 21. secondly, Chul he inhabited Armenia: thirdly, Gether hee dwelt in Caria a countrey in Asia-Minor, betweene Licia and Ionia: fourthly, Mash whose posteritie inhabited the hill Masius a­boue Nisibus and they were called Masiani.

Q. What sonnes had Arphaxad?

A. In the Hebrew text Selah is called his sonne, but the Greeke hath Caman which [Page 96] Luke followeth in his 3. chapter, for there as also here in the Greeke Selah is called the sonne of Cainan and Cainan the sonne of Ar­phaxad, some thinke that Selah was the adop­ted sonne of Cainan, and the naturall sonne of Arphaxad, but it is like that Luke in a mat­ter of so small moment would not disagree from the Greeke text, because it was in great account amongst the people: then according to the Hebrew text, Selah is the sonne of Ar­phaxad and father of Heber.

Q. What sonnes had Heber?

A. Peleg, in whose daies the earth was di­uided, that is, the inhabitants of the earth who before were of one tongue, and one countrey, are now diuided into diuers tongues and regions, and therefore because when he was borne this diuision fell out, hee is called Peleg, which signifieth diuision [...] some thinke this name was giuen to him be­fore he was borne by way of prophesie, but it is like hee had it from the euent that fell out when he was borne, neither is their opi­nion sound, who thinke this diuision to haue beene in the end of his dayes, which was in the 48. yeere of Abrahams age; and 38. yeeres after the death of Ninus, for at that time the world was replenished with peo­ple, [Page 97] with diuers languages, Kings and king­domes, and therefore this diuision was long before the last yeere of Peleg. His other so [...] is Iokta [...], who hath here 13. sonnes reckoned, but because they seated themselues in remote and vnknowne regions beyond the East-Indies and fell away from the God of Heber to worship vnknowne Gods, therefore they are little mentioned in Gods word, and they doe yet remaine vnknowne to vs.

Q. What countries did Ophir and Hauilah possesse?

A. Ophir did possesse the land which from his name is called Ophir, doubtfull whether it be Cephala in Aethiopia, or Chersomsus in India, or Peru in America; but we know that Salomons shippes fetched store of fine golde from this Ophir. 1. Kings 9. and 10. chapt. Hauilah did possesse India, as Iosephus and Hierome doe affirme.

Q. What are Mesha and Sephar?

A. Mesha is a countrey in India where the sonnes of [...] dwelt, so called as it is thought from Mash the sonne of Aram. Se­phar is a hill in India also, and Luther conie­ctureth that this may be the hill Ararat or I [...]anus.

Q. Was there such a diuision of nations be­for [...] [Page 98] the flood, as now is after?

A. Before the flood their was a diuision amongst men in respect of qualities, for then some were good, some bad, &c. Secondly, in respect of religion, for the posteritie of Set [...], who are therefore called the sonnes of God, did onely worship the true God▪ but Cains posteritie were Idolaters, or rather Athiests. Thirdly, in respect of place. For Cain remoo­ued from the place where he was, and dwelt on the East-side of Eden. Gen. 4. and there his posteritie planted themselues apart from Seths progenie, yet their was not so great a diuision before the flood as after; because after the flood the world was diuided in di­uers tongues and speeches, sects and religi­ons, lawes and gouernments, townes and re­gions, arts and occupations, orders and de­grees, &c. And in this we may see the proui­dence of God. By whom and not by fortune these things come to passe: for it is he that hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. Act. 17. 26. Secondly, although amongst vs there be ma­ny diuisions in religion, in lawes, in speech, &c. yet because wee came all of one stocke, [Page 99] we should all studie to vnitie; for these di­uisions came of sinne, but vnitie is more an­cient, for it was from the beginning, before sinne came into the world.

Questions on the eleuenth Chapter.

Q. WHat was that one speech that was spoken before the confu­sion of tongues?

A. Not the Aegyptian tongue, as the Ae­gyptians, nor the Phrigian, as the Phrigians▪ nor the Syriac as Theodoretus. quest. 59. in Gen. nor the Chaldee as Philo lib. de confus. ling. would haue: but the Hebrew. For the Syriac and Chaldee tongues, are but Dia­lects of the Hebrew. Secondly, the names that are mentioned in Scripture before the confusion of tongues are Hebrew and signi­ficant. Thirdly, there are many words which all other tongues haue borrowed from the Hebrew, as Sac, Babel. &c. Which doe testifie that this tongue is most auncient. Fourthly, [Page 100] the most of the Fathers, and all the Recent writers are of this opinion.

Q. Did the Hebrew tongue remaine in vse after the confusion?

A. Yes, but onely in Hebers family, there­fore it is called the Hebrew tongue: Yet all Hebers posteritie did not vse this tongue, but onely Peleg and Reu, and those that were in the straight line of whom Christ came, and it seemes in that this language was not chan­ged; that Heber did not consent to the buil­ding of Babel. This then is that tongue in which God spake and gaue his Oracles, both before and after the flood. It was spoken al­so by Angels, and by his owne people the Iewes; it did not proceede of sinne, as other tongues, but was from the beginning euen in Paradise; it is that tongue that doth con­taine the misteries of our saluation, and like enough it shall be that tongue which we shall speake in heauen: yet though this tongue was not confused at the building of Babel, it was notwithstanding confused in the capti­uitie of Babel. And since that time Hebrew did cease to bee in common vse among the Iewes; and Syriac or mixed Hebrew came in place: so that the tongue which Christ and the Apostles vsed amongst the Iewes, was [Page 101] not Hebrew but Syriac.

Q. Why did the people remooue from the East into the plaine of Shinar?

A. They remooued from the East, that is, from the hillie countrey of Armenia, where the Arke rested, into the plaine of Shinar or Chaldea. First, because they were now ex­ceedingly increased, and an 100. yeeres had beene pinned vp in that countrey, therefore now seeing all feare of the flood was gone, they thought good to discend to the plaine and inlarge their habitation. Secondly, be­cause the plaine was more fertile, pleasant and commodious for them. Thirdly, because their minds were not content with their pre­sent estate, therefore they begin to couet for more ground and a richer soyle; and this co­uetousnesse hath beene the cause of so many wants, transmigrations and confusion of tongues?

Q. Of what matter did they build their Tower and Citie?

A. In stead of stone they vsed bricke, be­cause in that plaine countrey stones were scarce▪ and because of the aboundance of clay they had matter enough to make bricke of. Secondly, in stead of mortar artificiall; they vsed naturall morter, or a kinde of slime [Page 102] that was found in their pits & riuers, of the nature of brimstone, which Se [...]iramis did vse for the building of Babylon; and here we may see their forwardnesse in exhorting one another to this wicked worke. A shame for vs, who are not so earnest to build vp the Church of Christ, the heauenly Ierusalem, as they were to build vp their earthly Babel. Se­condly, although they wanted matter, that is, stone and morter to build their Towre with, yet rather then they will giue ouer, they will make matter to themselues, and in this we see the nature of the wicked, who will leaue nothing vn▪ attempted to bring to passe their wicked designes. A [...]dax omnia perpetigens [...]umana ruit per ve [...]itum nef [...]. Thirdly, this sinne is most fearefull; for it is intollerable pride against the Maiestie of God; and it is not amongst a few, but vni­uersall, and that so soone after the flood.

Q. Of what height did they inte [...]d to build their Towre?

A. It is Hyperbolically spoken here, that the top thereof may reach to heauen, as the cities of the Anakims are said to be walled vp to heauen. Deut. 1. 28. [...] tree to reach vp to heauen. Dan. 4. 18. Ca­per [...] to be exalted to heauen. Mat. 11. 23. [Page 103] That is exceeding high, for it is not like they were so foolish, as to thinke they were able to raise a towre to the heauen. For as Phil [...] saith, the earth being the Center, cannot ei­ther in the whole or in the parts thereof, touch the heauen which is the circumfe­rence, and in respect of the huge distance be­tweene earth and heauen, though the whole earth should be set on an heape, it could not reach to heauen; much lesse a Tower; yet it is like they did resolue to build it so high that the toppe thereof might exceede the highest mountaines; that so they might bee preserued from the flood. And this counsell is thought to haue proceeded from wicked Nimrod, to whom the rude multitude gaue speedie consent, now how farre they procee­ded in their worke, none is able to define: the Iewes haue idlely coniectured that it was 27. miles in height; but it is probably recorded, that in Hieromes time, some part of this huge building was yet extant.

Q. For what end did they build so high a Tower?

A. For two, the one to get a name, that is, to be made famous to posteritie, or rather infamous, as he that burned the Temple of Diana. For such is the desire of glory in [Page 104] man, that rather then hee will be buried in obliuion, hee will doe those things that are most odious both in the sight of God and man, that he may be spoken of after death: & this sin is deriued from Adam to all man­kind, for he desired to be like vnto God, and wee doe all desire that glory which is onely due to God. For this cause so many Pira­mides and Towers, Collassus and triumphant arches haue beene erected; yea whatsoeuer noble [...]orke is done, yet amongst men it is for this end: and what will not a man doe to immortalize his name. For, Pulchrum est digito monstrari, & dicier hic est, but we ought rather to consider what the Prophet saith. Psal. 49. Man being in honour abideth not, he is like the beast that perisheth, like sheepe they are laid in the graue, death shall feed on them, their beautie shall consume in the graue from their dwelling, when hee dyeth, his glory shall not descend after him, &c. The other end why they build this Tower is, least they be scattered abroad: a feare which did arise from their guiltie consciences, for the wicked flie when no man persueth. Prou. 28. 1. Yet though this building of this Tower proceeded of pride, and the intent of the builders was to dishonour God, and get themselues a name, we must not for this con­demne [Page 105] the building of Towers and Forts, which are for ornament and defence.

Q. What doth the Tower and Citie of Ba­bel signifie?

A. As Ierusalem is the type of Christs Church, so is Babel of the diuels Synagogue▪ and therefore as Christs Church and Satans Synagogue are contrary, so is Ierusalem and Babel. Ierusalem signifieth the vision of peace because the King thereof is the Prince of peace, & the subiects are at peace with God, with men, and with their owne consciences. But Babel signifieth confusion, for as there is nothing amongst the wicked but disorder and confusion, so to them there is no peace. Secondly Nimrod out of his pride built Babel to glorifie himselfe, but Christ by his humili­ty builded the Church to glorifie his father. Thirdly Babel is built in a low plaine, for the wicked seeke those things that are below; but Ierusalem is a city built vpon a hill, for the conuersation of the godly is in heauen. Fourthly Babel is built with bricke and slime, but Ierusalem is built with gold and precious stones. Reu. 21. Fifthly, diuersitie of tongues was a meanes to leaue off the building of Babel: but diuersitie of tongues was a meanes to begin the building of Ieru­salem. Act. 2. Sixthly▪ the building of Babel [Page 106] was the cause why the people were dispersed and separated, but the building of Ierusalem is the cause why they are conioyned and v­nited: seauenthly Babel is fallen and is found no more, for the memoriall of the wicked shall perish, Prou. 10. 7. But Ierusalem shall dwell from generation to generation, Ioel. 3. 20. For they that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Sion, &c. Psal. 125. 1. Eighthly Ba­bel is the hold of euery fowle spirit, and a cage of euery hatefull bird, Reu. 18. But Ieru­salem is that holy city comming downe from God out of heauen, Reu. 21. Therefore let vs come out of Babel, least we be partakers of [...]er sins, and receiue of her plagues, Reu. 18. 4.

Q. Did God descend locally from heauen to see the Tower?

A. No: but when he brings out some ex­traordinary effect of his power and proui­dence, whether it be of iustice or mercy, he is said to descend: so he descended to see So­dom, Gen. 18. 21. He descended to deliuer his people from Egypt, Exod. 3. 8. He descended on Sinay, Exod. 19. 11. So he is desired to de­scend, Psal. 144. 5. Esa. 64. 1, &c. So here be­cause he would manifest the effect of his iu­stice in confounding their tongues and dis­persing of them▪ he is said to descend, but if [Page 107] we say with many of the auncient fathers that Christ oftentimes did assume the forme of man before he had fully vnited it to him­selfe in the Virgins wombe, then we must al­so say that God heere did descend locally, though not as God, but as man. But howso­euer here we see that God will not strike till he descend and see their wickednesse: that is, make it be seene and openly knowne, both a notable example of patience, and an excel­lent president for iudges, who first must exa­mine before they condemne.

Q. Why are the builders of the Tower cal­led here the sonnes of Adam?

A. To put them in minde of their base o­riginall, which was red earth, that their pride might be cast downe, who being but dust and ashes, yet durst attempt to build a Tower a­gainst the God of heauen their maker: se­condly to teach vs and all posterity, that we doe not arrogate any part of diuine honour to our selues, or attempt any thing against him, who may redact vs to nothing; for hee is Almightie and we are but the sonnes of A­dam: therefore when wee doe forget our selues, he can drowne vs with [...], kill vs with [...], turne vs into beasts with [...], and resolue our bodies in­to [Page 108] lice with Herod: thirdly, that we doe not too much admire and adore the Potentates of this world; for let their power bee neuer so great, yet they are but the sonnes of A­dam: therefore Vide vnde es homo et eru­besce.

Q. How is it vnderstood that the people [...] one?

A. Not onely in place and speech, but al­so in consent and affection; and this vnion made them the more forward to begin that worke; so that they would not willingly be restrained from that which they had imagi­ned to doe: and here we see that the wicked haue their vnity▪ but it is altogether against the Lord and against his annointed, Psal. [...]. Therefore such vnion cannot stand, and if the children of darkenesse bee at such vnion a­mongst themselues, much more should the children of light, who haue but one father, one mother, one head, one redeemer, one spi­rit, one word, one baptisme, one bread which we eate, one cup which we drinke, one com­mon enemy, and one hope of inheritance. Se­condly we see their stedfast resolution that they thinke nothing can restraine them from their building: so confident are the wicked in workes of darkenesse. Thirdly we see that [Page 109] God is not idle, he notes and obserues their doings, he that sitteth in the heauens doth laugh them to scorne, Psal. 2.

Q. How, and to whom did God speake here, when he sayes let vs goe downe?

A. Properly speech belongs not to any thing but to man, who onely hath the instru­ments of speech, yet there is an internall and mental speech in spirits, which is nothing but the reasoning and discoursing of the minde; and this speech is imperfect in respect of man; for none vnderstands what is in the minde of man but himselfe; in Angels it is more perfect, for they vnderstand one ano­ther by this mentall speech; but in God it is most perfect, for after an incomprehensible manner, he speakes to himselfe, and the three persons in the glorious Trinity doe vnder­stand one another after that manner which we cannot conceiue, much lesse expresse. Thē as our minds internally and spiritually can speake to God although our tongues do not mooue, so can the Angels speake to one a­nother, so can God both to them and vs. In times past God spake so to the Prophets, and oftentimes by his Spirit he speakes so to his Saints still, yet God may be said to speake, when he frames audible voyces in the ayre, [Page 110] as Mat. 3. Or when his Angels assuming mens bodies, doe speake in his name, as often in Scripture and most excellently did hee speake when his onely begotten Sonne did assume the whole nature of man. By this essentiall word he hath spoken to vs in these last dayes. Now because the Father speakes here to the Sonne and Holy Ghost, wee can neither define nor diuine how he spake; yet this we know, that he being eternall and in­comprehensible, did speake after an eternall and incomprehensible manner.

Q. To what end did God come downe?▪

A. To confound their language, for this was a speedy way to ouerthrow their buil­ding, which he might haue done other waies, but this way he thought fittest: both because it was a means to disperse them abroad, as al­so in that hee would haue this diuersitie of speech to be a testimony to all ages of their intolerable pride. And this confusion of tongues did take away that vnion which was amongst men, and hath beene the cause of hatred and contempt amongst nations. Therefore when wee cannot vnderstand one another, let vs call to minde the pride of these builders, for whose sinne God hath laid this great labour on the sonnes of men.

Q. Were their tongues so diuided that eue­ry man who was there did speake a particular language?

A. No: for so there had beene no society amongst men, if none could haue vnderstood anothers speech, and so the world could not haue beene replenished with people but it is probable according to the opinion of the Ancients, that their tongues were diuided according to the number of the families, so that euery family spake a language, which those that were of another family could not vnderstand. Now this confusion of speech is the third vniuersall punishment with which he doth correct the world, for the first was mortality, denounced against Adam and his posteritie: the second was an vniuersall flood: and this an vniuersall confusion of tongues; and that diuision of tongues is a great iudgement, we may see in the 55. Psal. 10. where Dauid doth wish it against his e­nemies.

Q. What relation is there betweene this di­uision of tongues, and that which was visibly done vpon the Apostles?

A. This diuision was the punishment of pride, but that of the Apostles was the re­ward of their humility▪ secondly as this di­uision [Page 112] was a meanes to disperse men abroad and fill the world with inhabitants, so that diuision was a meanes to disperse the Apo­stles abroad, and fill the Church with Chri­stians: thirdly in this diuision one speech was diuided, amongst many men, but in that diuision many speeches were vnited in the mouth of one man: fourthly by this diuision the people were separated into diuers regi­ons, by that diuision the people were [...]nited into one Church: fifthly in this diuision God comes downe in his wrath to punish these builders, but in that diuision the holy Ghost comes downe in mercy to comfort the Apostles.

Q. What did follow vpon this diuision of tongues?

A. They were scattered abroad vpon the face of all the earth; so then the euill is brought on them, which they sought to preuent: for that which the wicked feareth shall come vpon him. Prou. 10. 24. Againe, as God came downe and dissolued this wic­ked communion, so Magistrates and Mini­sters must destroy the workes of the Diuell▪ and although they leaue off from building their Citie, yet about an 100. yeeres after it was repaired and amplified by Semiramis.

Q. Why was this tower called Babel?

A. It is so called not from Belus, but from Balal, that is confusion, and this name God gaue it, to be a perpetual monument of their wicked attempt; and because this name of Babel or confusion, hath beene euer hatefull, let vs in all our actions shunne it; but espe­cially let the Church be free from it; and let all things there be done with order and de­cencie. Againe, let vs feare and tremble to attempt any thing against the God of hea­uen, for he is not farre from euery one of vs, he that planted the eare, shall he not heare? He that formed the eye, shall he not see. Psal. 94. Truly the Lord looketh from heauen, he beholdeth all the sonnes of men: he consi­dereth all their workes. Psal. 33. Yea hee knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanitie. Psal. 94. Therefore as he came downe now to punish these builders, so he will come one day, but with the sound of the trumpet and the Angels of heauen, there shall he ren­der to euery man according to his workes.

Q. Why are the generations of Sem set downe here?

A. As in the fifth chapter of this booke Moses rehearseth ten Patriarckes from A­dam to Noah; so in this he reckoneth tenne [Page 114] from S [...]m to Abraham. First, to let vs see that euen in these most corrupted times God hath his Church, although but small, there­fore we neede not doubt to call the Church Vniuersall in respect of time, for it hath bin euen from the beginning, although not still apparent in the eyes of men. Secondly, that we may know the age of the world, therfore to euery one of these names, the yeeres of their life are subioyned: for else we should not haue knowne how much time was be­tweene the flood, and the making of the co­uenant with Abraham. Thirdly, that wee may know that Christ came of these fathers according to the flesh. Fourthly, although many more descended of Sem, yet here they are not thought worthy to bee reckoned in Gods booke, because they did not continue in the faith of Sem. Fifthly, although Ar­phaxad be here named, and in the tenth chap­ter, after Elam and Assur. Yet it followeth not that he is yonger then they (for so wee must grant that Noah had these three sonnes in two yeeres, which is not needfull,) but Ar­phaxad is rather the elder: For the Scrip­ture doth not obserue the order of times in setting downe names.

Q. Whether shall we hold with the Hebrew [Page 115] text, that Selah was the sonne of Arphaxad, or with the Greeke which affirmeth that Selah was the sonne of Cainan, and grand-childe of Arphaxad?

A. Rather with the Hebrew, for that is the originall fountaine and of vndoubted ve­ritie, the Greeke is but a translation, and therefore the Translators might haue mista­ken themselues in putting in Cainan, between Arphaxad and Selah. Secondly, all the He­brew coppies affirme that Selah was the son of Arphaxad, but all the Greeke coppies doe not affirme Caman to bee Arphaxads sonne, for there are some Greeke coppies, which in the 1. of Chron. 1. 18. Make no mention at all of Cainan, but onely haue [...] Arphaxad begat Selah. Thirdly, al­though Luke chapt. 3. mention Cainan, yet some Greeke coppies there are which in that place doe not at all mention Cainan, as Beza witnesseth in his annot. vpon Luc. cap. 3. Fourthly, the putting in of Cainan here, hath for the most part changed the time of each fathers procreation in the Greeke, least the Gentiles (as it is thought) for whom the Bible was translated first, should know their true genealogie.

Q. How many yeeres li [...]ed Sem, after hee [Page 116] begat Arphaxad?

A. Fiue hundred yeares, euen till Isaac was fiftie yeares old, and so he saw ten gene­rations after him, before he dyed. Then true it is, that he who honoureth his father, &c. his dayes shall be long in the land, &c. And although good Sem was vexed to see not on­ly others, but also his owne posterity fall to idolatry, yet he is comforted before he dy­eth to see the Church renued again in Abra­ham and Isac, and no lesse comfort was it for Abraham and his sonne to enioy the society of old Sem, who saw the first world, the flood, the building of Babel, who questionlesse did instruct them with the knowledge of the true God, and of those things which he had both receiued of his father Noah, and which hee had seene by his owne experience.

Q. What sonnes had Terah?

A. Abraham, Nachor, and Haran, where Abraham though youngest is first placed for honour and dignities sake, as before, Sem is put before his elder brethren. Secondly, Abraham is not onely mentioned here, but also Nachor and Haran, for the better vn­derstanding of the history of Lot the sonne of Haran, and of Rebeccah Isaacks wife who was of Nachors house.

Q. How doe we know that Abraham was the youngest of these three?

A. Because he was borne when his father Terah was a hundred thirty yeares old, for Terah dyed two hundred fiue yeares olde, vers. 32. of this cap. Then Abraham departed from Charran 75. yeeres olde. Gen. 12. 4. therefore if Abram was 75. yeeres old at the death of his father, it is manifest that he was borne the 130. yeere of his fathers age, and so consequently he was yonger then Nachor and Haran who were borne before this time: for Milcah Nachors wife was the daughter of Haran. verse 29. therefore que­stionlesse Haran was the eldest. Againe Ha­ran died before his father. verse 28. If then he died and had a daughter who was marri­ed before Abraham was 75. yeeres old, then doubtlesse he was the eldest, if then Abraham was borne when Terah was 130. yeeres old, Haran must needs be borne when Terah was 70. For at that time he begate, that is, he be­gan to beget children. verse 26. Therefore by this also we may gather that Nachor was elder then Abraham.

Q. What shall we say to the Hebrewes: who hold that Abrahams age of 75. yeeres, is not counted from his birth, but from his departure [Page 118] from Vr of Chaldea?

A. If this were true, that Abraham was borne when his father was 70. yeeres old, we must admit that hee was 135. yeeres olde, when hee departed from Charran; which is contrarie to Gen. 12. 4. Againe, by this sup­putation it would follow that Isaac was born 35. yeeres before Abraham came to Canaan; for Abraham was 100. yeeres old when Isaac was borne. Gen. 21. But that is false, for I­saac was borne in Canaan. Yea if this fiction of the Hebrewes were true, wee must be for­ced against the Scripture to admit that A­braham was 160. yeere old when Isaac was borne, and that he liued 100. yeeres, whereas he liued but 175. Gen. 25. Neither neede we with Augustine, Quest. 25. in Gen. That A­braham came twice to Canaan, once when his father was liuing, and then hee remained there 60. yeeres, and another time after his death; for the Scripture both here, and Act. 7. Mentions onely of once comming to Ca­naan, and that after his fathers death.

Q What signifieth Vr of the Chaldees here?

A. It may either signifie fire properly, and so the Hebrews think that Haran died in the fire, but that Abraham was wonderfully de­liuered from thence, which sauours of a fa­ble [Page 119] because neither mentioned by Moses, nor Paul. Heb. 11. Neither by Iosephus nor Philo, who haue written much of Abraham. Se­condly, This Ur may signifie metaphorical­ly, persecution and affliction; which often in Scripture is called fire, as Psal. 66. 12. Lam. 1. 13. And so Abraham was deliuered from the afflictions of the Chaldees. Third­ly, it may be here the name of a Citie, as the Chaldee paraphrase taketh it; or a countrey as the Greeke translateth it, and this is most proper: then Vr was a Citie or Countrey in Chaldea, so called either from the fire which they saw come from heauen vpon the fathers sacrifices, or else from the sacred fire which was kept there, for fire was holy amongst the Gentiles, especially amongst the Chalde­ans, Persians and Romans, or it might haue beene called so, because it stood in a low place or valley, which the Hebrews call Vr. In this countrey then or Citie Haran died, before his father, that is, his father being yet aliue, and from hence Terah tooke Abra­ham, Lot, and Sarai, to goe to Canaan.

Q. Was Sarai Abrahams halfe sister, by his father Terah, and not by his mother, as thinketh Clem. Alexand. lib. 2. Strom.

A. No, but she was the daughter of Haran, [Page 120] and sister to Lot and Milcha, which Milcha was grand-mother to Rebecca Isaaks wife. Gen. 22. 20, 23. Then though properly shee was his brothers daughter, yet shee is called his sister. Gen. 20. 12. As Lot is called his brother. Gen. 13. 8. For the Hebrewes vse to call their kinsfolkes brethren and sisters; and though properly shee be Terahs grand­childe, yet according to the Scripture phrase, shee may be called his daughter. For grand­fathers, are called fathers in Scripture, as Ia­cob calleth Abraham his father. Gen. 48. 15. 16. Shee was then Abrahams sister, that is, his brother Harans daughter by the same father Terah; but not by the same Mother, for Haran was Terahs sonne, by an other woman: so that he was but halfe brother to Abraham. Here then we see how carefull A­braham is now, and other fathers here after, to take them wiues of their owne kindred, and not strangers being Idolaters, and this they did, when as yet there was no positiue law, to forbid them, as afterward it was com­manded by Moses. Deut. 7. 3.

Q. What was Iscah, whom Moses calleth the daughter of Haran?

A. This Iscah is no other woman but Sa­rai, for els it had beene impertinent▪ to haue [Page 121] spoken of her in this place, the signification also of the word so much importeth. For both Ischai and Sarai signifie the same thing: to witte, principality or rule. Then Sarai we see had two names, as many other in the Scripture, and though Abraham marryed her being his mothers daughter, yet we must not thinke that marriage vnlawfull in him, for it was not exhibited by law, yea after the law we see it was in vse, by the practise of Oth­niel, for he marryed with Achsah the daughter of his brother Caleb. Iudg. 1. 13. Yet although this marriage was not vnlawfull in Abraham and Othniel, because it was permitted them, being extraordinary persons, wee must not put it in practise, for many things were law­full to them which to vs are vnlawfull. And though Moses doth not expresly forbid it, yet by analogy and consequence it seemeth to forbid such kind of marriage. Moses Lev. 18. doth not in expresse tearmes forbid the grand-child to mary with the grand-mother; or with the wife of his grand-father, or a man to marry with his mothers brothers wife, and yet these marriages by proportion are vnlawfull. Moses onely there sets downe expresly a few vnlawfull marriages, that by those wee may iudge of the rest that are vn­lawfull [Page 122] in such distances.

Q. Why is there mention made here of Sa­ries barrennesse?

A. To put vs in minde of the wonderfull birth of Isaac, that so we may the more ad­mire the power of God. Secondly, to make a way for the subsequent history of Isaacks birth; & in this we may consider the state of the Church. For as God out of barren Sarai brought out Isaca, so he did out of her, as out of a dry stock procreate his church: therfore when the Church seemeth to vs as it were vt­terly lost, let vs not despaire, for God of stones can raise children to Abraham, Mat. 3. When we doubt, then let vs looke vnto Abraham our father, and vnto Sarah that bare vs, Esa. 51. 2.

Q. Was Terah the cause why Abraham tooke his iourney to Cainan?

A. No: but Abraham was rather the cause that mooued Terah, for the calling did especially belong to Abraham, Gen. 12. 1. Therefore his faith is particularly commen­ded, Heb. 11. 8. And though Abraham ac­quainted his father with Gods oracle, and so vnder God mooued him to goe, yet because Terah was his father, this honour is giuen to him, that he is said to take Abraham, &c. from [Page 123] Chaldea. Secondly, in that Abraham went with his father and kindred. Wee learne what was his loue to their good, and what our care and loue should be to our friends, in drawing them from Chaldea, that is from the world. But as Abraham was resolued if they had not gone, to haue forsaken them: So must we forsake parents, friends, coun­try, yea all we haue, to follow Christ. Third­ly, these fathers before they departed from Chaldea were Idolaters, as we may see, Iosua 24. 2. And in them we may behold what wee are before our calling, euen the children of wrath. Fourthly, in that not onely Abraham, but the rest also went out from Vr. Wee see that this was no fire but the name of a city, for if they had all beene saued from the fire, the Scripture had ascribed it to the power of God, which it doth not, as we see afterwards it doth, speaking of the three children in the fierie furnace. Fifthly, Sarah here is called Terahs daughter in law, therefore she could not be his own daughter. Sixthly, Sarah is cal­led here Abrahams wife, therefore could not be his sister, for such a marriage were alto­gether vnlawfull.

Q. Whether went Nachor with Abra­ham and the rest of his kindred from Vr, ornot?

[Page 124]A. If he had gone with them, he had been heere named, as well as the rest, therefore it seemes he stayed behind and would not leaue his Idolatrous country. In whom we see the nature of the wicked who cannot be perswa­ded to leaue the world; and though he went not at this time, yet afterwards being either troubled in his conscience, or els banished from that place as Augustine thinketh, lib. 16. de ciuit. dei. cap. 13. Hee departed from thence, but went no further then Mesopota­mia, for hee dwelt in Nachor. Gen. 24. 10.

Q. Why did Abraham and the rest of his company stay at Charran, and went not immedi­ately to Canaan?

A. Because his father being old not able to trauell so farre as Canaan; therefore hee was driuen to stay there with his old father till he dyed, but after his father was dead, he remooued from thence to Canaan Act. 7. 4. In Nachor, Terah and Abraham wee may see the threefold estate of men; some like Nachor remaine in Chaldea, and will not for­sake the vanity of this world. Others againe are like Terah who in their iourney from Chaldea to Canaan, from the dominion of Sa­tan and power of sinne to the kingdome of grace, stay in the middle way, and so dieth, [Page 125] but the third sort are those true Christians, who with Abraham doe not stay in Chaldea; or if they doe, it is but a short while, but runne on with patience the race that is set before them. Let vs then with Abraham walke towards Canaan while wee haue the light, least darkenesse come vpon vs, Ioh. 12. 35. I meane that darkenesse of death where the light is as darkenesse, Iob 10. 22. For hee that goeth to the land of darkenesse, that is to the graue shall come vp no more, Iob 7. 9.

Questions on the twelfth Chapter.

Q. IN that God doth call Abraham par­ticularly from Chaldea, doth it fol­low that there was more excellency and worth in him then in the rest?

A. No: for before our calling we are all by nature the children of wrath. Abraham was an Idolater, as well as the rest of his kindred, Ios. 24. 2. For how could hee else [Page 126] chuse, beeing borne of Idolatrous parents; and bred amongst an idolatrous people, and wanting the meanes to know the true wor­ship of God, till God himselfe did wonder­fully call him. Yea if he had beene free from superstition, wherein had the mercy of God appeared in calling him? then Abraham be­ing in the same estate of misery that others were, is the more bound to God for his mer­cifull calling: for it was of his meere loue that he called both him and his seed, because he loued their fathers, therefore hee chose their seed after them, saith Moses, Deut. 4. 37. And as God called Abraham from Chal­dea, so doth he call vs from the power of Sa­tan, not because of our foreseene merits, but because it was his pleasure, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy, Rom. 9. 16.

Q. How and to what end was Abraham called?

A. He was called effectually, for he is not of the number of those who are called but not chosen. Mat. 20. 22. But of these who called in time, predestinated before time, and shall be glorified ofter time, Rom. 8. 30. Secondly, he was called not by violence, as Paul, nor by affliction, as oftentimes the Israelites were, [Page 127] nor by present benefits, as those who were healed by Christ and the Apostles, nor by working of miracles as many in the Gospell, but by the bare word of God, Get thee out of thy country, &c. Thirdly, hee was called not because of his fore-seene faith, much lesse be­cause of his fore-seene merits, for both these follow calling; Non praecidunt iustificandum, sed sequuntur iustificatum. But hee called him, because it was the good pleasure of his will, Ephes. 1. 5. Fourthly, he is not called onely to a priuate office or function, as Saul was to the kingdome, and Iudas to the Apostleship, and neither of them to grace: but he was cal­led both to bee a Father and Prince on his people, as also to be a member of that City which he looked for; whose builder and ma­ker is God, Heb. 11. 10. Fifthly, he is not cal­led as he was, who first desired to bury his father. But as Peter and Andrew, lames and Iohn were, who leauing their ships, their fa­thers and their nets followed Christ, Mat. 4. So Abraham departed as the Lord had spoken.

Q. How often did God appeare to Abra­ham?

A. Nine times. First, now in Chaldea, where he is bid leaue his country. Secondly, [Page 128] when he came to Canaan, then God promised to giue his seed that land, Gen. 12. 7. Thirdly, when hee departed from Egypt to Canaan; being separated from Lot, then the Lord promised to him and to his seed the land of Canaan, Gen. 13. 14. Fourthly, in a vision, when God promised to multiply his posteri­ty, as the starres, Gen. 15. 1. Fifthly, when Abraham was 99. yeares old, then he chan­ged his name from Abram to Abraham, and instituted circumcision the seale of the coue­nant, Gen. 17. 1. Sixthly, in the plaine of Mamre, setting in his tent dore, then hee re­ceiued the three Angels, Gen. 18. 1. Seauenth­ly, when he was commanded to cast out Ish­mael, Gen. 21. [...]2. Eighthly, when hee was commanded to sacrifice his sonne Isaac, Gen. 21. 1. Ninthly, when hee stayed him from offering of his sonne, Gen. 22. 11. And by all these apparitions wee may see how highly God did account of his seruant Abraham, and how happy and honourable they are whom God loueth, although they are con­temptible to the world. Secondly, God ap­peared oftentimes to Abraham, and so hee doth still to his Saints, although not after that manner, that hee did to Abraham, yet in his spirit hee is with vs to the end of the world.

Q. How did God appeare to Abraham and the Prophets?

A. Here it is not expressed how God ap­peared or spake, but we know that God hath beene both seene and heard of his people, not in regard of his essence, which is most simple, free from accidents, infinite, incom­prehensible, neyther must we imagine with the Anthropomorphits, that God hath a bo­dy and members by which he is made visible, for no man hath seene God at any time, Ioh. 1. No man can see him and liue, Exod. 33. No: in the kingdome of heauen wee shall not see his essence with our bodily eyes. We may see him with the eies of our minds as the Angels doe now, for we shall be like to them. Yet we shal see him perfectly with our bodily eyes, but in the person of his Son our media­tor; for the godhead dwelleth bodily in him; then neither Abraham nor any Prophet hath seene or heard God in himselfe, but onely they haue enioyed his presents in externall signes, as Moses in the fierie bush, the Israe­lites in the cloud and fire▪ in smoake and voi­ces, thunders and lightnings, the Priests in the mercy seat, in the Arke, in Vrim and Thummim. The Prophets sometimes in the shape of a man, sometime they did inioy him without any externall signe, immediately by [Page 130] his spirit working vpon the vnderstanding and will, and they haue seene him sometimes by dreames, sometimes awaking, sometimes in a trance, as his Maiestie thought good, but there neuer was, nor is, nor shal be a more ex­cellent way to see him, then in his sonne Ie­sus. For hee that hath seene him, hath seene the Father. Ioh. 14. Then we know not how he appeared and spake to Abraham, it is suffi­cient for vs to know that hee appeared in some externall image. Quam voluntas eligit non quam natura creauit▪ Ambros▪

Q. Why doth God command Abraham to teaue his countrey?

A. Because he will trie his faith and obe­dience. Secondly, because he will weane him by degrees from the loue of the world. Thirdly, because hee will haue him to bee a Preacher amongst the Cananites, to shew them the knowledge of the true God. That he may winne some to saluation; and make the obstinate inexcusable. Fourthly, that he may take possession of that land in the name of his posteritie. Fifthly, that hee may flee from the Societie of the Idolatrous Chalde­ans, and shunne all those that were hinderers to him in Gods seruice; especially his friends and acquaintance. Sixthly, to teach vs what we should doe, when wee are called; euen [Page 131] leaue our owne countrey, kindred and fa­thers house, that is, the world, our sinnes which are so deere vnto vs, and the dominion of Satan, that we may follow Christ to the heauenly Canaan. Seauenthly, that Gods power might appeare the more, in defending Abraham, in preseruing and multiplying his posteritie, amongst the midst of their ene­mies in a strange land, and at last giuing them the full possession of it, then for these reasons Abraham forsooke his countrey, friends and acquaintance, which was hard for flesh and blood to doe, yet by faith hee went out, not knowing whither hee went. Heb. 11. 8.

Q. Is it lawfull then for vs to forsake our countries and friends, if they [...]inder vs in Gods seruice?

A. Yes, for if we preferre father or mo­ther, or any thing to Christ, we are not wor­thy of him, for this cause therefore Abra­ham, Isaac, and Iacob, soiourned in the land of promise, as in a strange countrey. Heb. 11. 9. Lot forsooke Sodome, the Israelites Ae­gypt; Moses refused to be called the sonne of Pharaohs daughter. Heb. 11. 24. Elias and Iohn Baptist liued in the wildernesse. Christ also did retire himselfe commonly to the shippe, the mount and the desert: the Disci­ples [Page 132] forsooke all and followed Christ. Math. 18. 28. And many holy men in the Primi­tiue Church, of whom the world was not worthie, as th'Apostle saith, wandred in de­serts and mountaines, in dennes and caues of the earth. Heb. 11. 38. And truly as the socie­tie of the wicked, hinders the seruice of God, so nothing fitter to aduance it, then a priuate life, free from the multitude. Amongst whom we both see and here these things, which doe not bring vs to God, but drawes vs from him; yet here I doe not commend the idle life of the Monkes, which is vndertaken more for superstition then religion, for the belly then the soule, amongst whom for the part: gluttonie; couetousnesse and intempe­rance doe reigne, instead of sobrietie, meeke­nesse and continencie, as Helias Abbas did complaine, although I finde nothing in that kinde of life contrarie to true Christianitie, if so be it were purged from errour and su­perstition, and corrected according to the patterne of that life, embraced by the Pri­mitiue Church, and so highly commended by the fathers. For indeede their Monaste­ries were the seed-plots and seminaries of the Church, and free from these errors and abuses, which now adaies haue filled our Mo­nasteries. Now, though Abraham left his [Page 133] countrey, yet this must not be a president for vs vpon euery occasion, to forsake our countrey and friends, or to thinke that God can onely be serued abroad and not at home, truly many holy men, who neuer forsooke their countrey and friends, haue serued God sincerely. And it was the praise of Noah, that he was righteous before God, in that wicked generation wherein he liued. But if wee see that wee cannot liue amongst our friends without indangering our saluation▪ let vs rather loose and forsake all, then loose our soules.

Q. In what countrey was Abraham now when God called him?

A. Not in Mesopotamia, or in the way betweene Chaldea and Charran, as Augustine thinketh, lib. de ciuit. Dei. 16. cap. 15. For hee is called out of his countrey▪ which is not Mesopotamia, though S. Steuen saith, that he was in Mesopotamia, but there he calleth all the countrey beyond Euphrates, Chaldea, Sy­ria, Babylonia by this name. Secondly, no [...] in Charran, for this was not his countrey, and to say that hee was twice called, once in Chaldea▪ for that was his countrey, and from Vr in Chaldea he was called. Gen. 15. 7. Then to thinke that he was commanded to leaue [Page 134] his countrey, after that he had left it already is ridiculous, neither must we thinke that ei­ther Mesopotamia strictly taken, or Charran, could be Abrahams countrey, seeing hee did but soiourne there but a while like a stran­ger, his minde in the meane time being still in Charran.

Q. How did Abraham leaue his kindred, seeing they went with him?

A. Of all his kindred, none went to Ca­ [...]an with him but Lot his brothers sonne, for Terah died in the way of Charran, Na­chor went not from Chaldea. Secondly, sup­pose his father went with him to Charran, ei­ther because he hated the Chaldeans Idola­trie, or else because hee would not loose the societie of his sonne Abraham. Yet Abraham was so disposed and resolued, that although his father had not gone, or if he had labou­red to diswade him, yet he would haue gone whether the Lord did call him. And in this hee sheweth a singular faith and obedience, both in that he was so resolute to goe, how­soeuer his friends were disposed, as that hee would leaue a certaintie for incertainties, his owne friends and countrey, for a land hee knew not: for although in the former chap­ter Moses nameth Canaan. Yet it doth not [Page 135] follow, that Abraham as yet, knew that hee was to goe thither, for Moses of himselfe doth [...]ame it by the figure Prolepsis.

Q. What are the blessings that God doth pro­mise to Abraham?

A. First, that hee would make of him a great nation, which hee performed in his children by Agar, but more wonderfully in the Israelites by Sarah, being old and barren, but aboue all in the spirituall Israelites. For hee is the father of all them that beleeue, Rom. 4. 11. Secondly, That hee will blesse him, and so he did in earthly things. For he was very rich in cattell, in siluer and golde▪ Gen. 13. 2. and 24, 25. But specially in spi­rituall things. Gal. 3. 14. Eph. 1. 3. Yea in all things God blessed Abraham. Gen. 24. 1. Thirdly, he will make his name great; (not as the Hebrewes thinke by putting to the letter (He) and of Abram, making it Abra­ham, for this coniecture is ridiculous) but he will make his fame and person glorious. For the name is often taken for the person it self, as thou hast a few names in Sardis, that is, a few persons. Reu. 3. 4. And Gods name is in Scripture taken for himselfe, then Abraham was great and famous, for his faith and obe­dience, for Gods care to him for many bles­sings [Page 136] he had of God, in his sonne Isaac, in barren Sarah, in his posteritie the Israelites, in the faithfull, whose father hee is; in that God calleth himselfe, the God of Abraham. But specially in that Christ came of Abra­ham according to the flesh, so then Abrahams name shall bee so great, that hee shall bee a blessing to others. Fourthly, hee will blesse them that blesseth him, and curse them that curse him; so Lot and Ismael were blessed for his cause; Pharaoh was plagued, the foure Kings ouerthrowne, and Abimelec terrified for his sake; but this cursing and blessing hath beene alwaies seene executed vpon the friends and enemies of the Church; the Ba­bylonian, Persian, Grecian, Romane Monar­chies, haue beene cursed for cursing her. But the mid-wiues in Aegypt, the whoore Ra­chab, the widdow of Serepta, and many o­thers haue beene blessed for blessing her. Fifthly, in him all the families of the earth shall be blessed, that is in his seed. Gen. 22. 18. Which the Apostle expoundeth of Christ. Gal. 3. 16. For the blessing of God is come to the Gentiles through Iesus Christ. Gal. 3. 14. God hath sent Christ to blesse vs, in turning euery one of vs from our iniquities. Act. 3. 26. Yea in Christ God hath blessed vs, with [Page 137] all spirituall blessings, &c. Eph. 1. 3. Heere then we see how bountifull God is to Abra­ham for his imperfect obedience, thus hee deales with his Saints, for brasse hee brings gold, and for iron, siluer, and for wood brasse, and for stones iron, &c. Isay 60. 17. And wee must obserue, that from the promise to the law are foure hundred thirty yeares, Gal. 3. 17. And all this while the Israelites dwelt as strangers in Egypt, Exod. 12. 40. Yet not in Egypt onely, but some part they spent in Ca­naan, and because they did spend the most part of it in Egypt, therfore Moses only men­tioneth Egypt.

Q. How old was Abraham when he went from Charran?

A. Seauenty fiue yeares olde, and in this he deserueth singular commendations, that although now he was old and feeble, yet hee would not descest from going his iourney. Secondly, in that he went as the Lord spake vnto him, we doe learne how to guide our a­ctions, for this is true piety, to vndertake no­thing, but what God hath commanded, and▪ to doe it no other wayes, then as hee hath commaunded; this is onely true obedience, which God more regardeth then sacrifice, 1. Sam. 15. 22. Thirdly, in that Lot went with [Page 138] him, we may see what his affection was to true religion, who beeing but a youth, and hauing Nachor in Chaldea his vncle, who like enough did diswade him from going, yet hee had rather goe with Abraham although hee knew not whether, then to remaine amongst idolatrous companie.

Q. What company tooke Abraham with him to Canaan?

A. Sarai his wife, a notable president for women, who should not with Lots wife look backe to Sodom when they are called, nor hinder their husbands from going to the wedding feast as she in the Gospell, Luk. 14. 20. Nor infect their husbands with idolatry, as Salomons wife, nor deceiue them with flat­tering words, as Sampsons wife, nor induce them to breake Gods commandement as Eue; nor desire them to curse God as Iobs wife, but rather let them imitate Sarai, Re­beccah, Lia, Rachel, Debora, Ruth, Abigal, the Queene of Seba, the widow of Serepta, the blessed Virgin Mary, the widdow Anna, E­lizabeth, Lydia, the women in the Gospell who ministred to Christ, who accompanyed him to the crosse, and did visite him in the graue, and many other holy women mentio­ned in Scripture, in whose liues they may see [Page 139] a patterne of deuotion to God, loue to their husbands, faith, wisedome, patience, charity, and many other excellent vertues. Secondly, he tooke Lot his brothers sonne, a notable youngman, whom the young men of this age should imitate, who are so farre from following Abraham for religions sake to a strange countrey, that they will neither fol­low the holy life of the Saints, nor the coun­sell of their preachers in their owne coun­try. Thirdly, he tooke all the soules, that is, those persons or seruants, whom he and Lot had gotten in their possessions, in Charran, where wee may see that Abraham was no base fellow, but a man of might, for hee had many seruants, euen 318. trained souldiers, Gen. 14. Againe, here we see his care to their soules, who would bring them with him, a patterne for masters, who must be carefull to procure the weale of their seruants soules, and in that, they went with him, wee haue here an example for seruants, who should bee ready to follow their masters in goodnesse.

Q. Did Abraham well in taking with him to Canaan, all the substance that he had gathe­red?

A. Yes: for God would neyther haue him begge, not bee burdensome to those a­mongst [Page 140] whom he was to dwell, our calling then doth not hinder the lawfull vse of ri­ches lawfully gotten; for those that were called by the Apostles, did not altogether leaue their possessions, but sold them as well for the vse of others as for their owne, Act. 2. and Abraham as all the Saints may lawful­ly possesse riches, for they are the gifts of God, the effects of Gods blessings; and the instruments of learning, vertue and almes, yet we must take heed, that our riches bee not vnlawfully gotten. Secondly, they be not abused to luxurie and pride. Thirdly, that we doe not put our confidence in them. Fourthly, that wee doe not hide them, with that vnprofitable seruant, when we should vse them to the comfott of our selues and poore brethren. Fifthly, that we doe still acknow­ledge God to be the Authour and giuer of them. Sixthly, that whensoeuer occasion serueth, we be ready to leaue them, if God doe so require of vs for the greater aduance­ment of his glory and true religion, and so it is to be vnderstood that the Apostles forsook all, and they are promised to be highly re­warded, who leaueth these things for Christs sake. Mat. 19.

Q. How farre trauelled Abraham through the land?

[Page 141]A. To the place where Sichem afterward was built, a city in the tribe of Manasses, be­longing to the priests and not farre from the hils Hebal and Garizim, where the Israelites heard the blessings pronounced, Deut. 27. 12. This place in Abrahams time was called the plaine or Oke of Moreth, for it seemes that here was a groue of Okes. And here we see that Abraham euen in this promised land, is but a pilgrim, for he is driuen to wander as farre as Sichem, which is toward the desert. Truely God would teach both Abraham and vs by this, that our lise here on earth is but a peregrination.

Q. Did this land belong of right to Abra­ham, Because he descended of Sem?

A. The Hebrewes thinke that Canan by Noah was giuen to Sem and his posterity, but Canans sonnes tooke it by violence from them, which is false. First, because the Scrip­ture mentioneth no such thing. Secondly, if this country had belonged to Sem, and so consequently to Abraham, this had beene no free gift. Thirdly, is the Cananites had ta­ken it violently, then this had beene cause sufficient to haue driuen them out, but wee reade onely that their wickednesse was the [Page 142] cause of their expulsion, Leu. 18. 24. Fourth­ly, God would not haue deferred foure hun­dred yeares to driue them out, but presently would haue put Abrahams seed in possession of it, which he did not, for their iniquity was not yet full. Fifthly, Moses mentioneth no other cause, that mooued God to bring his people to Canaan, but onely because he loued them, Deut. 4 37. And as God brought A­braham now to Canaan, the countrey being replenished with Canaanites; so did hee af­terwards to his posterity, for when they they were brought hither from Egypt, they did finde the Cananites in the land. Againe, as the Cananites was in the land, so the Cana­nites are in the Church, and as Abraham li­ued a stranger amongst them, so do the Saints amongst the wicked, but as there came a time when the Cananites were driuen out, so the day shall come when the wicked shall be cast out into vtter darkenesse, Mat. 8. 12.

Q. Which of the persons of the trinity appea­red here to Abraham?

A. Not the father, for as he is of none, so he is sent of none▪ nor the holy Ghost, for he visibly onely appeared in a done on Christ in Iordan, and on the Apostles in fierie tongues, but Christ the second person, the [Page 143] Angell of the couenant, who hath from the beginning beene a mediatour and the em­bassadour of his Father. Some to vpholde image-worship, do thinke this wasian Angell Personaliter: but God by representation; and therefore he is called Lord. But this is false, because the name Iehouah which is in the Hebrew text, is neuer giuen to any creature, for it is Gods proper name, Esay 54. 5. Amos 4. 15. If the name Elohim had beene vsed here, they might haue had some shew for their opinion, for that name indeede is some­times giuen to the creatures, Psal. 82. 6. But the essentiall name of Iehouah is here expres­sed, which is onely proper to the creator. Se­condly, if this had beene an Angell, it is not like that Abraham would haue built an altar to him; for building of Altars was a part of diuine worship.

Q. To whom then did Abraham build thi [...] Altar?

A. To Iehouah that appeared vnto him, and in so doing, he testifies his piety to God, euen amongst the midst of Idolaters without feare, Religio esse non potest, vbi metus est. Lact. Firm. lib. 4. Loue driueth out feare. Secondly, he shewes a thankfull minde to God, not on­ly in building an altar, but building it with­out [Page 144] command of his owne accord. Thirdly, he did not build it to any of the Idol▪ gods, hee knew his God to bee a iealous God, and who would giue his glory to none. Farre o­therwise doe they who build Churches and Chappels to the honour of dead men, Hon [...] ­randi sunt sancti propter imitationem non ado­randi propter religionem Augustin. I deny not but any religious house may bare the name of a Saint or Martyr deceased, prouided al­wayes that wee derogate nothing from the Lord, or arrogate any thing to them contra­ry to Gods word.

Q. Whether remooued Abraham from Si­chem?

A. To a mountaine on the East of Bethel, so called by Iacob, but otherwise it was called by Luz, Gen. 28. 19. This mountaine was be­tweene Bethel and A [...], a city which Iosuah de­stroyed, Ios. 8. And vpon this mountaine, a Temple was built by the permission of Alex­ander Macedonia, of which hill the woman of Samaria speaketh, Ioh. 4. It had two tops, He­bal and Garizim, whereon the blessings and cursings were pronounced. Here then Abra­ham stayes a while, and yet not long, for hee is forced to trauell towards the South, as ha­uing no certaine abode enen in that promi­sed [Page 145] land, hee was then, and the godly are still but strangers in this world, and as hee went towards the South as towards the Sun: so doe the godly in faith and grace, the way of the righteous shineth as the light, that shineth more and more vnto the perfect day, Prou. 4. 18. But the wicked trauell towards the North, from whence a plague shall bee spread vpon them, Ier. [...]. 14. Because the way of the wicked is as darkenesse, Prou. 4. 19.

Q. Why went Abraham downe to E­gypt?

A. Not because hee distrusted of Gods prouidence, for hee was assured that God could miraculously feede him, as afterward he did the widow of Serepta and Eli [...]h. Se­condly, not because hee was inconstant and mooueable, as many are, who can neuer set­tle themselues in one place, but like wandring starres, and carryed vp and downe from place to place. Thirdly, neither fled he for any vil­lany he had committed or murther, as Moses did from Egypt. Fourthly, nor to increase his stocke as marchants doe. Fifthly, nor cu­riously to increase his knowledge in humane sciences, as Pythagoras, Emsedocles, Democri­tus and Plato, who for this end trauelled so [Page 146] farre countries; but he went, first because of the famine in the land, therefore hee would not tempt God by neglecting lawfull means. Secondly, because he would propagate the knowledge of the true God in Egypt, as Saint Chrysoftome thinketh, Hom. 30. in Gen. And for this end the Apostles trauelled through the world, now although this was a very fruitfull land, Deut. 8. 7. Yet God made it barren for the wickednesse of them that dwelt therein, Psal. 107. 34. Barrennesse and mis [...]ery are the fruits of sinne, let no man glory in their fruitfull Ilands, for sinne will make them barren as Sodom and Gomorrha. Againe, when Abraham thought to haue [...]ase and wealth hee is frustrated▪ for hee is faine to flye for hunger, so God doth exer­cise his children wiith such punishments, that his care and their faith may appeare the more: so he did pinch Isack, Iacob, Ioseph, E­lias, Eliseus▪ and other Prophets, Paul and o­ther Apostles with hunger. Moreouer Abra­ham for the sinnes of this land fared the worse; and so many times Gods children dwelling with the wicked are partakers of their plagues?

Q. What did the going downe of Abraham into Egypt signifie?

[Page 147]A. That as he went thither so should his posterity after him, and the most part of the circumstances doe agree. First, as famine was the cause that Abraham went to Egipt▪ So famine was the cause that mooued Iacob and his sonnes to goe thither. Secondly, as Abraham was now troubled: so afterward Israel was more afflicted. Thirdly, Pharaoh for Abrahams sake is plagued, and Pharaoh for Israels sake was drowned. Fourthly, A­braham was vsed [...]ell for Saraies sake, and so was Israel for Iosephs sake▪ Fifthly, Sarai A­brahams wife was faire to looke vpon, there­fore she was e [...]ticed to lye with Pharaoh, so Ioseph▪ Israels sonne was a faire person, there­fore was enticed to lye with Po [...]iphers wife. Sixthly, Abraham departed rich from E­gypt, hauing sheepe, beeues, asses and Cam­mels, so did the Israelites hauing spoyled the Egyptians of their siluer, gold, and ray­ment.

Q. Wa [...] Sarai beautifull at this time?

A. Yes: and her beauty was extraordi­nary, seeing it was not diminished, neither by her long iournies, nor by her age, for now she was 6 [...]. yeares old, tenne yeares yonger then Abraham. And as Sara [...] was beautifull in the eyes of Abraham, so is the Church faire in [Page 148] the eyes of Christ her well beloued. But this beauty of the Church doth not so much con­sist in externall splendor, as in internal grace, for the kings daughter is all glorious with­in, Psal. 45. 13. This beauty of Sarai made Abraham giue her counsell to say that shee was his sister, and not his wife, for hee knew what danger there is to haue a beautifull woman. And truely oftentimes beauty hath beene the cause of murther and mischiefe, the wife of Vriah, Lucretia, Helina, and many more can testifie, therefore beauty is not so much to be regarded as vertue. Abraham then had good cause to feare the Egyptians, because they are blacker then the Cananites, and when they see a faire woman, which is scarce in that hot country, they are exceeding prone to defloure her, hee knew also that the aboundance and plenty in Egypt, brought out incontinance and intemperance among them.

Q. Did Abraham sinne in perswading his wife to say she was his sister?

A. He did not sinne in sauing his owne life, seeing nothing is more precious then the life, especially Abrahams, because all nations should be blessed in his seede. Secondly, nei­ther altogether did he lye in saying shee was [Page 149] his sister, for she was his brothers daughter; and such as are neere a kinne, the Hebrewes did vse to call brethren & sisters. Thirdly, no [...] yet did he sinne [...]in giuing this hard censure of the Egyptians, for what he spake of their cruelty and lust, hee spake it by experience, though not in himselfe, yet in others he knew what the nature and qualities of barbarous people are, without the knowledge of God, yea it seemes by the euent he speakes this as a Prophet. Fourthly, neither can we altoge­ther say that hee sinned in hazzarding his wifes chastity, if we looke to his faith. For we may thinke that hee who in greater matters depended vpon Gods prouidence, did also in this; and was assured that God would rather deliuer her, then suffer her chastity to be abu­sed, as the euent sheweth: yet we will not de­ny but some humane infirmities are mixed with this action of Abraham, for he did not call Sarai his sister in that sence that Pha­raoh vnderstood her to be. Secondly, in that he did seeme too much to hazzard his wiues chastity, hauing no such warrant from God. Thirdly, in that he was too feareful of death, when he should haue rather assured himselfe, that God who had preserued him hitherto, would not leaue him now destitute. Fourth­ly, [Page 150] in that he gaue an euill example to others by counselling his wife to dissemble. Yet these and such like infirmities in the Saints, are not to vs matter of imitation, but of hu­miliation rather, considering that there is a law in our members, warring against the law of the minde, Rom. 7. 23.

Q. What hapned to Abraham when he came to Egypt?

A. His wife Sarai is commended by the Princes to Pharaoh, and she receiued into his house, here then ws see that Sarai did as A­braham desired her, and in this shee shewed her selfe a louing and faithfull wife, who will rather hazard her chastity, then suffer her husband to be killed. Secondly, in that the Princes commended her, we haue here the nature of flattering courtiers set downe, who accommodate themselues to the humors and vices of their king. Thirdly, we see in the E­gyptians the nature of carnall men, who are more mooued with externall shewes and beauty, then with internall vertue and grace. For Sarai is sought not for her vertue, but for her beauty. Fourthly, in that Abraham is the first of Hebers posterity who went to E­gypt, we gather from hence that the Hebrews are not descended of the Egyptians, as Iose­phus [Page 151] in his books against Apton doth prooue. Fifthly, from hence also wee gather, that the name of Pharaoh is euery ancient, seeing the Egyptian kings were generally called Pha­raoh. In the time of Abraham, and this name remained amongst them till the returne of the people from Babylon, then in the begin­ning of the Grecian Empire, they were called Ptolomees till Cleopatra being ouercome, Au­gustus did redact it into the forme of a pro­uince; but after the Empire was diuided, E­gypt being gouerned a while by the Grecian Emperours; and weary of that seruitude, they did chuse Calipha the captaine of the Saracens to be their King; from whom the Egyptian kings for almost the space of 447. yeeres were called Caliphae, afterward the kings of Egypt were called Sultans after the death of Melechsala.

Q. How was Saraies chastity preserued?

A. By the hand of God, for Pharaoh and his house were plagued with great plagues because of her; then questionless [...] as God had a care to keepe her chastity from Abi­melech, so now he hieth to keep it from Pha­raoh, though here it bee not directly expres­sed as there, because shortly after mention is made of Isacks birth, whom some would haue [Page 152] thought to haue been Abimelechs sonne, and not Abrahams. Secondly, here we see the care that God hath of his children in their extre­mities, hee suffereth no man to doe them wrong, Psal. 105. 14. Thirdly, Kings must take heede by this Pharaoh, that they do not oppresse and offend Gods children. for hee hath reprooued kings for their sakes, Psal. 105. 14. Fourthly, wee may see here the fiercenesse of Gods iudgements, who for this sinne of Pharaoh did plague his whole house: so many times for the wickednesse of a king, the whole land is punished, Quicquid delirant reges plectuntur Achiui. Fifthly, God plagued Pharaoh for Abrahams wife: euen so whore-mongers and adulterers God will iudge, Heb. 13. 4. Examples we haue of Pha­raoh here, Rubin. Gen. 35. The Beniamites, Iudg. 19. Dauid, 2. Sam. 11. The Israelite with the Moabite woman, Num. 25. 6. If God plagued Pharaoh who ignorantly tooke Sa­rai, what plagues must they looke for, who take a pride and pleasure in committing a­dultery. Seauenthly, not onely Pharaoh, but the Princes that counselled him are plagued: euen so shall all wicked counsellors bee hand­led, Malum consilium consultori pessimum, Then let none wonder why they are also punished, [Page 153] Quid mirum [...]os regiae penae fuisse participes, qui regis in patrando flagitio fuerunt adiutores, Chrysostom.

Q. Did Pharaoh commit adultery with Sarai?

A. No: for he is plagued before he tou­ched her, or else to what end had hee beene plagued after he violated her. Secondly, it was not the custome amongst these nations for kings to take them wiues before they had purified themselues certaine dayes, yea a whole yeare as we may see in the booke of Hester. Thirdly, although Pharaoh had tou­ched her, yet properly wee cannot call that copulation adultery, because she yeelded not of her owne accord, but was compelled both by her husband to saue his life, as also by Pharaoh. So Abraham did lye with Agar, and yet we cannot say he committed adulte­ry, seeing he did not of lust, but by the coun­sell of his wife to beget children, yet the su­rer way is to hold that she was not touched. Fourthly, we may collect here by Pharaohs words, that if he had knowne Sarai to be A­brahams wife, he would not haue taken her, Qui prat [...]ndit ignor antiam condemnat intempe­rantiam, Ambros. lib. de Abr. cap. 2. This pro­phane king had learned so much continency, [Page 154] euen by the law of nature. Fifthly, it is like that Pharaoh was warned by God in a dreame, as afterward Abimelech was, that Sa­rai was the wife of Abraham.

Q. Why did Pharaoh giue charge to his men concerning Abraham?

A. Because he would not haue any to doe him wrong, and like enough the Egyptians did enuy him, because for his sake the king and court was plagued: as also, because hee grew very rich amongst them in that short time he remained there. Secondly, because he would not haue any violence offered to Sarai, for he knew how prone to lust his peo­ple were. Here then we see that the hearts of kings are in the hands of the Lord, Prou. 21. 1. Secondly, Abraham in this tentation lost nothing, but gained both riches and ho­nour, then true it is that all things worke to­gether for the best to them that loue God, Rom. 8. 28. Now whether Abraham taught the Egyptians astrologie or not, is vncer­taine, yet like enough he did, although he did not remaine their long, for it is very proba­ble that Abraham did labour to bring them to the knowledge of the true God, which he could not better doe, then by the knowledge of the visible celestiall creature; and truely [Page 155] no man fitter to teach them then Abraham, being bred amongst the Chaldeans the one­ly astrologers in the world, hauing also him­selfe the true knowledge of God; and none fitter to learne this science, then the Egypti­ans, who were naturally inuited thereto, be­cause of the perpetuall serenity of their ayre, beeing altogether free from cloudes, which doe take away the light of these ce­lestiall bodies oftentimes from vs.

Questions on the thirtenth Chapter.

Quest. HOw is it vnderstood that A­braham went vp, out of E­gypt into the South?

A. He is said to goe vp out of Egypt, be­cause this country lyeth lower then Canaan. So in the precedent chapter, vers. 10. Hee is said to goe downe to Egypt. Now Abraham going to Canaan from Egypt▪ is said to goe vnto the South, not as though Canaan did lye Southward from Egypt, for it is North­ward. [Page 156] But by the South here Moses vnder­standeth the Southerne parts of Canaan. As Canaan was a type of heauen, so is Egypt of the kingdome of Satan. Abraham came out of Egypt to Canaan, so must we from the po­wer of Satan to the kingdome of grace; he went vp from Egypt, so wee must ascend by faith, and seeke those things that are aboue, he went vnto the South, as to the sunne, so we must follow the sonne of righteousnesse, and walke in the light while it is day, hee tooke his wife and Lot with him, so we must helpe forward our friends in this spirituall iourney, he was very rich when he went vp, so we must be rich in faith, Iam. 2. 5. Rich in good workes, 1. Tim. 6. 18. Rich in vnder­standing, Col. 2. 2. Rich in all vtterance and knowledge, 1. Cor. 1. 5.

Q. Why did Abraham returne againe to Bethel, where he was before?

A. Not to pay his debts, which hee had contracted going to Egypt, as Rabbi Salomo prateth, but because he knew this place better then others. Secondly, he had more acquain­tance here then else-where. Thirdly, he recei­ued here some blessings from God: there­fore his affection is more bent to this place then to any other. Fourthly, this place had [Page 157] beene consecrated already by building an al­ter and calling vpon the name of the Lord: therefore he would not seeme to neglect that place which was once consecrated for Gods worship, teaching vs not to despise the pub­like places dedicated to Gods seruice. Fifth­ly, he would not seeme to be a vagabond ro­uing vp and downe when there was no need, teaching vs that vpon euery trifle wee must not remooue from place to place, for that which he enioyned the Apostles, Luk. 10. Hee also enioyneth vs to doe, that we remaine in the same house, where we are receiued, and that we goe not from house to house. Sixth­ly, as Abraham returned to his first altar, and there serued God: so must wee remember from whence we are fallen, and repent, Reu. 2. 5. And forsake the Idols of Egypt, Ezech. 20. 8.

Q. Why could not Abraham and Lot dwell together?

A. Because their substance was great, where we see that Lot also had great riches, and questionlesse the more for good Abra­hams sake, with whom he still did keepe com­pany till now. Secondly, these two whom nei­ther pouerty, long iournies, nor famine, could separate their great substance and wealth, do [Page 159] separate, such is the nature of riches, when Rome was poore, there was great concord, but when it waxed potent and rich, then fol­lowed diuision and rent of the Empire, so there was no distinction and heart-burning betweene Iuda and Israel, till they waxed rich, and the Christians while they suffered persecution and pouerty, they did maintaine loue and concord amongst them, they were of one heart and minde, yea had all things common, Act. 2. But after the Church grew rich, they who should haue beate their swords into plow-shares, and their speares into pru­ning hookes, did beate their plow shares into swords, and their pruning hooks into speares. Thirdly, in that Abraham must depart from Lot his kinsman, whom he loued so dearely, it was no small griefe to him, thus God did cast him downe, lest his riches should too much puffe him vp. Fourthly, the cause of this strife was without doubt scarcity both of pasture ground and water for their cat­tell. Fifthly, seruants oftentimes doe breede quarrels amongst themselues, which are the cause of strife betweene their masters, as we may see here in these heards-men. Therefore let masters take heede that they take not too much pride in the multitude of seruants, for [Page 158] too many seruants brings but confusion: nor too rashly to credite their seruants re­ports.

Q. Why is it added that the Cananite and Perezite were in the land?

A. To signifie that this was a maine rea­son that mooued Abraham not to striue with Lot: because hauing then such strong ene­mies as these were, it had beene their vtter ruine to haue contended. Secondly, lest by their idle contention they should be giuen to goe to law before the vnbeleeuers, which Paul doth dislike in the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 6. Thirdly, lest Abraham should giue them any occasion of offence or scandall, seeing he was in some account amongst them for his lear­ning and wisedome, it seemeth that the Pere­zites were not a seuerall nation distinct from the Cananites, but rather a family of the Ca­nanites, for they dwelt with them in that part of the couutry which fell to the tribe of Iuda, Iudg. 1. 4 Now as Abraham was loath to striue with Lot, because they had strong e­nemies, so let vs take heed lest we giue occa­sion to our spiritual Cananits and Perezites, to ouerthrow vs by our contentions. And truely we haue greater cause to maintaine loue and concord amongst our selues, then [Page 160] Abraham and Lot had. For our spirituall enemies are more and stronger then the Ca­nanites and Perizites were.

Q. Why saith Abraham to Lot, let there be strife, for we are brethren?

A. Because he would by these words mooue Lot to giue ouer contending with him, and in this he showeth both wonderfull wisedome and meekenesse, who although in all respects he was Lots better. Yet he doth submit him­selfe for concords sake vnto him. Secondly, he showes his exceeding loue to peace, when not onely doth he labor to maintaine peace, betweene himselfe and Lot: but also be­tweene their seruants, which all good peace­makers should doe. Thirdly, he brings a rea­son why they should not contend, because they are brethren, that is, naturall kinfemen. Yea brethren in faith and affection, if then Abraham was so carefull to maintaine peace, lest hee should offend the Cananites: how should not wee maintaine the same, lest wee offend weake Christians. Secondly, as hee thought it no disparagement to submit him­selfe for peace sake, so should not kings and great men, but they ought to be meeke and humble as Christ was. Thirdly, if they would not contend because they were brethren, [Page 161] much lesse should Christians, who are not onely the sonnes of God and brethren with Christ, but also the members of the same bodie.

Q. Wherein is the plaine of Iordan com­mended?

A. In that it was well watred euery where; euen as the garden of the Lord, that is, earth­ly paradise wherein Adam was placed, wa­tred with Euphrates, and like Aegypt watred with Nilus, and hereby is signified that this plaine was very fruitfull: as all grounds are which are watered with fresh riuers; but this plaine did not continue long pleasant. For God destroyed it with fire from heauen a­bout a yeere before the birth of Isaac, and 20. yeeres after Lots comming thither, so then God turned this fruitfull land into bar­rennesse, for the wickednesse of them that dwelt therein, Psal. 107. 34. And as this plaine was once pleasant and well watered with Iordan. But now there is nothing to be seene but barrennesse and a stinking lake, so was Iudea once well watered with the Ora­cles of God, the doctrine of Prophets, of Christ and his Apostles, but now it lyeth wast and barten, being ouerflowed with the stin­king puddle of Mahomets doctrine.

Q. Why did Lot chuse the plaine of Iordan?

A. Because of the fruitfulnesse and plea­santnesse thereof, and in this hee seemed to regard too much his profite, looking too much to the goodnesse of the ground, and not considering the wickednesse of that peo­ple, therefore he was twice punished for it; once when he was taken prisoner, the other time when God destroyed the cities of this plaine with fire. Then was he faine for suc­cour to [...]lee to the mountaines, and as he was as it seemeth to greedie to settle himselfe here by Iordan, so afterward were the tribes of Rubin and Gad, who did sollicite Moses to giue them the countrey on this side Iordan, before the other tribes had passed ouer the riuer: so they regarded their profite more then their safetie: for although that coun­trey was [...]at and pleasant, yet of all the coun­tries in Iudea: it was most dangerous, be­cause most obnoxious to the neighbour ene­mies. Numb. 32.

Q. Wherein did the riuer Iordan exceede all other Riuers?

A. Not in power, riches, deepenesse and largenesse, for Tibris, Nilus, Euphrates, Da­ [...], and others haue in these respects been more famous then shee, but in miracles and [Page 163] mysteries shee yeeldeth to none, for shee di­uided her selfe to let the Israelites passe ouer. Iosh. 3. In her Nahaman was clensed from his leprosie. 2. King. 5. Shee was diuided twice with Elias mantle. 2. King. 2. In her the yron did rise from the bottome, and swimme at the command of Elisha. 2. King. 6. In her many were baptized by Iohn, confessing their sinnes. Matth. 3. Yea Christ himselfe did sanctifie her with his bodily presence, being baptized there, and in her the holy▪ Ghost descended vpon him; and whils he was there, the heauens were opened, and the voyce of the Father heard. Matth. 3. This. Iordan flowed from two springs in the foote of Li­banus, the one is Iordan, and the other Dan, and emptieth her selfe into the dead sea, so called because no creatures can liue there, the very fowles that flie ouer it, fall downe dead: this lake is about some 36. miles long, and in some places 8. or 12. miles ouer: whatsoeuer is cast into it doth swimme not sinke, as Vespatian made triall, vpon the bankes groweth fruit, faire to the sight, but being touched, are nothing but dust within.

Q. Why would Cod haue Abraham and Lot to be separated?

A. For the further good of them both. [Page 164] First, to preuent that discord which was like to arise, by their dwelling together. Second­ly, that the knowledge of God may the fur­ther be defused in Canaan by Abraham, and to the fiue Cities by Lot, so wee reade Acts 15. That when Paul and Barnabas could not agree about Marke, they departed asunder. Paul to Syria and Cilicia, and Barnabas to Cyprus, and so the Gospell by this meanes was enlarged. Thirdly, God would haue A­braham to stay in Canaan, but Lot to depart, because Abrahams posteritie the Israelites was to inioy this land, but not the Moabites and Ammonites, who came of Lot. And here we may obserue that Lot did not chuse the better part: for though that countrey was pleasant, yet the inhabitants were wicked; and where he thought to haue found plea­sure, he met with trouble and sorrow, for he vexed his righteous soule from day to day, with their vnlawfull deedes. 2. Pet. 2. 8. Such is the foolishnesse of this world: for whiles men hunt altogether for pleasure, they fall into griefe and sorrow. Vbi mel, ibi fel. A­gaine, in Abraham we may obserue singular wisedome, who though he loued Lot most deerely, yet rather then by his companie he would offend God, he doth most willingly [Page 165] suffer him to depart, and so must we cast a­way euery thing, that is offensiue to God, be it neuer so neere and deere vnto vs. If thy right eye offend thee, plucke it out, and if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, for bet­ter it is for one of the members to perish; then that the whole body be cast into hell. Matth. 5.

Q. How is it vnderstood that the Sodomites were sinners before the Lord?

A. That is openly and boldly, without ei­ther shame of men, or feare of God, euen as the earth. Gen. 6. 11. Is said to be corrupt before God, and Nimrod, (Gen. 10. 9.) Is cal­led a mightie hunter before the Lord, the sinnes then of Sodome were many and feare­full, as pride, fulnesse of bread, aboundance of Idlenesse. Ezech. 16. Euen that vnnaturall sinne of Sodomie. Gen. 19. Yea they were contumelious against men, impious against God, vnmercifull to the poore, cruell to strangers, Iosep. lib. 1. Antiq. And question­lesse Idolatrie did reigne amongst them, and many more sinnes, and here they are called sinners, not as though they onely were sin­ners, (for by the disobedience of Adam we are all made sinners. Rom. 5. 19.) But because they were notorious and open sinners: there­fore [Page 166] this title is giuen them, so Psal. 104. 35. Let the sinners be consumed, &c. and Matth. 26. 45. The sonne of man is betrayed into the hand of sinners, and 1. Tim. 1. 9. The law is made for sinners, and here wee see that though these Sodomites inioyed pleasant and fruitfull grounds: yet they sinne exceeding­ly against the Lord. Thus the wicked doe a­buse Gods externall gifts, and the more they haue, the more vnthankfull and sinfull they are, when the Israelites waxed fat, they spur­ned with their heele. Deut. 32. 15. This made Salomon vnwilling to seeke riches, lest hee should deny God. For it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdome of heauen. Secondly, let not the godly enuy the riches and pleasure of the wicked, but behold the end, and they shall see them consumed with Sodome. Thirdly, let not the wicked reioyce in their riches, and pleasures, for though God spare them a while, yet the day will come, when with Sodome they shall bee consumed with fire and brimstone.

Q Did Abrahams posteritie inioy no more ground, then that which Abraham did now see?

A. Yes, a great deale more, euen from Dan to Be [...]rsheba, which Abraham at once could not see, then Abraham did not onely [Page 167] inioy that which he saw, but that also which he went through in length and breadth. verse 17. And as God showed the land now to A­braham, so did he afterwards to Moses, but neither of these could at once see all the land, but God points out the limits and corners of it to them both, and as Moses saw the land vpon Mount Pisgath: So it is like that Abra­ham saw it vpon Mount Garizim, they both see this land, but neither of them doe possesse it, now Abraham is grieued; doubtlesse for the want of his deere friend and brother Lot, but behold God comes to comfort him, showing him the land, thus God deales with his Saints heauinesse may bee for a night, but ioy shall come in the morning. Second­ly, we see here that Abraham did well in par­ting from Lot, or else God had not come to comfort him: thirdly, God came not to Abra­ham till this strife with Lot was ended: nei­ther will he come to vs, so long as we are at variance. Fourthly, Abraham saw the land now, but did not inioy it, so we by faith doe see the heauenly Canaan, but hereafter wee shall possesse it.

Q. Why doth God againe renew the promise of giuing to him this land?

A. To confirme his faith, which was often [Page 168] assaulted with many crosses, and such is the weakenesse of our faith, that of it be not of­ten confirmed with the word of God, it will faint, and although Abraham had no inheri­tance here except that field and caue which he bought to burie Sarai in; yet he did pos­sesse it all in hope, euen as we are now alrea­dy saued by hope. Rom. 8. Againe, he did pos­sesse it, if not in himselfe yet in his posteritie, so Iacob was Lord ouer his brethren. Gen. 27. 29. Which was accomplished not in him, for Iacob doth call himselfe Esaues seruant, and Esau his Lord. Gen. 33. 14. But in his posteri­tie the Israelites, who were Lords ouer the Edomites Esaus posteritie; so Iacob foretold many things. Gen. 49. Which should befall his children, which did not happen to them; but to their posteritie, then Abraham being the chiefe head of the Israelites, recei­ueth this blessing for his posteritie, which they did begin to inioy 370. yeeres after the death of Abraham, but they did possesse it not for their owne worthinesse, but for the faith and obedience of Abraham.

Q. Whether was Abraham heire onely of this land, or [...]ls heire of all the world, as Paul sce­meth to affirme▪ Rom. 4.

A. The seed of Abraham is twofold, some [Page 169] after the flesh, and some by promise, Gal. 4. These who were only after the flesh, possessed onely Canaan, but the spirituall seede, those that are Abrahams sonnes by promise, and heires of his faith, are also heires of the whole world, for to them the world doth be­long of right, although the wicked haue the possession of the most part thereof, yea wee may say, that Abrahams spirituall seede hath possessed the whole world from the begin­ning, for the Church which is Christs king­dome, and the seed of Abraham by promise, is vniuersall: neyther is it tyed to any parti­cular place according to these Scriptures. I will giue thee the heathen for thine inheri­tance, and the vttermost part of the earth for thy possession, Psal. 2. 8. He shall haue domi­nion from sea to sea, and from the riuer to the ends of the earth, Psal. 72. 8. Hee shall raigne ouer the house of Iacob for euer, and of his kingdome there shall be no end, Luk. [...]. 33. This is that stone cut out of the moun­taine without hands, which became a great mountaine and filled the whole earth. Dan. 2. 35.

Q. How long was Abrahams seede to enioy this land?

A. For euer, that is a long time, for so [Page 170] this word is often vsed in Scripture, so in this sence circumcision is called an euerlasting co­uenant, Gen. 17. The Sabboth a signe between God and his people for euer, Exod. 31. The seruant whose eare is boared must serue his master for euer, Exod. 21. Now this cannot be vnderstood of eternity, for the Israelites are long agoe expelled from Canaan, circum­cision, the Sabboth, and other ceremoniall lawes were abolished by the comming of Messyas, the seruant was tyed to serue his master no longer then the yeare of Iubili [...], then so long did they possesse this land, as they walked obediently before God, for it was giuen to them vpon condition of legall obedience, otherwise if they did not obey, the land was to spue them out, Leu. 18. 28. Abraham and his seede were to enioy this land for euer, but Abraham was to keepe Gods couenant, he and his seed after him for euer, Gen. 17. 9. If then they haue not enioy­ed this land for euer, they must not accuse God, but themselues, who haue not kept his couenāt for euer; Gods promises do then stil include the condition of our faith and obe­dience, as, whosoeuer beleeueth in the Sonne, shall not perish but haue euerlasting life, but he that beleeueth not, is condemned already, [Page 171] Ioh. 3. And here we cannot deny but that vn­der this earthly Canaan, promised to Abra­hams carnall seede, is vnderstood heauenly Canaan, which belongeth to his spirituall [...]eede: then this word (euer) is attributed to [...]he signe which doth properly belong to the [...]hing signified, and thus the Scripture vseth [...]n all sacramentall speeches, to ascribe that to [...]he type and figure, which doth onely belong to the thing signified, as the lambe is called the passeouer, the blood of goates and calues [...]s said to hallow and purge, the bread is cal­led Christs body, and here Canaan is promi­sed to Abrahams seede for euer, which yet shall not continue for euer, for the world shal be destroyed, and all the works therein, then earthly Canaan was possessed of the carnall Israelites for euer, that is, a long time, but the true Israelites shall possesse the heauenly Ca­naan for euer and euer.

Q. Why saith God that he will make Abra­hams seed as the d [...]st of the earth?

A. God doth vse this hyperbolical speech to stirre vp the minde of Abraham, for hee knoweth how dull and hard by nature wee are to hearkento him: for which cause the Scripture doth vse many such kinde of figu­ratiue speeches, as the toppe of Babel is said [Page 172] to reach to heauen, the cities of the ana­kims to be walled vp to heauen, to birds of the ayre are said to carry our words, if we speake ill of the king, the world cannot con­taine the bookes which might be written of Christ; and many such like, therefore they are foolish who thinke that there is no figu­ratiue speech in the Scripture; but that all must be vnderstood simply. Secondly, by this speech God would signifie [...]nto Abraham, that out of his loynes should proceede an exceeding great multitude of people, which was fulfilled in Moses time, for he sayes, they were as the starres of heauen in multi­tude, Deu. 1. 10. & 10. 22. And Balac said that they couered the face of the earth, Num. 23. 5. Yea Balam is forced to acknowledge their great number when hee sayes, Num. 23. 10. Who can count the dust of Iacob, and the number of the fourth part of Israel. Third­ly, although Abrahams carnall seede were great in number; yet his spirituall seede is greater; the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured, Hos. 1. 10. Which is meant of the spirituall Israelites, and Iohn saw a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people and [Page 173] tongues before the rhroane, &c. Reu. 7. 9. Fourthly, as the carnall seede of Abraham considered in themselues were many, yet but few in respect of all other nations, for the Cananites, the Hittites, &c. Were greater and mightier then the Israelites, Deut. 7. 1. Euen so the spirituall children of Abraham, though many in themselues, yet are but few in re­spect of the wicked, for many are called, but few are chosen, Mat. 22. 14. The way that leadeth to destruction is broade, and many goe in thereat; but the gate that leadeth to life is narrow, and few there be that finde it, Mat. 7. 13. Fifthly, although the seede of A­braham be innumerable to man, yet it is not to God, who telleth the number of the stars. Psal. 147. 4. And from hence we may col­lect that increase of children, and a great po­sterity, is a speciall blessing of God, as wee may see, Psal. 128.

Q. Why would God haue Abraham to walke through the land, in the length and bredth of it?

A. To augment both his faith and ioy, in that his children should haue the possession of that land, whereof he had now made a full survey. Secondly, this continuall walking vp and downe, God would exercise his patience, [Page 174] and let him know that he was but a stranger in his owne land. Thirdly, that by this meanes the knowledge of God might be the further propagated. Fourthly, that by the consideration of the length and breadth of that land, hee might be able to comprehend the bredth and length, and depth, and height, and know the loue of Christ, which passeth knowledge, Eph. 3. 18. Now, as all the life of Abraham consisted in walking, so doth the life of a Christian. Enoch walked with God, Gen. 5. Abraham is commanded to walke before God. Gen. 17. Noah walked with God, Gen. 6. Abraham confessed that he wal­ked in the sight of God▪ Gen. 24. Iacob con­fesseth that Abraham and Isacke walked in the sight of God, Gen. 28. God requireth Is­rael to walke in his wayes. Deut. 10. They are blessed who walke in the law of the Lord, Psal. 119. Euen so we must walke in the new­nesse of life, Rom. 6. We must walke honestly as in the day, Rom. 13. Wee must walke by faith, 2 Cor. 5. We must walke in the spirit, Gal. 5. We must walke worthy of our vocati­on, Eph. 4▪ In loue, as children of the light▪ Eph. 5. Worthinesse of God, Col. 1. And if we passe our life in walking, so we shall hereaf­ter walke with him in white, Reu. 3. Who [Page 175] walketh in the midst of the seauen golden candlesticks, Reu. 2.

Q. What plaine was this, which is here cal­led the plaine of Mamre?

A. It is a plaine or an oake groaue not farre from Hebron, which city of Hebron was also called Mamre, Gen. 23. 19. Therefore from the towne this plaine is so called, and this towne was called Mamre from a cer­taine Amorite of the same name, with whom Abraham made a couenant, Gen. 14. 13. Where there is mention made of him and his two brothers Eschol & Aner. In this Mamre, Abraham liued a long time, and neere to it, he and his wife Sarai, Isack and his wife Re­becca, Iacob and his wife Leah were buryed in one graue, Gen. 49. 31.

Q. What was Hebron?

A. A city in Canaan, which was built seuen yeares before Zoan in Egypt, Num. 13. 22. Which Zoan is thought to be Tanis, and it is supposed that this Hebron was builded by Heth the sonne of Canaan, whose posterity the Hittites inhabited in it till Iosuahs time; it was sometimes possessed by Gyants, whom Caleb droue out, Ios. 15. 14. It was a chiefe city in the tribe of Iuda, and after called Ki­riatharba, Ios. 14. 15. From one▪ Arba a grea [...] [Page 176] man amongst the Anakims. This towne be­came the inheritance of Caleb, Ios. 14▪ 14. And was made a city of refuge. Ios. 20. 7. Here Da­uid was first annointed king, and reigned there seauen yeares, 2. Sam. 2. This towne then was both a seat for the kings and the priests also, and it was called Hebron, from Hebron the sonne of Caleb, and some thinke it was to this city that Mary came to visite E­lizabeth, which Luke calleth a city of Iuda in the hill countrey. Beza in annot. in Luc. cap. 1.

Q. What did Abraham when he came to the plaine of Mamre?

A. He built an Altar to the Lord, both to sacrifice thankfully to God, as also to sancti­fie this place where he was to remaine, and this is the third Altar we reade that Abraham built. He hath set vp three altars, as three te­stimonies of Gods loue to him▪ and his thankfulnesse to God, and that in three fa­mous places, one at Sechem, the other at Be­thel, and the third at Hebron. Now as Abra­ham whether soeuer he went, did build altars and sacrifice thereon to the Lord: so should we at all occasions be ready to offer vp spiri­tuall sacrifices, praise and thanks-giuing, the calues of our lippes, Orationum hostias, et mi­serecordia [Page 177] victimus, saith Lyranus, To pray euery where lifting vp pure hands without wrath and doubting, 1. Tim. 2. 8. For God delighteth not in outward sacrifice, nor in burnt offerings, for the sacrifice of the Lord are a broken spirit, he is pleased with the sa­crifice of righteousnes, Psal. 51. 16, &c.

Questions on the fourtenth Chapter.

Quest. VVHy doth Moses so care­fully set downe the warres of these kings?

A. That we might consider the excellent carriage, and happie successe of Abraham, in warring with so many kings, with so few men, and that with such a happie euent, that both hee ouercame them, and tooke their goods; and rescued Lot. Secondly, that we might see the reward that Lot hath, for desi­ring to dwell with such wicked companie himselfe is taken prisoner, and his goods ta­ken from him. Thirdly, that wee might see [Page 178] how mercifull God is, and slow to destroy those cities in the plaine because of their crying sinnes, had already deserued fire from heauen. Yet God by this small ouerthrow will warne them, if they doe not repent, a greater punishment is at hand. Fourthly, that wee may see the cause of this, and all other warres for the most part, to wit, pride and ambition; for ambition mooued Chedor­laomer to subdue so many nations, and pride mooued those nations to shake of his go­uernment. Fifthly, to teach vs how God of­tentimes, vseth the seruice of the wicked, to punish the wicked, that the punishers them­selues may be punished; as Assyria the rod of Gods anger, is sent to punish hypocrites, but God will punish the stony heart of Assyria. Isa. 10. Sixthly, that we might know that the Sodomites were iustly ouercome, be­cause they resisted the ordinance of God, and refused to be subiect to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God. Rom. 13.

Q. What kings came against Sodome, and the other cities of the plaine?

A. Amraphel king of Shinar, that is, of Babel, and this is thought to be Ninias the sonne of Semiramis. Secondly, Artioch king of Elasser, that is, of Persia as some thinke, [Page 179] and not of Pontus. Thirdly, Chedarleomer king of Elam; the Elamites were a people that dwelt in the vpper part of Persia. Fourthly, Tidal king of nations, that is, of a people gathered together of diuers nations, so Galile is called Galilec of the nations. Esay 9. Matth. 4. These foure kings came against the fiue cities of the plaine, which here are forewarned of God, by these warnes, but af­terward were burned with fire from heauen, except Zoar, which was spared for Lots sake. Gen. 19. And for the smalnesse of it was cal­led Zoar: for this cause also it seemeth that Moses doth not here name the king of this Citie, because it was so small.

Q. Where did these kings ioyne battell toge­ther.

A. In the valley of Siddi [...], which is the salt sea, and it was so called afterward from the euent, for at this time it was a pleasant plaine, but afterward it was turned into a salt sea or lake, for the Hebrewes call euery col­lection of water, sea, and as this part of Cana­an was turned into a barren lake, so now that whole land is made barren of all spirituall graces: and as this plaine for sinne is turned into a sea of salt, so was Lots wise for looking backe, turned into a pillar of salt; because [Page 180] neither this countrey nor shee were seasoned with grace and obedience, to teach vs how we should be seasoned; we must haue salt in our selues. Mar. 9. 10. All our sacrifices must be seasoned with salt. Leuit. 2. 13. Yea our speech must be seasoned with salt. Col. 4. 6.

Q. May kings lawfully and with a good conscience make warre.

A. If their cause be good, their affection sanctified, their authoritie lawfull, and if they finde there is no other meanes to suppresse the enemie, to secure themselues, and ad­uance Gods glory, they may lawfully raise wars, for if it is lawfull to defend the poore, to releeue the oppressed, to punish the wic­ked, to preserue our selues, friends, children and goods, if the Magistrate beareth not the sword in vaine, if God himselfe hath prescri­bed the manner and forme of fighting, if A­braham, Moses, Iosuah, Dauid and other ho­ly men haue made warres; then it is lawfull for Kings and Princes to raise warres, the former conditions being obserued, but be­cause peace is better then warres, as saith the Poet. Pax vna triumphis innumeris potior; Kings must be slow to vndertake warres: as Hozekias was with the kings of Assyria, and some iniuries must be winked at, which doth [Page 181] show the magnanimitie of a King, not for e­uery small iniurie to be inflamed with wrath, but rather to forget them, as Caesar by Cicero was commended that hee did vse to forget nothing, except iniuries, and aboue all things crueltie in warres is to be hated; for Pax homines: suas trux decet iraferas.

Q. But may Christians vnder the Gospel raise warres?

A. Yes, but they must be very carefull to auoide warres, and to vse all the lawfull meanes they can to maintaine peace. For Christ the Prince of peace, hath left his peace with vs. Ioh. 5. It was foretold that wee shovld beat our swords into plow shares, and our speares into pruning hookes. Esay, 2. It was Christs commandement that wee loue one another. Ioh. 15. We must not resist euill, Matth. 5. Wee must not reuenge, but giue place to wrath. Rom. 13. Our greatest strife and warres must be against our spirituall e­nemies, therefore we are exhorted to put on the whole armour of God. Eph. 6. This spi­rituall armour did the Christians vse in the Primitiue Church, to subdue the greatest Monarches in the world, and to propagate the Gospel▪ Peter is commanded to put his sword into his sheath. Matth. 26. And we are [Page 182] all commanded to loue our enemies, to blesse them that curse vs, to doe good to them that hate vs. Matth. 5. Which testimonies doe alleadge, not altogether to condemne warres in case of necessitie, but to show how loath Christian Princes should bee to raise warres, and how rather they should loose some of their right and dignity, then to trou­ble the peace of Ierusalem, to shed the blood of their brethren, whom Christ hath bought with his owne blood; to bereaue parents of their children, & wiues of their husbands, to defloure virgins, ouerturne Churches and Chappels, destroy religion, extinguish lear­ning and discipline, lawes and iustice, and to make away for the Turke, the Diuels eldest sonne, the professed enemie of our Sauiour, the scourge of Christians, & the rod of Gods indignation, to sweepe away that little rem­nant of the Christian world which is left, and to ouerthrow all with that, not Aegyptian, but Tartarian darkenesse of Mahomets do­ctrine, as he hath already done these glorious Countries and Churches, which wee haue shamefully lost, through our pride and con­tention. Heu quo discordia ciues perduxit mi­seros?

Q. Why did Chedorlaomer raise armies [Page 183] against these other kings?

A. Because they rebelled against him, and here we may see, that it is not lawfull for any people to rebell against their kings, although their gouernment be vniust. Secondly, they deserued to be tributaries and seruants to a strange king, because they were the seruants of filthy and strange sinnes, neither are they worthy to be a free people, whom the sonne hath not made free. Thirdly, the truth of Noahs prophesie may here be seene, that Ca­nan is Sems seruant; Chedorlaomer of Sem is king at this time ouer the Cananites. Fourth­ly, here we may see what a dangerous thing it is, for a people to rebell against their kings, for by this meanes vnitie is broken, order and discipline is euerted, lawes and re­ligion are extinguished, and all things turned vpside downe; and therefore the authors of rebellion, haue beene most fearefully punish­ed, as the examples of Core, Dathan and A­biram, against Moses and Aaron: Absalom and Seba against Dauid, and many more can witnesse. Therefore kings must be obeyed in all matters indifferent, but not in those things that are against the glory of God▪ for it is better to obey God then man, and they who doe not obey their kings in matters against [Page 184] God are not to be accounted rebels, except we will make Moses and Aaron, who resisted Pharaoh: Christ, Iohn Baptist, and the Apo­stles, who resisted the Iewes, the Christians who resisted Idolaters to be rebels, which to thinke is impious.

Q. Why did the king of Elam with his con­federates, kill the Rephaims?

A. These Rephaims or Gyants with the Zuzims, Emims, and Horites tooke part as it is thought with the Sodomites, and did hinder the king of Elam from taking Sodome, and Moses here mentioneth their ouerthrow, to show vs of what great power the king of E­lam was then, that he was able to ouerthrow so many nations, now these Rephaims were a people then dwelling in Canan. Gen. 15. And are here ouerthrowne in Ashteroth, a citie in Basan, where Og afterward was king, Iosh. 13. 31. The Zuzims are these people as it is thought, who in Deut. 2. 20. Are called Zam­zummims, and they are ouerthrowne at the citie Ham where they dwelt, the Emims were a great people and accounted Gyants, Deut. 2. 10. These are ouercome in Shaneth or the plaine of Kiriathim, the Horites were a peo­ple that dwelt in Seir, where they are now o­uercome. Esau and his sonnes afterward [Page 185] droue them out from thence, and this mount was called not Seir at this time, but afterward had this name from Esau. Seir signifieth Hea­ry, these then were chased by Chedorlaomer his confederates vnto El-paran, or the plaine of Paran, which is a barren or comfortlesse wildernesse neere to the desart of Sinai, and heere the Israelites wandered thirty eight yeares.

Q. What was En-mishpat?

A. The name of that place where the Is­raelites were iudged and reprooued by God, because they murmured for want of water, for En-mishpat doth signifie the wel of iudg­ment, this is called also Cades, which is a ci­ty in Arabia, where Mirian Moses sister was buried; the desart next adiacent is called Cades, and Cades-barne, from whence Moses sent the twelue spyes to Canaan. Hither Che­dorlaomer returned with his confederate kings, and smote the Amalakites and Amo­rites in Hazezon Thamar a city in Canaan, which afterward fell to the tribe of Iuda, and was called Engedi, Ios. 15. 62. Here wee may see what happy successe Chedorlaomer hath o­uer his enemies, which is neither to be ascri­bed to fortune or his courage, but to him [Page 186] who is the Lord of hosts, there is no king sa­ued by the multitude of an host, a mighty man is not deliuered by much strength, Psal. 33. 16. Yet this we must commend in him, that he vsed such diligence and expedition in suppressing these rebels before they grew stronger. It was the praise of Alexander Macedo, that whatsoeuer battell hee vnder­tooke, he did it with wonderfull celerity and expedition, Curtius, lib. 5. And that was a meanes that in so short a time he did subdue so many nations; and from hence wee must learne with all expedition to subdue our sins. for, Periculum est in mora.

Q. What successe hvd Chedorlaomer and his confederates against the Kings of Sodome and Gomorrha?

A. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrha fled and fell into the slime pits, not of igno­rance, for they were better acquainted with that ground then their enemies, but of pur­pose, that so they might escape the fury of their enemies: in these pittes questionlesse a great many perished, and others of them fled to the hils. Secondly, all the goods and vi­ctuals of Sodom & Gomorrha were taken, which was a very great spoyle, because in So­dom [Page 187] there was both riches and abundance of bread. Thirdly, Lot is taken captiue, and his goods taken from him, which was the cause that Abraham made warre against them and ouercame them. Here then we see that ma­ny are killed in the iudgement of God, and some escape in his mercy. Secondly, the goods and the victuals of Sodom, are made a prey to the hungry souldiers in Gods iust iudge­ment; because they did not vse them eyther to Gods glory or the comfort of the poore; but to pride and ryot. Thirdly, Lot is taken, and so he is partaker of their misery, because he desired to be partaker of their fruitfull country.

Q. What league made Abraham the He­brew with Mamre, Eschol and Aner?

A. Abraham the Hebrew (for so he is cal­led from Heber, because he retained his faith, or else from Habar, because hee passed ouer Euphrates, from which his posterity are cal­led Hebrewes, to put them in mind of their originall) made a couenant with these three men, or rather they with him, because he was so highly beloued of God, which couenant was not of the nature of those couenants that conquerours make with the conquered, [Page 188] which are nothing els but lawes, which the conquered must obey according to the plea­sure of the law-makers: neyther was this covenant to desist from warres, and main­taine peace, for there was no wars betweene them, but it was onely a partition betweene themto defend and maintaine one anothers right against their enemies; and question­lesse this couenant was made by the speciall direction of God, for the comfort of Abra­ham, who beeing a stranger there, had not­withstanding the ayde and assistance of these great men when occasion serued, and wee must note heere that Abraham is called an Hebrew, and his posterity Hebrewes, which name signifieth a pilgrime and stranger, to put vs in minde what the children of God are in this life, euen pilgrimes and strangers. By which they shew that they seeke a coun­try, Heb. 11.

Q. But did Abraham well to make a coue­nant with these Amorites being infidels?

A. Whether these three were infidels or notit is vncerten, and I rather hold that they were not, both because Abraham made 2 couenant with them, rather then with others, as also because wee cannot deny but there [Page 189] were some in these parts, who knew the true God. As Melchisedech who conuersed in these countries, was both a king and priest of the most high God, it is very like that his seruants and many more were of his profes­sion; and if there were, why should we think that these three who were Abrahams speciall friends to be infidels, seeing the holy man made a couenant with them, but suppose they were infidels, yet we cannot reprooue Abraham for this couenant made with them because as yet there was no positiue law to the contrary. Secondly, the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full. Thirdly, Abraham could not liue amongst them if hee had not had mutuall commerce and made some co­uenants with them. Fourthly, in this coue­nant Abraham did not offend God, seeing otherwise he could not haue liued peaceably among them, and in this he gaue no advan­tage to the Idolaters to blaspheme God. Fifthly, many holy men haue made such co­uenants with infidels, and are not reproo­ued, as Iaeob with Laban, Gen. 31. Isaack with Abimelech, Gen. 26. Salomon with Hiram, 1. King. 5. Yea the Israelites themselues had power to make couenants with their neigh­bours [Page 190] nationst except with those seuen men­tioned, Deut. 7.

Q. Was it lawfull for Abraham being both a priuate man and a priest, to raise warres?

A. A priuate man cannot raise armes, ex­cept he will be counted seditious, now Abra­ham was no priuate man, because by Gods owne mouth, he was appointed Lord of this land; and it was his by right, although not by possession, neither were these three bre­thren priuate men, with whom Abraham was confederate. Yea although Abraham had beene a priuate man, yet this fact of his is no president, for priuate men to rayse armes, except they haue the same measure and direction of the Spirit that he had, for if he had not beene directed by God, it is vn­like that with three hundred and eighteene domestick seruants hee would pursue foure mighty kings. Moreouer, although Abra­ham was a priest, and a prophet also, yet he rayseth armes lawfully, beeing called by God, so did Moses and the Leuites fight a­gainst the worshippers of the golden calfe, Moses killed Og king of Sihon, and Samuel Agag king of Amelec, yet these are not pre­sidents for the ministers of the Gospell to [Page 191] rayse armes, for they were called extraordi­ [...]arily vnto this function, but the preachers [...]f the Gospell are not. Againe, the prea­ [...]ers of the Gospell must eschew all things [...]hat hinder them in discharging of their fun­ [...]tion, especially warres, which if they follow, [...]hey must neglect prayers, preaching, and ec­ [...]lesiasticall discipline. Besides, the Apostle [...]heweth, that the weapons of our warrefare [...]re not carnall, but mighty through God, [...]asting downe euery strong hold, 2. Cor. 10. Yet I deny not but the preachers may ex­ [...]ort the magistrateto raysearmes against the enemies of God, for the priests vnder the law [...]ounded the trumpets and carried the Arke, when the people went to battle.

Q. How farre did Abraham pursue his e­nemies?

A. As farre as Dan, a place in the North of Canaan, and one of the springs of Iordan, a hundred and foure miles from Ierusalem, it was of old called Leshem, but being wonne by the Danit [...]s it was called Dan. Ios. 19. 47. And it seemes that eyther Moses now giueth it this name by way of prophesie, or els E­zer as who set the bookes of the olde Testa­ment in order, did change the old name bee­ing [Page 192] out of vse into this other name D [...]. Here it was where Iereboam set vp the golden calfe, and Peter confessed Christ to bee the Sonne of God, and where the woman was miraculously healed of her bloody fluxe, in memory of which miracle the woman caused a pillar to bee erected in that city, on which the image of Christ was set, and the woman behinde him, touching the hem of his gar­ment; but Iulian caused this Image to bee pulled downe, and his owne to be erected in the same place, which shortly after was throwne downe with thunder from heauen. Euseb. lib. 7. eccles. hist. cap. 14. This towne was also called Cesaria-Philippi, by Philip Tetrac [...] of Traco [...]ites, in honour of the Romane Ca­sars, Agrippa also inlarged this Citie, and called it Neronia in honour of Nero. Iosep. ant. 20. cap. 6. Now we must not thinke that this was rashnesse and temperitie in Abra­ham, with so few men to follow so great an armie so farre; but rather true cou­rage and fortitude, because he was led by Gods spirit, and because hee was assured of Gods helpe, therefore hee knew there were more with him then against him, besides the iustnesse of the cause, the good end, that A­braham [Page 193] did ayme at in this fight; his vp­right life, and the testimonie of his con­science made him bold to despise death it selfe. Sapiens non metu frangitur, non potestate mutatur, non extollitur prosperis, non mergitur tristibus, Amb. ad Simpl. And if any thing make a man feare, it is the guiltinesse of his conscience, Nam [...]imidum nil facit animum nisi reprehensibili [...] vit ae conscientia. Sen. 4. de virtut.

Q. What successe had Abraham in this battle against the foure kings?

A. He smote them and persued them to Hoba, he rescued Lot and his goods, the So­domites and their goods, and here we may see Abrahams policie in diuiding his ser­uants, and that in the night: to teach vs that it is lawfull to vse policie and subtiltie against our enemies, if there bee no false­hood and vniustice [...]ound in it. We know that God commanded Ioshua, to lay an am­bush behinde the Citie Ai, for to take it. Iosh. 8. 2. He came suddenly vpon the fiue kings in the night. Iosh. 10. 9. Gedion vsed the stratagem of trumpets, pitchers and lampes, to ouercome his enemies. Iudg. 7. 16. And Dauid the meanes of an Amale­kite [Page 194] to ouercome the Amalekites, 1. Sam. 30. 15. For if it be lawfull vpon iust occa­sion to raise warres against our enemies, it is also lawful to vse such stratagems, as may further vs in obtaining the victorie. Second­ly, wee must not attribute this victorie of Abrahams to his strength or policie, but to the Lord who made him rule ouer kings, and gaue them as the dust to the sword, &c. Isay 41. 2. Thirdly, God would haue A­braham to bring backe the Sodomites and their goods, that both God might show his wonderfull mercy and patience, as also make them inexcusable. Fourthly, this Hoba into which Abraham persued his e­nemies, was a village in Hieromes time, where certaine Ebeonite Hebrewes dwelt. Fifthly, as the foure kings troubled Canaan, but are ouercome by Abraham. So, the foure great kingdomes of the world haue troubled the Church, but are ouercome of Christ the Sonne of Abraham.

Q. What was Melchisedec?

A. Not the holy Ghost, as some here­tikes haue affirmed, for the holy Ghost is not a man; nor king of Salem, nor a priest, nor priest of the most high God, except we [Page 195] will make him inferiour to God. Secondly, not an Angel, for the Scripture showeth no such thing, neither is an Angel a priest, for euery high priest is taken from amongst men, Heb. 5. 1. Thirdly, not the Sonne of God, for he is not Melchisedech the priest, but a priest after the order of Melchise­dech, Psal. 110. 4. Fourthly, not Sem the Sonne of Noah, as the Hebrewes affirme, rather of malice then sound iudgement, be­cause they cannot endure any stranger should be thought superiour in any thing to their father Abraham, for is Sem was Melchisedech, Moses had not concealed it, being an honour to haue such a noble pro­genitor. Secondly, Melchisedechs genea­logie is not mentioned in Scripture, but Sems is. Thirdly, Melchisedechs descent is not counted from the Hebrewes proge­nitors, Heb. 7. 6. Which plainely sheweth he descended of another stocke then the Iewes did who came of Sem. Fourthly, all this country in which Melchisedech reigned, was possessed by Canaans posteri­ty. Therefore Sem could not bare rule here, to be both a king and a priest among them. Fifthly, if we should yeeld that Mel­chisedech [Page 196] was Sem, wee must be forced to deny a chiefe relation betweene Melchise­dech and Christ, which Paul toucheth, Heb. 7. Which is this, as Melchisedech beeing a stranger from the family of Sem, was not­withstanding a priest and king; so Christ though a stranger from the tribe of Leui, which onely was appointed for the priest­hood, is notwithstanding a king and priest for euer. Sixthly, Melchisedech had no suc­cessour in his priest-hood, but Sem had, for Abraham was a priest, so was Isaac, Iacob, and the children of Leui. Seauenthly, if Melchisedcch was Sem. Then, whereas Leui payd tithes being in the loynes of A­braham, he being also in the loynes of Sem, (because Abraham came of Sem) did pay tithes to Sem, which is absurd. Eighthly, if this be true, then we must confesse that in the person of Sem, both the priesthood of Aaron and Melchisedech was ioyned to­gether, for Aron was in the loynes of Sem, and so we must yeelde that Christ in that he was a priest after the order of Melchise­dech, he was also after the order of Aaron. Ninthly, if Melchisedech had beene Sem, it it is very like that Abraham all this while [Page 197] that he was in Canaan, would not negle­cted to haue sought him out, and conuersed with him, both for his further comfort, strength and instruction, then the fift opi­nion is soundest, which holdeth Melchise­dech to haue beene a Cananite, yet a true worshipper of God, for it is very like, that as God had his priests amongst the Iewes, so he had some amongst the Gentiles, and as Aaron among the Iewes was eminent, so Melchisedech among the Gentiles, for God is the God of the Gentiles, as well as of the Iewes, and besides that Philo and Iosephus are of this opinion, the chiefest of the auncient Fathers doe defend the same.

Q. Where did Melchisedech, and the king of Sodom meete Abraham?

A. At the valey of Saueth, not farre from Ierusalem, where Absolom set vp his pillar, 2. Sam. 18. 18. This valley is called the kings dale, eyther because the kings and princes did vse to exercise themselues heere in running, or els because of the ex­cellency and pleasantnesse thereof, being a place fit for kings. Herein the king of So­dom though a prophane man, we see great [Page 198] humanity and thankfulnesse, that hee would goe to meete Abraham, and reioyce with him at his happy successe, humanity and gratitude are commendable in al, for, Be [...]e­ficiorum memoria non debet senescere, Senec. lib. de benif.

Q. Of what place was Melchisedech king?

A. He was king of Salem, which after­ward was called Ierusalem, from Iereth and Salem, that is, the vision of peace, for Abra­ham called the hil on which he would haue sacrificed his Sonne Iebouah Iereth, Gen. 22. Then Iereth being put to the old name Sa­lem is made vp Ierusalem, after Melchise­dech the Iebusites had the dominion of this city, and from them it was called Iebub, Ios. 18. 28. Iud. 19. 10. But afterward Dauid conquered it, and did enlarge it with many goodly buildings, so that it became the most famous city in all the east, Plin. lib. 5. cap. 14. This is that city gouerned by Mel­chisedech, repaired by Dauid, beautified by Salomon, with the goodliest temple in the world, adorned with the miracles and prea­ching of the Prophets, sanctified with the life, miracles, doctrine, blood and resurre­ction [Page 199] of our Sauiour; and with the sending downe of the holy Ghost, honoured to bee the figure of Christs Church millitant in the old Testament, and of the Church tri­umphant in the new, watered with the blood of Steuen, Iames, and other holy Mar­tyrs, and happy in that the light of the Gospell did first shine there; for out of Si­on came the law, and the word of the Lord from Ierusalem, but most vnhappy in that she killed the Prophets, and stoned them that were sent to her, in that she would not bee gathered vnder the wings of Christ, therefore many yeares agoe she is left de­solate, Mat. 23.

Q. Wherein was Melchisedec the type of Christ?

A. Melchisedec was a king, so is Christ the king of kings. Secondly, Melchisedec was a priest, so is Christ a Priest after the order of Melchisedec. Thirdly, hee was King of peace, so is Christ the Prince of peace. Fourthly, he was King of righteous­nesse, so is Christ Iehouah our righteousnes. Fifthly, he was without father and mother, so is Christ, as God without a mother, as man without a father. Sixthly, as he was [Page 200] without generation, so none can declare Christ his generation. Seauenthly, as he was without beginning, or end, so is Christ, be­cause hee is the beginning and the end. Eightly, he was an extraordinarie Priest, not being in the line of Sem, so was Christ not being of the tribe of Leui. Ninthly, he was a greater priest then Aaron, and so was Christ. Tenthly, hee was not annointed with externall oyle, neither was Christ, but but with the oyle of gladnesse. Eleauenthly, hee refreshed Abraham with bread and wine; so hath Christ with his owne body, which is that bread of life that came downe from heauen. Twelfthly, he in his Priest­hood had no successour, neither Christ, but hath an euerlasting Priesthood. Thirtenth, he blessed Abraham; and so hath Christ vs withall spirituall blessing. Fourteenth, he was made like to the Sonne of God, and Christ is the true and onely begotten Son of God. Fifteenth, he was king of Salem which is Ierusalem, so was Christ annointed king vpon the holy hill of Sion, which is Ierusalem. Sixteenth, he did not blesse A­braham till he returned from the slaughter of his enemies, neither will Christ vs, till [Page 201] we haue ouercome our spirituall enemies; Seauenteene, Melchisedec▪ did vse to sacri­fice at Ierusalem, so did Christ sacrifice his blessed body on the crosse at Ierusalem.

Q. Why did Abraham giue tithes to Mel­chisedec?

A. To testifie his thankfulnesse to God, who had sent such an excellent Priest to blesse him, for he was bound to minister to him in carnall things, seeing he was perta­ker of Melchisedechs spirituall things. Rom. 15. 27. Secondly, he gaue tithes in signe of homage, and to show how inferiour he was to Melchesedec, consider how great Mel­chisedec was, to whom euen the Patriarch Abraham gaue the tenth, Heb. 7. 4. Third­ly, he gaue tythes because hee knew, (al­though not by a positiue law as yet, but by diuine inspiration) that the tithes did belōg to God; and to his Priests, and therefore was sacriledge to keepe them backe, for we must giue vnto God, that which is Gods. Matth. 22. 21. Fourthly, because it was the custome euen before the law amongst ho­ly men, to pay their tythes, euen as sacrifi­cing, building of Altars, distinction of cleane and vncleane beasts, therefore wee [Page 202] reade here not onely of Abraham, but also of Iacob that promised to pay tythes of all he had to the Lord. Gen. 28. 22. Fifthly, he paide his tythes as other holy men vse to doe, because he knew that those who serue at the Altar, must liue by the Altar. 1. Cor. 9. 13. Sixthly, he paide his tythes, because hee knew that God would giue an hundred fold more then his tythes were worth, ac­cording to that, bring yea all your tythes vnto the store-house, and prooue me saith the Lord; if I will not open to you the win­dowes of heauen, and poure you out a bles­sing, that there shall not be roome y [...]ough to receiue it. Malac. 3. 10.

Q. What kinde of tythes were vsed a­mongst the Hebrewes?

A. Hierome vpon Ezechiel cap. 5. & 40. Affirmeth that there were some tythes which the people did owe to the Leuites. Againe, there were other tythes which the Leuites, that is, the inferiour order of mi­nisters, out of their tythes, did owe to the Priests, also there were other tythes which euery one of the people put a part in their barnes, appointed to be eate by the Priests, Leuites and people together, in the en­trance [Page 203] of the Temple; moreouer there were other tythes which were laide vp for the poore, but Vincentius in spec. moral. lib. 1. distinct. 66. Maketh mention onely of three sorts of tythes, vsed in the old Law: the one sort were these which were paide to the Leuites, spoken off Numb. 18. 24. The other sort were these which were publikely eaten in the Temple, mentioned Deut. 14. 23. The third sort were these which were laide vp at the end of euery three yeares, for the poore & strangers, spoken of Deut. 14. 28. Of these three sorts of tythes, the first onely remaineth amongst Christians, the second sort which were publikely eaten and sacrificed, are abolished, being a meere ceremonie, the third sort also for the pro­portion is taken away, for wee are not bound to giue the tythes of our goods to the poore, but to releeue them according to our abilitie, and giue them such as wee haue. Luk. 11. 41.

Q. Then is it lawfull to pay tythes to the preachers of the Gospel?

A. It is not onely lawfull to pay them, but sacriledge to withhold them, for wee must giue vnto God that which is Gods, [Page 204] and hee who bestoweth all things onvs, doth require no more but his tithes of vs, for the tithes doe not principally belong to the preachers, but to God; and he who setteth them a worke is their pay-master. Therefore hee who withholdeth the tithes from the preachers, doth not so much wrong the preachers as God, to whom they properly belong. Moreouer, the pre­cept of paying tithes is not altogether ce­remoniall, but partly morall, partly iudici­all: morall, in that the labourer is worthy of his hire, especially they who labour in the word are worthy of double honour, for he that serueth at the Altar must liue by the Altar. Iudiciall, in that the paying of tithes to the labourers in the word, be­longs to the externall gouernment of the Church and common wealth, and there­fore Christian Kings and counsels haue e­stablished, that vnder paine of excommuni­cation the tithes should bee paid to the mi­nisters, as a due which God himselfe hath demanded. Constantine and Charles the great did command the same, the counsells Ma [...]isconense held anno. 587. can. 5. Durien­se, an. 779. can. 10. Moguntinum, an. 813. c [...]n. [Page 205] 38. And other famous synods haue most strictly enioyned the paying of tithes, then seeing tithes are both commanded by God to be paid, as also by the ciuill magistrate, it is both sacriledge and contempt against the magistrate (whom we must obey for conscience sake) not to pay them, truely if it had not beene the speciall will of God, euen in the time of the Gospell, to pay tithes to the preachers, Christ had not commended the Scribes and Pharises for paying of them, which he doth, Mat. 23. 23. Againe, it was necessary in the old law to pay tithes to the Leuites, much more needfull is it now in the Gospell, for the preachers are not onely the Leuites suc­cessours, but also their calling is more ho­nourable, and their charge is greater. Be­sides our righteousnesse must exceede the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharises, or else we cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen, but their righteousnesse was so great, that they did not omit to pay their tythes, euen of the least things; therefore much more carefull must we be to let the preachers haue their due; the Gentiles al­so led by the law of nature, were carefull in [Page 206] this practise, as Cyrus king of Persia, hauing ouercome the Lydians, payed the tythes of his spoile to Iupiter, saith Herodotus lib. 1. The Romans paide tythes to Hercules, Cicero lib. 2. de offic. The Arabians paide tythes of their incense to Sabis. Plin. lib. 12. cap. 14. Lastly, the punishments executed vpon these, who haue defrauded the Church of her right, are sufficient testimonies to prooue how dangerous it is, to with-hold the tythes from her, famine and pouertie, are the effects of this sinne, Hierome in Malach. 3. They are guiltie of the mur­ther of soules, before Gods tribunall, who are pertakers of it, August. de doct. Christ. they are punished with present and eternall plagues. Chytre [...] in cap. 7. Iosuae. Eagles feathers being mingled with the feathers of other fowles, are said to consume these and themselues also, euen so the tythes haue eate vp and consumed patrimonies, and e­states of many men, as daily experience teacheth euery where, but especially in the kingdome of Scotland. Truly, to meddle with the Church goods after this sort is to meddle with aurum Tolosanum. Eras. in Adag.

Q. Why is God called the possessour of heauen and earth?

A. That by this title, he might be distin­guished from false gods, therefore these and such like titles are giuen him in Scripture, he is said to sit in the heauens. Psal. 2. To make the heauen and earth. Psal. 124. To stretch out the heauens aboue. Esay, 44. To stretch them out like a garment. Psal. 104. To lay the foundations of the earth and the cor­ner stone thereof, Iob. 38. Hee is called the Lord God of heauen, Ion. 1. The earth is said to be his, and the fulnesse thereof, the world, and they that dwell therein, Psal. 34. And Ieremie concludeth that these gods who haue not made the heauens and the earth, shall perish from the earth, Ier. 10▪ 11. Now by the heauen and earth are vnderstood all things therein contained, and this may abate the pride of these who haue great possessions, which if they bee compared with heauen and earth they are nothing. Againe, they are not permanent, for when man dyeth, he shall carry nothing away, his glory shal not descend after him, Psal. 40. 17. Besides, let a mans possession be neuer so great, yet as Philo saith, the [Page 208] right of possessing all things belongs vnto God onely, man hath but the vse of these things which he doth possesse. Secondly, if God be possessor of all, then the Sonnes of God haue right and interest in all the crea­tures, the wicked haue none. Thirdly, be­cause he hath the possessions of all nations, we must wish well to all, and despise none. Fourthly, if he be possessor of all, then hee is by his power and prouidence in all things, he is not far from euery one of vs, Act. 17. 27.

Q. Did Abraham well to sweare that he would take nothing from the king of Sodom?

A. Yes: for by this oath he both satis­fieth the king, that hee dealt simply and plainly with him in deliuering the perso [...] and the goods, as also the people who [...] might haue thought that Abraham for hi [...] owne gaine did vndertake this warre, and not for loue of his brother Lot; in such ca­ses then it is lawfull to sweare, both for the aduancement of Gods glory, and confir­mation of the truth, for wee honour and loue God, when we sweare thus, Qui iur [...], aut veneratur, aut diligit eum per quem iur [...], Aquin. in Math. Then seeing swearing is [Page 209] commanded by God himselfe, Exod 22. Yea oftētimes vsed by him & by Christ al­so. By the Saints and by the Angels, for we reade that all these haue sworne Christ did not reprooue the high Priest for adiuring him: swearing also tendeth to the honour of God and the profit of our neighbours: therefore the Anabaptists are ridiculous, who oppose this doctrine, yet we must take heed that wee doe not sweare at all times rashly for euery trifle, so Gods name shall waxe vile and common. Secondly, that we sweare not to doe any thing contrary to Gods will, for such an oath is euill, but the action is worse; as wee may see in Iephthes now, and Herods oath. Thirdly, that we doe not forsweare or sweare to confirme a lye, for that is highly to dishonour, God if we make him a witnesse of our lyes. Fourthly, that wee doe not sweare by the creatures, for that is to attribute Gods glory vnto them, neither can that be an oath properly which is sworne by the creature, because men sweare by the greater, Heb. 6. 16. But there is no creature greater then man. Fifthly, that we doe not sweare deceitfully, vsing ambiguous words, speaking one [Page 210] thing, & thinking another, for an oath is v­sed to make an end of strife, Heb. 6. 16. But such oathes doe increase strife. Sixthly, that we sweare not by the name of Idols, or false Gods, for that is also to attribute Gods glory vnto them, and they that sweare by them doe seeme to put their trust and con­fidence in them, if then we sweare at all, let vs sweare only by God, as Abraham did here, who lifted vp his hand in testimony thereof, for we know that the Gentiles did honour their false gods by vsing their names to confirme their oathes, as the Ro­manes by Fides Plut. in numa. The Vestall Nymphus by Vesta, the Carthaginians by their countrey gods, some by Iupiter and Hercules, others by Castor and Pollux did vse to sweare, much more should wee then seeke the glory of the true God by calling vpon him in our lawfull oathes.

Q. Did Abraham well to refuse the king of Sodomes offer?

A. Yes: because he would not haue him thinke that it was for his owne profite hee vndertooke this battle, neither would hee haue any thinke, that he would bee so much beholding to a prophane king, neither did he stand at this time in need, because hee [Page 211] was sufficiently rich. Besides he would let him and all ages see how little hee did re­gard riches, and how little we should, seeing our treasure is laid vp in heauen. Yet this fact of Abrahams is no president for any to refuse gifts when they may lawfully take them, for Abraham did not refuse the gifts of Pharaoh, nor Ioseph the present of his brethren, nor Salomon the gifts of the Queene of Seba, neither did Ezechia refuse to take gifts from the king of Babel, nor Ieremy from the captaine of the guard, nor Daniel from Nabuchadnezzar, nor Christ from the wise men. Notwithstanding, wee must know, that taking and giuing of gifts, is not alwayes lawfull, for it is dangerous and suspicious for any subiect to receiue a­ny gift from a for [...]aine king, because no man can serue two masters. It is also vnlaw­full to receiue gifts from the poore, and those that cannot spare them, for wee must giue to the poore and not take from them: no lesse preposterous and impious it is for a iudge or magistrate to receiue gifts to doe iniustice, for, Oblatio muneris tinea est re­giminis, Cassiod. in epist. But most of all in­tolerable it is to take or giue gifts for re­mission of sins, for deliuerance from pur­gatory, [Page 212] for heauen and for the graces of the holy Ghost, as that old verse sheweth, Templa sacerdotes, &c. And not much infe­riour are these gifts, that are giuen and ta­ken for spirituall benefices; truly we liue in a goldē age according to that, Aurea nunc ve­re sunt saecula, plurimus auro, venit honos, auro cōciliatur amor, To many now adais are like to Midas, who desire that whatsoeuer they touch may be gold. But I will not seeme too much to exclaime against this abuse, because the time will come, when the reeds will proclaime it, as they did the long eares of Midas. Besides Harpocrates teacheth me that, Tutum est silentii praemium, Now to re­turne to the matter, no gift is to bee giuen or taken which is contrary to true piety, or Gods glory, for such a gift blindeth the wise and peruerteth the words of the righ­teous, Exod. 23. 8. Secondly, it peruerteth the naturall affection of men, so that Iudas for a gift sold his master, the souldiers for a gift did bely Christ, saying, that his disci­ples stole him by night, and Dalilath for a gift betrayed Sampson, Quid non mortalia pectora cogis, auri sacra fames? Thirdly, it is an enemy to liberty, for he that is corrup­ted [Page 213] with gifts, hath his hands bound from doing good, and his mouth from speaking truth. Fourthly, it is the cause of iniustice, therefore cursed be he that asketh a gift to slay an innocent person, Deut. 27. 25. And woe to them which iustifie the wicked for a gift, Esay 5. 23. 5. It is a hinderance to true happinesse, for, not he that taketh bribes, but he that shaketh his hands from taking of bribes, shall dwell on high, &c. Esay 33. 15. Sixthly, the reward of these that take such rewards is fire, fire shall consume the tabernacles of bribery, Iob 15. 34. For these causes therefore many holy men haue refu­sed gifts, as the man of God refused to take a gift from Ieroboam, Eliseus from Naa­man, Dauid from Araunah, Daniel from Belthashar, and Peter from Simon the sor­cerer. And here I end this second booke, in which I haue not set downe euery question that can be mooued, for I know that many friuolous questions may be moued, which are not worthy the answering, Plura potest Asinus interrogare, quam respondere Philo­sophus. Yet I haue not omitted these que­stions which are most eminent and wor­thy [Page 241] of our paines, notwithstanding I haue passed by as much as I could, these which haue beene handled by o­thers, lest I should seeme [...].


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.