To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Now hauing set down the proofes of this * 1.1 point, before I come to the next Question, some speciall Obiections against this do∣ctrine, are to be answered, and resolued. For there haue not beene wanting in all ages, both Atheists, and others, who haue profes∣sedly
excepted against it, and of set purpose, haue vndertaken to call the written word of God into Question. Such were Celsus, Luci∣an, Iulian, Porpherie, Apelles, and others. From whome some of latter times hauing receiued the poison of Atheisme, and prophanesse, haue not ceased as much as in them lyeth, to oppugne sundry parts and portions of holy scripture. Their principall reasons and excep∣tions, I will propound, and answere one by one.
And first, they except against that which is written, Gen. 1. 16. where it is said, God * 1.2 made the sunne the fourth day. Now, say they, the sunne is the cause of the day; and there∣fore there could not be three daies, before the sunne was created, considering that the effect is not before the cause, but the cause before the effect.
I answere. First, we must put a difference betweene cause and cause. For of causes, some be the highest, some subordinate vnto them. The highest and first cause, of all crea∣tures, is God himselfe, from whom all things at the first immediately flowed, without any relation to their causes in nature. And thus were the first, second, and third daies created and appointed immediately from God, and distinguished from the night, by an inter∣course of light, ordained by him for that purpose.
But the subordinate and inferior cause of
the day, in order of nature, was the sunne, and that by the same appointment of God: and this cause was not set in nature, as the cause of the day, before the fourth day of creation; for then it pleased him to make it his instru∣ment, to distinguish the day from the night, as also for other ends and vses. And therfore it is no marueile, though the day was created before the sunne, the instrumentall cause thereof: considering that it was created be∣fore the sunne was set in the heauen, by the Creatour himselfe.
Secondly, we must distinguish of times: which are either of creation, or gouernment: and there is one regard to be had of things while they were in making, and another after they were created. Now it is true, the sunne is the cause of the day and the night, in the time of the gouernment of the world, but it was not so in the time of the first making of all things. For in the three first daies of the world, there was day and night without the sunne, by a vici••••itude of light and darkenes, which the Lord made, and nature could ne∣uer haue found out, had not the word reuea∣led it.
But since the creation, in the time of go∣uernment, the sunne is but an instrument ap∣pointed by God to cary light, and he that made the light, can now in the gouernment of the world, if it pleased him, put downe the sunne from this office, and by some other
meanes distinguish the day from the night; therefore no marueile though he did so in the beginning.
The second Obiection, is touching the light of the Moone. Moses saith, it is one of * 1.3 the great lights which God made. Now, say they, in all reason according to humane lear∣ning, it is one of the least of the planets, and lesse then many starres.
Answ. It is true which the holy Ghost saith by Moses, and yet the Moone is lesse then the Sunne, yea then many of the starres. For one and the same starre, in a diuers and diffe∣rent respect, may be tearmed greater and lesser. And in that place the Scripture speaks of the Moone, not in regard of other starres greater then it: but in respect of our se••se, because it appeareth greater in quantitie, and really communicateth more light; yea, it is of more operation and vse to the earth, then any of the starres in the heauen, sauing the Sunne.
The third Obiection Moses saith, Man & * 1.4 Beast were made of the earth, and Fishes of the waters. But all humane learning auouch∣eth, that the matter of euery creature, consi∣steth of all the foure Elements, earth, water, fire, and ••••re.
Ans. Moses speaketh onely of two, which were the principall, and in them includes the other; because they are impure, & mixt with the other since the fall. Againe, some learned
auouch, that all creatures are made of earth & water only, as being the two maine mate∣riall principles of the all; and not of ayre, nor of fire. And this accords with Moses, and is no doubt, a truth, that he speaks onely of the principall matter of these creatures: & yet the fire and ayre, are and may be called ele∣ments, or beginnings, because they serue to forme, preserue, and cherish the creatures.
The fourth Obiection. Gen. 3. it is said, that * 1.5 Eue before her fall, was deceiued by the Ser∣pent. Now this, saith the Atheist, is absurd. For euen in the estate of corruption, since the fall, there is no woman so simple, that will ei∣ther admit speech, or suffer her selfe to be deceiued by a Serpent; much lesse would Eue, in the estate of her innocencie.
Answ. Though Adam and Eue in their in∣nocencie, had excellent knowledge, yet they had not all knowledge. For then they should haue beene as God himselfe. But in that e∣state, ignorance befell Eve in three things. For first, though Adam himselfe was a Pro∣phet, in the time of his innocencie, yet both he and shee were ignorant of the issue of future things, which are contingent. Second∣ly, they knewe not the secrets of each others heart. For to know the euent of things con∣tingent certainely, and the secrets of the heart, belongs to God only. Thirdly, though Eue knew the kinds of creatures, yet shee knew not all particulars, and all things that
were incident to euery kind of creature, but was to attain vnto that knowledge, by expe∣rience and obseruation.
Neither may this seeme strange: for Christ as he was man, had as much, yea more knowledge then our first parents had in their innocency: and yet he knew not all particu∣lars, in all singular creatures. For, seeing a fig∣tree by the way as he went to Ierusalem, he thought it had borne fruit, and yet comming towards it, he found none thereon. And in like manner, Eue might know the serpentine kind, and yet be ignorant, whether a serpent could speake. Besides that, the naming of the creatures, which argues knowledge of them, was not giuen to Eue, but to Adam. And therefore it was not so strange, that Eue should be deceiued by a serpent, considering that to know that a serpent could speake, or not speake, came by experience, which shee then had not.
I•• will be said, that all ignorance is sinne: but Eue had no sinne: and therefore shee could not be ignorant. Answ. Ignorance is twofold; some ignorance * 1.6 ariseth of an euill disposition, when as we are ignorant of those things which we are bound to knowe, and this is sinne properly. But there is another ignorance, * 1.7 which is no sinne, when as we are ignorant of those things, which we are not bound to know. And this was in Christ: for he was ignorant of the figtrees bearing
fruit: and he knew not the day of iudgement as he was man. And this also was in Eue, not the other.
The fift obiection; is about the Arke, Gen. * 1.8 6. 15. God commaunded Noah to make an Arke of 300 cubits long, of 50 cubits broad and of 30 cubits high. This Arke, saith the Atheist, beeing so small a vessell, could not possibly containe two of euery sort of crea∣tures, with their foode, for the space of a yeare.
The first author of this cauill, was Apelles the hereticke, that cauilled with Christians about the Arke. And the answer is as ancient as the heresie: namely, first, that the cubit of the arke must be vnderstood of the Egypti∣an cubit, which is with some, sixe foote, and with others, nine foote, by which measure the Arke would be in lēgth half a mile at the least. And by this means, any man may see a possibility in reason, that the Arke might containe, and preserue all creatures, with their fodder, and roome to spare.
The second answere is, that as the Iewes had a shekle of the sanctuary, which was greater then the ordinary shekle, so they had beside the ordinary cubit, a sacred cubit, the cubit of the sanctuary, where of mention is made in the prophecie of Ezekiel, Chap. 40. and that was bigger by the halfe, then the ordinarie cubite. And by this measure, some say, the Arke was made. But both these
answeres are onely coniecturall, without good ground in the scripture.
To them therefore I adde a third. In the daies of Noah, the stature of man was farre bigger then it is at this day. And looke as the stature of man was great and large, so was the cubite proportionall therto; contai∣ning the length of the arme, from the elbow to the longest fingers end. And this beeing considered, that the Arke was built by that measure, and not by the ordinary cubit, as it is now; it will appeare, that the Atheist hath greatly deceiued himselfe, and abused that part of Gods word that declares the storie of the Arke.
Againe, the length of this vessell, beeing 300. cubits, it is plaine that it was fiue times the length of Salomons temple, which con∣tained onely 60. cubits. The breadth beeing 58. it was twise and a halfe the breadth of that, which was but 20. broad.
Besides that, it is to be remembred, that in the Arke were three lofts or stories, one a∣boue another, whereof each contained 10. cubits in height, and a chamber or flore of square measure, 15000. cubits.
As for the creatures that were put into it: the Fowles of the ayre, though they were of many sorts, yet the biggest fort of them, beeing the Eagle and his kind, they could not take vp any very large place for their resi∣dence. The Water creatures, as some foules,
the fishes, &c. kept the waters, and were not lodged in the Arke. And the beasts of the earth, such beeing excluded, as were bredde either by accidentall generation, as Mules; or by putrefaction, as serpents, and other creeping things, which might afterward be restored in other creatures that were prefer∣ued, though for multitude and greatnes they excelled the rest, yet (as some write) there are of them in all not aboue an 150 distinct kinds. And though there were as many more not knowne, yet in probabilitie, they could not be either many, or great. And of those that are great, there are thought not to be a∣boue 40 kinds.
Now though it be graunted, that there were in the Arke 300 distinct kinds of beasts, yet this number compared with the roome, it will easily appeare, that there might be al∣lotted to euery kinde, in one onely storie 50 square cubits, which in all likelihood might well suffice them all one with an other, spe∣cially seeing all were not of an equall great∣nes: and therefore some might haue that or more space, and some lesse. All these things duly considered, the vessell beeing of such capacitie, might cōprehend all those beasts, and many more together with their prouisi∣on for a longer time then a yeare. Other doubts touching this historie, of lesse mo∣ment, I omit, and passe to the next.
The sixt allegation, is out of Gen. 21. 9. * 1.9
where Ismael is said to mocke at Isaak when he was wained, at which time Ismael was fifteene yeares of age at the least. For he was borne when Abraham was 86 yeare olde, Gen. 16. and Isaac was borne, when Abra∣ham was about a hundred, Gen. 21. 5. both which put together, make 14 yeares: where∣to one yeare beeing added, before Isaac was wained, makes vp the age of Ismael, as be∣fore. And yet afterward in that chapter, v. 14. Hagar is saide, to carrie the child in her armes, and to cast him vnder a tree, when he and his mother were cast out of Abrahams house, which argues him to haue beene but a little child: whereas before he was said to be 15 yeares olde.
Ans. A foolish cauill, which blind Atheists doe draw from the errour of some translati∣on. For the text is plaine, that Ismael with his mother Hagar, by reason of extreame heate, and drought, was almost dead, wande∣ring in the wildernes of Beersheba: and bee∣ing in this extremitie, shee caried him not, but v. 18. led him in her hand, and set him downe vnder a tree, and there left him to die. For in those cuntries, men for want of water, were at deaths dore: as we may see in the example of Sisera, Iudg. 4. 19. and Samp∣son, chap. 15. 18.
The seauenth Allegation. Gen. 43. 8. Iudah Iosephs brother, calls his brother Beniamin * 1.10 a lad, or a boy, Send the boy with me, &c. and
yet this lad (saith the Atheist) the yeare fol∣lowing, when he wēt down into Egypt, with Iacob his father, is saide to haue ten childrē Gen. 46. 21. How can these two stand toge∣ther?
Ans. This cauili a••iseth from the grosse ignorance of the Atheist, in the originall text. For Beniamin is called jeled, which word commonly signifies a child; but some∣times also a young man. Thus Ismael that was 15 yeares old, is called jeled, a lad, Gen. 20. 15. And so Gen. 4. 23. Lamech saith, I will stay a man in my wound, and [jeled] or a young man in my hurt: that is, If a man should wound me, and a young man hurt me, I would slay him. Now it is not like, that a child could hurt Laniech. Neither must this seeme strange: for the most valiant men that Dauid and Ishbosheth had, are called hanne∣gna••im, the boyes of Abner & Ioab, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Sam. 2. 14. And the like phrase is vsed in other languages. For the Grecians doe call young men by the name of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] and the Latines by the name of [pueri.] boyes, or children.
The eight Allegation. Exod. 7. it is saide * 1.11 v. 19. that all the waters in Egypt were tur∣ned into blood, by Moses and Aaron: and yet v. 22. it is saide, that the Magitians of E∣gypt turned water into blood also: which seemes to imply an absurditie, considering that all the waters were turned into blood before.
Ans. Some answer thus: that the water which the Magitians turned, was newly dig∣ged out of new pits, and therefore they vn∣derstand the former of all the waters that were seene, and that they onely were turned into blood. Others answer more fitly, that the waters which the Magitians changed, were fetched out of Goshen, from amongst the Israelites, where the waters remained pure, and were not turned, as the other were. Either of these answers may satisfie, but specially the latter.
The ••inth Allegation. Exod. 9. 6. Moses saith, that all the beasts in Egypt died of the * 1.12 mu•…•…, and yet v. 25. in the seventh plague, it is said, the beasts were killed with thunder, and haile, and lightening: both which can∣not be true.
Ans. First, we must put a difference be∣tween a common plague, or iudgement; and an vniuersall. A common plague is, when••••o sort or kinde s••apeth, but all sorts are smit∣ten, and such was the murren. For no mans cattell were free, no kind of cattell were sa∣ued. But the vniuersall is, when no particular of any kinde is exempted, but all destroied. Such was not this plague, but some escaped, and were reserued for other iudgements that followed. The ground of this distincti∣on, is this: The word [all] in Scripture is of∣ten taken indefinitely for many. Thus the Prophet Esay speaks, cap. 66. 23. From moneth
to moneth, and from Saboth to Saboth, shall all flesh come to worship before me: that is, many or great multitudes. And so in the new Testa∣ment, Matth. 4. 23. Christ healed all diseases, that is, many and of all kinds some. And in like manner the text before alleadged, must not be taken generally to include all with∣out exception, but indefinitely for many or the most part of the cattell that were in the land of Egypt.
The tenth Allegation. Exod. 10. 22. wee * 1.13 read that one of the plagues was a palpable darknes, and so great, that for three daies to∣gether, no man either saw an other, or rose vp from the place where he sate. And yet v. 23. Moses is sent for, and called to come be∣fore Pharaoh. How should this be, seeing no man could stirre from his place, nor haue any light to goe before him: for there was none to be had, the darkenes was so palpable, and the aire was so thicke.
Ans. I take it the word [Then] v. 24. is to be meant thus, that Pharaoh sent for Moses after the darkenes was ended, not by candle or or other light in the time of darkenes. And this answer may very well stand with∣out further exception.
The eleuenth Allegation. Iudg. 16. 29. The * 1.14 Atheists make a mocke at the historie of Sampson, as fabulous, where it is said, that all the Philistims came together in one house, to make sport with him, and on the roofe
sate about 3000 persons to beholde him while he plaied, and yet there were but two pillars whereupon the whole house stood, and those also standing in the midst so neere together that a man might reach them both with his armes. This, say they, is most absurd and impossible.
Ans. Although the full resolution of this cauill, belongs to them that haue skill in Ar∣chitecture; yet thus much may be faide in way of answer: That the house might be capable of so many persons, and they also that stood aboue might well see and behold Sampson. For first, the whole house was not sustained by two pillars onely, but by many more, whereof two were the principall. For in likelihood the middle part whereon the whole building was knit together, from the bottome to the toppe, beeing the weightiest of all, was supported by two master-pillars. The other which was more outward, and lesse weightie might be vpholden by lesser proppes, which Artificers in that kinde call by the name of false-pillars. Hence it appea∣reth, that the two maine ones standing so nigh together, beeing shaken, the whole * 1.15 house together with them must needes fall. Neither will this seeme strange, that two pil∣lars should beare vp a building of such ca∣pacitie; if we doe but consider what is re∣corded of Curio the Romance, who deuised * 1.16 the frame of a great Amphitheater, the two
parts whereof were supported onely by two hinges, and yet was so large, that it contai∣ned the whole people of Rome. Secondly, old buildings in those countries were made for the most part, with open roofe. Againe, they were full of windowes on euery part like vnto great gates: and that they might be the more fit for sight from aboue, they were reared vp in some sort after the manner of the Egyptian Pyramides, wider below, and narrower aboue towardes the top. And by this meanes it is probable, not onely that they might containe a great companie, but that all those which stoode about the sides, and vpon the roofe, might very well behold what Sampson did below; specially consi∣dering that he stood in the middest of the Theater, betweene the two middle pil∣lars.
The twelfth Allegation. Sam. 16. 19. &c. it * 1.17 is saide that Dauid plaied before Saul, and that Saul knew him. But chap. 17. 55. when he was to fight with Goliah, Saul knew him not. Here is a plaine contradiction in the A∣theists iudgement.
Ans. This sort of men doe still bewray their grosse ignorance, both in the matter and in the order of Scripture. For the word of God doth not alway set downe things, as they follow in order of time iust one after an other: but sometime it doth anticipate, put∣ting such things in former histories, as are al∣readie
done and accomplished, which in re∣gard of their euent should be related after∣ward. Sometime againe it vseth by recapitu∣lation to declare things as following in or∣der of time, which doe properly belong to a former narration. An example of the latter (to omit many other that might be brought) is the text alleadged. For that part of the 16 chap. from the 19v. to the ende, should by order of historie follow the 17, as will easily appeare by comparing the place. And the like displacing of things saide and done is else-where to be found in the Scriptures. Which beeing considered, the Atheists sup∣posed Contradiction, falls to the ground. For Dauid was to fight with Goliah before he plaied before Saul, and though he was then not knowne, yet Saul after that time tooke better knowledge of him.
The thirteenth Allegation is out of 2. Chron. 21. 2. where the Papist plaies the * 1.18 right Atheist, in going about to improoue the originall copies. There (saith he) Iehosa∣phat is called king of Israel, when as indeede he was king of Iudah, and so is he called in the former booke of Chronicles. In like manner Ahaz is tearmed king of Israel, 2. Chron. 28. 19. whereas the truth is, he was king of Iudah.
Answ. After the death of Salomon the kingdome was deuided, and the ten tribes were called Israel, and the other two Iudah
and Beniamin did beare the name of Iudah. Now after the diuision, for some time the name of Israel common to both sides, was giuen to either, and both were named after it. And in this respect Iehoshaphat and Ahaz may be termed kings of Israel. A∣gaine, the name of Israel sundry times in Scripture, and namely in the prophets, is ta∣ken only for the two Tribes, which bare the name of Iudah after the defection. And thus also might Ahaz haue that name given vnto him, though he were king of Iudah. Further∣more, the word Israel, is sometimes put for a true worshipper of God, that is, for him that is a Iew not without but within, not in the letter, but in the spirit, Rom. 2. 29. Thus our Sauiour saith of Nathaniel, Ioh. 1. 48. Behold a true Israelite in whome is no guile, that is, a man of an vpright hart, that serueth God in spirit and in truth. And in this sense Iehoshaphat might be termed king of Israel, because he was a king and patrone of all true worshippers of God. For euen then the Israe∣lites sorted themselues together, and the godly among them came to liue vnder him in Iudah, though the distinction of the king∣domes did still remaine.
The fourteenth Allegation is out of Act. * 1.19 7. 16. where the Papists and Atheists al∣leadge the Scripture to be contrary to it self: in that there it saith, Abraham bought a field of Emor, when as Gen. 33. 19. the same
field was bought by Iacob.
Ans. 1. Some say that there is a fault, be∣cause Abrahams name is put for Iacob. Yet not a fault of the Bible, but of them that wrote out the Bible. Neither doth this diminish the authoritie of scripture, though the penmen did erre and slippe in writing, so long as we may find out the truth by scrip∣ture.
2. Ans. That this field was bought twice: First by Abraham, and then afterward reco∣uered by Iacob, that he might maintaine his fathers possession.
3. Answ. That Abrahams name is here put for his posterity, as Israels name is other∣where giuen to his children, yea not only to his children, but also to his fathers Isaack, & and Abraham. For Exod. 12. 40. it is said, The abode of the children of Israel while they dwelt in Egypt, was 430. yeares, which cannot be true vnlesse the abode of Abraham and Isaack be therein included. Now if the name of the successour may be giuen to his aunce∣stors, much more may the name of the aun∣cestors be giuen to the posteritie.
Obiections a∣gainst the Scriptures.
Obiect. 1.
Obiect. 2.
Obiect. 3.
Obiect. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
Ignorantia pravae disposi∣tionis.
Ignorantia 〈◊〉〈◊〉 privati∣onis vel nega∣tionis p••••••.
Obiect. 5.
Obiect. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
Obiect. 7.
Obiect. 8.
Obiect 9.
Obiect. 10.
Obiect. 11.
Ioseph. Antiq. Iudaic. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5. c. 10. fin••.
Plin. nat. hist. lib. 36. c. ••5.
Obiect. 12.
Obiect. ••3.
Obiect 1••.