skip to primary navigation skip to content
<A4r>

THE
UNION
OF
CHRIST
AND
THE CHURCH;
In a Shadow.

By R. C.

LONDON,

Printed for Richard Bishop. 1642.

<1>

The Union
OF CHRIST
AND
THE CHVRCH
Shadowed.

IT is ordinary in matters both of Practice and Opinion, for men when they turn from one extreme, to run too far upon the other, by an ἀμετρία τῆς ἀνθολκῆς, as Saint Basil calls it. And I wish some Divines had not been surprized a little with this deceit, as in some other things, so in the Theologicall consideration of the nature of Marriage: and whilst they have been carried by an heat of opposition against that fond Tenet of the Papists, of seven Sacraments conferring Grace ex opere operato, (whereof we have deservedly rejected all but two) they had not in the mean time neglected, and passed over without any observation, that Mysticall Notion which is contained in it.

Which lest I should seem rashly and ungroundedly to affirme, I will first lay down, as the Foun <2> dation of my Discourse, a Paragraph of St. Pauls Epistle to the Ephesians, in the fifth Chapter, from the 22 verse to the 33.

22 Wives, submit your selves unto your owne husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church: and he is the Saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their owne husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himselfe for it.

26 That he might sanctifie and cleanse it, with the washing of water by the word.

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinckle or any such thing: but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives, as their owne bodies; he that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his owne flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church.

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his Father and Mother, and cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.

<3>

It is very cleare to any one that is of an impartiall judgment, and doth not δουλεύειν ἀποθέσει, as the Greeks speak, Serve some hypothesis already taken up, That the Apostle in these words doth not onely suppose a bare Similitude between the union of Man and Wife by Marriage, and the mysticall union of Christ and the Church, and thence compare them together, as there is a similitude between the Kingdome of Heaven and a Grain of Mustard seed: But that he makes one to be a Reall Type of the other, and the other an Archetypall Copy, according to which, that was limmed and drawn out. As the Platonists use to say, concerning spirituall and materiall things, Τὰ ἀισθητὰ τῶν νοητῶν μιμήματα, That materiall things are but Ectypall Resemblances and Imitations of spirituall things, which were the First, Primitive, and Archetypall Beings. And as a deep contemplator of Truth, shall find nothing more obvious then that of Reuchline, Deum solere uno sigillo varias materias signare, That God often prints the same Seal upon severall matters: Which divers Signatures from one and the same Seal of God, our late noble Vicount of St. Albans calls, Parallela Signacula, and Symbolizantes Schematismos, having found out divers instances of them in Nature, which he concluded, were not Meræ similitudines (as the Vulgar perhaps might imagine) But una eademque Naturæ vestigia, diversis materiis & subjectis impressa. Neither were the ancient Hebrewes unaquainted with this Notion, which seemeth indeed to have been the true foundation of all their CABALA, as I shall shew <4> hereafter: For I find it happily expressed by one of those Doctors in this manner, כל העלמות ברפוס אחד נרפסו ובהותם אהד צחתמו והנחתם המקבל החתימה היא רומה לצירת חותם המחתים את החתימה i.e. All the Three worlds were printed with the same Print, and sealed with the same Seale, and that which is sealed and receiveth the Sigillation here below, is like to the Shape and Forme of those things above, which did seal and stamp the Signature upon them: By these three[1] worlds they mean three severall and graduall Emanations of Creatures from God in the World, one below another, upon all which, they say, God set his Seal of[2] Sephiroth so hard, that he printed quite thorow the bottome of them.

In like manner I conceive God having framed that excellent Plot of the Gospel, and therein contrived the Mysticall union between Christ and the Church, delighted to draw some Shadowings and Adumbrations of it here below, and set the Seale of that Truth upon these Materiall things, that so it might print the same stamp and Idæa, though upon baser matter; and thence arose the institution of Man and Wife here below: although indeed Christ and the Church be Sponsus & Sponsa Archetypi, and this Man and Wife which we speak of are but Sponsus & Sponsa Ectypi.

But for our better and more orderly proceeding, I shall observe three things especially, which I shall insist upon, from these words alledged.

First, that The Vnion of Man and Wife is a Type of <5> the Vnion between Christ and the Church, which is the Architype.

Secondly, that the making of Eve at first out of Adam, and then the uniting of both again by marriage into one, in Paradise, was all Typicall of Christ the Second Adam, and his Wife the Church.

Thirdly, How and in what respects the Marriage of Man and Wife doth Typically signifie the Vnion between Christ and the Church.

For the First, That the union between Man and Wife is a Type, whereof Christ and the Church is the Archetype. This I prove from the whole scope of this place, where the Apostle falling upon Oeconomicall duties, and first those between Man and Wife, he derives them wholly, and brings the reasons of them, from the Relation between the Church and Christ, supposing that to be the Copy and Archetype, to which the Relation of Man and Wife is to be conformed.

First he begins with the duty of the Woman vers. 22. Wives submit your selves to your Husbands, As Unto The Lord, איך למרין Sicut Domino nostro, saith the Syriack, i.e. The Lord Christ. For the true meaning is, As beholding a Type of Christ in your Husbands, submit your selves to them; and this a Popish Interpreter well observed, In viris vestris considerantes Christum Dominum, qui est caput & sponsus Ecclesiæ. So the following Verses expound it; For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church: Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be subject to their husbands in all things. <6> To phancy nothing here, but a bare Similitude betweene man and wife, Christ and the Church, were to make S. Pauls discourse to be very dilute.

Then he comes to the duty of the Husband, vers. 25. which he drawes likewise from the manner of Christs behaviour to the Church. Husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the Church, and gave himselfe for it, and so onward to the 28. verse; where he shewes, that as the Wife was to honour the Husband as her Head, because Christ was the head of the Church, so the Husband was to love the Wife as his body, because the Church is the body of Christ, vers. 28, 29, 30, 31.

And then in the close of all he gives an accompt why he had used this Parallel all along. For this cause shall a man leave Father and Mother and cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great Mystery, I speak of Christ and the Church; that is, because The Vnion between Christ and the Church, thus Adumbrated and Shadowed out in the Vnion of Man and Wife is a great Mystery. For this sense the very connexion it selfe doth sufficiently imply.

I will now come to shew how well this doctrine was understood among the ancient Jewes, especially by the Masters of the Cabala; which is a kind of secret and mysticall Divinity remaining in part yet amongst them, that is almost wholly built (if I mistake not) upon this one foundation, שכל מה שיש למטה יש לו שירש למעלה i.e. That every thing which is below, hath some Root above. Wherefore they call <7> these inferiour things, ענפים Branches, and the Sephiroth above, שורשים Roots. Now they tell us that the Vnion between Man & Wife here below, is but ענף a Branch of the mysticall Vnion between Tiphèret and Malcuth above, which is the שורש or Root of it. And these Tipheret and Malcuth, are two of those ten Sephiroth, or Emanations of[3] Light above, in the Archetypall world, which are the same Originally, that Sponsus and Sponsa are Derivatively and Typically here below. Now that we may see who these were, and that they meant nothing else by them, but that which we call God or Christ, and the Church, although expressed in a little more Metaphysicall manner, let us examine further what they say concerning them. Archangelus de Burgo Novo, a man well skilled in this faculty, speaks thus of them according to the mind of those profound Doctors. Secundum Cabalistas duæ Veneres sunt Tipheret & Malcuth, quæ dicuntur duo amores, etsi sint unus amor per reciprocationem, unde Solomon in Canticis Sponsum Tipheret, & Sponsum Malcuth introducit ad invicem loquentes. Where we see that they expound the Song of Solomon concerning these two, which every one knowes is a Love-Song betweene the Church and Christ. But to cleare it further, we must observe that this Malcuth, which is Sponsa, is otherwise called by them Chenèseth Israel, and Beth Israel, that is, Congregatio Israelis, and Domus Israelis, (for so it is usuall with these Authors to expresse one and the same Sephirah by divers names, for fuller explication sake.) So the lear <8> ned Authour of that Discourse whose Title is שפע טל or Influentia Roris, מלכות היא שנקראת כנסת ישראל i.e. Malcuth is that which is otherwise called Cheneseth Israel, or Congregatio Israelis, i.e. The Church: And Tipheret likewise, which is Sponsus, is expounded also by the same Author by אדם העליון Adam superior, in opposition to whom the first terrestriall Adam is called אדם התחתון Adam inferior, and אדם הגופני Adam corporeus. As also in those Cabalistick Axioms collected by Mirandula, he is called Magnus Adam, in these words: Rectius dicitur quod Paradisus sit totum ædificium quàm sit Decima, & in medio ejus collocatus est Magnus Adam, qui est Tipheret. The meaning whereof is, that the terrestriall Paradise was not onely a Type of the tenth Sephirah, but of the whole Decade of them, because Tipheret the celestiall and Archetypall Adam, is placed in the midst of them, just as the terrestriall Adam was created in the midst of earthly Paradise. So that it is cleare, this Tipheret can be nothing else but Christ the true celestiall Adam, whom the Scripture sometimes calls the[4] Second Adam. The Authour of Shephah Tal, before commended, speaks thus concerning the mystery of these two Sephiroth: מעשיהם הטובים הכשרים וכיונת רוחניית מעשה המצוות והתפילות הקדשות והטהרות עילות נספירות מלכות וספירה מלכות מתקשטה בניה בהם ומתעוררת תפארת בעלה להשפיע i.e. Opera bonorum omnium & justorum, & spirituales eorum intentiones, & preces sanctæ & puræ ascendunt ad Sephiram Malcuth, & Sephira Malcuth <9> adornat se illis ut Sponsam, & sic exhibet se coram Tipheret Viro suo, & excitat eum ad influendum in eam deorsum. And again a little after, המעשי טובים של צריקים מלכות מתקשטה בהן ועל ידן מתעוררת תפארת בעלה להשפיע בה בסור הפנים Malcuth adornat se ut Sponsam, bonis operibus justorum, & per ea excitat Virum suum Tipheret ad influeudum {sic} in eam, per Arcanum Facierum.

By all this mystically describing the Communion between the Church and Christ; the Church adorning her self as a Spouse, by the holinesse and integrity, and good works of the Saints, that so she may please her Husband, and Christ sending down the Influence of his Spirit again into the Church. There is an excellent Speech also to this purpose, in that ancient and famous Cabalistick Book made by R. Simeon Ben Iochai, whilst he lived for the space of 12. yeares in a dark dungeon, for feare of the Romane Persecution in the times of Trajane, and therefore called it Zohar, that is, Splendor; As if he had then seen most Intellectuall Light, when he saw least Sensible, רי והודא אמר בשעתא ראסגיאו וכאין בעלמא כנסת ישראל סלקא ריחין טבין מתברכא ממלכא קדישא ואנפהא נהירין i.e. Dixit R. Iuda, quando multiplicantur merita & bona opera in Mundo, tunc Cheneseth Israel exhalat fragrantissimos odores, benedicta à Rege sancto, & facies ejus coruscant. Upon which an Hebrew Scholiast thus glosseth, כעמהרבין הזכיות בעולם התחתון וגוי i.e. Quando multiplicantur Merita in mundo inferiore, quia justi semet excitant per opera bona ad Vniendum & Maritandum Mun <10> dum inferiorem cum Mundo superiori, tunc Malcuth quæ dicitur Cheneseth Israel, emittit odores fragrantissimos, ad Tipheret Virum suum. By which passages we may partly see the straine of Cabalisticke Divinity, and what a resentment they had of this Notion. But Picus Mirandula in his Cabalistick Propositions, collected by him from some ancient Jewish Authours, puts us downe one that speaks as fully to our purpose as we could imagine. Vbicunque in Scriptura sit mentio amoris Maris & Fœminæ, ibi mysticè nobis significatur conjunctio Tipheret & Cheneseth Israel (for so it should be read, and not Chienseth as our printed Copies have it) vel Beth Israel & Tipheret. That is, as the forenamed Archangelus (who hath commented on some of Picus his Cabalistick Axioms) well expounds it, Conjunctio Domus Israelis & Christi, qui locatur in Tipheret, tanquam Pulchrum omne pulchrum pulchrifaciens. For Tipheret, as is well known signifies pulchritude and ornament. And so the learned Schickard in his Bechinath Happerushin, amongst some other of Picus his Jewish Observations which he there commendeth, glanceth upon this in this manner; Tipheret matrimonio jungitur cum Cheneseth Israel, hoc est, {C}hristus Ecclesiæ inenarrabili amore desponsatur. And the next Proposition which Picus there sets down, belongs also to this purpose, and therefore might not be forgotten. Qui mediâ nocte cum Tipheret copulabitur, prospera erit illi omnis generatio; Which Archangelus thus interprets Tipheret est Sponsus, & Sponsa est quælibet anima huic contractui consen <11> tiens, & consequenter tota Ecclesia & Collectio fidelium, & qui per orationem Deo in medio noctis adhæret, valde de Influxu Tipheret participabit.

It will not be much amisse upon this occasion by the way, to give a little light to another axiome, which the same Authour elsewhere sets downe secundùm opinionem propriam, of the same kinde, which I think there are but few that understand. Rectius est ut Amen Tipheret dicat & Regnum, ut per viam numeri ostenditur, quàm quòd dicat Regnum solum, ut quidam volunt. Where if we do but observe that Tipheret and Regnum are those two Sephiroth, Tiphereth and Malcuth, which we spake of so much before; for Malcuth signifieth Regnum, and then in what number of the Ten Sephiroth these two are placed, perhaps it will be easie to divine his meaning. But that I may hasten to finish and shut up this observation, I will onely remember one place more out of Nachmanides,[5] where he speaketh of these two Sephiroth, but under two other Names, and in a little different Notion. יש בהקיבה מרה תקרא כל שמרה אחרת תקרא בת נאעלת ממני ובה הוא מנהיב את הכל והיא שנקראת כלה בספר שיר השירי בעבור שהיא כלולה מן הכל והיא שחכמים מכניס שמה כנסת ישראל במקמות רבים i.e. There is a Propriety or Sephirah in God, which is called Col or Vniversitas, because it is the Foundation of the Universe; and another Sephirah which is called Bath, or Filia, that floweth from him, and by this doth he guide and govern the World: and this is that which is called in the Song of Songs, Callah, that <12> is, Sponsa, and it is that which our Wisemen have called in many places Cheneseth Israel. Here we see, Tipheret is also called Col, or Vniversitas, which name may very well agree to Christ also, in whom were conceived the Idæa's of the whole World, and by whom the Worlds were made; and Malcuth, or Cheneseth Israel, is called not only Callah Sponsa, but also Bath Filia, which may very well agree to the Church likewise, which is not only the Spouse of Christ, but also his Daughter, flowing out from him, as Eve that was made out of Adams side, and afterward united to him, was his Wife, his Sister, and his Daughter: of which more anon.

Now from this opinion which the Jewes had of Marriage, I beleeve that ancient Tradition amongst them did first arise,[6] Quòd non sit Conjugium Hominis nisi à De tantùm, i.e. as we use to say, That all Marriages are made in Heaven; expressing some speciall hand of Gods concurrence in it, because it had a Typicall signification of a Divine Mystery. Quæsivit quidam ex R. Iose quidnam faciat Deus post absolutam creationem mundi: Respondit, יושב ומזווג זווגים Sedet & conjungit conjugia: And the same is to be found both in the Jerusalem Targum, and that of Ionathan upon Deut. 32.4. As if God did nothing since the Creation of the world was perfected, but joine soules together in Marriage, before they came down into their bodies, for so they use to speak, כל נפשות יורדות משמים זוגת Omnes animæ, descendunt è cœlo conjugatæ.

<13>

I have now done with the Jewes, and what if I should speak a word of the Heathens also, who did ever look upon Marriage as a Sacred thing. Coniugium rem esse verè sacram, id est, non humanitùs sed divinitùs constitutam, magno consensu Gentes crediderunt, saith a learned Authour.

And it is very pertinent to this purpose, what a late Author reports of two Ancient Sects of Religion in the Orientall Parts, the one of the Banians, Natives of India, which seem to have been the Remainders of the ancient Brachmannes, whose Name their Teachers and Doctors yet retain. The other of the Persees, Persians by Nation, which seeme to have descended from the Famous Magi, the Father whereof was Zoroaster, whom they still honour (as I take it) under the name of Zertoost.[7] Of the first the Authour relates, That they marry about the seventh yeare of their age, because they account Marriage one of the most blessed actions of Mans Life, without which to dye were a great unhappinesse. And of the other,[8] That when any one amongst them dies before Marriage, they have a Custome to procure some Mans Sonne or Daughter to be matched to the Party deceased, attributing this to the state of Marriage, to be a means to bring people to happinesse eternall in another World.

I have often thought the Egyptians had some reliques of an old Tradition concerning this very notion which we have spoken of, lest among them, from that which Plutarch mentions of them in the life of Numa, upon the occasion of that fami <14> liar converse which he pretended to have with the Goddesse Egeria. δοκοῦσιν δὲ ὁι Ἀἰγύπτιοι ὀυκ ἀπιθάνως διαιρεῖν, ὡς γυναὶκί μὲν ὀυκ ἀδύνατον πνεῦμα πλησιάσαι Θεοῦ καὶ τινὰς ἑντεχεῖν ἀρχὰς γενέσεως, ἀνδρὶ δὲ ὀυκ ἒστὶ σύμμιξις πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Which I need not English but it is likely that Plutarch might marre it a little in the relation; otherwise if this be not the meaning it may seeme to argue some Propheticall Prenotion which they had of Christs Conception by the Holy Ghost in the Virgin Mary.

We learne from all this which hath been said, the true reason why the Scripture so often useth to expresse the Relation of Christ and the Church under the Notion of Man and Wife, or Sponsus and Sponsa, both in the Old and New Testament. In the 45. Psalm and the Song of Solomon throughout. And Iohn the Baptist useth the Words Χριστὸς and νυμφιος as if they were in a maner synonymous. Iohn 3.28, 29. I am not the Christ, but I am sent before him, he that hath the Bride is the Bridegroome, this Notion being then very familiar amongst them. In the 22. of Matthew the Kingdome of Heaven is compared to a King making a Marriage for his Sonne. The Apocalyps speaks much of the Marriage of the Lamb, and there be divers other places to the same purpose. Wherefore Idolatry and false Worship also in the Church of God, is expressed under the Notion of Spirituall Fornication; and no one Scheme of Speech or manner of expression is so frequently and constantly made use of throughout the whole Scripture as this is. In all which places and the like, <15> we must not conceive a Metaphore, but a Mystery.

And perhaps Christ himselfe intimated this Mystery in his manner of Life and converse here upon earth. For some[9] Divines have wittily conceived, that amongst many other good reasons which may be given, why Christ should live an Vnmarried Life, this might be one also, to shew that hee was Sponsus Ecclesiæ, The Spouse of the Church.

And I cannot here forget how elegantly this Notion was expressed by an Old Syriack Philosopher in an Enigmaticall Poeme De Sapientia Divina, set out by Sionita, in this manner.

ܦܓܥ ܒܝ ܒܥܠܡܐ ܜܠܝܬܐ
Occurrit mihi in mundo Puella
Aspectu bella,
Et Oculis splendida,
Et Vultu pulchra.
ܒܬܘܠܬܐ ܗܝ ܘܐܠܡܐ ܜܠܝܬܐ ܘܣܒܝܬܐ
Virgo & Mater, Adolescentula,
Et Vetula, & familià
Admiranda.
ܥܠ ܦܪܐܘܦܗ ܐܝܪ ܐܝܡܡܐ
ܕܠܟܠ ܡܢܗܪ ܘܠܠܝܐ
<16> ܘܠܠܝܐ ܟܡܝܪܐ ܬܠܐ ܒܓܕܘܠܗ
ܒܓܕܘܠܗ
In eius facie depicta est Dies
quæ omnia illuminat,
Et Nox obscura suspensa est
Crinibus eius.
In medio palpebrarum eius,
Occultantur Sol & Luna & Aer;
Etiam Elementa coram ea
Exultant, motu Circulari.

Thus farre he seems to describe the Church, and afterwards to bring in Christ the Spouse, in this manner:

ܚܙܝܬ ܒܝܢܬܗܘܢ
Vidi Iuvenem iucundum Diademate vinctum,
Eius Puellæ quæ me insanum reddit,
amore percitum.

Thus I have done with the first thing which I propounded, That the Vnion of Man and Wife is a Type, whereof the Vnion of Christ and the Church is the Archetype. I come to the second.

That the Making of Eve at first out of Adam, and the Vniting of her againe to him, which was the first Originall of Marriage, was Typicall of Christ the Second Adam, and his wife the <17> Church. And this I prove from the 30. and 31. verses, where the Apostle useth those very words which were spoken of Eve, in Genesis, when she was made out of Adam, concerning the Church and Christ. For we are members of his Body, of his Flesh, and of his Bones; For this cause shall a man leave his Father and Mother, and be ioyned to his Wife, and they two shall be one Flesh. Where lest we should be mistaken, as if these words of the latter verse were spoken onely of Man and Wife, and did not allude to Christ and the Church, as the Words going before did, to which notwithstanding they were immediately subjoyned by Moses in Genesis: he addeth, This is a great Mystery, but I speak (all this while) of Christ and the Church.

'Tis true, the Apostle doth not here go about to prove that there was any such Mysticall meaning in that passage of Moses his story; neither doth he bring it out as if it were a new thing to those converted Jewes to whom he wrote. But as that which was well enough understood amongst them, and therefore certainly they had some Cabala, or received Tradition concerning such an interpretation of it. Which that ingenuous Authour Petrus Cunæus well observed, De Rep. Heb. Lib. 3. Cap. 8. where having shewn that divers places of the Old Testament are expounded in the New, according to some Cabala, which they had concerning them, he reckons up this amongst the rest: Etiam in illis verbis quæ extant in Capite secundo Geneseos agnoscimus Cabalam, Quod enim ibi dicitur, Relinquet Homo Patrem <18> Matremque, Et Adhærebit Uxori; ex illo ignotum mortalibus Sacramentum revelat Apostolus in Capite quinto Epistolæ ad Ephesios. Mysterium hoc magnum est, loquor autem de Christo & de Ecclesia.

Now though it be not necessary, that any Footsteps of this Cabala should be found in those Jewish writings which now we have, (for Cunæus doth not go any further to shew us what it was) yet we will endevour to make our best search and enquiry after it.

Moses Maymonides in his Moreh Nevochim lib. 2. cap. 30. speaking concerning the Story of Genesis and the first Creation, after he had declared some more obvious things concerning it, he comes to tell his Reader some Mysteries, but so as that he would wave the interpretation of them, lest he should be counted a betrayer of the Secrets of his Nation. ורע כי אלו הרברים אשר אוכרם לכ מדברי החכמים אמנם הם דברים בתכלית השלמות מבוארי הפירוש לאשר זכרו לו מתוקנים מאד ולזה לא ארבה בפירושם ולא אשימם פשוטים שלא אהיה מגלה סוד Quæ tibi ex verbis Sapientum nostrorum propositurus sum, sunt perfectissima & ordinatissima, ideò non diu immorabor in expositione illorum, neque sensum ipsorum explicabo, ne arcanorum fiam revelator. The first of those Mysteries is this: אדם וחוה נבראו כאחד מתאחרים ושהרא נחלק שלקה חציו והוא חוה והובא אליו שהבז זה איך היה הבאור שהם יב בצר אחר והם אחר כמו שאמר עצם מעצמו ובשר מבשרי והוסיף זה חיזיק באמרו שהשם על שנוהם <19> יחד את וחזק הוחם אחד יאמר ידבק באשתו והיות לבשר אחד Which Buxtorsius thought good to Latine thus, though I thinke he do not exactly expresse the Authors sense. Adam & Eva creati fuerunt sicut Vnus, & tergis vel dorso conjuncti, postea verò à Deo divisi fuerunt, qui dimidiam illam partem accepit, & fuit Eva, & adducta fuit ad ipsum. Animadverte quomodò explicetur quod fuerint certo respectu Duo, & certo respectu Vnum, sicut dicitur, Os ex ossibus meis, & Caro ex Carne mea; quod fuerint certo respectu Duo, id confirmatur ex eo quod dicitur Nomen Vnum Ambobus convenire, Vocabitur Ishah Vira, quia ex Ish Viro desumpta est: quod fuerint Unum id confirmatur eo quod dicitur, Et adhærebit Vxori suæ, & erunt in Carnem unam. But lest we should take all this meerly in a literall sense, hee concludes it in this manner: מה גרול סכלות שלא יבינ זה כלו לענין בהכרח i.e. Quanta verò est ignorantia illius qui non intelligit hæc secundùm aliquem Sensum occultum intelligenda esse? This same Tradition, whatsoever it mean, I find divers others of their own Authors glancing at. R. Simeon Ben Iochai in the Booke Zohar before commended אדם וחוה דא נסטרא דא אתבריאו מאי טעמא לא אתבריאו אנפין באנפין Adam & Eva creabantur latere ad latus, quænam est ratio quòd non creabantur facie ad faciem? R. Solomon and Aben-Ezra upon the second of Genesis, and Elias Levita in Tishbi upon the word פרצף expresse it briefly thus, out of Midrash Aggadah. האדמ הראשון נברא בשני פרצופין ואחר כך חלך i.e. The first Adam was created with two faces, <20> and afterward God divided him into Man and Woman. The same is likewise mentioned in Breshith Rabba, and the Babylonish Talmud, in the Booke Berachoth, דו פרצופין ברא הקייבה באדמ הראשון שנא אחור שקדם צרתני Duas facies creavit Deus in Adamo primo, sicut dicitur, Ante & retrò formasto me. And Philo the Jew without question alludeth to it, in his Book Περὶ τῆς Κοσμοποιίας, speaking concerning the Making of the Woman in these words. Ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐπλάσθη {καὶ} γυνὴ, θεασάμενος ἀδελφὸν εἶδος καὶ συγγενῆ μορφὴν ἠσμένισε τῇ θέᾳ, ἔρως δι’ ἐπιγενόμενος καθάπερ ΕΝΟΣ ΖΩΟΥ ΔΙΤΤΑ ΤΜΗΜΑΤΑ διεστηκότα συναγαγὼν εἰς ταὐτὸν ἁρμόττεται i.e. Quando verò facta est mulier, videns homo cognatam speciem & imaginem, delectabatur spectaculo, superveniens autem amor tanquam Vnius Animalis Duo Segmenta Ab Invicem Distantia colligens, in unum iterum compegit.

Here then wee have already found out some Jewish Cabala, or Tradition, concerning that piece of Story in Genesis, which is so mystically expounded by Saint Paul, although we do not yet know the meaning of it; onely Maymonides hath taught us that it must be understood in some Occult Sense.

But before we come to that, that we may shew how ancient this piece of Cabalisme was, and that it was long before Saint Pauls time, by whom this Epistle to the Ephesians was written, wee will produce the very selfe same thing out of Plato, as he had received it some way by Tradition in the Orientall Parts, which will deserve no little admi <21> ration. He therefore in that excellent Symposiack dialogue concerning the nature of Love, brings in Aristophanes discoursing in this manner: Η῾γὰρ πάλαι ἡμῶν φύσις, οὐχ ἅυτη ἦν ἦπερ νῦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀλλοῖα, Ἀνδρόγυνον γὰρ ἓν τότε μὲν ἦν καὶ εἶδος καὶ ὄνομα γὰρ ἀμφοτέρων κοινὸν τοῦτε ἄρῥενος καὶ θήλεος, i.e. Non erat antiqua hominum natura qualis nunc est sed longè diversa, Androgynum tunc enim erat & specie & nomine, ex Maris & Fœminæ Sexu commixium. (Compare this with that of Maymonides before; Adam & Eva creati fuerunt sicut unus, (and goe on) Ἒπειτα ὅλον ἦν ἑκάστου τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ εἶδος στρογγύλον, νῶτον καὶ πλευρὰς κύκλῳ ἔχον, χεῖρας δὲ τέτταρας εἶχε, καὶ σκέλη τὰ ἴσα ταῖς χέρσι, καὶ ΠΡΟΣΩΠΑ ΔΥΟ ἐπ‘ αὐχένι κυκλοτερεῖ. i.e. Erat porro rota hominis species rotunda, dorsum & latera circum habens, manus quatuor, totidemque crura, facies item duas teriti cervice connexas. Here πρόσωπα δύο are the very same words which we quoted from the Talmud דו פרצופין (for in that declining age of the Hebrew and Chalday Tongues, about the time of the destruction of the Second Temple, many Greek and Latine and other barbarous words, were mingled with them) and there is withall added a larger explication of it. But then when he comes to speak of the dividing of this Androgynon into two, whereof one should be Male and the other Female, he puts in something for the occasion of it, which we have not found mentioned to this purpose in Jewish Authors, although he received it also by Tradition (though not immediately) from the Jewes. τὰ φρονήματα μεγάλα εἶχον, ἐπεχείρησαν δὲ τοῖς θεοῖς, καὶ ὃ λέγει Ομηρος περὶ <22> Ἐφιάλτου τε καὶ Ὤτου, περὶ ἐκείνων λέγεται, τὸ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνάβασιν ἐπιχειρεῖν ποιεῖν, ὡς ἐπιθησομένων τοῖς θεοῖς. i.e. Animos superbos habuerunt, Diis bellum inferre conati, & in cœlum ascendere, quemadmodum de Ephialto & Oto narrat Homerus, ut violentas manus in Does inferrent. Whereupon the Gods consulting what to do, Iupiter at last found out this plot, Διατεμῶ (saith he) δίχα ἕκαστον, Vnumquemque in duas partes dissecabo. Whereupon it followes, ταῦτα εἰπὼν, ἒτεμνε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δίχα ὥσπερ οἱ τὰ ὂα τέμνοντες καὶ μέλλοντες ταριχεύειν, i.e. Hæc fatus, bifariam partitus est singulos, instar eorum qui ova dividunt ut sale condiant. Ἔστι δὴ οὖν ἐκ τόσου ὁ ἔρως ἔμφυτος ἀλλήλων τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, καὶ τῆς ἀρχαίας φύσεως συναγογεὺς, καὶ ἐπιχειρῶν ποιῆσαι ΕΝ ΕΚ ΔΥΟΙΝ, καὶ ἰάσασθαι τὴν φύσιν ἀνθρωπίνην. Ἕκαστος οὖν ἡμῶν ἐστιν ἀνθρώπου ξύμβολον, ἅτε {τεπτμωμένος} ὥσπερ αἱ ψῆτται, ἐξ ἑνὸς δύο. They are incomparable words, expressing in the Type exactly according to the Scripture-Notion the Nature of Marriage, but yet so, as looking also beyond that, they aime at some further Mystery. viz. Hinc nimirum ex illo tempore mutuus hominibus innatus est amor Priscæ Naturæ Conciliator, annitens Vnum Ex Duobus efficere, (what could be more like that of the Scripture, They two shall he one Flesh) hominumque naturæ mederi; est igitur unusquisque nostrum hominis Collatio & quasi Dimidium, veluti dissecatus, ut illi Pisciculi qui Psettæ vocantur scissi ex Vno efficiuntur Duo.

I cannot consent with[10] Eusebius, that Plato had seen Moses his words, and there had taken out this whole Story, as well as divers other things, <23> for[11] besides many weighty Reasons which I have to think he never saw any of those Sacred Volumes, this doth not agree with Moses his relation of it, but is the very same with that Jewish Cabala before recited, which he had therefore certainly received by Tradition, when he was in Egypt, or some other of those Orientall Parts bordering upon the Jewes. Onely as Leo Hebræus (a disguised Author, whose true name I think was Iuda Abravanel) well observes, having there heard of these two distinct things, The making of Eve out of Adam, by Cutting of him in two; and then of the Fall of our first Parents, which was by their Pride, desiring to be as God: He thought these two did belong to one another, and therefore joyned them both together, making their Pride to be the reason why they were so divided into two, as a Punishment inflicted on them: whereas in Mose's Story, the Fall of Man came after the making of Eve out of Adam. And certain it is that Plato in all this, did thinke there was contained some Mysticall meaning concerning the Nature of Divine Love, either as Ficinus or Leo Hebræus allegorize it, or else perhaps more simply thus, That Man in his first Estate being united unto God, and one with him, afterward Sinning was divorced from him, and sunk down quite into the Body, but so as that by Divine Love he might still recover himselfe, and so by degrees work up himself again unto God, and be made perfectly one with him, as by a Carnall and outward Affection, Man and Wife here below are united together.

<24>

But if we would have a true and genuine Interpretation of this Jewish Tradition, we must have recourse to the Jewish Authors themselves, and especially the Masters of the Cabala; and they will tell us, that here also Adam and Eve are mystically signified Tipheret and Malcuth, of which wee have spoken sufficiently before, that were at first both one Sephirah, as it were Male and Female together, but afterward were parted asunder into two מהיות אחור אחור from being so conjoyned; but then were united together againe as Man and Wife, פנים פנים. This is fully handled and explained with many Cabalistick Mysteries, by the sore-cited Author of Shephah Tal, in a Discourse on purpose, the Title whereof is סוד דו פרצופין Arcanum duarum facierum. I will only transcribe some few remarkable passages out of it. נשמת אדמ שהיא זכר נאצל מתפארת ונשמת חוה שהיא נקיבה נאלצה ממלכות דו פרצופין הוי אהר הבריאה ריל אהר נריאוחן בעולם הזה הגופני החומרי היו דו פרצופין בגוף אחר וכמו כן מקור אצילותן היו שהם תפארת ומלכות רייל מקור כנ מקור של אדמ שהוא תפארת ומקור נשמת חוה שהוא מלכות כשהיו אכו שתל ספירות תפארת ומלכות בסוך הבינה היו גמ כן גוף אחר ספירה אחת נכללה מן דו פרצופיו שהם סוד זכר ונקיבה וגיו i.e. Anima Adami qui erat masculus emanavit ex Tipheret, & anima Evæ quæ erat Fœmina emanavit ex Malcuth; Duas facies habuerunt post creationem, hoc est, post creationem eorum in mundo hoc corporeo & materiali habuerunt duas facies in corpore uno: Et sicut Adam & Eva <25> materiales habuerunt duas facies in corpore uno, sic etiam Fontes unde emanarunt Tipheret & Malcuth, sc. Fons Amimæ Adami qui erat Tipheret, & Fons animæ Evæ qui erat Malcut, quando erant hae duæ Sephirot Tipheret & Malcuth in secreto Binah, erant tunc corpus nnum {sic} Sephirah una, consummata ex duabus faciebus, quæ erant secretum maris & Fœminæ. Et Zohar loquitur quidem (viz. in that Tradition before related out of him) de inferioribus & de animis Adami & Evæ, sed intelligendus est de Superioribus, scilicet de Fontibus undè emanarunt. And againe, ידוע כי אכו ספירות תפארת ומלכות מנהיגים את העולם ואינם צריכין להתגלות רק אחר בריאה ארם &c. Notum est, quod istæ Sephiroth Tipheret, & Malcuth, Secretum maris & Fœminæ, administrant mundum, nec necesse est ut revelentur distinctè, nisi post creationem hominis: erant verò anteà in Essentiâ suâ occultâ conjunctim existentes. The meaning is, that as soone as Man was created, the Church did then flow out of Christ, and became distinct from him (whereas before it lay hid in him) yet so, as that Christ and it, that is, Tipheret and Malcuth, were united together againe, as Sponsus and Sponsa, whereof the Union of Adam and Eve by marriage was some Type and Shadow.

So then wee may easily unriddle this Cabala, whereof the true meaning seems to be nothing else but this, that the Church did as it were lie hid in Christ from all Eternity, and was Seminally contained in him; who therefore might be sayd all that while to have דו פרצופין, that is, δύο πρό <26> σωπα, or else in Plato's language to be Ανδρόγυνον, i.e. (to speak with reverence) Male and Female together. As the Heathens, I know not how, in some Arcane sense, were wont to describe their Gods. For so Orpheus, the Father of Ethnicall Theology, speaks of Iupiter, Ζεὺς πρῶτος γένετο, Ζεὺς ἂφθιτος ἔπλετο νύμφη. Which Apuleius in his Book De Mundo thus interprets, Iupiter & Mas est, est que idem Nympha perennis. And of Minerva, Ἄρσὴν μὲν καὶ θῆλυς ἔφυς. And there is an Old Monument at Rome to this day, with this Inscription upon, it, SIVE DEO SIVE DEÆ C. TER. DEXTER EX VOTO POSVIT.

Servius upon that Verse of Virgil in his second Ænead, Descendo & ducente Deo --- where the Poet calls Venus Deum, in the Masculine Gender, notes, Loquitur secundùm eos, qui di <27> cunt utriusque Sexus participationem habere Numina. And this, other learned men since, have often taken notice of; as Petrus Crinitus in his Booke De honesta Disciplina; and Casperius Gevartius in the Third Book of his Electa, in the explication of that famous Enigme of

Elia Lelia Crispis,
Nec Vir, nec Mulier, nec Androgyna.

Which Fortunius Licetus hath more fully since explained, in a Volume of purpose upon that Argument. And lastly, Master Selden, in the Prolegomena of his Book De dIs {sic} Syris, whose words I will here set downe:[12] Credidit Vulgus Deum hoc, illud Deam Numen, Edocti tamen à sacrorum antistitibus solenni invocatione, Sive Tu Deus Es Sive Dea, unumquodque compellabant, teste Agellio, Arnobio, aliis: Viriusque scilicet Naturæ & Masculinæ & Fœmininæ vis ineffabilis, quam veteres in Deo Vnico Opt. M. agnoscebant, ἀῤῥενόθηλυν eum vocantes, mysticè innuebatur. And a little after, Rectissimè ad eam mentem Nichomachus Gerasenus in Ἀριθμητικῶν θεολογούμένων libris, cœteroqui satis ineptis, Vnitatem Ἀρσενόθνλυν asserit. And indeed Hermes Trismegist, or whosoever were the Author of Pæmander, who, I think with Casaubon, was rather a Christian Divine than a Philosopher, calleth God or Christ the true λόγος and Word of God, ἀρρενόθηλις; as it seemes, in respect of the Creation of the whole world, which was made out of that Ideall Fecundity which was in him: which <28> might be better applyed to him, in respect of the Church, and that by the Apostles warrant, who hath led us thus farre into this Notion, affirming that Beleevers are Members of Christs Body, of his Bone and of his Flesh, and therfore made out of him; which must not be understood as if it were by the derivation of any materiall substance, for so Christ in respect of his body is rather Bone of our Bone, and Flesh of our Flesh; but by the Effluxe and Communication of his Spirit. For the Church is nothing else but Christus explicatus, Christ dilated and explicated, and therefore is sometimes called in the Scripture by the name of Christ: Ecclesia est Christus, (saith Tertullian) ergo cùm te ad fratrum genua protendis, Christum contrectas, Christum exoras, & illi cùm super te lachrymas agunt. Christus patitur, Christus Patrem deprecatur, in his Booke De Pœnitentia.

But further to confirm this, that the Jewes had such a Tradition concerning this Mysticall Interpretation of that Story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, I will produce another Testimony of some ancient Iewish Author, recorded by Munster in his Commentary upon that Book; that the making of Eve at first out of Adams side, was לרמוז לבת זוג האדמ העליון יתברך Ad significandam sive notandam conjugem Adami Superioris qui est benedictus. Which is the same that was intimated in the former Cabala, according to the manner of the Orientall Nations, that were wont to couch their greatest Mysteries and peeces of Wisdome, which they conveyed by Tradition to <29> one another, in the Covert of some Fables. And thence Pythagoras and Plato afterward brought that manner of Philosophizing into Europe.

But last of all, for the fuller conviction of this Proposition which we have laid down, that The Making of Eve out of Adam, did type out something answerable in Christ and the Church, it will not be amisse, to consider what an elegant Parallel there is to that Type in the Antitype. For just as Eve was made out of Adams side when he was asleep in Paradise, so when Christ was sleeping the sleep of death upon the Crosse, was his side likewise opened, and out of it flowed forth Water and Blood, one for the justification, the other for the Sanctification of the Church; or else, as Saint Austine and others of the Fathers will have it, the Types of the two Sacraments, Baptisme and the Lords Supper. Whence is that of Saint Ierome, in his Epistle Ad Pammachium, Eva in typo Ecclesiæ de Costa viri ædificata est: And of Saint Austin, in his second Book De Symb. Dormiat moriendo, aperiatur ejus latus & Ecclesia prodeat Virgo, ut quomodo Eva facta est ex latere Adæ dormientis, ita Ecclesia facta sit ex latere Christi morientis, & in cruce pendentis; and others of the Fathers so often alluded to this Notion, that the School-men at last had got this pretty observation, Ecclesia facta est de latere Christi dormientis in cruce.

Neither may it seem strange that we make Adam before the Fall to be thus a Type of Christ, for if it were not too long here to discusse, it might be easily proved that there were Types in <30> Paradise. Neither can I beleeve that the Tree of Life had in it a Naturall Power to preserve from death, as Goropius Becanus perhaps might dreame, but that it was a Typicall and Sacramentall thing, the mystery whereof seems to be unfolded Rev. 22.2. where we have a description of another Paradise, of which also, to my apprehension, the first Paradise it selfe was a Type. For though I dare not confidently averre that which the Noble Picus took upon him to defend, Si non peccasset Adam Deus fuisset incarnatus sed non crucifixus; Although the ancient Jewes seeme to have beene of that opinion, when among five things, which they say were created before the World, they make Messiah the Son of David to be one, meaning thereby, as a learned Scholiast[13] of their owne expounds it, that he was absolutely and primarily intended in the Creation of the World. And Tertullian also, if I understand him aright, in his Book De Resurrectione carnis, Quodcunque enim limus exprimebatur, Christus cogitabatur homo futurus --- Et limus ille jam tunc imaginem induens Christi in carne, non tantum Dei opus erat, sed & pignus. Yet however there might well be Types of Christ in Paradise, because God ever intended Christ in the World, upon the supposition of mans Fall, which he at least foreknew. Sure I am the Apostle tells us plainely, that the first Adam was Τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος, Rom. 5.14. A figure or Type of him that was to come. And so R. Menachem of Rikanat according to the minde of the ancient Jewish Doctors, upon Gen. 5.1. צירת האדם התחתון <31> רומזת לצורת אדם העליון i.e. The Forme of the Inferior Adam, mystically signified the Forme of the Superior Adam. And as Adam was then a Type of Christ, so might Eve also be of the Church; neither was she so called without a Mystery, for the Church indeed is the True Chavvah, the Mother of all living, of all those which live the Life of Grace here, and of glory hereafter.

I come to the Third and last thing, From these Words, to shew How and in What Respects this Vnion of Man and Wife by Marriage, doth typically signifie the Mysticall Vnion of Christ and the Church. Which is not barely by the Naturall Conjunction of them, for there must be some Positive and Instituted Circumstrnces {sic} to make a thing properly to be a Type. And they are chiefly those two which are contained in those words in which the Primitive institution of Marriage is expressed. For this cause shall a man leave Father and Mother and be joyned to his Wife, and they two shall be one Flesh; where are two things of Divine Institution concerning Marriage implyed. First, that every man should have but one Wife, and that is to Type out the Union betwixt Christ and his One Onely Church, expressed in those Words, They Two shall be one Flesh, against Promiscuous conjunction and Polygamy. Secondly, That a Man may not put away his Wife for any cause (except that of Fornication) when it is said, They shall be One Flesh, to type out the inseparable and indissoluble Vnion between the Church and Christ, against <32> Divorce. For that these two, Polygamy and Divorce, are in themselves absolutely against the Law of Nature, I think will hardly ever be proved. And therefore our Saviour, Matth. 19. goes about to shew them both to be unlawfull, not from the Law of Nature, but from that Primitive, Positive Institution which wee have before specified, in these Words. Have you not read that he which made them at first, made them Male and Female, and said, For this cause shall a Man leave Father and Mother, and cleave to his Wife, and they Twain shall be one Flesh; Wherefore they are no more twain but one Flesh: What therefore God hath joyned together let no man put asunder. They said unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a Writing of Divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardnesse of their hearts suffered them to put away their Wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Where although it be said, that it was for the hardnesse of their hearts that they were allowed to put away their Wives with a Bill of Divorce, which may be affirmed likewise of the other, the permission of Polygamy amongst them; Yet I cannot beleeve that God would have suffered these two, Polygamy and Divorce to have continued so long in his owne Church, and that with such seeming approbation, if they had been directly contrary to the Law of Nature, which he doth not, some say, cannot dispence with. But it is in his owne power to dispence with his owne Positive Institutions for a time, more or lesse, as he pleases.

<33>

Now if it should be objected, that in the Hebrew Text Gen. 2.24. there is nothing that may seem to prejudice Polygamy, because the Word Two, upon which the chiefe stresse of that Notion lyes, is not there to be found, it being read thus, ויהיו לבשר אחד And they shall be one Flesh. I answer, That though perhaps that Word may be Vnderstood and borrowed from the Context, yet I strongly beleeve that it was read also in the ancient Copies of the Hebrew Bible. Not onely because the place might else be easily eluded; and we see that the Jewish Doctors notwithstanding doe all generally hold to this day that Polygamy is lawfull, as Master Selden hath largely shewed, in that incomparable worke De Iure Naturali & Gentium: but also because this is foure severall times quoted in the New Testament, in this manner, Ἔσονται ὁι δύο, They two shall be one Flesh, and sometimes, so as that the chiefest stresse lyes upon that word. And because divers ancient Translations read it in the same manner: beside the LXX. whence perhaps it is quoted in the New Testament, the Chaldee Paraphrase of Ionathan Ben Vziel, ויהון תרוויהרן לביערא כד, Et erunt ambo in Carnem unam: and a Manuscript Syriacke Metaphrase produced by Morinus, ܘܢܗܘܢ ܬܪܝܗܘܢ ܚܕ ܒܣܪ Et erunt ambo Caro una. But lastly, that which is most of all considerable, although these Hebrew copies which now we have, received from the Jewes, read it otherwise, yet that incomparable Antiquity of the Samaritane Pentateuch, lately brought <34> to light, which seemes to be truer in many places than our Copies are, hath it thus, in Hebrew Language, and the true Old Hebrew (now called the Samaritane) Letter; ࠅࠄࠉࠄ ࠌࠔࠍࠉࠌ ࠋࠁࠔࠁ ࠕࠇࠁ והיה משניהם לבשר אחד, Et fiet ex duobus illis in carnem unam.

Now that both these Circumstances of Lawfull Marriage, were instituted to Type out something in the Vnion between Christ and the Church; was very well understood by Saint Austin, who observes first against Polygamy, in his Book De Bono Conjugali, thus; Nuptias Christianorum cum una tantum Vxore, Sacramentum esse Vnitatis Ecclesiæ Christo subjectæ: And against Divorce in his Book De Nuptiis & Concupiscentia; Quoniam sanè non tantùm fœcunditas, cujus fructus in prole est, nec tantùm pudicitia, cujus vinculum est fides, verumetiam quoddam Sacramentum Nuptiarum commendatur fidelibus conjugatis; unde dicit Apostolus, Viri diligite uxores vestras sicut Christus dilexit Ecclesiam. Huius proculdubio Sacramenti res est, ut mas & fœmina connubio copulati, quamdiu vivunt inseparabiliter perseverent, nec liceat excepta causa fornicationis à coniuge coniugem dirimi. Hoc enim custoditur in Christo & Ecclesia, ut vivens cum vivente in æternum nullo Divortio separetur. And it is very observable, that this was the onely Argument of Moment which Tertullian had, that prevailed with him to hold all Second Marriages <35> unlawfull, Because Christ is but once married to his Church: So he in his Book De Exhortatione Castitatis, Cùm Apostolus in Ecclesiam & Christum interpretatur, Erunt duo in unam carnem: secundùm spirituales nuptias Ecclesiæ & Christi, (unus enim Christus, & una eius Ecclesia) agnoscere debemus duplicatam & exaggeratam esse nobis unius Matrimonii Legem, tam secundùm generis fundamentum, quàm secundùm Christi Sacramentum. De uno Matrimonio censemur utrobique, & carnaliter in Adam, & spiritaliter in Christo; and often elsewhere. Although this opinion be directly contrary to the Apostles Rule somewhere given; and if Tertullians Rigour had not mis-led him, hee might easily have seen here a sufficient ground of difference between these two, in that Christ and the Church alwayes live together.

The Reason, why this Type is not yet abolished, but still to continue; is because the Antitype thereof, which is the marriage of the Lamb (Rev. 21.) is not yet consummated.

FINIS.

[1] עילם עשייה יצירה בראיה

[2] עילם אצילוה Mundus emanationis, sive Mundus Archetypus

[3] ✝ For the Etymon of the word Sephiroth is derived from ספיר Sapphirus, by the Author of Shaare Orah, or Portæ Lucis

[4] The Persees use to call Noah to this day Adam Asseni, which is pure Hebrew אדם השני, i. e. The Second Adam.

[5] Parashah chaye Sarah.

[6] {illeg}

[7] Pag 61.

[8] Pag. 47 43.

[9] Ludov. Vives de Verit.

[10] ✝ Lib. 12. Præpar. Evang.

[11] Vide Eugubinum in Timæum Platonis

[12] Vide & eundem ibidem de Astarte

[13] R D Kimchi in Comment, ad {illeg}

Cite as: Ralph Cudworth, The Union of Christ and the Church; in a Shadow (1642), http://www.cambridge-platonism.divinity.cam.ac.uk/view/texts/diplomatic/Cudworth1642B, accessed 2019-12-10.