A discourse concerning the authority, stile, and perfection of the books of the Old and New-Testament with a continued illustration of several difficult texts of scripture throughout the whole work / by John Edwards.

CHAP. XI.

Some Difficulties in Scripture arise from the Matter or Manner of things delivered, wherein prejudiced Minds fancy some Repugnancy or Contradiction. The Cavils against Gen. 4. 14. largely and fully answered. Numb. 14. 30. reconciled with Josh. 14. 1. ch. 22. 13. The seeming Repugnancy of 1 Sam. 16. 22, 23, to chap. 17. ver. 55. removed. The Geometrical Scruple about the brazen Laver, 2 Chron. 4. 2. dispell'd. Another Objection con∣cerning it founded on 1 Kings 7. 26. compared with 1 Chron. 4. 5. answered. The Contradiction which some fancy in 2 Chron. 14. 5. compared with 1 Kings 15. 14. taken away. A satisfactory Re∣ply to the Cavil against Matth. 27. 9. The double Repugnancy conceived by some to be in Acts 7. 15. plainly solv'd. John 5. 31. considered with ch. 8. ver. 14. shew'd to be void of Contradiction. The same proved concerning our Saviour's Words in Matth. 10. 34. Heb. 9. 4. is not contrary to 1 Kings 8. 9.

IN the third Place I will shew, that not only from the Different and Contrary Significations of Words, but from Other Causes, viz. relating to the Matter it self, or the Manner of what is spoken of, or the Reference of one Text to another, or the Duration

of Time, or some other Circumstances, the Stile of Scripture becomes Dark and Perplexed. Here I will produce some particular Scripture-Difficulties which arise on these Accounts; and I will endea∣vour to resolve them. First, There seem to be in the very Matter and Manner of things deliver'd in Scripture (for I will promiscuously speak of them both) very great Absurdities, Repugnances, and Contradictions. There seem, I say, i. e. to prejudi∣ced and vitiated Minds there appear to be such; but no Man of deliberate Thoughts and an honest Heart will look upon them as so. I will not re∣gard them so much as to insist long upon them, but a few I will mention, that they and the rest may not be thought Insuperable Difficulties. I will begin with Gen. 4. 14. which I find alledged by some as a great Blemish in Scripture, It shall come to pass that every one that findeth me shall slay me. I begin, I say, with this Passage of Holy Writ, not because it is really Difficult, but because it is represented such by some ill-minded Men, who thereby think to invalidate the Truth of the Sa∣cred History. Mr. Hobbes, and others of the same temper, have taken notice of such Passages as these in the Bible, and endeavour by the exposing of them to diminish the Authority of the Scriptures, and at the same time to shake the Credit of the whole Body of the Inspired Writings. For thus they vent their Cavils against that place,

How could Cain say, that Every one who found him would slay him when there was nobody at that time in the World but his Father and Mother, and his Wife? Had the World been peopled, then indeed the guilty Man (if we may call him so) might have had occasion to fear that some body would seek to revenge the Death of Abel.

But there could be no ground of Fear when the World was so empty as we read it was: wherefore these words of Cain contradict the plain History of Moses. When he saith, Every one that finds me, &c. it is implied that there were a great many at that time in the World, which disagrees with what the same History delivers, viz. That there were no more than Adam and his Wife, and their Son Cain and his Wife then extant.

To which I answer,

1. It is with too much Confidence averr'd by these Objectors, that there were but four Persons at that time in being. For this is a thing which they can never prove: and the reason is, because Adam might have more Children than Cain and his Wife, though they are not mention'd; and these Children might have Sons and daughters: So that it is not improbable that Mankind was then consider••bly increas'd. He knows nothing of the Stile of Scripture who knows not this, that some things are supposed, others are touched upon only, and there are others that are fully set down, and some∣times repeated. I am now speaking of the first sort of things: we must necessarily suppose them to be done, though there be no mention of them at all. A great many things (and those very con∣sid••rable) as the Creation of Angels, the Cove∣nant enter'd into between God and our First Pa∣rents, the celebrating of the Seventh Day, the instituting of Sacrifices, and such like are omitted in the Book of Genesis. And when you observe that Moses in the six first Chapters of this Book (and those but brief ones) compriseth the History of the World from the Creation to the Flood, i. e. the Transactions of Sixteen hundred Years and up∣ward, you cannot but acknowledg that a vast num∣••er

of Passages which happen'd in that time are wholly left out. This in part we may gather from the Writings of the New Testament, where some particular things are mentioned that refer to the Affairs of the Old Testament, but we find them not named there. As Enoch's Prophecy con∣cerning the Last Judgment is spoken of by St. Iude, ver. 14. but there's not a word of it in that place of Genesis which speaks of him. The particular Persons that withstood Moses, viz. Iannes and Iam∣bres, are mention'd in 2 Tim. 3. 8. but their Names are not set down in Exodus, which was the proper place for them. The famous Contrast of the Good and Evil Angels about the Body of Moses, i. e. the burying of it, is recorded by St. Iude, ver. 9. but there is not a word of it in Deut. 34. where there is particular mention of his burying, ver. 6. Whence it appears, that many things were done in those times concerning which Moses wrote (or Whosoever it was that made a Supplement to his Writings) which are not recorded. Nor are we to find fault with the Sacred History for this, for if it be part of the Work of an Historian (as one who was such acquaints us)* 1.1 to know what things are to be committed to History, and what things are to be past in silence, to know from whence to take his beginning, and how far he is to go, certainly Moses, who was skill'd in all other Learning as well as that of the Egyptians, and who moreover was an In∣spired Person, knew what belong'd to this part of an Historian, inserted into the Pentateuch those things only which the Holy Spirit thought fit to be committed to writing, and the rest (which were exceeding numerous) were passed by▪ But

though they were so, yet we have no reason wholly to disbelieve them, but where they are fairly inti∣mated or supposed in the Sacred History, we ought to credit them as if they were particularly and ex∣presly mention'd. Thus, in the present case, though 'tis not expresly recorded in the Fourth Chapter of Genesis, that there were any more Persons at that time on the Earth than those four, yet it is reasonable to think that there was a greater num∣ber, because we know that the History of Moses is very short and contracted, and is wont to leave out several considerable things, which we of our selves may gather and infer from what is in ex∣press terms set down. There might then be, and it is most probable that there were more People in the world at that time than those whose Names we meet with. Moses gives us but two Genealo∣gies, one of Cain, the other of Seth, but it is likely there were some other Descents, whereby Adam's Race was increas'd and multiplied. Wherefore notwithstanding the samll number of Persons na∣med by this Writer, it is rational to believe that there were many more living on the Earth. We read presently after, ver. 17. that Cain built a City, which would employ a considerable number of Men; yea, though we suppose it to consist of some rude and slight Structures, and wall'd perhaps with Mud. This makes it probable that the num∣ber of Persons was greater than the Objectors ima∣gine. Besides, Cain and his Wife there might be many other Sons and Daughters of Adam; and there might be many Sons of Abel, who this Murderer might justly fear would avenge their Father's Blood. Wherefore Cain had reason to say, Every one that finds me shall slay me.

But, S••condly, Not granting but only supposing that there were th••n no more Persons in the World than Adam and Eve, and their ungracious Son Cain and his Wife, yet it is not to be wonder'd that he cried out, Every one that finds m••, &c. for this is to be thought of, that his Guilty Conscience was able to make more Men in the World than there were. This Vile Murderer might be afraid of his Life, although w•• should grant that there were none in the World to take it away. Th•• inward Fears and Horror•• of his own Mind could present those things to his Imagination which re∣ally were not, and then 'tis not strange if he fan∣cied every where Assassines and Murderers, as the just Recompe••sers of that i••nocent and righteous Blood which he had most b••rbarously spilt. It is weakly said by some in behalf of Cain, that he did not intend to kill his ••••other, although he purpos'd to do him some har••, because (a••* 1.2 One represents their Opinion) he did not know whe∣ther there was any such thing as Killing or no: he was ignorant of Mortality, having never seen an Example of it. But though he had not seen such an Example, yet it doth not follow thence that he understood not what Death or Killing was: for then it may as well be said that Adam know not the meaning of God's Words, when he said to him, Thou shalt die 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Death, b••caus•• at that time he had no Example of it before his Eyes. Besides, it is not to be question'd that ••h••re were Examples of it, though not in his own kind; for 'tis likely he daily beheld his Father Adam slaying of Sheep or other Animals, in order to the sacri∣ficing of them, (for Sacrificing was the first Wor∣ship

in the World) and he saw his Brother Abel do the like, as is expresly recorded in this Chap∣ter, where 'tis said, that he offer'd the Firstlings of his Flock, and of the fat thereof, ver. 4. which he could not do without killing them f••rst. So that Cain had an Example of Killing and Death just before he practis'd the same on his Brother. yea, perhaps ••he one suggested to him the other, and being enraged with Anger against his Brother, he resolv'd that he should fall a Sacrifice to his Fury. And this Bloody Fact of his can admit of no Excuse, because it was the product of perfect Malice, as appears from that account which an Inspired Writer hath given of it, telling us, that Cain was of that wicked one, viz. Satan, and there∣fore slew his Brother, because his own Works were Evil, and his Brother's Righteous, 1 John 3. 12. The grand Aggravations of his Murder were, that he kill'd his Own Brother, and that he kill'd him because he was Good and Righteous. Now, we may rea∣sonably think that this Guilty Wretch, when he came to entertain serious Thoughts, and to reflect on his Execrable Paricide, grew very Black and Melancholick. Though God reprieved this Male∣factor as to his Life, yet he severely animadverted upon him by that Terror and distraction of Mind, by that Horror of Conscience which he inflicted on him. He had Pashur's Doom of Magor Missa∣bib, i. e. Fear round about, Jer. 20. 3. but especially (as it follows there) he was a Terror to himself. That this hath been the Fate of Murderers is evi∣dent from such Instances as these: Herod, who commanded Iohn Baptist to be beheaded, was af∣terwards miserably tormented with the thoughts of it, and fancied that Holy Man was risen from the Dead, and was alive again, Mark 6. 16. Tacitus

tells us of the Emperour Tiberius, who was a Man of Blood, and under whom our Blessed Lord was crucified, that he was so troubled and haunted, * 1.3 that neither his great Fortunes, nor the Retire∣ment which he sometimes made trial of, could silence those Tortures which he felt in his Breast. Nero, that Bloody Villain, after he had put to Death his Cousin German, his Mother, his Wife, his Tutour, knew not what to do with himself; † 1.4 he was affrighted with Specters, beaten by Fu∣ries, and burning Torches were flung at him, especially he was molested and plagued with the Apparition of his Mother's Ghost, whom he had inhumanely and unnaturally murder'd. Theodorick the King of Gothes, was constantly haunted after the Murder of Symmachus and Boethius, and so ended his days in that torment of Mind. Charles the Ninth of France (as a‖ 1.5 faithful Historian acquaints us) after the Parisian Massacre was a continual Terror to himself, though he used all Arts to divert his Thoughts, and when he awakned in the Nights, labour'd to chase away his Affright∣ments by Musick, which he constantly call'd for. These are some of the Transcripts which History affords us of that First Murderer's inward Terrors and Disquietudes. Mine Iniquity, saith he, is grea∣ter than can be forgiven, ver. 13. (for so the words may be rendred:) the Guilt of that Horrid Crime which I have committed is unpardonable, I utterly despair of the Divine Mercy. And this Despair was not only his Sin but his Punishment: (where∣fore some read it, My Punishment is greater than I

can bear.) So that he anticipated the Miseries of the Damned, (of whom he was the first of Humane Kind) and was in Hell while he was here on Earth. Now it was that Dreadful Mormo's and Phantoms possess'd his restless Brain, and he encreas'd his Terrors by Imagination. He was afraid of his own Father and Mother, and of his Female-self; and his disorder'd Fancy represented many more Persons to him: for a Troubled Conscience fears where no Fear is, it fears Men where there are none in being. Whence such Language as this is very accountable, Every one that finds me shall slay me. This is a satisfactory Answer, upon Supposal (for I proceed only on that here) that there were no more Men in the World at that time than are expresly mention'd in Genesis. A Disturbed Mind hath a Creating Power, and can make more Inhabitants on the Earth than God hath made.

Thirdly, Supposing still that the Number of Men was not greater than it is represented in the Sacred Records, yet this Speech of Cain is very accountable, for we may understand it of People that were not yet born, but to come after∣wards. Observe therefore that 'tis spoken in the Future Tense, It shall come to pass, that every on•• that findeth me shall slay me. Cain being re∣prieved, and suffer'd to wander up and down, and consequently to live some Years afterwards, it may be rational to think that he refers in these words to what should be in those days. When Mankind shall be propagated, and the World be peopled, th••n I shall go in fear of my Life, then every one that finds me will slay me. And unto this the nex•• words may have relation, Whosoever slayeth C••in, Vengeance shall be taken of him sevenfold: And moreover, The Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest

any finding him should kill him, ver. 15. Lest in after∣times any one hearing of this bloody and cursed Fact of his should be excited to revenge it on his own Head, there was a Mark set upon this Vile Wanderer, to distinguish him from the rest of Mankind: but what it was we know not, though the Jews have many idle and foolish Conjectures about it. And a Penalty was threatned to be in∣flicted on the Person who should dare to kill him: he was to be punish'd seven-fold, ver. 15. or in the seventh Generation, as Munster and some others in∣terpret it: which implies, that Cain was to be a Long-liver, to continue seven, i. e. many Genera∣tions. So that we may look on these Words as having reference to the Times that were to come, and not to the present Season wherein they were spoke. It shall come to pass, saith he, that in fu∣ture time, when the World is increased, every one who finds me shall be greedy to take away my Life, because I most inhumanely bereaved my Bro∣ther of his. Thus there is no Contradiction or Inconsistency in the words, when 'tis said, Every one that findeth me, &c.

But in the fourth and last place, it might be answer'd, (if what I have said already be not sa∣tisfactory) that this word Kol, every one, hath not reference to Men but to Beasts. Every one is every Wild Beast. He was afraid, saith* 1.6 Iosephus, lest while he wandred up and down in the Earth, (which was part of his Punishment) he should fall among some Beasts, and be slain by them. God bids him not fear any such thing, for he would set such a Mark on him, that the very Irrational Animals should be capable of knowing and discern∣ing

it. Every one is not necessarily to be under∣stood of Men or Women, but may be meant of the Brutes which were then upon Earth, and might be Executioners of the Divine Vengeance on him who was so savage and brutish. It will be very hard for any Man to disprove this, and therefore it is sufficient to take off and null the Cavil of the Objectors. But, I confess, I rather think it is spoken not of this sort of Creatures, but of those Inhabitants of the Earth that were Intelligent. Thus you see there is no Absurdity or Inconsistency in those words which Cain utter'd, and which are set down by the Sacred Historian, whether you understand them of the then instant time, or of that which was afterwards. Some Men of Profane and Atheistical Spirits, and who have studied to impair the Truth and Authority of the Holy Scrip∣tures, and particularly of Moses's Writings, have exposed this Place as disagreeing with the rest of the Sacred Story concerning the first Rise and Propagation of the World. But this is a very shallow and vain Attempt, and grounded chiefly on Prejudice and Ill-will against the Inspired Vo∣lume of Scripture. I have made it clear, that there is no Absurdity, or any thing that looks like it, in the words above-mentioned: and I defy that Man who pretends to give any Satisfactory An∣swer to the Particulars which I have offered in defence of them.

Again, 'tis said, That none save Caleb and Joshua should come into the Land of Canaan, Numb. 14. 30. and yet we read that Eleazar and others entred into that Land, Ios. 14. 1. Chap. 22. 13. This is objected by some as a Passage in Scripture deroga∣tory to the Truth of it. But if we will read the Holy Book with the same Candour and Ingenuity

wherewith we read other Authors, we shall not be offended at this, or the like Passages. For nothing is more common in the most serious and considerate Writers, than to speak things by way of Restriction and Limitation, (as those words are spoken) and yet to leave them to be understood with some Latitude, which shall afterwards be ex∣press'd and explain'd when they speak of the same Matter. So here we read that none but Caleb and Ioshua entred into the Land of Promise, this be∣ing spoken of the Chief Leaders that had that Privilege and Honour; but then, if we consult other places where this thing is more particu∣larly related, we shall find that a Larger meaning was not excluded. We cannot think that the Tribe of Levi were denied entrance into that bles∣sed Land, because 'tis evident from the History, that they murmured not, and 'tis as evident that 'twas threatned to the Murmurers only, that they should not see the Land which God swore unto their Fa∣thers, Numb. 14. 22, 23. therefore Eleazar and Phi∣neas being Priests, are excepted. Again, it can∣not be meant of those that at that time were gone to spy the Land of Canaan, for they were none of the Murmurers, and therefore that Threatning before cited doth not reach them, and consequently those words are consistent with what we read in other places relating to this matter.

But That in 1 Sam. 16. 22, 23. is cried out a∣gainst as an unanswerable Repugnancy to Chap. 17. 55. for in the former we are told, that David came to Court, and stood before King Saul, i. e. waited continually upon him, and play'd upon the Hart before him▪ and was greatly beloved of him, and became his Aymour-bearer: and yet in the latter we read that Saul did not know David▪ but ask'd

who he was, Whose Son is this Youth? These seem to be very repugnant to one another, but there is really no such thing: all is clear and obvious▪ for in Chap. 17. 15. it is said, David went, and returned from Saul, to feed his Father's Sheep at Bethlehem. He stay'd not long at Court, either because he liked not that manner of Life, or because Saul was weary of him. David then having been absent from Saul a considerable time, and following a Country-Life, and now appearing perhaps in his Shepherd's Weeds, it is no wonder that Saul did not well know him. This, I think is sufficient of it self, and clears the Text of all Contradiction: though I know there are other Solutions used by the Learned, as that of our English Rabbi, Saul (saith he) asked whose Son David was, not that he was ignorant who he was; but he only enquired who that was that had such a Son. The que∣stion is not of David's Person, but Parentage. So Lightfoot.

Others are more Curious in their Objections, as thus, Whereas the Diameter in respect of the Cir∣cumference, is as seven to two and twenty, this is not observ'd in 2 Chron. 4. 2. speaking of the brazen Laver, and by consequence the Geometry of Scripture is faulty. In answer to these men who are such Well-willers to the Mathematicks, I say first, That the Proportion of a Diameter to its Circle is not exactly as seven to two and twenty: therefore these Gentlemen are not exact them∣selves. Secondly, I say this, that the Scripture oftentimes speaks after the Vulgar manner, (as I have shew'd elsewhere) and it is likely it doth so here, and then we must not expect Accuracy of Words or Things. The Bible was not calculated for them only that can square a Circle, or that

understand all the Mysteries of Algebra. Thirdly, If this doth not satisfy, I answer, that the Cir∣cumference of the brazen Sea was not exactly Round, but it may be towards an Oval Figure, which makes some alteration as to the Propor∣tion of the Diameter. It was ten Cubits from brim to brim, and a Line of thirty Cubits did compass it round about, saith the Text: but if it had been quite orbicular, the Circumference must have been one and thirty Cubits. Or, perhaps in this place (as in several others) a round Number is express'd, and the remainder being so small and inconside∣rable is omitted.

But further 'tis Objected, that this Molten Sea or Laver is said to contain 2000 Baths, 1 Kings 7. 26. but in 1 Chron. 4. 5. we read that it received and held 3000 Baths; therefore some infer, that one of these places is faulty, and ought to be corrected. I answer, there is no need of it; because both these are consistent. The Laver was of that vast dimension, that it could hold 3000 Baths of Wa∣ter, but it generally and usually contain'd but 2000. In a Synagogue of the Jews at Amsterdam, there is one of these Lavers, and thence we may solve the seeming difficulty: they fill it up to the Neck, but not higher: but if they would fill it higher, it would contain much more. The Neck is large and of another figure, and is capable of receiving a third part more.

Another Place which they alledg, cannot, they will tell you, be answer'd any of these ways, for it plainly Contradicts another place of Scripture It is said of Asa, 2 Chron. 14. 5. he took away the high Places; but in 1 Kings 15. 14. it is expresly recorded that the high Places were not removed by him. I answer first, there were two sorts of high

Places, namely some where they worship'd Idols and False Gods, others where they worship'd the True God. The former were taken away, as is intimated to us when 'tis said, he took away the high Places and Images, i. e. the high Places where those Images were adored: but the latter were not taken away, the Reformation which he had set on foot had not gone so far. Besides, 'tis ob∣servable that he took away the high Places out of all the Cities of Judah; which signifies to us that he removed them out of all the Chief Places of his Kingdom, though he had not time to effect it in some other less considerable places; and so the meaning of those words [the high Places were not removed] may have reference only to these latter, and shew that he had not expell'd Idolatry out of every part of the Kingdom. The short is, this Good King took away very many, he removed most of the high Places, but not all. Where now is the Contradiction?

But in the New Testament perhaps they will b•• more successful. They are pleas'd to make or find there a great number of contrarieties, as in Mat. 27. 9. this Evangelist quotes Ieremiah the Prophet, yet it was not Ieremiah but Zechary that spoke the words which are there quoted. Some have answer'd this by saying, here is a Mistake of the Transcribers, they have writ Ieremiah instead of Zechariah. But this is not to be allowed, seeing there is no need of flying to such a sorry Refuge as this. A Learned * 1.7 Critick of our own, tells us, that it is an over∣sight in the Evangelist, it is a slip of his Memory; but this is much worse than the former: and if we should once admit any such thing, the Truth and

Authority of the Bible (as I have shew'd in a For∣mer Discourse) are endanger'd. But one of these three Answers may remove the difficulty. 1. Gro∣tius on the place salves it thus; many of the Old Prophets Sayings were not written down, but pre∣serv'd in Memory, and deliver'd down to those that came afterwards, of which he gives some In∣stances: so that it is probable Zechary makes use of one of these Sayings and Oracles of Ier••my: but when our Saviour quotes this Passage, he men∣tions the first Author of it, viz. the Prophet Ie∣remy. The short is, though the words are in Ze∣chary, yet he had them from Ieremy, that is, there was a Tradition, it is likely, that they were his. Which is consirmed by that Saying of the Jews, that the Spirit of the Prophet Jeremy rested on Zechary. For this reason, those words of Zechary may be said to be spoken by Jeremy the Prophet. 2. Those words are jointly to be found in Ieremy ad Zecha∣ry: but the former speaks only of buying the Field, Ier. 32. 9. the latter makes mention of the Price, Zech. 11. 12. But neither are these the very words which are in Zechary's Prophecy, but are recited with some considerable alteration (as is not unusual in Scripture, as you shall hear afterwards.) If then the Substance of the words be taken out of both the Prophets, the Evangelist might quote one of them only without any Error and Mistake, and particularly Ieremy might be named as the more known and eminent Prophet. 3. Dr. Lightfoot reconciles it another way, asserting, that there is no Mistake of Transcribers here, but that Ieremy was the Name first used in this place by St. Mat∣thew, and yet Zecharias is not excluded, but in∣tended. This he makes good from the ordering and ranging of the Books of Scripture in use among

the Jews, in which this Learned Author was well skill'd. Ieremia•• had the first Place among the Pro∣phets, and he is mention'd above all the rest, be∣cause he stood first in the Volume of the Prophets: Therefore when St. Matthew produced a Text of Zechary under the name of Ieremy, he cites the Words out of the Volume of the Prophets under his Name, who stood first in that Volume, that is the Prophet Ieremiah. Any of these Answers may satisfy a Man whose Mind is not tainted with Preju∣dice against the Sacred Writings.

Those Words of St. Stephen, Acts 7. 15. Iacob went down into Egypt, and died, he and our Fathers, and were carried over into Sichem, and laid in the Se∣pulcher that Abraham bought for a Sum of Money of the Sons of Emmor the Father of Sichem, seem to have a double Repugnancy in them to what is re∣corded in the History of Moses; for first we read there, that not Iacob but Ioseph was carried to Si∣chem: And secondly that Abraham bought the Se∣pulcher not of the sons of Emmor, but of Ephron the Hittite, Gen. 23. 17. ch. 49. 30. This latter is the greater Difficulty, and seems to be most in∣extricable, because 'tis so positively express'd, that Abraham purchased the Field of Ephron the Son of Zoar, and that Iacob bought the Field of the Children of Emmor, Gen. 32. 19. Iosh. 24. 32. How there∣fore can it be said in the Acts, that Abraham bought the Field for a Sepulcher of the Children of Emmor? Grotius takes away this Repugnancy, by bidding us write Ephron for Emmor: but this way of answer∣ing the Scripture-Difficulties is not to be tolerated, as I have suggested already on the like occasion. Besides, this Alteration will not be sufficient to take away the Difficulty, because Ephron was not the Father of Sichem, which is here added. A late

Sagacious Critick tells us, that those of whom St. Stephen here speaks, viz. the Patriarchs, were part of them buried in Sichem, and part of them in the Field that was Ephron's. They were carried over into Sichem, i. e. saith he, our Fathers, not Iacob, were carried thither. And the Sense of the next Words he thinks he salves by a Parenthesis thus, [and laid in the Sepulcher (which Abraham had bought for a Sum of Money) of the Sons of Emmor the Father of Si∣chem.] So that this Place doth not say, the Fa∣thers were laid in the Sepulcher which was bought by Abraham of the Sons of Emmor; no, for that contradicts the Sacred History, which assures us, that he bought it of Ephron the Hittite, but only they were laid in the Sepulcher of the Sons of Em∣mor. So Sir Norton Knatchbull. This doth in part satisfy the Scruple, but in my Judgment the best and shortest Solution of it is that which I have be∣fore suggested, and abundantly proved, that 'tis usual for Persons in Scripture to have two Names. So here, Abraham bought a Field for a Burial-place of Ephron the Son of Zohar, Gen. 23. 8, 9. and yet he bought it of the Son 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sons of Emmor; for this Zohar and Emmor were the same Man, only with two different Names which he was called by, as was very common among the Hebrews. This is a plain and easy resolving of the Doubt. And if there seems to be any Repugnancy as to the Places of Burial, Sichem and Hebron, I offer this, that the Bodies of the Patriarchs might be translated from the first Place, where they were deposited, to another, i. e. they might be entomb'd at Si∣chem the Sepulcher of the Sons of Emmor, and afterwards be carried to Hebron, and laid in a Sepulcher there. If we admit of this, then Moses's History concerning their Burial might

refer to one Place, and St. Stephen's to ano∣ther.

Those Places also may seem to be Contradictory, If I bear witness of my self, my witness is not true, John 5. 31. and though I bear Record of my self, yet my Record is true, ch. 8. 14. But the Resolution is easy, Christ's Testimony concerning himself was not true, i. e. valid in the Opinion of the Cavilling Jews to whom he spake, because their Law required two Witnesses: but his Testimony concerning him∣self was true, was authentick and valid, because he was an Extraordinary Person, even God Himself, and because likewise his Testimony concurr'd with that of his Father, and so there was a Double Wit∣ness. Thus he explains himself in Iohn 8. 16. My Iudgment is true, for I am not alone, but I and the Fa∣ther that sent me. And again, ver. 18. I am one that bear witness of my self: and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Therefore it is plain that Christ doth not absolutely exclude his own Testi∣mony concerning himself, and consequently the Texts above alledged do not oppose one another. This also may be referr'd to what we observed in the beginning of this Discourse, viz. a Negative is often put for a Comparative.

And that of our Saviour, Think not that I am come to send Peace upon Earth, I came not to send Peace, but a Sword, Matth. 10. 34. may seem to be repugnant to other Texts of Scripture which re∣present Christ as a Man of Peace. But this ariseth from our misunderstanding his Words: his Mean∣ing is, not that he directly intended, or primarily design'd a Sword or Fire, (as* 1.8 another Evangelist expresses it) i. e. Persecution and Division. But

his Words are to be understood as those in Iohn 9. 39. I came into this World for Iudgment, i. e, Occa∣sionally and by Accident his Coming would prove to be for Condemnation. But this was not his De∣sign, as he saith, God sent not ••is Son into the World to condemn the World, John 3. 17. And again, I came not to judg the World, John 12. 47. You hear what our Saviour saith, he came for Iudgment, and he came not for Iudgment. In such a different Sense he came to send a Sword, and ••e came not to send a Sword: that is, it is Accidental, and not by De∣sign that Slaughter and Contentions happen by Christ's Coming. These are not the natural Effect and Consequence of his Doctrine, and of Christia∣nity it self, but they proceed from the corrupt Na∣ture and evil Dispositions of Men, who will not entertain so harmless and innocent an Institution, but are resov'd to oppose it. The Sword which Christ is here said to send, is managed and wielded by the Hands of Irreligious and Prophane Men: the Fire is blown up and kindled by the Breath of Anger and Passion, the Fuel of it is our own wick∣ed Nature, inordinate Lusts, and corrupt Man∣ners. In a word, the Doctrine of Christ meeting with the Vices of Men, becomes an occasion of Quar∣rels, Divisions, Bloodshed and Persecution.

When Christ sent forth his Apostles, he forbad them to provide Staves, Matth. 10. 10. yet in Mark 6. 8. he permits them to take these for their Jour∣ney. But this seeming Inconsistency is removed by remembring that there is a Necessary Staff, a Staff to support them in their Travels, and there is an Offensive Staff to encounter the Enemy with. The latter was not allowed them, because they were not to use any Violence, especially at this time, when he sent them forth. So in the foresaid Place of

St. Mat••••ew, Christ forbids them the wearing of Shoes, yet in that of St. Mark he permits them Sandals. Some sort of Fence to their Feet they were not denied, but they must not be ••areful for the better sort of it; nay, they must not be solici∣tous about any, it becomes them not to be thoug••tful for any kind of Provision; that is the plain Mean∣ing of our Saviour's Words. But when he beds them buy Swords, Luke 22. 36. which may seem to be contrary to Ma••t••. 26. 52. it is (as I have shew∣ed) an Ironical way of Speaking, and so there is no Repugnancy.

That of the Apostle, He••. 9. 4. is reckon'd by some as a gross Mistake; for speaking of the A••k of the Convenant, he tells us, that there were in it the Gol∣den Pot that ••ad Manna, and Aaron's Rod that budded, and the Tables of the Covenant: and yet we read that there was nothing in the Ark save the two Tables of Ston••, I Kings 8. 9. To which Theophylact, upon the Place, answers, that though there was at first nothing in the Ark but the two Tables, yet it may be afterwards the Pot of Manna and Aaron's Rod were put into it; and this perhaps the Apostle had by Tradition from the Jews, saith he. But Grotius tells us, that it was the Opinion of the Old Rabins, (in which he also acquiesces) that the Manna and the Rod were in the Ark in Moses's Days; but afterwards, lest they should be mouldy and putri∣fy, they were taken out, and deposited in some subterraneous Vaults. But first thi•• disagrees with the former Solution, and yet the Jewish Doctors are quoted for both. Again, I ask, were the Ra∣bins sure that these Holy Relicks were kept from moulding in those low Cells or Receptacles of the Earth? otherwise 'twas in vain to take them out of their old Place, and lodg them here. Therefore I

look upon this as a mere Invention of the Rabinick Tribe, as 'tis well known they abound with such. Besides, we learn from the fore-cited Text in the Kings, that these Sacred things were not in the Ark, even in Solomon's time; and if they were not there then at all, it is not likely the Apostle would have said, Wherein (i. e. in the Ark) was the Gol∣den Pot of Manna, and Aaron's Rod; for who can think that he refers to some after-Practice of the Jews, and not to what is so plainly recorded to have been at that time? therefore I look upon these Answers as groundless. Another is wont to be given, and it is this, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 refers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which doth fully assoil the Diffi∣culty, if you can be perswaded that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath refe∣rence to a Word so far off, when there is another nearer to it, to which it may well agree. The Consideration of this made* 1.9 Drusius, who once rested in the foresaid Solution, to quit it after∣wards, and to find out another, viz. that •• which is rendred by in, signifies here ad, prope or juxta: so the meaning is, that near the Ark stood the Pot of Manna: But he checks himself for this after∣wards, apprehending it to be forced and strained. Wherefore, to avoid all these Inconveniencies, I reconcile that Place in the Epistle to the Hebrews, with the former one in the Kings, thus, The Ark is taken strictly in that former Place, but largely in the latter one. In the first Sense, that is, as it sig∣nifies the Principal Part or Division of the Ark, it had nothing in it but the Tables, for the Chief Apartment was designed for these, and therefore 'tis observable that the Ark hath its Name from them, and is call'd the Ark of the Covenant; by which

which is meant the Two Tables, as you'l see in 1 Kings 8 21. But as the Ark is taken largely, that is, as it signifies the Whole Body of the Ark, and all its Receptacles and Boxes, it contain'd in it other things besides the Tables, viz. the Pot of Manna, and Aaron's Rod. This I propound as a plain and easy Solution of the two fore-cited Texts. The Manna and the Rod were in the Ark, and they were not in it, viz. in different Respects: they were in it, if you understand by it the Whole Sacred Chest; but they were not in it, if you mean by it the Chief and Eminent Part of it, which oftentimes gave a Denomination to the Whole.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Dionys. Halicarn.
• * 1.2

  Dr. Brown's Vulgar Errors.
• * 1.3

  Tiberium non fortunae, non solitudines protegebant quin pectoris tormenta suas{que} ipse poenas fateretur. Annal. c. ••▪
• † 1.4

  Sueton. in Nerone, cap. 34.
• ‖ 1.5

  Thuanu••.
• * 1.6

  Antiqu. l. 1. c. 3.
• * 1.7

  Sir Norton K••atchbull on Mat. 27. 9.
• * 1.8

  Luke 12. 49.
• * 1.9

  Commentar. in Pentat••uch.