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.

OF THE STILE OF THE Holy Scriptures.

CHAP. 1.

There is a primary or literal, and a secondary or my∣stical Sense in the Sacred Writings. A brief Expli∣cation of both. Several Instances of them in the Old Testament. Episcopius's Opinion concerning the fulfilling of some Passages of the Old Testament by way of Accommodation, animadverted upon. In∣stances in the New Testament of the double Sense of Scripture. The Nature of Parables, especially of those that our Saviour useth, fully discussed. The se∣veral Reasons of this parabolical and mystical way of instructing the People. The Parable of the Ten Virgins particularly illustrated. A double historical Sense in the 24th Chapter of St. Matthew. The like in other Places asserted by Dr. Jackson. Whence the peculiar and transcendent Excellency of the in∣spired Writings is inferred. A just Censure of those Writers who vilify the Letter of Scripture, and mind nothing in it but the mystical Interpretation. Dr. Buf∣net's allegorizing, and at the same time ridiculing the 3d Chapter of Genesis, rebuked. The great Mis∣chiefs of excluding the literal Sense of Scripture. The other Extream, viz. of resting altogether in the lite∣ral meaning of the Bible, condemned. Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, tax'd for this. Rules to be ob∣served for knowing what Places are to be understood in a primary literal Sense, and what in a secondary or mystical.

HAving in a former Discourse treated of the Authority of the Sacred Writings of the Old and New Testament, I am now obliged (according to what •• then undertook) to give a particular Account of their Stile: By which (taking it in a large and extensive Notion) I understand the Sense and Import of the Holy Writ, as well as the Composition of the Words. The Stile of Scripture comprehends the Divine Meaning no less than the Phraseology of it. Accord∣ingly I will reduce all that I intend to say upon this Subject, to these ensuing Propositions:

I. There is a mystical as well as a literal Sense of many Passages of these inspired Writings: and we are carefully to attend to both.

II. The Stile of Holy Scripture hath several things in it which are according to the Phrase and Strain of other applauded Writers: which therefore we ought to be acquainted with, that we may the more easily understand the sacred Penmen.

III. As there are many things in the Stile and Composure of the Bible common to it with other Authors, so there are some things peculiar and pro∣per

to it, which we are more especially concern'd to take notice of, that the Singularity and Propriety of them may be rightly understood by us.

IV. The Stile and Expression of Scripture are such, that there are many Passages in it which are obscure and difficult. And here a particular, but full Account must be given of that Obscurity and Diffi∣culty. And likewise I shall make it my Task to re∣move them by a particular Explication and Illustra∣tion of those Texts which shall be alledged.

The first Proposition. This is to be laid down in the first Place, that there is both a literal and a mysti∣cal Sense in Scripture. The literal Sense is when the Words are taken as they originally and properly signify. The mystical one is when the Words are to be understood in a more sublime Sense than the bare Letter of them imports. This mystical or spiritual Sense of Scripture is according to some, threefold; 1. Tropological; when one thing deli∣vered in Scripture signifies some other thing per∣taining to the Conversation of Men. Thus those Texts of the Mosaick Law, wherein is forbidden the eating of certain Animals, have partly respect unto the Manners of Persons. Both Jewish and Christian Expositors have thought that it was de∣signed in those Prohibitions, that some moral In∣struction should be taught that People from the Consideration of the natural Inclinations and Qua∣lities of those Creatures. 2. There is an Allegori∣cal Sense, when things spoken of in the Old Testa∣ment are Figures of something in the New: or, when particularly they have a respect to Christ or the Church Militant; as the Rock, and the Manna mentioned in Moses's History of the Israelites.

3. An Anagogical Sense is said to be in some Places of Scripture; and this is when the things related are applicable to the Church Triumphant, or the Life everlasting: Thus the entring into Canaan, and the Holy of Holies in the Temple, in the highest Sense of them, are meant of Heaven and the State of Eternal Happiness. But because there is a great quar∣relling about the applying of this triple Distincti∣on to the several Passages in Scripture, which are said to bear a mystical meaning; and because some learned Divines of the Protestant Perswasion dis∣allow of this Distribution of the mystical Sense of Scripture, I will avoid all wrangling, by assigning only those two general Senses of Scripture, viz. the literal and mystical; and by leaving it to every one's Liberty, either to omit the particular Subdi∣visions of the latter, or to apply them as they see occasion.

Or rather, if I may be permitted to vary from this received Division of the Sense of Scripture, I would divide it thus, into a primary and a secondary Sense: the former is literal, the latter is ••ystical; and yet not so, but that sometimes (as you shall see afterwards) the secondary Sense is literal too: for there are two literal or historical Meanings in some Places; but the latter of them may be called mysti∣cal also, because it is not so plainly understood as the other. The literal Sense of Scripture is the main, and indeed the only Sense of the greatest part of it: for some particular Places only have a mystical Signification. This is the most genuine, proper and original meaning; and therefore I call it the first or primary one. But the mystical Sense is de∣rivative, improper, indirect, and not that which was first and chiefly design'd; and therefore I call it the secondary Sense. The former of these is that

plain meaning of Scripture which the bare Letter and Words themselves denote to us: The latter is when some other thing is signified in the Words be∣sides what the Letter of them seems to import. The one is obvious, and lies uppermost in the Text, and is the soonest perceived: but the other is more remote, and lies deep, and is not so easily discover∣ed, but is of great Use and Moment, yea generally of greater than the other more familiar and obvi∣ous meaning: wherefore it is our Concern to ac∣quaint our selves with it. The Bible, like that Book in Ezekiel, ch. 2. 10. is written within and with∣out: it hath an inward, secret and mystical Signi∣fication, as well as one that is external, open and literal: and we can never arrive to a true Under∣standing of this Holy Book, unless we have some Insight into both.

I will instance first in the Writings of the Old Testament, and shew that there is a secondary or mystical Sense lodged in several Passages of them. Indeed the holy Language it self, in which these were wrote, is big with Mysteries. I have observed that there are more Words in this Tongue that sig∣nify to hide or conceal, than in any other Language whatsoever: There are a hundred synonymous Words at least for this one thing. Whether this Criticism have any Weight in it or no, I shall not be much concern'd; but this is unquestionable, that many great Mysteries are wrapp'd up in this ab∣struse Tongue in the holy Volume. The Jews, who were conversant in these Writings, acknow∣ledg'd there was not only a literal but a mystical Interpretation of them, which latter they called * 1.1 Midrash, because there was no attaining to it but

by a diligent Inquisition. The Hebrew Doctors say in a proverbial manner, there is not a single Letter in the whole Law on which there do not depend great Mountains. Their meaning is, that there are vast Mysteries and profound Sense in every Word al∣most in the Sacred Writings: Which is the mean∣ing of another Adage of theirs, viz. that† 1.2 the Law hath seventy Faces. It hath many various A∣spects, different Significations and Senses: for there are mystical as well as literal Interpretations of the holy Text. Thus the Entrance of the Bible, the Beginning of the Book of Genesis, though it be hi∣storical, and sets down Matter of Fact, as the won∣derful Creation of the Heavens and Earth, and of Man, and the rest of the Inhabitants of this lower World, yet it was thought by the wisest Jews, that there was a farther Reach in it, and that both Mo∣ral and Divine Mysteries were couch'd in the seve∣ral Particulars of that Narrative which Moses gives there of the Origine of the World; for which Rea∣son this first Entrance into the Pentateuch was for∣had to be read by the Jews till they were thirty Years of Age. It is agreed among the best Ex∣positors, that in those Words in Gen. 3. 14, 15. The Lord said unto the Serpent, I will put Enmity between thee and the Woman, and between thy Seed and her Seed: Besides the primary or literal Sense, viz. that there shall be an irreconcilable Enmity between Mankind and the Serpentine Brood, and that Man having an Antipathy against that Creature, shall labour to destroy it, by ••ruising his Head, because there his Venom lies whereby he doth harm; and the Head is to be first attack'd if we would destroy this mis∣chievous

Creature, as Iosephus‖ 1.3 gives the Sense of this Place. Besides this (I say) there is another; for Satan is meant by the Serpent, as well as the Creature of that Name, (for Satan appeared in the Shape of a Serpent, or rather actuated a living Serpent;) and Christ is meant by the Seed of the Wo∣man, for he is emphatically and exclusively call'd so, because he was not the Seed of Man, but was af∣ter an extraordinary manner born of a Virgin. So that this Text is justly stiled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first Dawning of the Gospel, or the most early Pro∣mise concerning the blessed Messias, the Christ, the Lamb of God that was to take away the Sins of the World.

So likewise we are certain from the Authority of the Apostle in Heb. 7. 1, &c. that what is said in Gen. 14. 18. of Melohisedek, King of Salem, Priest of the most High God, is not only literally spoken, but ought to be understood in a higher and mystical Sense of Christ, who was the true Melchisedek, that is, King of Righteousness, and King of ••eace. This mystical Interpretation of that historical Passage is vouched by the inspired Penman, who wrote the Epi••tle to the Hebrews. Again,* 1.4 it is written, viz. in Gen. 16, & 21. that Abraham had two Sons, the one by a Bond-maid, the other by a Free-woman: This is the Letter or History. Now observe the fi∣gurative Interpretation of it; which things, saith the Apostle, are an Allegory, for these are the two Co∣venants: that is, these two Mothers, Hagar and Sa∣rah, denote the two Covenants, the Law and the Gospel, the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendreth to Bondage, which is Hagar; for this Hagar is Mount Sinai, in Arabia: that is, the Law was given on

Mount Sinai, and brings Servitude and strict Ob∣servances with it; this is represented by Hagar; for the Name of Hagar signifies the Mount where the Law was given, and answereth to Jerusalem that now is; that is, the present State of the Jews. The Hagarens, i. e. the Arabians, and all that spring from Ismael, (as Historians tell us, no less than the Apostle intimates here) are bound by their own Laws to be circumcised, and observe therein the Mosaical Law, like the Iews; and so they, like Hagar their Mother, are in a servile Condition still, are in Bondage with their Children. But Jerusalem which is above, is free, which is the Mother of us all; that is, Sarah (which denotes the State of the Go∣spel, that new City which Christ brought with him from Heaven, of which all Christians are free De∣nizens) is a free Woman, and signifies that we Christians, Gentiles as well as Jews (for she is the Mother of us all) are free from all Moses's Rites, and are justified without them, Gal. 4. 22, 24, 25, 26. Thus it appears from the Apostle, that be∣sides the historical Sense, there is a higher and no∣bler in the Old Te••tament, and particularly in that Place of Genesis, where the two Mothers, Sarah and Hagar; and the two Sons, Isaac and Ishmael, were designed to signify the different State of those in the Church of God: they respect the Law and the Gospel, the Mosaical and Christian Dispen••ation. There was this, besides the bare historical Sense. From the same Divine Writer, we learn that the Pillar of the Cloud, the passing through the red Sea, the Mannah, the Drink out of the Rock, and the Rock it self, which you read of in† 1.5 Exodus, had a spiritual meaning; and therefore some of these

especially are expresly called spiritual: they did eat the same spiritual Meat, and drink the same spiritual Drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock which fol∣lowed them, and that Rock was Christ. 1 Cor. 1 c. 1, 2, 3, 4. Hence it is evident that this historical Part of the Book of Exodus is likewise symbolical, and capable of a spiritual Construction, though still the Truth and Reality of the History remain entire.

So what we read in Numb. 22. 9. (viz. that Mo∣ses made a Serpent of Brass, and put it upon a Pole, that if any Man bitten with a Serpent beheld it, he might live, i. e. be cured of the venemous Biting) hath a secondary meaning in it, as our Saviour himself in∣terprets it, namely, that the Son of Man should be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him should not pe∣rish, but have everlasting Life, John 3. 14, 15. The lifting up of the brazen Serpent upon a Pole in the Wilderness, signified the lifting up of Christ upon the Cross, for the healing and saving of all that look up to him with an Eye of Faith. Thus when we read that God swore (in Numb. 14. 28.) that the murmuring and unbelieving lsraelites should not en∣ter into Canaan, which the Psalmist calls their Rest, (Psal. 95. 11.) the primary historical Sense is well known; but besides this there is a secondary or spi∣ritual one, which our Apostle hath acquainted us with in Heb. 4. 1, &c. Whence you may gather, that in the History of the Israelites entring into the Promised Land, and of the greatest Part of them that came out of Egypt being shut out, there is a secondary meaning included, viz. that Believers shall possess the Heavenly Canaan, they shall enter into their everlasting Rest, that* 1.6 Rest which remains to the People of God: but Unbelievers shall‖ 1.7 come

short not only of the Promise whic•• is left of entring in∣to this Rest, but the Rest it self. Thus you will find that Place in Numbers interpreted by the in••allible Apostle. Again, this mystical or secondary Sense is observable in those Places in the Mosaick Law which speak of the Rites and Services, and Levitical Priesthood, which the Jews were under, as you may infer from* 1.8 three Chapters together in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Apostle applies those things in a higher Sense (viz. to Christ himself, and his offering himself upon the Cross) than ever was intended by the Letter.

But this double Sense of Scripture is no where more remarkable than in the Book of Psalms. The 22d Psalm, though primarily it be meant of David when he was in great Distress, and forsaken of God, yet secondarily, i. e. mystically it is to be understood of our Blessed Savio••r when he was in his Passion, and hung upon the Cross; and accord∣ingly you will find the first Words of it applied by himself, Matt••. 27. 46. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? And other Passages of this Psalm, the 8th, 16th, 18th Verses are taken notice of by the Evangelist, as fulfilled at that time, Matth. 27. 35, 43. Now it is certain they could not be fulfilled unless they had been meant, in this mysterious Sense, of Christ. The latter Part of the 16t••. Psalm is spoken in David's Person, and is, without do••bt, in the first and immediate Sense of it to be understood of him, and of his Hopes of rising after Death to an endless Life. But it is as clear from Acts▪ 2. 25, &c. that it was spoken of Christ the Son of Da∣vid, and who was typified by that holy King and Prophet; for St. Peter saith there in his Sermon to

the Jews, David speaketh concerning him, I foresa•• the Lord always before my Face, for he is on my right Hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore did my Heart rejoice, and my Tongue was glad: Moreover also my Flesh shall rest in Hope. Because thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see Corruption. Thou wilt shew me the Path of Life, &c. Which are the four last Verses of that Psalm before-named; and you may see in the fol∣lowing Words of this Chapter, what the mystical Interpretation of them is, according to that Apo∣stle who had the Spirit to direct him to the utmost meaning of those Words. Part of the 68th Psalm, though it be David's Thanksgiving for the present Mercies he received, yet undoubtedly it is a Pro∣phetick Praising of God for the glorious Ascension of Christ into Heaven, as it is expounded by that in∣fallible Interpreter, Ephes. 4. 8. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led Captivity captive, and gave Gifts unto Men: which refers to the above∣said Psalm, but is applied to Christ's Ascension by the Apostle here. The 45th Psalm is originally a Song of Loves, an Epithalamium on the Nuptials of King Solomon and the King of Egypt's Daughter, but in a remote and mystical Sense it is meant of the Majesty and Glory of Christ's Kingdom, and the admirable Benefits which accrue to the Church in the Times of the Gospel. And many other Psalms might be produced, wherein the double Sense be∣fore-mentioned is clearly to be discerned.

To proceed; Though the whole Book of Canti∣cles be in its literal Capacity no other than Solomon's Wedding-song, yet it is to be look'd upon in the more sublime Acception of it as a Dialogue be∣tween Christ and his Church, setting forth all those divine Amours which are mutually experienc'd by

them. And that this Part of Holy Scripture, cal∣led the Song of Solomon, is of a higher Strain than the bare Letter imports, and that it contains great Mysteries and Abstrusities in it, may be gathered from that extraordinary Reverence which the Jews paid to this Book: For* 1.9 Origen tells us, that this (as well as the Beginning of Genesis) was not permitted to be read by them till they had attain'd to some Maturity of Years.

I come next to the Evangelical Prophet Isaiah, who hath many things concerning Christ and his spiritual Kingdom or Church; but it is to be ac∣knowledged that some of them in the first and lite∣ral Sense, may and ought to be interpreted other∣wise. Yea, the learned Grotius and Hammond are of the Opinion, that that famous Prophecy in Isa. 7. 14. Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call ••is Name Immanuel, hath a dou∣ble Sense. The Words literally and primarily re∣spect a strange and wonderful Birth in those very Days. Secondarily and mystically they are spoken of the Messias, who was to be born miraculously of a Virgin. Whether this Opinion be true or no, we are certain that there is a mystical Meaning to be added to the literal; or rather (as I said before) it might be more expressive to say, a secondary Meaning is added to the primary one, in sundry Passages which we meet with, not only in this Pro∣phet, but in Ieremia•• and Ezekiel. Concerning the former of these the Jewish Historian hath these Words;† 1.10 Ieremiah (saith he) in his Book, foretold the Captivity which the Israelites were to undergo in Ba∣bylon, which was just then approaching; and also the Slaughter and Destruction which we of this Age have

seen. There was a twofold Sense, according to this learned Writer, in some of this Prophet's Pre∣dictions: Yea, there was a double literal or hi∣storical Sense, which was the thing that I asserted before. Whence you see I had reason to make the Distinction of a first and a second Meaning of Scrip∣ture, rather than of a literal and a mystical, though I bring the mystical Meaning (when there is such an one) under the second. As to the latter of these Prophets, when we find him relating strange things acted in Visions and Dreams, which are things only imaginary, and represented to the Fancy, we must not think them true in a strict literal Sense, for they are only or most commonly done in Appea∣rance, and many times will not admit of a real Performance as they are related and described: But we are to look upon them as Enigmatical Repre∣sentations, and to fix only a mystical Sense upon them, that is, to understand them as signi••icative of some greater and higher thing than they repre∣sent in themselves. Which may be one Reason why, among the Jews, those that had not arrived to some considerable Age* 1.11 were not allowed to read the Beginning and End of the Prophecy of Ezekiel, in which Parts chiefly those more mystical Visions are inserted.

I might pass to the other Prophets, and mention some Places in which we must needs acknowledg a secondary Meaning, as in that of Daniel, chap. 9. 27. For the overspreading of Abominations (or, with the Wing, or† 1.12 Army of Abominations) he shall make it desolate: which was meant without doubt of An∣tiochus's desolating Armies, which were so abomi∣nable to the Jews, and who, as we read,‖ 1.13 set up

the Abomination of Desolation upon the Altar. But yet our Saviour himself, the best Expositor of the Place, lets us know that this was meant also in a prophetical and secondary way of the Roman Ar∣mies that sat down before Ierusalem, and after a long Siege made their way into the City and Tem∣ple, and so might be said to stand in the holy Place: * 1.14 When ye shall see the Abomination of Desolation, saith he, spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, stand in the holy Place, then, &c. It is manifest therefore that Daniel spoke of both these destroying Armies. His Words are to be taken in a twofold Sense, a pri∣mary and secondary one: In the former they speak of what happen'd to the Jews when Antiochus's Ar∣my invaded them: In the latter they speak of what befel them when Titus Vespasian came against them, and destroyed their City and Nation. This is the double Sense, and therefore you may observe what our Saviour inserts, Whoso readeth, let him under∣stand. As much as to say, when you read that Pas∣sage in the Prophet Daniel, you are to understand something more than ordinary in it, you must take notice of a hidden Sense in those Words: they speak not only of what was to come to pass in An∣tiochus's, but in Vespasian's Reign, which was about 250 Years after. The abominable desolating Armies of both are here meant. You see then here is a double literal Sense; and that was the Reason why I chose rather the Division of the Scripture-Sense into primary and secondary, and of this latter into historical and mystical, than that received one of literal and mystical, because both the Sense some∣times may be literal. This ought to be carefully observed by all those who are desirous to attain to a

right Understanding of the Holy Scriptures. And it is the want of attending to this that hath often hindred Mens due Apprehensions of several Texts. We see here in the Instance before us, that the Letter of this Text in Daniel may be applied both to the Syrian and the Roman Armies. I might pro∣duce those Words in the Prophecy of Hosea, Out of Egypt have I called my Son, ch. 11. 1. Which are to be understood not only of the Patriarchs of old (God's Children or Sons) being brought by God out of Egypt, but of Christ the Son of God, call'd out thence after the Death of Herod, Matth. 2. 15. This Place of Hosea must be understood of both.

Hither may be referred some other Places of the Old Testament made use of in the New, where it is said, This was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet; then was fulfilled that which was spoken† 1.15, and the like. The Places speak not primarily of those things which they are alledged for, but secondarily they do, and so are truly said to be fulfilled. I know Episcopius, and some others before him, tell us, that these Scriptures are said to be fulfilled when there happens something like them, when there is a Representation or Similitude of the things; when there may be a fair Accommo∣dating of one Event to another, then this Phrase is used. But a judicious Writer saith well;‖ 1.16

No Prophecy can be truly said to be fulfilled only by way of Accommodation or Allusion: for there is no allusive Sense of Scripture distinct from the literal and mystical ones.

This then is a new way of fulfilling Predictions of the Old Testament, and was never heard of among the antient Expositors

of Scripture. They never dreamt of a way of Ac∣commodation, but understood by those Words a strict Completion of those Texts in the Old Testa∣ment; for it is said, they were fulfilled. But how? Namely, there being a double Sense in those Texts, the Evangelists take notice, and leave upon Record that they were accomplished and fulfilled in the se∣condary or mystical Sense. And this I take to be the true Import of the Apostle's Words, 2. Pet. 1. 20. No Prophecy of the Scripture is of any private In∣terpretation, though I know there is another Expo∣sition generally given of them by those that com∣ment on these Words: But freely and impartially scan them, and you will find this to be the genuine Sense of them; Scripture-Prophecies are not ful∣filled according to the literal or proper Significa∣tion of them only; they frequently have a mysti∣cal Sense: with the literal is joined a typical one, or one literal one is added to another. This is the secondary, and, as 'twere, the improper Sense; but the other is the first and more proper one; for that is the word here used, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of proper Interpretation. And if you consult the Greek of the Text, you'll see there is Reason to translate it thus,* 1.17 Every Prophecy of Scripture is not of proper Interpretation; i. e. there are some Predictions that contain a secondary as well as a primary meaning in them: they are fulfilled according to both these, and therefore cann't be said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of proper Interpretation. This Exposition of the Place is confirmed by the Reason that follows, for the Prophecy came not of old time by the Will of Man, but holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; i. e. these Predictions were of an ex∣traordinary

Nature, there was a deeper and far∣ther Meaning in them than is in the Writings of Men; they are not bounded by a single Sense, and therefore neither are they to be interpreted so. This might be made good from several Instances besides those a••ore alledged. Many other Places in the Old Testament might be mentioned to prove that the same Texts are to be taken in a different manner; that there is sometimes a double mean∣ing in them; which is plain from the Quotations in the New Testament: for the Evangelists and Apo∣stles quoting of them is a clear Proof that there is a primary and secondary Sense of those Texts, and that this latter is sometimes historical, and some∣times spiritual; for we see these inspired Writers of the New Testament take no notice of the first literal Sense of those Places, but understand them wholly in the secondary way.

If we look into the Books themselves of the New Testament, we shall discover there likewise this dou∣ble Meaning in several Places: Witness the many Parables which are used by our Saviour, and which are recorded by the Evangelists. It is true the Old Testament is not destitute of this ••ort of Enigmati∣cal Instructions; but because those in the New are most numerous, and because our blessed Master him••elf hath thought fit to express him••elf in this parabolical way, therefore I choose to speak of it here. Parables, as the Greek Word signifies, are properly† 1.18 a comparing of things together; setting one against another; a making use of one Thing or Narrative to set forth and represent to us another of a higher Nature. Therefore in a Parable the

Antients used to observe two Parts, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the former being the Ground-work and Plot, as it were; and it might be either true or feigned: and the latter was the Application; or, if you will, the Moral of the other. The* 1.19 He∣brew Word used for a Parable will give us further Light into it. It signifies first any Sentence or Say∣ing that is by way of Similitude or Comparison, and so answers to the Greek Word, and is rightly translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Septuagint: for the Verb Mashal, from whence the Noun comes, sig∣nifies to compare, and lay things together, and li∣••en one to another. Wherefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is synonymous with Mashal, signifies any Compari∣••on or Similitude, as in Matt••. 24. 32. Now learn a Parable of the Figtree: When his Branch is yet tender, and p••tteth forth Leaves, ye know that Summer is nigh. So likewise ye, &c. Here C••••ist explains the Ety∣mology and Import of a Parable; in its first and more simple Signification it is only a Simile, as you see here in these Words; and so it is taken in se∣veral other Places of the New Testament. But this is not all; it signifies such a comparative Say∣ing, Speech or Narration, as is obscure and intri∣••ate, and contains some greater and higher Mean∣ing than the bare Words offer to us. Thus what is darkly and ••iguratively expressed is called a Pa∣rable, in Matth. 15. 15. And so the Rabbins call any Figure or Allegory† 1.20 the way of a Parable. But most properly and strictly a Parable is a feigned de∣claring of a thing, as if it were done, when in∣deed it is not really done, but something else is signified by what is so declared. Now put these things together, and a Parable may be defined thus:

it is such an artificial Speech wherein one thing is compared and likened with another, but with some Ob••curity and Intricateness; and we are to under∣stand what is said, not according to the usual So••nd and literal Meaning of the Words, but with refe∣rence to some other thing thereby mystically signi∣••ied, as ••s evident in the Parables of our Saviou•• If you ask why he so often delivered things, and consequently why Part of the Scr••pture is written in this mystical way: I answer;

1. It had been the Custom and Use of the An∣tients to express themselves after this manner; and our Saviour in this, as in some other things, was pleased to follow their Example. That the alle∣gorical and mystical way of Teaching was antient, and used not only by the Poets, but Philosophers of old, is sufficiently known. Orpheus represented his Mysteries in a kind of Fables. Pythagoras by Num∣bers and Symbols. Plato by Emblems and All••gories: And Esop (the famous moral Fab••list) is the an∣tientest Book in Prose that we have extant. H••∣raclitus gain'd the Name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, becau••e of the Obscurity of his Writings, by reason of his dark and enigmatical Representations of things. Only Epicurus took the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for his Motto, and pretended to great Plainness and Perspic••ity. But generally all the antientest Greek Sages were wont to ••et off their Opinions with a Mixture of Fable or Allegory. This Symbolick Way of Learning was in use among the Gymnosophists and Druids, as* 1.21 La∣ertius witnesses.† 1.22 Phornutus faith the same of all the Antients. Both Greeks and Barbarians used it, saith‖ 1.23 Clemens of Alexandria. This was partly the Fashion of the old Egyptians: they used to wrap

up the Mysteries of their Religion, and of their Ci∣vil Affairs likewise in Hieroglyphick Figures: as * 1.24 God, who sees and sustains all things, was repre∣sented by an Eye and a Staff: the Periodical Revo∣lution of the Year by a Serpent, with his Tail in his Mouth: a King by a Bee, which is noted for its Honey and its Sting, to tell us that Reward and Punishment are both necessary in Civil Govern∣ment. When they would represent Erudition or Learning, they pictured the Heavens pouring down Dew, which perhaps was borrowed from Moses; Deut. 32. 2. My Doctrine shall drop as the Rain, my Speech shall distil as the Dew: For 'tis not improba∣ble that the Egyptians had many of their mystical Symbols and Expressions from the Jews, as I have shew'd in another Place. The Parabolical Way is not unlike to this, it conveying the Notions of things to us by fit Representations, by apt Symbols. And our Saviour thought good to comport with this manner of Speech, which he knew had been in use with the greatest Masters of Learning; and he vouchsafed to imitate them, because he could so innocently do it; because (as you shall hear by and by) this was a very convenient and profitable way of imparting Truth to them.

2. This Instructing by Parables and Allegories was used not only by the antient Philosophers and Sages among the Gentiles, but (as a† 1.25 learned Father hath amply shew'd) by the holy Prophets and Men of God, and other eminent Persons among the Jews of old. There are interspersed in the Wri∣tings of the Old Testament several Parables and Speeches which are of a Parabolical Nature, as Io∣tham's Parable of the Trees that went forth on a time

to anoixt a King over them, Judg. 9. 8. This indeed is properly an Apologue, which in strictness of Speaking differs from a Parable in this, that the Si∣militude is taken from a thing that is not only false but impossible; for such is this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this speaking of Trees, which is here represented. And such is that other Apologue, viz. of the Thistle's send∣ing to the Cedar, 2 Chron. 25. 18. and an Overture of a Marriage between them, which is mere Ficti∣on, and a bold attributing of humane Action to ir∣rational and sensless things. There is not a third in all the Bible of this sort. But among the Para∣bles used of old by God's People, we may reckon that Aenigme or Parabolical Riddle of Sampson, which he put forth at his Marriage-Feast, Out of the Eater came forth Meat, and out of the Strong came forth Sweetness, Judg. 14. 14. Nathan's Parable of the Ewe-Lamb, 2 Sam. 12. is a very notable one, and is famous for the admirable Effect it had. In Isaiah's Prophecy we read the Parable of a Vineyard, ch. 5. 1, &c. and several Visions and Types in a Pa∣rabolical Manner. In Ieremiah we have a great many Typical Representations and Parables, as of the Linen Girdle, and of the Bottles filled with Wine, ch. 13. of abstaining from Marriage, ch. 16. of a Potter, ch. 18. of a Potter's Vessel, ch. 19. of good and bad Figs, ch. 24. of a Cup of Wine, ch. 25. of Bonds and Yokes, ch. 27. In Ezekiel there is the like way of expressing great and important Truths, viz. in a Symbolical way: There you have the Types or Parables of a Siege, ch. 4. of a Barber's Razor, ch. 5. of a Chain, ch. 7. of Ezekiel's remo∣ving, and of the Vine-tree, ch. 15. of two Eagles and a Vine, ch. 17. of Lions Whelps taken in a Pit, ch. 19. of a boiling Pot, ch. 24. Thus you see it was the antient Custom of the Prophets and holy

Men to deliver their Instructions in way of Para∣bles. Yea, this was the Guise and Genius of the Country: the Eastern People used to wrap up their Observations on Nature and the Manners of Men in this mystical way. Our Saviour vouchsafed to comply with the Practice of his Countrymen, but especially he thought fit to conform himself to the manner of Speech and Delivery which the Pro∣phets used, and with which the Jews were acquaint∣ed, Accordingly he delivered himself very often in a figurative and mystical Stile, and uttered ma∣ny excellent divine Truths in the dark way of Pa∣rables.

3. He did this sometimes to hide his heavenly Matter from undeserving Persons, that Pearls might not be cast before Swine, nor Evangelical Truths be exposed to the wilful Despisers of the Gospel. This Account our Saviour himself gives in Matth. 13. 10. When the Disciptes had said unto him, Why speakes•• thou unto them (i. e. to the Mul∣titude) in Parables? He answered and said, Because it is given to you to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but unto them it is not given. And v. 13. Therefore speak I to them in Parables, because they see∣ing, see not; and bearing, they hear not, neither do they understand. Some Parables which our Saviour propounded were so dark and obscure, that none but the refined Minds of his Disciples could com∣prehend them. Others, who had wilfully blinded their Understandings, were not able to see into the inward meaning of them: Yea, our blessed Lord designed to hide his Mysteries from those profane Persons, and therefore disguised them in these dark Shadows.

4. This artificial and allegorical Representation of things was to stir up our Diligence, and to make

the Truths, when found out, more acceptable. If all Divine Veritles were propounded in an easy manner, so that upon the first Proposal they were obvious to us, this would nourish our Sloth and Idleness: but when we see that our Blessed In∣structor delivers some things which can't be under∣stood without Difficulty and Pains; this may in∣vite us to be diligent in searching into the Mind of God, and to use all our Indeavours to attain to a Knowledg of it.

5. This may be assigned as another Reason why Christ was pleased to Discourse in Parables, viz. that what he said might be the better fixed on their Memories; for so it is, that what comes in the way of Story or Narrative, doth dwell longer with Men than another sort of Discourse. As they listen to it with greater Attention, ••o generally it makes a greater Impression upon them, and conse∣quently is remembred and retain'd the longer by them: which is one singular Advantage of deliver∣ing things in this Parabolical manner.

6. Pa••ables are not only useful to fasten Divine Truths on the Memory, but to move the Affecti∣ons, and to beget in us a Delight in those excellent Truths. For it is very entertaining and pleasant to hear the most Heavenly Matters express'd and set forth by those which are earthly and worldly; because hereby at once both our Minds and our corporeal Senses are gratisied. We are let into Ce∣lestial and Spiritual Mysteries by those Objects which are sensual and bodily: we attain to an In∣sight of those things which are supernatural and extraordinary, by a Representation of those which are merely natural and common. This certainly must be very delightful, and have a mighty Influ∣ence on the affectionate Part of Man: this must

needs stir up his Desires and Love, his Joy and Sa∣tisfaction. For this Reason, among others, it is probable Christ made use of this pathetick and winning way of Discourse: He borrowed most of his Parables from very vulgar things, such as were well known to his Hearers, and which they had a very sensible notice and feeling of; that by that Means he might work the more powerfully on them; and by discoursing of worldly things bring them to an affectionate liking of the things of God, and the great Concerns of another Life: that by a wise and artificial representing the Objects which were daily before their Eyes, they might be able to discern and approve of the invisible Excellencies of a future State. Our Saviour was a very popular Preacher; he purposely made choice of that way of Discourse to the People, which he knew would be most taking and moving with them: And such was this his Preaching in Parables, which for the most Part consisted of familiar Comparisons and Simili∣tudes, and set forth divine and spiritual things by those which were bodily and sensible, yea ordinary and vulgar, and which they daily convers'd with. Such was his Parable of the ten Virgins, Matth 25. 1, &c. which is a plain Allusion to those things which were common at the Iewish Marriages in those Days: for they at that time had borrowed many of the nuptial Rites from the Romans; as first of all the Use of Torches and Lamps, because they celebrated their Weddings at Night, at which time they prepared a solemn Supper, and brought home the Spouse, and carried her to that Entertain∣ment at the Bridegroom's House. Again, the Cu∣stom of going forth to meet the Bridegroom (which is the most considerable Part of this Parable) was well known at that time: The Bride-maids used to

go out with burning Lamps or Torches in their Hands to meet the Bridegroom, and to conduct him to the House where the Marriage was, and from whence they came with their Lights. To this that of the Comedian refers:

* 1.26 Primùm omnium lucebis novae nuptae facem.

And that of Claudian, on the nuptial Solemnities of Honorius and Martia;

‖ 1.27—Alii, funalibus ordine ductis, Plurima venturae suspendunt lumina nocti.

And who knows not that those Words of ano∣ther Poet,

† 1.28—Novas incide faces, tibi ducitur uxor

have reference to the Custom of bringing home the Spouse late at Night with Torches and Flambeaus? Nay, when a much antienter Poet (and he an in∣spired one) compares the Sun's glorious rising to * 1.29 a Bridegroom coming out of his Chamber, i. e. the ushering the Bridegroom out of his Chamber with Lights and Torches, (which is a very elegant Si∣mile, and apposite to his Purpose) we may thence inform our selves, that this Practice was of very antient Date. Moreover, the tarrying of the Bride∣groom (which this Parable mentions) was known and common in those Days: this happened gene∣rally by reason of the many Solemnities that were observed, and the leading about of the Bride, which took up much time; the young Maids or Vir∣gins

gins staying at the Marriage-house, expecting the Bridegroom and Bride; so that ••ometimes it hap∣pen'd when they sat up late, that they all slumbe••'d and slept, However some of them used to keep their Lamps trimmed, whilst others suffered them to go out. Then when the Bridegroom and his Bride were solemnly brought home at Midnight, (as was usual) they that were ready with their Lamps, went in with them to the Marriage, i. e. the Nuptial ••east; but the Door was shut upon the rest: for it was the Custom, that when the Bridegroom and Bride re∣turned, they presently went into their Chamber, and shut the Door with their Companion••; and if any of the Bridemaids were never so urgent, and cried, Open to ••s, the Bridegroom gave Order to let none in, he knew them not, for they had forfeit∣ed their Right to enter into the Bridal Chamber by their Negligence and Drow••iness, by their not watching the exact Time of the new-married Cou∣ples Return home on the Wedding-night. Thus this Parablo was suted to the Cu••toms of the Jews at that time: Nay, the very Number of the Virgins (mentioned by the Evangelist) that brought and lighted home the Bridegroom, hath reference to the particular Usage at those Weddings: for from that Passage in Statius, in his Epithalamium on Stella and Violantill••;

—Procul ecce canoro Demigrant Helicone Deae, quati••ntque novenâ Lampade solennem thalamis coeuntibus ignem,

We may gather that the Number of those Bri∣dal Virgins was wont to be te•• or eleven: And some∣tims five only (to which Number the Virgins are unhappily reduced in this Parable) attended the

Nuptial Solemnities. Accordingly* 1.30 Plutarch la∣hours to give Reasons (such as they are) why no more were made use of for this Purpose. The whole Parable is made up of the Rites used by the Eastern as well as the Roman People at their Mar∣riages: and all the particulars of it were such things as were commonly known to them, because every Day practised by some of them. In like manner the Parables of the Candle, Luke 8. 16. of the So••∣er and the Seed; of the Tares; of the Mustard∣seed; of the Loves; of Leaven; of the Net cast into the Sea; (all in one Chapter, Matth. 13.) of the Labou••ers in the Vineyard, ch. 20. I. of the Hous∣holder that planted a Vineyard, and let it out to Hus∣bandmen, ch. 21. 33. are Representations of usual and common Occurrences, and such as the Genera∣lity of our Saviour's Hearers were daily conver∣sant with; and for that very Reason were made use of by him, as being most moving and affecting. † 1.31 Luther had an odd saying, (as he had many an one) that Esop's Fables: is the best Book next to the Bi∣ble. His meaning, I suppose, was, that that fort of instructing, viz. by way of Apologues, by an∣nexing an useful Moral to a Feigned Story, was a ve∣ry excellent and profitable manner of teaching, it being so familiar and delightful; and upon that ac∣count so conducible to enforce and illustrate any Moral or Religious Truth. This and much more is the Excellency of the Parables wh••ch our Blessed Master clothed his Divine Doctrine in: he chose this way of delivering things to them, on purpose to work the more powerfully on their Affections. A fit Parable moves the Mind with a wonderful Force and Efficacy, it representing Matters to us

in their livelie••t Colours and mo••t natural Shapes, and applying them to the particular Circumstances we are in▪ so that it seemeth to say in the final Close of it, as that Parabolical Prophet to David, T••ou art the Man. It comes up close to us, and with great Plainness and Freedom tells us our Case, and affects us proportionably. To have Dominion or Authority, and to speak in a Parabolical way, are expressed by the* 1.32 same word in the Hebrew. This is most certain, that our Saviour reduced this Cri∣ticism into Practice, and by this moving way of Preaching let the World see, that† 1.33 he taught as one that had Authority. Thus I have briefly shewed you the Nature of Parables, and given some Ac∣count of our Saviour's so frequently using them. I shall only add that useful Rule of St. Chrysostom, which is to be observed by us if we would rightly under••tand the Nature of the Stile of Scripture in this mystical way of expressing it self:‖ 1.34

We must not, saith he, over-curiously fift every Word and Passage that we meet with in Para∣bles, but our main Business must be to under∣stand the Scope and Design at which they aim, and for which this sort of Discourse was com∣posed; and having gathered this out, we ought to enquire no further, it is in vain to busy our selves any longer.

And that of Maldonate is a very good Rule; For the right interpreting of Pa∣rables we m••st know this,* 1.35 that it is in vain to observe any Accuracy in comparing Persons with Persons, and to be curious in suting particular things to things: but we are to look at the grand Matter, and as it lies before us in gross. So he.

For this is to be remembred, that there are several Circumstances inserted into Parables, meerly to adorn and set off the Matter, and to make the Re∣presentation and Similitude more graceful. There∣fore we must not insist on every Particular, and think that an Argument may be drawn from all the Circumstances which we meet with in such Di••∣courses. No; the main thing, which is the De∣sign, is to be attended to in a Parable. If we ob∣serve this Rule, we shall gain a sufficient Knowledg of our Saviour's Meaning in his Parables: but otherwise we shall busy our Heads to little Purpose, and mistake the true Design and Intention of our Lord in this kind of Instructions.

There are other Pa••sages in the New Testament, wherein a secondary or mystical Sense is to be ob∣served, as the 24th Chapter of St. Matthew; one part of which, according to most Expositors, speaks of the Forerunners of Ierusalem's Destruction; and the other Part of the Signs of Christ's Coming to Judgment. But if you look narrowly into the whole Chapter, you will observe that these Fore∣runners and Signs of both Sorts are intermixed, and so promiscuously placed, that it is difficult to tell precisely which precede the Destruction of Ie∣rusalem, and which the Day of Judgment. Which gave me this Hint first of all, that this whole Chap∣ter, or the greatest part of it is to be understood (as those other Places of Scripture before-menti∣oned) in a double Sense, viz. a primary and a se∣condary. In the former you must understand our Saviour speaking of those Prodigies and Calamities which should befal the Jews before the final Over∣throw of their City and Temple. In the latter you must conceive him foretelling the dreadful Signs and Concomitants of the last Day, wherein

not only Jews, but all the World are concerned. Here is a twofold Meaning of Chri••t's Words, here is a double litera•• or historical Sense: and the latter of them being not so obvious and evident as the other, (and that is the Reason why it hath not been found out) may be called the mystical Sense, for it is so indeed in comparison of the other. Whereas then Expositors are divided in interpreting this Chap∣ter, some referring some Passages in it to the De∣vastation of Ierusalem, and others interpreting other Parts wholly of the Day of Judgment, we may compromise the Matter, and reconcile the dif∣ferent Interpreters, by asserting, that both the De∣struction of Ierusalem, and the Calamities of the Last Day, are understood by both Parts of the Chapter, excepting only one or two particular Expressions, which may seem to refer altogether to one of these. In short, the Forerunners and Harbingers of the Ruine of the Jews, and of the last Coming of our Saviour are the same. So that while he speaks of one, he also foretels the other. This shews that there is a double meaning, a sim∣ple and a compound one, in the very same Words of this Chapter.

When the Apostle in Eph. 5. had spoken of the married State, and of the Duties of Husband and Wife, and particularly of the Love of the one, and the Submission of the other, he tells us, in the Close, that this Part of his Epistle hath a higher Meaning than every ordinary Reader of it would find out: for besides the literal Import of the Words, there ••s a more sublime and spiritual one. This is a great Mystery, saith he, and I speak concerning Christ and the Church, v. 32. Those Words in Gen. 2. 24. mentioned immediately before, have a mystical as well as a literal Meaning: they are to be under∣stood

of the sacred Union of Chri•••• and his Church, as well as of the conjugal Union of Man and Wife. For Marriage is an Emblem of the sacred and in∣violable Tie between Christ and Bel••evers; and accordingly whilst the Apostle discours'd in that Part of the Chapter concerning the Love and Sub∣mission of Husband and Wife, he lets us know, that it is to be understood in a secondary Sense of Christ's Love to his Church, and of the Church's Subjection unto Christ. And divers other Passages in St. Paul's Epistles have, besides their literal, a spiritual, inward and mysterious Acception. Even as to this the Apostle's Words are true, viz. that he speaks the Wisdom of God in a Mystery, I Cor. 2. 7.

Thus I have abundantly proved the double Sense, which is to be found in many Places of the Sacred Writings; and it were easy to evin••e it from many more Instances, if it were requisite. I will only here in the Close produce the Words of a very profound and judicious Man, a worthy Light of our Church, that I may not be thought to be ••in∣gular in what I have asserted under this Head.

* 1.36 Many Passages, saith he, as well in the Pro∣phets as other Sacred Oracles, admit of Amphi∣bologies and ambiguous Senses: and the same Prophecies are oftentimes ful••illed according to both Senses.

And he instances in several. A∣gain, a little after he hath these admirable Words:

† 1.37 Seeing our sacred Oracles were given many hundreds of Years before the Events foretold by them, and since exhibited, had any seminal Cause or observable Original out of which they were to grow; the greater the Variety of their Senses or Constructions is, the more admirable Proof

doth their Accomplishment exhibit of that infi∣nite Wisdom which did dictate them ••nto the Prophets.

And he instances in such Prophecies as were fulfilled in a double Sense, and at two dif∣ferent times, as Isa. 9. 23. Ier. I. 6, 8. and others which had a first and second Accomplishment. This is the very thing which I have been asserting, and which I hope I have made sufficiently evident. The historical Books of the Old Testament are not bare Narratives and naked Stories of what is past, but in the largest and most comprehensive Constructi∣on of them they refer even to the Affairs of future Times. So that what Thucydides called his History, * 1.38 a Possession, or Treasure that was to last for ever, a Monument to instruct all the Ages to come, we may most truly and justly apply to the historical Part of the Old Testament. It is of never-failing Use to the World: Whatever is recorded here con∣cerning the Transactions of Divine Providence to∣wards the Jews and other People, is typical and re∣presentative of what God now doth, and will al∣ways do to the End of the World. In the several Particulars of the sacred Story we may read the Condition and Lot of the Church in all succeeding Ages; for what is to come is but a Transcript of what we find here. And as for the Doctrinal Part, it is mysterious and allegorical in many Places: there is a hidden and invisible Treasure lies under the visible and outward Letter. Many of the Pre∣cepts, Prohibitions, Threatnings and Promises reach a great deal farther than the Words simply and absolutely denote: and spiritual and heavenly Matters are couched in those Texts which primari∣ly speak of earthly and temporal ones. Lastly,

when you read a prophetick Passage in the Bible, the bare thing there literally expressed is not all that is intended, but there is oftentimes much more im∣plied. As Ezekiel tells us of a Wheel within a Wheel; so 'tis as true there is a Prophecy within a Prophe∣cy in the Holy Scriptures. One and the same Pre∣diction there is to be fulfilled more than once. In short, the Bible is not like other Books: In the History, Doctrines and Prophecies, both of the Old and New Testament, there are secret and hidden Meanings besides those which are plain and obvi∣ous, and which lie uppermost in the bare Letter. This is the peculiar and transcendent Excellency of the inspired Writings: This one thing alone may invite us to study this sacred Volume, and with in∣cessant Labour penetrate into the inmost Sense of it, and acquaint our selves not only with the literal Meaning which first comes to our View, but with that which is more remote and mysterious.

Here then we must carefully avoid these two Ex∣treams, viz. of laying the Letter of Scripture aside, and of resting altogether in the Letter. First, some despise the Letter of Scripture, and mind no∣thing in it but the Mystery. Of this sort were the Cabalistick Iews, who depraved the most substantial Parts of the Old Testament, by interpreting them in a mystical Sense only. Some of the Christian Fa∣thers were too guilty of this, especially Origen, the Prince of the Allegorists. St. Hilary in his Com∣mentaries on St. Matthew, and on the Psalms, ex∣plains several Places in this mystical way, whereby he fastens on them a Sense very different from that which they naturally have. Indeed his Comments are generally taken from Origen. St. Ambrose, in his Exposition of the Scripture, is generally alle∣gorical. Optatus, Bishop of Milevi, is too often

faulty, as to this, in his Books against the Dona∣tists. But it is to be observed, that none of these Fathers do utterly exclude the literal and historical Meaning. And as there have been Cabalists and Allegorists of Old, so some high-flown Men of late have run all the Bible into moral and mystical In∣terpretations; and in the mean time have either disbelieved or slighted the historical and literal Sense. I cannot wholly condemn those who have indeavoured to present us with Mysteries in all the several Steps of the Creation, in the whole six Days Works, and in every particular Instance of the Mosaick Philosophy. For this, without doubt, is not wholly external, material and sensible, and to be interpreted only according to the most obvi∣ous Signification of the Words: it is most true even here, that Moses hath a Vail over his Face; and there are certain Mysteries and Allegories contained under the very History. But though we are not to be mere Sons of the Letter, yet we have no Reason to think that the Mosaick Philosophy or Hi••••ory are made up of Allusions and Metaphors, and are altogether mysterious. This were to soar aloft with our modern Chymists, to dote after the rate of a Rosy-crucian, whose Brains are so in∣chanted, that they turn all into Spectres, Dreams and Phantasims.

But especially that Part of the Beginning of the Book of Genesis which gives an Account of the Fall of our first Parents, must not be turned into mere Mystery and Allegory: for it is sufficiently evident that Moses speaks of Matter of Fact. Wherefore a* 1.39 late Writer cannot be enough r••••uked for his Attempt of turning all the Mosaick History con∣cerning

Adam and Eve, the Serpent, Paradise, eat∣ing the forbidden Fruit, and all the Passages relating to them, into Parable, yea into Ridicule; for he makes himself hugely merry with the several Parti∣culars recorded by Moses. Yea, his Fancy was so low and groveling, that he picks up any vulgar Stuff to present the Reader with. Upon those Words, They sewed Fig-leaves, and made themselves Aprons, he triflingly cries out, Behold the first Rise of the Tailors Trade! And then that trite and po∣pular Cavil is fetch'd in to embelish his Book, Where had Adam and Eve Needle and Thread? And again, this he saith exceedingly troubles and puz∣zles his Brain, How the Woman's Body could be made of one single Rib. Such is the profound Wit and Philosophy of this Allegorical Gentleman! who, because the Scripture sometimes speaks (as I shall have occasion to shew afterwards) after the man∣ner of Men, and in compliance with their com∣mon (though mistaken) Apprehensions, he here stretches this too far, and extravagantly tells us,

That all the Account given by Moses, not only of the Origine and Creation of the World, but of Adam, and the first Transgression, and the Ser∣pent, and the cursing of the Earth, and other Mat∣ters relating to the Fall, is not true in it self, but only spoken popularly, to comply with the dull Israelites, lately ••lavish Brickmakers, and ••••el∣ling strong of the Garlick and Onions of Egypt. To humour these ignorant Blockheads that were newly broke loose from the Egyptian Task∣masters, and had no Sense nor Reason in their thick Sculls, Moses talks after this rate; but not a Syllable of Truth is in all that he saith.

This is very strange Language from a Reverend Divine, who thereby destroys the whole System of

Theology, and of Christianity it self: for if there were none of those things before mentioned; if in a literal and historical Sense there was no such thing as that first Diso••edience of Adam; if there be no∣thing true concerning the Temptation and the Apo∣stacy of our first Parents, and the Evils and Misery that ensued upon it, then it will follow thence that Mankind had no need of a Saviour and Redeemer; then Christ's Coming in the Flesh was in vain; then all Christianity falls to the Ground; then when the Writings of the New Testament speak of* 1.40 Eve's being deceived, and being in the Transgression; when they acquaint us that† 1.41 the Serpent beguiled Eve through his Subtility; and that‖ 1.42 by one Man's Disobe∣dience many were made Sinners; and that in* 1.43 A∣dam all died: all is mere Romance and Fiction; there was nothing of these in Reality. And then likewise we have as good Reason to believe that the other Parts of the New Testament which speak of our Saviour and all his Undertakings, are to be un∣derstood in the same manner, that is, they are but a cunningly devised Parable; they may have some moral meaning, as Esop's Fables have, but they con∣tain nothing of real Fact. This is the natural Re∣sult of allegorizing the 3d Chapter of Genesis. By dealing thus with this Part of the Bible he hath baffled all the rest, he hath wretchedly subverted the whole Scheme of our Religion; he hath spoil'd the whole Fabrick of Christianity; and he hath made the Scripture useless and insignificant. So that by this one Attempt of his he hath shaken, not to say overturn'd, the Foundations of Religion, he hath taken part with the known Despisers of all revealed Theology; he hath encouraged and pa∣tronized

the wild Conceits of Scepticks; he hath strengthned the Hands of the Profane; he hath abundantly gratified the whole Tribe of Atheists and Deists; he hath won their Hearts for ever. And indeed we cannot but observe what fort of Men they are that applaud his Undertaking, viz. the Wits of the Town (as they are call'd) Men disposed to very ill Thoughts of Religion and the Scriptures, yea Men generally indulging themselves in Immorality and Debauchery. These are the Persons that promote his Notions, and cry up his Writings. This Theorist is become much more pleasing to them than Mr. Hobbs. This new Ar∣chaeologist is far more taking than the Leviathan, because he nips the Bible more closely, and also because he is not (as the other) a Layman, but a professed Divine, and that of the Church of Eng∣land. This makes his Enterprize so acceptable to these Men; for now they have a Clergyman to vouch them; they have the Warranty of a Church∣man. I will not question, or so much as suspect the Prudence of our Ecclesiastical Governors: but in my Judgment, if there be no publick Censure pass'd upon such a daring Attempt as this, by a Member of our Church, Atheists will have just Ground to laugh at our Discipline, as well as they do at our Doctrine.

To excuse himself, he saith, this way of speak∣ing is used in the Writings of the New Testament, and confessed to be Metaphorical and Symbolical; and why not then in Genesis? I answer; Because though there are some Expressions of that Nature, as the Trumpet sounding, and the Books opened at the Day of Judgment, which are but metaphorical, it is like∣ly; yet it is easy to discern it: And in other Places it is intimated, and sometimes plainly declared,

that the Passages are metaphorical and my••••ical, as in the Parables of the Prophets and of our Savi∣our. But it is quite anoth••r thing which we are speaking of, viz. not an Expression or two, but a whole entire History delivered in plain Words, and with all its Circumstances as Matter of Fact; and there is not the least Intimation of any other Sense: yea many of the Particulars are mentioned in other Places of the Old and New Testament, as direct Matter of Fact. Wherefore when he attempts to solve his Undertaking by alledging some Passages in the New Testament of Christ and his Apostles, he cannot but see that it is very foreign to his Busi∣ness. Again, in a short Appendix to his Book (where he seems to retract in a manner what he ••ad said, having been informed (he ••aith) that it was displeasing to pious and wife Men) he excuses himself by alledging the Fathers; who, 'tis true, present us with several allegorical Interpretations and Descants on some Places of Scripture, and par∣ticularly on the 3d Chapter of Genesis: but this is ••othing to his purpose, because those antient Wri∣ters do not deny the literal Sense, which he doth. He is not content to allegorize that Chapter, but he wholly rejects the literal Meaning, and confi∣dently avers that Moses all along tells a Story that ••ath nothing of Truth in it, and is not spoken ac∣cording to the Nature of the things. So I grant, that some of the old Iewish Do••t••rs moralized M••∣ses's History, but they did not slight, much less ••u∣persede and lay▪ aside the historical Sense. And moreover, he hath neither the Fathers nor the Rab∣bies as an Example of ridiouling the Mosaick Histo∣ry, which yet he doth throughout his whole Dis∣course on that Chapter, shewing his little Talent of Jesting and Dro••ling. So that in brief, it might

become Hudibras better than a Doctor of Divinity. I appeal to any that are acquainted with the anti∣ent Monuments of the Church, whether he doth not perfectly tread in the Steps of the old Adver∣saries and Blasphemers of Christianity, Iulian, Celsus, &c. The former of these speaking of, and deriding what is said in Genesis concerning Adam and Paradise, and eating the forbidden Fruit, &c. positively declares that* 1.44 these are altogether fabulous. And again afterwards,† 1.45 What Difference is there, saith he, between these and the Fables of the Greeks? What Dr. Burnet saith amounts to the same; for when he expresly saith, Moses delivered nothing of the Physical Truth concerning the Creation of the World, &c. but wisely dissembles to accommodate himself to the People: and when he tells us, that Moses said these things only to conciliate Force and Authority to his Laws, (which are his own Words) he doth as good as say, that what he delivers is a Fable. He might in plain Terms have stiled the Mosaick History a Fabu∣lous Tradition, as‖ 1.46 Simplicius calls the Account which Moses gives of the Creation. Yea, he might as well have spoken the Language of his Friend Cel∣sus, who call'd the Mosaick Relation concerning Adam and Eve,* 1.47 an old Wife's Fable. Thus we see what Examples he follows; some of the crafti∣est and subtilest (but yet the most malicious) Ene∣mies of the Christians, who laugh'd at their Reli∣gion whilst others persecuted it, and did more harm by that d••riding it, than others by violent op∣pressing it. But lo a remarkable Example of the Divine Justice! viz. on the bold Gentleman who lately englished that part of the Doctor's Book

which derides the 3d Chapter of Genesis, and who committed it to the Press for the sake of some of the witty Folks of the Town, and to please the Atheistical Rabble. This signal Act of avenging Providence is well known to the World, and I wish the ingenious Theorist would seriously reflect upon it, and learn thence to make Sport with the Bible no more: And I request him not to be offend∣ed at my plain Dealing with him; for I assure him that I have said nothing out of any disrespect or ill Will to his Person, but wholly from a deep Sense of the great Mischief which is like to ensue upon this late Attempt of his. I abhor the treating of any learned Man's Writings with Contempt: yea, on the contrary I have always paid a due Respect and Deference to them, though they are not ad∣justed to the Notions which I have of things. But when I see the Holy Scriptures struck at, and Re∣ligion it self shock'd and extremely hazarded, I cannot forbear from uttering my Sentiments, and ••hewing my just Indignation on such an Occasion. Christian Charity, which beareth all things, endureth all things, cannot by any Means brook this. And I must freely tell this learned Writer, that let his Character otherwise be never so fair, (and 'tis not my Design to ••isown it or blemi•••• it in the least) it is certain that the better this is, the worse is his Enterprize; for he seems to come sober and de∣mure to undermine the Bible, and destroy Christi∣anity, as many a Cracovian Reasoner hath done be∣fore him. But truly there is little Sobriety in jest∣ing and buffooning, in jeering and drolling away our Religion, and that under the Pretence of Phi∣losophick Antiquity. Nay, let me tell him, (and I hope by this time his own Thoughts do so too) that to trifle and droll after the Rate that he doth on

the inspired History concerning Adam and Eve, is a near Approach to Blasphemy. I heartily wish he may be apprehensive of his Delinquency in this kind, and that for the future he may guide himself by that wholsome Rule, viz. that we are not to quit the literal Interpretation in any Place of Scrip∣ture, unless there be a necessity of doing so. And 'tis certain there is none in the present Case; nay, there is an absolute Necessity of acknowledging the literal and historical Meaning, unless we will sub∣vert the very Foundations of our Religion. He that makes this first Book of the Bible to be wholly mystical, doth not observe the Distance between Genesis and some Part of the Revelation. We must be careful that we follow not the Masters of ab∣struse Divinity so far, that we exclude the literal Sense of Scripture: for this will prove fatal to the Scriptures themselves, and to all Religion, especi∣ally Christianity. If we dote upon Allegories, and defy the Letter and History of the Bible, we quite null these Sacred Writings, because we there∣by render them ambiguous and precarious, we au∣thorize any wild Interpretations that can be made of them. If we may leave the literal Sense of Scripture when we please, and fly to metaphorical and mystical ones, then the Certainty of the Word of God will soon vanish: for then we cannot tell what is true or what is false; or if we know it, we can never confute any Error, or maintain any Truth from the Holy Writ. For by this Means the••••will be innumerable Explications of Scripture, and who can possibly determine which of them is to be made choice of? If you offer any Text to prove ••uch or such a Doctrine, it will easily be evaded if the Letter may not be our Guide; for it is but say∣ing, The Place is not meant as the Words sound,

but must be taken figuratively and mystically. Thus Scripture it self is▪ destroyed by cashiering the lite∣ral Acception of the Words. Yea, we destroy the whole Gospel, and pluck up the Foundations of Christianity; we deny Christ and all his blessed Un∣dertakings for our Redemption and Salvation: for these being Matter of Fact, are founded upon the literal Account we have of them, upon the histo∣rical Relation of them, which we have in the Wri∣tings of the Evangelists and Apostles. Thus dan∣gerous and fatal it is to let go the literal Sense of Scripture, and to catch at a mystical one only. By this wild Practice Men attempt to thrust Religion out of the World; or, which is the same thing, to present us with a metaphorical and allegorical Religion, inst••ad of a true and real one. There∣fore there is good Reason why we should not quit the literal Construction of Scripture.

Secondly; The other Extream which is to be a∣voided by us, is the* 1.48 resting altogether in the out∣side, the looking no farther than the literal Mean∣ing of Scripture. There is such a thing as mystical or symbolical Divinity; however some have mista∣ken and abused it: and this, if it be rightly used, is exceeding profitable, yea necessary; for it is no other than the Re••ult of the mystical Sense of Scrip∣ture, which I have been speaking of. He is truly a Divine, he may deservedly be said to have Skill in Christian Theology, who contents not himself with the primary or literal Import of the Sacred Wri∣tings, but dives into the secondary but more ab∣struse Meaning of them, who penetrates into the hidden Mind of the Word of God. If there be a

〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sense in Scripture, as I have proved in se∣veral Instances, it must be reckoned a great Over∣sight (to say no worse) in the Expositors of this Holy Book, not to take notice of this Interpreta∣tion, but to acquiesce wholly in the literal Mean∣ing. This is observable in the Expositions which some of the Rabbins give of the Bible: for as the Jewish Ca••alists are too allegorical, (as we took no∣tice before) so another Set of their Doctors is too much devoted to a literal Interpretation. This they stick to when there is no Reason for it, yea when the Words are plainly figurative, and must needs be taken so. Yet even then they interpret them according to the Letter, and thence are pro∣duced some of those foolish Propositions and chil∣dish Assertions, those groundless Fables and Le∣gends; yea those gross Lies and Forgeries which are found in the Books of the Rabbins. Erasmus was faulty in this kind: his Readers may observe that he neglected the mystical Sense of Scripture, and resolutely adhered to the bare Letter. In which he is followed by Calvin, who generally leaves out the secondary and more sublime Sense of many Texts of Scripture, and satisfies himself with the literal one only. This he doth in his Comment on Gen. 3. 15. I will put Enmity between, &c. which he interprets simply of the Antipathy between Men and Serpents, (which is the poor and lank Inter∣pretation which Iosephus the Jew gives of it, as you have heard:) whereas those Words in the highest Meaning of them (as the antientest and learnedest Fathers•• have suggested) are the first and grand Promise of the Messias made to our first Parents, and in them to all their Posterity. Those Places, Psal. 22. 16. They pierced my Hands and my Feet; And ver. 18. They part my Garments among them,

and cast Lots upon my Vesture; Calvin is enclined to interpret simply, and not concerning Christ: he would have them to be only metaphorical Expressi∣ons of David's Calamities and Sufferings, notwith∣standing it is expresly said by the Evangelist St. Matthew, that those things were done to Christ, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Pro∣phet, Matth. 27. 35. And by the Evangelist St. Iohn, This was done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, ch. 19. 36, 37. And so as to that Text, Ier. 31. 22. The Lord hath created a new thing in the Earth, a Woman shall compass a Man. The same Author will not have this Prophecy, (for such it is, though it seems to speak of a thing past, it being the Cu∣stom of prophetick Writers to signify the future Time by the past, as you shall hear afterwards) he will not, I say, have this Prediction refer in the least to Christ and the Virgin Mary: It is ridicu∣lous, he saith, to understand it so. And some other Prophecies which are meant of Christ, he under∣stands otherwise, confining himself to the bare Letter of the Words. Thus this excellent Person, out of an Affectation of Novelty, perverts those Scriptures which the antient Fathers quoted as spo∣ken of Christ; and he plainly tells us, that the Fa∣thers abused those Places. But (which is far worse) he refuseth to expound some of those Texts of the Old Testament concerning Christ, notwithstand∣ing the Evangelical Writers in the New Testa∣ment alledg them as punctually fulfilled in him, and in what he suffered. For this Reason that re∣nowned Man may be thought to incline to Iu∣daism or Arianism as much as Erasmus is thought by some; for you shall find the one as well as the other interpreting Places of Scripture, which speak of Christ, quite to another Sense.

* 1.49 One of the Worthies of our Church excuseth the former of these Persons after this manner, (and why may not the same Excuse serve for the latter?)

It was, saith he, rather fear lest he should give Offence unto the Jews, than any Desire or Incli∣nation to comply with them, which makes him sometimes give the same Interpretations of Scriptures which they do, without Search after farther Mysteries than the Letter it self doth ad∣minister.

It was the Candour of this excellent Divine to apologize thus for that great Man; and the same Apology may serve for the other; yet certainly we ought to supply the Defect of their Expositions on those Places, by adding the secon∣dary and mystical Sense to them; else we leave those Texts maimed and imperfect; yea we rob them of that which is most considerable and preci∣ous in them, that which is the Dabar Gadol, as the Jewish Masters call the mystical Sense, this being great in comparison of the literal one, which is call'd by them Dabar Katon, little and inconsidera∣ble, viz. in respect of the other. This was the Fault of another great Man, great in Name as well as Worth: Herein he disdains not to tread in the Steps of Mr. Calvin, though in many other things he is very averse to his Expositions. We shall find that when he treats of the Texts in the Old Testa∣ment which speak concerning Christ, he generally interprets them in the first and literal Sense, con∣trary to the Practice of all Apostolical and Antient Expositors, who constantly search into the mystical Sense of Scripture, as the choicest Treasure that is to be found in it. Gold and Diamonds, and the richest Gems, lie hid in the Bowels of the Earth.

The richest and most precious Truths of Heaven are treasured up in the Entrails of this Holy Book, they are hid in the most inward Recesses of it. De∣mo••ritus could say, Truth lies hid in a deep Pit. This is most certain of Divine Truth contained in the Ho∣ly Scripture; besides what we meet with in the Letter and Surface of it, there is yet a more choice Discovery to be made by searching into the Depths of it, and by Discerning the spiritual Meaning, those deep things of God which lie covered under the Letter and History. It is a Rule that holds good concerning the Divine as well as Humane Laws▪ * 1.50 He that con••ines himself to the Letter, sticks in the mere Bark and Outside, and can go no further: he reacheth not to the inward Sense, Pith and Mind of those Laws. We must needs fall short of the Truth of Scripture, that sacred Law given us by God, unless we indeavour to acquaint our selves with both these, not only the historical, but the more sublime and mystical Sense of it. Both these jointly make up Divine Truth. Therefore that is a good Rule in interpreting Scripture, which was practised by Athanasius,† 1.51 We (saith he) do not take away the Literal Sense to bring in the Spiritu∣al one, but we maintain the more powerful Mean∣ing of the Spirit by keeping up the literal Sense. These two must go together. If we lay aside the former, the Scripture is no longer Scripture, i. e. a written Law, made up of Letters: and if we lay aside the latter, we do Despite to the Spirit of Grace, who hath lodged a farther Meaning in the Holy Scriptures, (which were inspired by him) than that which is contained in the Letter. Where∣fore

to understand the Scriptures as we should do, we must be careful to find out the secondary or my∣stical Interpretation of the Words, as well as the primary or literal.

And that we may know when the Sense is of the former, and not of the latter sort, it will be need∣ful to observe these following Rules. The first is given us by* 1.52 R. Ben-Ezra, thus; If any Precept in Scripture be not consonant to Reason, it must not be taken in the simple or literal Sense, as that Place, Circumcise the Foreskin of your Hearts, Deut. 10. 16. We cannot suppose this to be understood literally, because (saith he) it is so unreasonable and absurd a thing; yea indeed it is utterly impossible, for there is no such thing as the Praeputium of the Heart. In these and the like Places a spiritual Sense must be searched for, otherwise we must assert that the Scripture enjoins us the doing of those things which cannot be done. Besides, if we understand it lite∣rally, i. e. of the circumcising or paring off any Part of the Heart, this is an inhumane and bloody thing: to do this is to be cruel to our selves; yea, 'tis Self-murder: Therefore according to a second Rule, which I am to propound, this cannot be the Sense of the Place, and consequently the literal Meaning is not intended here. The Rule is this, That all Precepts or Prohibitions, which, as to their Sound, are wholly repugnant to the Moral Law, and the express Command of God there, contain in them some mystical or spiritual Sense. By this you may judg of the Meaning of those Places of Scripture, Prov. 23. 2. Put a Knife to thy Throat, if thou be a Man given to Appetite: And that of our Sa∣viour▪ Matth. 5. 29, 30. If the right Eye offend thee,

pluck it out: and if the right Hand offend thee, cut it off. To which I may add, Prov. 25. 21. Rom. 12. 20. Heap up Coles on your Enemies Heads. When a Person is thus commanded in Scripture, to do some thing contrary to the express Law of God, we may conclude that Command is to be understood in a se∣condary or mystical Sense, and not according to the Letter. So when God bids Hosea take a Wife of Whoredoms, and Children of Whoredoms, ch. 1. 2. And when it is added that he went and took such an one, ver. 3. we must look upon it as a Parable, a mystical Saying. It was a Vision, saith St.* 1.53 Ierom. So saith Ionathan the Chaldee Paraphrast; and † 1.54 Maimonides agrees with him. It is certain that this was done only in Shew and Representation, but not actually and really, because it was contra∣ry to that direct Prohibition in the Law, Lev. 21. 7. Thou shalt not take a Wife that is a Whore. The Mean∣ing then of the foregoing Words is this, that see∣ing this People brag that they are my People, my Spouse, my Children; go and represent the true State they are in by a Parable, and let them know that they are as much my Wife and my Children, and no more, than if you should take a professed Whore with her spurious Brats, and say, that she is your lawful Wife, and they are your lawful Children, which is absolutely false. This I con∣ceive is the plain Meaning of the Words. But that Command of God to Abraham, Gen. 22. 2. Take thy Son, the only Son Isaac, and offer him for a Burnt-offering, is of another kind; for that this is not to be understood mystically but literally, we can prove from the History it self, which is so re∣lated, that we may plainly see it was a Matter of

Fact: and it is inserted among other Historical Passa∣ges concerning that Patriarch; whereas the Pro∣phetical Books, such as that of Hosea, contain in them Visions and Representations of things spoken of as really done, although they are not. Besides, we are certain that Abraham's offering his Son I∣saac, i. e. his binding him, and laying him upon the Altar, and undertaking to kill him, were real things, and actually performed, because we are ••old by the infallible Penmen of the New Testa∣ment, that they were so; for they alledg this Mat∣ter of Fact, to prove and demonstrate the Doctrine which they deliver, Heb. 11. 17. Iam. 2. 21. Wherefore we are sure it was a Reality, and con∣sequently the Words in Genesis are to be understood in a plain Literal Sense. A third Rule, and the most useful, is this; See what Texts of Scripture are already interpreted in a Mystical Sense by the Evangelists and Apostles, and observe the Nature, Occasion and Circumstances of those Places, and thereby you will be able to Discern what other Places of Scripture are to be understood in the same manner: And accordingly you must inter∣pret them not after the Bare Letter or History, but in a Spiritual Sense. And so much for the first thing which is to be taken notice of, in order to our ha∣ving a right Understanding of the Stile of Scrip∣ture, viz. that there are many Places in it that have a Double Sense.

CHAP. II.

The Scripture in many Places speaks not accurately, but according to the Vulgar Opinion▪ and Apprehensions of Men. Several Instances of this in the Old and New Testament: The Phrases, Expressions and Modes of Speaking used by the Inspired Writers, are the same with those that we find in the best Classick Authors. This largely proved from the Phraseology of the Old and New Testament. More particularly the Simili∣tudes and Comparisons in both are alike. The Cor∣respondence of Scripture-Phrase with the profane Stile shew'd by Grotius, Pricaeus, Gataker, &c. There are in the Bible the same moral Notions, and ex∣press'd in the very same Stile, that there are in Pa∣gan Writers. In both Man's Life is a Way, a Pil∣grimage, a Warfare. Other Ethick Notions, viz. that Good and Vertuous Men are Free; and that all Vicious Persons are Slaves: that Good Men are Wife, and all others are Fools; (to which latter the Author reduceth John 20. 10. though generally in∣terpreted otherwise, and comments upon it:) that Good Men are the Friends of God; that Vitious Men are Dead; that Death is a Sleep. All which occur in the Sacred Writings as well as in Pagan Mora∣lists.

THE Second Proposition is this, that the Stile of the Holy Scripture hath many things in it which are according to the usual Strain of other Wri∣ters and Authors. Take this in these Particulars;

••. The Scripture in many Places speaks not ac∣curately, but according to the vulgar Opinion and

Apprehensions of Men. Thus it is a common Ob∣servation, (but I will not balk it here) that in the Mosaick History of the Creation of the World it is said, God made two great Lights, Gen. 1. 16. and the Moon is reckoned as one of them; whereas it is not to be doubted that the Sun, but especially the Moon, is but a little Light in comparison of some of the Fixed Stars. But this we may truly say, with an antient Christian Writer,* 1.55 It was not Moses's Purpose to act the Philosopher or Astronomer in the Book of Genesis. But because the Sun is near∣er to us than those Fixed Lights are, and the Moon is much nearer than the Sun, therefore though they be less in themselves than those Remote Stars, yet they seem to our Sight to be the Biggest Lights that God hath set up in the Heavens: Wherefore they are emphatically, and by way of Eminency, call'd in the Hebrew, the Great Lights, though the least of the Stars be a greater Light than the Sun or Moon. So though it is said of the Almighty Crea∣tor and Preserver of the World, that he hangeth the Earth upon nothing, Job 26. 7. which is exactly and philosophically true; yet in another Place of this Book we read of the Pillars of the Earth, Job 9. 6. which is a manner of Speech adapted to the Capa∣city of the Vulgar, who cannot conceive how so great and massy a Body as this Ball of Earth can hang hovering in the Air, and be upheld without some Props. And several other such Expressions there are in Scripture which are spoken according to the popular Apprehensions, and the seeming Appearance of things, not the Exactness of the things themselves. Therefore their Attempts have

been to little purpose, who would force a Philoso∣phy out of the Bible, as if they had a mind to pre∣sent us with a Body of Philosophy jure divino. As some Grammarians and Criticks pretend to find all Arts and Sciences whatsoever in Homer's Poems, so these fond Men undertake to discover a Compleat System of Natural Philosophy in the Sacred Wri∣tings. But this is a very vain Enterprize, because, though there is a great deal of excellent Philosophy in several Places of Holy Scripture, yet these Wri∣tings were never intended mainly for this End, but for one far higher and nobler. Hence it is that you hear the Holy Writers speaking sometimes not ac∣cording to the very Nature of the things, but ac∣cording to their Appearance, and the Opinion Men have of them. Yea, they oftentimes express them∣selves according to the received Opinions, although they be erroneous and false, as in the Instance be∣fore mentioned. Theodoret gives us the Reason of it in his first Interrogatory upon Genesis: he b••gins his Work with This, that* 1.56 the Holy Script 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wont to sute its 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Teaching to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Learne••〈◊〉〈◊〉 d in another Place,† 1.57 〈◊〉〈◊〉 like purpose, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scripture (saith he) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as is most 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and fit for Men. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ghost in it is pleased to condescend to their Capa∣cities, and to adapt himself to their shallow Ap∣prehensions. Thus frequently in the Scripture cor∣poreal Properties are attributed to God: you read of his Face and Back-parts, Exod. 33. 23. and that these latter were seen by Moses, which is spoken by way of Anthropopathy, as Divines commonly speak, i. e. after the manner of Men, in compliance with

their weak Capacities. As when a Man's Face and Fore-parts are seen, there is a considerable Discove∣ry and Knowledg of his Person; but when he is seen behind only, it is imperfectly: so was it when God appeared to Moses, he shew'd himself to him not fully, but in part; as when a Man turns away his Face from another, and lets him see only his Back∣parts. And so in other Places of Scripture we read of God's Eyes, Ears, Hands, Feet, and other bodi∣ly Parts and Members; but we must not forget here the old Rule of Cyril of Alexandria,* 1.58 When Mem∣bers and Parts are attributed to God, it is said af∣ter the manner of Men, but it is to be understood in a Sense sutable to the Divine Nature. And† 1.59 A∣thanasius hath the like Words on this Occasion. But the not attending to this gave Rise to the Sect of the Anthropomorphites, who pervesly understanding those Texts which ascribe these Parts to God, held him to be Corporeal, and of Humane Shape: T••ey 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not knowing, not rightly interpreting the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which sometimes speak after the Guise of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in condescension to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 shallow Understand∣•••••• Thus Gen. 6. 6. It 〈…〉〈…〉 Lord that he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Man; and 1 Sam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 The Lord repented 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he made Saul King; are 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that is, as spoken in a vulgar manner, and after the way of Mortals, who when they repent, abandon their former Doings. So when God is said to repent, that which we are to understand by it is this, that he acts in a contrary manner to what he did before. As in the forementioned Places, it repented the Lord that he made Man, the meaning is, that he purposed to destroy Mankind, viz. with a Deluge; for so

you find it explain'd in the next Verse, the Lord said, I will destroy Man whom I have created. And when 'tis said, The Lord repented that be made Saul King; the meaning is, that he ••••••••osed to depose him, and set up another, as you read he gave Or∣der in the Words immediately following in the next Chapter. Therefore Theodoret saith well,* 1.60 God's Repenting is no other than the changing of his Dis∣pensation. And thus we are to interpret this Ex∣pression where-ever it occurs in Holy Writ, (for in many other Places God is said to repent of what he did) as knowing that the Phrase of this Sacred Book is oftentimes fitted to the Apprehensions and Language of Men, and not the absolute Reality of the thing. That of St. Chrysostom is certainly true, † 1.61 God accommodates himself sometimes to hu∣mane Infirmity when he speaks in Scripture. So those Words are to be understood in Gen. 11. 5. The Lord came down to see the City: And again, ver. 7. Let us go down: which are spoken in a vulgar man∣ner, and with respect to the shallow Conceptions of Mankind. And the same Expression is used in Gen. 18. 20, 21. Exod. 3. 7, 8. Psal. 144. 5. Isa. 64. 1. God is here said to come down, which signifies God's taking more than ordinary Notice of the Actions of Men, and his designing to do some extraordina∣ry thing. The Scripture calls the Angels that ap∣peared to Abraham Men, because they feem'd to be such. The Man Gabriel you read of in Dan. 9. 21 because he appear'd in the Shape of Man. And so in the New Testament the Angles at our Saviour's Sepulchre are stiled young Men, because as to out∣ward Appearance they were such. Nothwith∣standing

what some Commentators have said upon 1 Sam. 28. 15. Samuel said to Saul; and again, ver. 16. Then said Samuel; I am fully perswaded that those Words are spoken according to the Ap∣pearance, not the real Truth of the thing. The Name of Samuel is given to the Devil or Spectre that appeared, but we are not to think that Samuel himself in Body and Soul appear'd; for 'tis ridicu∣lous as well as impious to imagine that the departed Saints are at the Command and Disposal of a Ne∣cromantick Witch, a Cursed Sorceress, a Hellish Hag, as if she could fetch them down from the Ce∣lestial Regions when she pleaseth. But this she did, she raised a Spectre, or substituted some Per∣son who resembled Samuel, whom she represented to Saul's Sight, as if he were the Prophet Samuel indeed. Thence we read in this Sacred History, that Samuel said to Saul, because he who appear'd in Samuel's Likeness was thought to be Samuel, and thought to speak to Saul. Thus a Learned Father long since expounded this Passage of Scripture, and gives us this as the Reason of it;* 1.62 We find this (saith he) to be the Custom of Scripture, that of∣tentimes it relates that which is only in appearance instead of what is true and real. And with him agrees† 1.63 another of the learned Antients; The Sacred History (saith he) calls the Apparition Sa∣muel, because Saul believed it to be the real Samu∣el; for the Scripture speaks frequently according to other Mens Belief and Notions. So it usually calls those Gods that are not really such; but because the false and feigned Deities of the Heathens were reputed True Gods by them, therefore the Name of

Gods is given them often in the Old Testament, and sometimes in the New.

But to confine my self to this latter, here we find several things delivered not according to the Reality of the Matter spoken of, but according to the Sense and Notion of others: So I understand our Saviour's Words, Matth. 12. 5. The Priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath, i. e. by killing of Beasts, and doing other laborious Work, they, ac∣cording to you, profane that Holy-day, according to the Notion which you Pharisees have of keeping and breaking the Sabbath, and according to which you condemn me and my Disciples, as Profaners of that Day. The Phrase used by St. Mark, ch. 1. 32. is according to a very vulgar Conceit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Sun did dip: And the same Expression is in Luke 4. 40. for the Sun seems to dive or be drown∣ed in the Sea when it goes down. This is the Ap∣prehension of those that inhabit near the Sea. In such a Sense as this must the Apostle be understood when he saith, It pleased God by the Foolishness of Preaching to save them that believe, 1 Cor. 1. 21. It is call'd Foolishness, not as if it were really such, but because it was commonly reputed so by those that were not competent Judges, because (as The∣odoret excellently saith)* 1.64 it was by Fools call'd Foolishness. Especially it was denominated so by those who thought themselves great Masters of Wisdom: wherefore the Apostle explains himself afterwards, and saith, this Preaching was to the Greeks Foolishness, ver. 23. Nay, you read of the Foolishness of God, ver. 25. which can be meant in no other Sense than this, that this Excellent Dis∣pensation of preaching the Gospel, which was of

God's own Appointment, was reckon'd as a weak and foolish Institution by those doughty Boasters and Pretenders to Wisdom. To them and such as they were it seem'd to be Foolishness, but really it was no such thing, for the Apostle calls it the Wis∣dom of God, ver. 24. Thus the Scripture speaks sometimes according to the Opinion of others, though it be not true. So I apprehend those Ex∣pressions of the Apostle are to be understood, 2 Cor. 5. 13. Whether we be besides our selves;—or whether we be sober: i. e. we seem to our Enemies to be besides our selves, to be distracted when we com∣mend our selves; and then only they think us sober when we speak submissively and in a self-denying Stile. In the same Sense we are to take Chap. 11. 1, 16, 17. where he calls his necessary apologizing for himself Folly and speaking foolishly, not that 'twas so in it self, but because it was accounted so by some. In another Place he calls Epimenides the Cretian Poet* 1.65 a Prophet, because he was thought to be such an one by his Countrymen, not that he deserv'd that Name. Here likewise you will see that things are sometimes expressed in a popular way, and according to the vulgar Sense and Opi∣nion; as when it is said, the Stars of Heaven fell unto the Earth, Rev. 6. 13. which cannot be really and philosophically true; for these Luminaries, by reason of their vast Magnitude, cannot fall upon the Earth; there is no room for them in so small a Compass. But perhaps by the falling of these hea∣venly Lights from their Stations, is meant some Great and Notable Defection in the World, a Mighty Confusion and Disorder; so that the Fa∣brick of the Universe was as 'twere broken up and

dissolved: Or by Stars here are meant Great Men and Magistrates, and their falling to the Earth signi∣fies their being displaced from their high Station; and so 'tis a Metaphor, and belongs to another Place. And many other Passages there are which I will not now particularly enumerate. And indeed some of these are so common and obvious, that I should have forborn the mentioning of them, but that it was somewhat requisite to touch upon them, when I am representing to you the different and various Guises of the Scriptural Stile. It is common also in the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, to speak with reference to humane Properties and bo∣dily Actions, even when God himself, and the most Divine things are treated of. So we often read of* 1.66 Christ's sitting at the right Hand of God; whereas 'tis acknowledged, that a right Hand can∣not properly be attributed to God; nor can our Saviour, in strictness of Speech, be said to sit at God's right Hand; for then he could not be said to stand there, Acts. 7. 56. Wherefore it is evident that these Expressions are used only in compliance with the common Language of Men, who generally prefer the right Hand before the left; and to sit or stand at one's Right Hand, denotes great Advance∣ment and Honour. So that when those Modes of Speaking are applied to our Blessed Lord, the plain Meaning is, that after all his Labours and Suffer∣ings, he is highly dignified by God, he is exalted to unspeakable Honour, he is advanced to such a Glorious State wherein he is invested with absolute Power and Soveraignty, and is able to protect, de∣fend and reward his Church, and to confound their most powerful and malicious Adversaries: This is

to sit at the right Hand of God. So he is said to be in the Bosom of the Father, John 1. 18. which bears the same Signification with Matth. 3. 17. This is my Be∣loved Son in whom I am well pleased; for whom we Love, we familiarly embrace and take into our Bosoms. So in the Gospel we find our Saviour setting forth many Divine and Spiritual things by those that are Humane and Carnal, herein comporting with our Infirmities, and delivering those Sacred things in such Language and Expression as are adequate to our imperfect Ideas of those things. It is a known Maxim among the Jews, and a very true one, The Law speaks in the Language of the Sons of the Men; that is, the Words of Scripture are accommodated to the Vulgar Speech, and in that to the meanest Ap∣prehensions. And this holds good not only of the Old but New Testament. Wherefore it was un∣reasonably and maliciously* 1.67 objected by Celsus a∣gainst the Scriptures, that they were not politely and accurately writ. Origen in answer to this tells him, that this was purposely and designedly done, namely, that all Persons might profit by the Holy Writings, that the Vulgar and Illiterate, as well as the Learned, might be edified by them: We have (saith he, using the Apostle's Words) this Treasure in Earthen Vessels, that the Excellency of the Power may be of God, and not of Men.

2. It may further be observed, that the Holy Scripture resembles the Phrases in Other Writers. If any Critick should dare to find fault with the Holy Stile, it were easy to defend it by maintaining and proving that it speaks as the Best Authors and Writers do: the Phraseology in them is alike in sundry Places. Many Expressions of Heathens fall

in exactly with the Terms of Scripture. To be at the Feet of one, in the Sacred Stile signifies to fol∣low, to be his Servant, 1 Sam. 25. 27. 2 Sam. 15. 16. 1 Kings 20. 10. I call'd him to my Feet, Deut. 33. 3. i. e. I call'd him to follow me, to be my Servant: and in several other Places the Scripture speaks after this manner. The very same way of Speaking is not unusual among profane Authors: To stand at their Feet, was among the Romans, applied to Servants, in respect of their Masters, for they waited on them at Table, or as they lay on their Beds with their Feet stretch'd out: Whence that of Seneca,* 1.68 Servus qui coenanti ad pe∣des steterat, &c. or this was said because they stood behind them, at their Heels. So in† 1.69 Suetonius, Ad pedes stantes, are Servants that attend on their Masters: And ad pedes, without any Addition, hath the like Signification in Martial. This is ve∣ry frequent; and‖ 1.70 a•• pedibus, is used in the same Sense. Thus the Holy and Profane Stile agree; which I will next make good from those Texts where there is mention of Light as it signifies Ioy or Gladness; as in Psal. 97. 11. Light is sown for the Righteous; which is thus explained in the next Clause, and Gladness for the Vpright in Heart. Esth. 8. 15. we read thus, The City of Shushan rejoiced: but Iunius and Tremellius very rightly, according to the Original, render it lucebat, it shined, or was enlightned: And the Words there immedi∣ately following are a Comment upon it; the Iews had Light, and Gladness, and Ioy. In con∣formity to this observe, that in Isa. 50. 10. the Forlorn and Distressed Person, who is void

of all Ioy and Mirth, is said to walk in Darkness, and to have no Light. We often read of* 1.71 the Light of the Countenance, which is no other than the Pleasant ••ire and Joyful Aspect of it, the same with a Chear∣ful Countenance, Prov. 15. 13.† 1.72 The shining of the Face, which is often mentioned in the Sacred Wri∣tings, is of the same import, and is a farther Proof that Light and Ioy are synonymous. In Psal. 12. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Isa. 58. 8. Light is no other than Ioy. So the Candla, or Lamp of the Wicked, Job 21. 17. is their Ioy and Prosperity; and the Phrase is again used in the same sense, ch. 2••: v. ••. And Prov. 21. 4. is pertinent here, if we translate it according to the ‖ 1.73 Septnagint and the* 1.74 Vulgar Latin, The Light of the wicked is Sin; i. e. their rejoicing is Sin or Vani∣ty, as that word sometimes signifies. And so this Text is of the same import with Prov. 13. 9. The Lamp of the Wicked shall be put out. I might take no∣tice, that the Voice of Mirth, and the Voice of Glad∣ness, and the Light of the Candle, are join'd together, Ier. 25. 10. And I might remind those that are critical, that the Hebrew word Samach is rendred laetus, bilaris suit, and also luxit, ••laruit, as in Prov. 13. 9. The Light of the Righteous rejoiceth; or, as that word will bear it, shineth. To be merry and to shine are expressed by that same Verb. So the Feast of Dedicaton, instituted by Iudas Maccabeus, was call'd the† 1.75 Feast of Lights, because a great Happi∣ness and Ioy began then to shine as a Light, contra∣ry to their Hopes. With the Holy Tongue and Stile agrees that of the Greek and Romans: thus a∣mong the former 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hilaris, is said by the Ety∣mologists

to be derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 luceo. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies Ioy in the Prince of Poets,—* 1.76 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. he brought Ioy to his Companions: and thus it signifies in† 1.77 another place in the same Poet. So‖ 1.78 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is an endearing Com∣pellation, and is the same with my sweet Delight, my dear Ioy: And it must be confess'd by those that have look'd with any care into other Greek Au∣thors, that this word is sometimes taken in that sense, and accordingly 'tis expounded* 1.79 so by the Learned Glossaries. And the Latines teach us to say in their kind and blandishing Salutation, Lux mea, as much as to say, my Ioy and Delight. Thus in the three Learned Language Light signifies Ioy, as Darkness denotes Calamity and Sorrow. And why may not our own Language be added to the rest, and be thought to resemble them in this Particu∣lar? which may be seen in the antient English Me∣tre of the first Verse of the 110th Psalm, In God the Lord be glad and light. And who knows not that lightsome and joyful are of the same Signification in our vulgar Speech at this day? And that it may ap∣pear that Grammar and Criticism are no Enemies to Philosophy, it is probable that Men have chosen to express and denote things that are joyful and pleasant by the Name of Light, because this of all things in the World is the most Chearing and Comfortable, according to the Suffrage of the Roy∣al Preacher, and indeed of all Mankind, Truly the Light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the Eyes to behold the Sun. And again, Prov. 15. 30. The Light of the Eyes rejoiceth the Heart. It is both pleasant in it self, and renders all other things so too. It is an old Rabinnical Proverb, When the Sun ariseth, the

sick ariseth; he finds himself better in the Day than in the Night: and ordinary Experience vouches this for Truth. Wherefore when the Sun is gone, Men labour to supply its Gladsome Presence by something that resembleth it. Here I might em∣bellish this Notion by observing to you, that it was antiently the Usage in many Countries to testify their publick Rejoioings by Illuminations. It is ap∣parent from many Instances, that they were wont to set up Lights in their Windows and at their Gates for this very purpose. The Romans did this on their high Days, as* 1.80 Iuvenal testifies,

Cuncta nitent, longos erexit janua ramos, Et matutinis operatur festa lucernis.

The Egyptians did the like on their Festivals, saith † 1.81 Herodotus. And that the Jews used it on their Publick Solemnities, we learn from Persius, who chastises the Romans for their Levity and Folly in imitating the Customs of that People,

—At cùm Herodis venere dies, unctâ{que} fenestrâ Disposit•••• pinguem nebulam vomuere lucernae.

When Antiochus was honourably received by the Jews, with a pretence of Mirth at least, 'tis said he was brought in with Torch-light and with great Shout∣ings into the City, 2 Mac. 4. 22. This was the Practice at great Triumphs and publick Reception of Princes, not only among the Jews but Christians, as we are acquainted by‖ 1.82 Eusebius. And Gregory Nazianzen tells us that Athanasius was received in∣to

the City with the like Pomp. And hither we may refer the Nup••ial Torches which were wont to be carried at Marriages, as Tokens of Rejoi••••ng. Thus Illuminations of old were Expressions of Ioy, as they are even at this day. On the contrary, as Suidas observes, the Latin lugeo is from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tenebr••, because they lighted up no Candles, but sat in the dark when they mourned. Silicernium the Funeral mournful Banquet is as much as S••luc••r∣nium, i. e. sine lucernâ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for (as you find it quoted by* 1.83 Vossius) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The sum is, Darkness is gr••evous and doleful, pro∣ductive of Sorrow and Sadness: but where-ever the Light displays its Beauty, it gilds all things with Joy and Gladness; and thence we see that not only in the Stile of Sacred Scripture, but among Profane Writers, Light and Ioy are expressive of one another.

This Agreement and Concurrence of both in their Stile may be observed in this, That the Out∣ward and Inward Man, which St. Paul mentions, are no strange Language among some of the Classick Authors, for you read of Salus interioris hominis in one of† 1.84 Plautus's Comedies; where interior homo is the Soul or Life, the better part of Man, in which sense the Apostle useth it. The very Phrase of a perfect Man in Ep••. 4. 13. is made use of by the great Moral Philosopher‖ 1.85 Epictetus, who op∣poseth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Perfect Man, i. e. a Man of ripe Years to a Youth, a Man of Growth and Maturity in Morals to one that is but a Novice or Beginner in them. Only whereas the Philosopher applies it to Morality, St. Paul doth it to Christianity. The same Apostle calls the

Body a Vessel, 1 Thess. 4. 4. Let every one know how to possess his Vessel (i. e. his Body) in Sanctification and Honour. And so it is call'd by the great Roman Philosopher and Orator:* 1.86 The Body, saith he, is as 'twere the Vessel of the Soul, or some such Receptacle of that noble part of Man. And Antoninus, in a very disparaging manner, stiles it† 1.87 the worser sort of Vessel; which is an Expression not unlike to that of another Apostle, who calls a Woman‖ 1.88 the weaker Vessel or Instrument, (for the word signifies both) an Utensil very infirm and frail in comparison of the other Sex, which is generally strong and robust. St.* 1.89 Paul calls his Body a Tabernacle, and so doth St.† 1.90 Peter stile his: and when St. Iohn applies the word‖ 1.91 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to our Saviour, telling us that he came and pitch'd his Tent with us for a time; the meaning is, that he assumed a Body, and dwelt here on Earth in it: which is the very Language of the Antient Grecians, who call'd the Body of Man 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Tent, a Tabernacle. Yea, the whole Man is express'd and described by St. Paul in a Tripartite Division after the same manner that he is by the Gentile Philosophers. This Apostle represents him as consisting of three main Parts, Spirit, Soul and Body, 1 Thess. 5. 23. which very Distribution is to be found in Antoninus,* 1.92 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And in another place he divides Man after the same way, but in words that ap∣proach nearer to those of the Apostle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and explains it thus,† 1.93 to the Body be∣long the External Senses, to the Soul the Affections

and Passions, to the Mind or Spirit the Judgment, and refined Thoughts and Reason. And in other Pagan Writings, especially those of Plato and his Followers, the same Division of Man is observed, and is exactly that of St. Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This is All that a Man is. And as this and other inspired Writers frequently use the word Flesh to signify the depraved Nature of Man, so it hath the same Interpretation in the Incom∣parable Antoninus, where you will find that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are the corrupt part of Man, the Carnal and Sensual Inclinations, that part of the Soul which struggles with Reason, and on all oc∣casions makes head against it. I could here in several Particulars shew that Porphyrius comes very near to the Holy Stile in many words which he uses. And it might be cleared by several Quota∣tions out of Hierocles, that he imitates the Phraseo∣logy of the Scripture, especially of the New Te∣stament.

Are not the Similitudes, especially those that are plain and homely, which we meet with in the Bible, found in the best Antient Writers? The crackling of Thorns under a Pot is made use of by * 1.94 Solomon to set forth a Short and Fading Pleasure, (tho it be accompanied with some Noise and Stir). And the very same is used by Virgil,

—Magno veluti cùm flamina sonore Virgea suggeritur costis undantis aheni.

Homer, the great Soul of Poetry, tells us in Com∣mendation of Nestor's Speech, that it was† 1.95 sweeter than Honey: by which plain wording he sets forth

that Old Counsellor's Fluent and Elegant Language, his Excellent and Charming Art of delivering his Advice and Counsel. Which is the very Simili∣tude that the Psalmist, the most Divine Poet, makes use of to express the Ravishing Sweetness of God's Law: It is, saith he, sweeter than Honey, and the Honey-Comb, Psal. 19. 10. and the same he repeats in Psal. 119. 103. His Royal Son makes use of the same homely Comparison, Pleasant Words (saith he) are as a Honey-Comb, Prov. 16. 24. And in his Admirable and Transcendent Poem he disdains not this familiar Stile, where he brings in the Sa∣cred Bridegroom speaking thus to his Spouse, Thy Lips drop as an Honey-Combe, Cant. 4. 11. And in this Book of the Canticles it might be particular∣ly made good that the Description of the Beauty of the Bride, and the rest of the Amorous Passages and Expressions to set forth the Soft Passion, are such as you find in Authors that treat of that Sub∣ject, as Homer, Musaeus, Pindar, Theocritus, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Ausonius, Claudian, and others that have spoken of Love and Beauty. That plain and Country Simile used by our Blessed Master,* 1.96 As a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her Wings, is ex∣presly in† 1.97 Euripides, one of the delicatest Poets that Greece afforded, and who gave the liveliest Characters of Things: and in this very manner of speaking he is followed by Seneca the Tragedian. Certainly this was a very apposite Similitude, the Hen being, as the Arabians stile her, Mater Congre∣gationis, the kind Mother that gathers her young ones together, that by her loving Voice expresses her Affection and Care to her tender Brood, and invites them to a safe Refuge and Shelter in time of

Danger. In brief, any Man that is conversant in Homer, Virgil, and other Antient Authors of greatest Note and Repute, may observe that the Penmen of the Bible use the same Similitudes which those Writers frequently do; they have the same plain, trite and vulgar Comparisons which are in them.

As for the other Passages, Phrases and Modes of speaking in the Holy Scripture, which resemble those that we find in other Authors, they are in∣numerable. Grotius, that Unparallell'd Critick, in his Annotations on the Bible, shews every-where al∣most the Correspondence of Scripture-Phrase with the Profane Stile; he hath by a vast Collection let us see how the Sacred Dialect agrees with the Phrase of the Best Writers. Out of all sorts of Authors whatsoever he proves the Scripture-Stile to be Proper and Elegant, which no Man before him hath done so well and so largely. He compares all along as he goeth, the Holy Stile with that of Herodotus, Plato, Demosihenes, Thucydides, Xenophon, Isocrates, Gallen, and others who are the best and most elegant Hellenists. ••ea, he shews that the Wittiest Writers among the Greeks, as Sophocles, Aristophanes, Euripides, Lucian, have the very same Phrases and Expressions which we read in the Bi∣ble, and they have many more which very much resemble them. He shews the like Correspondence between the Scriptures and those La••in Writers who are the best Masters of that Language, and in several Instances demonstrates that the Sacred Writers speak as the best Authors in that Tongue do. All this he hath most learnedly performed, and upon this account alone (if there were no other) he is worth the perusal of all Ingenious Men, especially those who are more devoted to

Polite and Critical Learning. This very same Task is excellently performed by a* 1.98 Learned Fo∣reign Critick, who hath abundantly made it good in his Commentaries on the Psalms and most of the New Testament, that the Stile of Scripture is conformable to that of the best Writers, whe∣ther Jews or Heathens, whether Philosophers, Poets or Historians He hath elaborately shew'd that an innumerable company of Greek and Latin Authors, the most Elegant and Refined of both, have express'd themselves as the Holy Writers do: In a word, that Athens and Rome spoke as they do. If he had carried this on, and accom∣plish'd the like on the other parts of the Bible, it would have been an Unvaluable Work, and even beyond what the Belgick Annotator hath done. Something of this Nature is performed by† 1.99 other Learned Men of our own, who insisting upon some Particular Authors among the Pagans, in∣deavour to evince that the Scriptures are in great measure agreeable to the Stile and Phrase of those Writers. And the same might be undertaken as to other Heathen Writers, with regard both to the Old and New Testament. Nothing is more evident than this, that their Modes of Speech are the same, and that they agree in their Stile, and consequently that the Stile of Scripture is vouched by the best Classick Authors, and (as a Consequent of that) that he who carps at the Phrase and Dialect of the Scripture, and finds fault with the Stile of the Bible, shews that he hath not conversed with the best Human Authors.

But to prosecute and illustrate this Theme yet

further, I will be more particular. I will shew first that there are in the Bible the same moral No∣tions, and expressed in the very same Stile, that there are in Pagan Writers. Secondly, I will shew that there are the same Grammatical and Rhetorical Figures in the Holy Book that we meet with fre∣quently in those Authors. First, I will observe to you, that the Phrases and Terms whereby some of the choicest Notions in Ethicks are set forth to us, are alike in Divine and Humane Authors: As to begin with that common Expression, to wit, of calling our Course or State, or manner of Life in this World, a Way. The Hebrew Word Derek, Via, Semita, in almost innumerable Places in the Old Testament, signifies our manner of Life: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek Testament (which answers to it) is commonly used in the same Sense. In this latter Part of the Bible the Life of Man is particu∣larly expressed and represented as a double Way; for our Saviour hath told us, that there is* 1.100 a Nar∣row and a Broad Way. This is even the manner of speaking among the best Moralists: they not only call the Life, Actions, and Conversation of Men a Way, (which is usual in all Languages) but they de∣signedly compare them to a Way, to a Path, and to walking in it. As in Walking, saith Epictetus, you take heed that you strike not your Foot against a Stone or a Nail, and wrench your Foot; so in lead∣ing your Life you are careful that you hurt not your selves, or do any thing that may offend and be prejudicial to your selves or others. And other Masters of Ethicks are wont to pursue this Compa∣rison. Yea moreover, they make use of the same manner of Speech which our Saviour doth, that is,

they divide this Way into a Narrow and a Broad one. Thus in Cebes's Table the Way to true Learning (which is the same with Vertue and Goodness, and the Moralist means no other thing by it) is repre∣sented by him to be narrow and unfrequented. He calls it a* 1.101 little Gate; and he describes the Passage before it as very uncommon; he tells us, that very few go into it; and that it appears to be a difficult, rough and craggy Path. This is also well deci∣pher'd by Maximus Tyrius,† 1.102

Imagine (saith he) this Life to be a Way, a Way full of Passengers, some of which are running, some are thrusting one another on; some labour, others rest; some lie down, others turn out of the way and wan∣der, for there are many By-ways and false Paths, (these are all but different Paths of the same Broad Way.) But there is‖ 1.103 one Narrow Way, steep and rugged, and trod by very few, and this leads directly to the very End of the Journey: and this Journey some diligent and laborious Souls are endeavouring to perform with much Work and Difficulty, with great Pains and Sweat.

Thus that Admirable Platonist. And I could shew you how other Philosophers are de∣lighted with this way of Expression and Similitude used by our Lord; but I will alledg no others at present. It is enough to have shew'd that the Stile of the Gentile Philosophers is not unlike that of our Blessed Jesus, our Infallible Teacher and Prophet, who thought it a fit way of setting forth the two kinds of Life which Men lead, and the different

Places and Ends they tend to, by naming one of them the wide and broad Way; and the other, the narrow and streight one.

And if the Life of Man be a Way, then he is a Traveller; which invites me to speak of another Moral Notion, viz. that we are all Travellers and Pilgrims in this World: we are upon our Iourney, and must behave our selves as those that are so. Epictetus and Arrianus use this Metaphor, and apply it handsomly to the Life of Man, especially to the Life of a Good Man, which is a Journey from Earth to Heaven. We are told that Anaxagoras pointed with his Finger to Heaven, and cried out,* 1.104 That is my Country. And Socrates professed himself to be a† 1.105 Citizen of the City above: and every Man is to reckon himself to be such, he said. Tully's Words are most admirable,‖ 1.106

I go out of this World as out of an Inn, not a Mansion-house; for Nature hath not given us here a Place of long Continu∣ance, but of a short Diversion and transitory En∣tertainment.

And he had arrived to this Noti∣on, and expressed it most bravely when he said, * 1.107

Let us lift up our Eyes to Heaven as to our Country, to which we must think of returning some time or other.

And such kind of Lan∣guage you meet with in Antoninus and other select Moralists. I will conclude with the Words of Se∣neca, † 1.108

Our Life is a Pilgrimage, (saith he;)

when we have travell'd and walk'd about a con∣siderable time, we must return home.

This is the very Language and Notion of the Sacred Wri∣ters, and of the Holy Men whose Lives they re∣cord. The Old Patriarchs owned themselves to be Pilgrims; Gen. 47. 9. The Days of the Years of my Pilgrimage, &c. And that you may not think it is meant only of their travelling from Place to Place in those Days, you will find this was said by some of their Posterity after they were possess'd of the Promised Land, and were no longer in the unset∣tled Condition of their Predecessors. We are Strangers before thee, and Sojourners, as were all our Fathers, saith the Pious King, 1 Chron. 29. 15. And in the next Words he lets us know what he means; Our Days on Earth are as a Shadow, and there is no abiding: so that the whole Race of Mankind are all equally Pilgrims and Sojourners in this World▪ they are* 1.109 Strangers in the Earth, as the same devout Man often acknowledgeth: and this World is stiled by him† 1.110 the House of his Pilgrimage. After the same manner St. Peter speaks, calling this Life ‖ 1.111 the time of our sojourning here: and he exhorts the converted Jews, to whom he writes, to deport themselves as Strangers and Pilgrims, 1 Pet. 2. 11. which I confess may have a more particular Refe∣rence to their being expell'd out of Iudea their na∣tive Country, and dwelling in a strange Place, (whence he stiles them scattered Strangers, in the beginning of the Epistle) but notwithstanding this the Apostle might apply it to them in the more ge∣neral Notion, and as they (with all other Christi∣ans) are Pilgrims travelling to another World. With respect to which the other great Apostle

saith, Here we have no continuing City, but we seek one to come, Heb. 13. 14. We have no fix'd Habi∣tation; we have no settled Place of Abode; we (with other holy Men before us) must confess we are Pilgrims, Heb. 11. 13. We belong to another Country, we are Citizens of the Ierusalem that is above; We look (as all the holy Pilgrims hereto∣fore did) for a City which hath Foundations, whose Builder and Maker is God, Heb. 11. 10. We are passing through this World to that Heavenly Me∣tropolis; we are travelling with our Caravan to that New Ierusalem, that Holy Land; and our Thoughts, our Wishes, our Desires, our Conver∣sation, are there already.

Again, that it may appear that Heathen Wri∣ters and the Holy Scripture have the same way of Expression, I will shew that they both agree to say, the Life of Man is a Warfare: Thus it is called in the ancient Book of Iob, ch. 7. 1. for the word Tsaba, though it be rendred by us an appointed time, is as capable (if not more) of being translated a Warfare: And so St. Ierom renders it, The Life of Man is a Warfare on Earth. And again, cb. 14. 14. The Days of our Warfare are the Term of Man's Life. Such Holy Iob found it to be. The War was warm, the Service was hot, the Battel was fu∣rious, and he was set in the Front of it. Though this great Heroick Warrior fainted in the Conflict sometimes, yet his Valour was very eminent, and he fought it out resolutely, and won the Day, and was signally rewarded by the great Arbiter of Bat∣tel, the Lord of Hosts. It cannot escape our Obser∣vation, that several Military Expressions are used by the Holy Ghost in Scripture, to set forth the Du∣ties and Offices of Man's Life, and to let us know that it is a continual Combate and Fight. Yea,

Tsaba, militare, is applied to the Ecclesiastick Function and Ministry of the Levites in the Taber∣nacle: their Service or Waiting is call'd a Warfare, Numb. 8. 25. and in the Verse before, a warring a Warfare, if we render it exactly according to the Hebrew. Especially this way of Speaking is appli∣cable to the troublesome and afflictive Part of Man's Life, which is rightly call'd by St. Paul, the Fight of Afflictions, Heb. 10. 32. And with regard to this, without doubt, those comfortable Words were spoken to Ierusalem, Her War is accomplished, Isa. 40. 2. But more eminently in the New Testament this Mode of Speech is observable, where Christia∣nity is represented as a Warfare, and the Christian Church as Militant here on Earth. St. Paul is pleased to stile our Saviour,* 1.112 the Captain of our Salvation; and himself and all his Fellow-Christians† 1.113 Souldi∣ers; and those especially who were assistant to him in the sacred Ministry of the Gospel, his‖ 1.114 Fellow-Souldiers: He exhorts Timothy* 1.115 to war the good Warfare; and† 1.116 to fight the good Fight of Faith; and that in imitation of himself, who‖ 1.117 had fought this good Fight; though these latter Expressions re∣fer more peculiarly to the Olympick Combates, as you shall hear afterwards. You read of the‖‖ 1.118 Wea∣pons of Righteousness, (as well as of Unrighteousness) belonging to this Spiritual War. And these Wea∣pons (which are call'd the whole Armour of God) are particularly enumerated by the Apostle, Eph. 6. 13, 14. I could observe to you in that Exhortati∣on of St. Iames,a 1.119 Submit your selves to God; resist the Devil, and he will flee from you, that there are three Military Terms: 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be subject

to your Commander, observe his Orders, look for the Signal of Battel from him, keep the Station that is set you, be obedient to the Discipline of War, in all things be ruled by your General; for (as St. Paul saith very appositely when he is speak∣ing of the Christian Souldier)† 1.120 He that warreth must concern himself in nothing else but the pleasing of him who hath chosen him to be a Souldier. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, withstand, oppose, engage the Enemy; be sure you give him Battel, make a resolute and vigorous Onset, charge through his whole Body, make a Lane through his thickest Troops. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he shall be put to Flight, he shall certainly be rout∣ed and defeated, and never be able to rally again; and so Victory at last crowns the Combate. But St. Paul more briefly tells us what is the Employ∣ment of a Christian Souldier, when he saith,‖ 1.121 In∣dure Hardness as a good Souldier of Iesus Christ: for in that one word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he lets us under∣stand that he is one that is to fare hardly, that he is to be inured to Difficulties and Perils, to tedious Marches and continual Watchings, to Hunger and Thirst, and infinite Fatigues, and that he must converse with Dangers and Death: Every Battel of the Warrior is with confused Noise, and Garments roll'd in Blood. The Life of a Christian Souldier is pain∣ful and laborious, because he is to be exercised in denying himself, in crossing his sensual Appetite, in submitting to the hardest Duties, and undergo∣ing the greatest Sufferings, Temptations and Per∣secutions: He must be continually sweating, toil∣ing, striving, fighting, grappling with Foes of all kinds, and encountring all sorts of Hardships. Thus a Christian is a Spiritual Souldier; thus Christianity

is a Holy War; thus the Life of Man is a Warfare. And this is that which all the Great Masters of Mo∣rals inculcate in their Writings. One of the chief∣est of them (who calls the Life of Man the Pilgri∣mage or Sojourning of a Stranger) gives it also the Denomination of a* 1.122 Warfare. Arrianus very ex∣cellently descants on this Aphorism, that† 1.123 every Man's Life is a kind of Militia; and that we are with all Diligence and Faithfulness to discharge the Office of Souldiers, the chief Part of which is to do all that our Commander bids us. Another famous Moralist adorns this Subject with noble Reflections upon it;‖ 1.124 Reckon upon this, saith he, that God is our Commander and Chief Captain, that this Life is a Military Expedition, that every Man is to be an Armed Souldier, &c. Seneca hath the same Conceptions of Humane Life, and once and again resembles it to* 1.125 the State of War, and the Ex∣ploits of Martial Men. As soon as we come into the World we open the Campagne, and in a short time after we draw into a Line of Battle, and we are continually making use of our Ammunition and Artillery, till at length Death raises the Camp, and discharges us from our Warfare. Several Pas∣sages might be produced out of other Pagan Wri∣ters, who frequently fall into this Comparison, and use this Excellent Metaphor, and very finely illustrate it: but what I have said is sufficient to shew what I aim at, viz. that there are the same Phrases and Expressions in the Holy Scriptures that there are in other Authors.

This I will further make good in another Excel∣lent

Notion and Maxim, viz. that Good and Vertu∣ous Men are Free, but that all Vitious Persons are Slaves. The Stile of Scripture runs this way, not only in the Old Testament, where David desires to be * 1.126 upheld by the free Spirit of God, i. e. by such a Di∣vine and Generous Principle as would make him act with the greatest Freedom in the ways of Religion: and where Sinners and Ungodly Men are stiled Pri∣soners and Captives once and again; as in Zech. 9. 11. Isa. 42. 6, 7. ch. 49. 8, 9. ch. 61. 1. Nor is it to be doubted whether these Places speak of such Per∣sons, seeing our Saviour himself alledges one of them (which is of the same Nature with the rest) to this Purpose, and tells us, it is his Office to pro∣claim Liberty to these Captives, Luke 4. 18. i. e. to offer Pardon to Sinners. But in the New Testa∣ment also (and there chiefly) this is the Language of the Holy Ghost: the Freedom that accompanies Holiness, and the Servitude of Sin, are expresly de∣clared in those Words of Christ, The Truth shall make you free, John 8. 32. Whosoever committeth Sin, is the Servant of Sin, ver. 34. If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed, ver. 36. The whole sixth Chapter to the Romans treats of this very thing, the Service of Sin, and the Freedom from it by Christ. The Servants of Sin mentioned here by St. Paul, are the same with† 1.127 the Spirits in Prison whom St. Peter speaks of, as I have proved in another Place, and have shewed the Inconsistency of other Interpretations. Whilst Men continue in their Sins, and addict themselves to their Vices, their Spirits, their Souls are deservedly said to be in Prison; their Persons are in Custody; they live in Durance and Thraldom; they are continually in

Bonds and Chains; they are fetter'd Slaves and Vassals: They may perhaps flatter themselves, and vaunt of Freedom, but they are Prisoners still; * 1.128 they promise Liberty, but are themselves Servants of Corruption. Whereas, on the contrary, True Re∣ligion enstates Men in a real and substantial Free∣dom; Christianity is† 1.129 the perfect Law of Liberty: ‖ 1.130 Where the Spirit of the Lord is, where Evangelical Sanctity is, there is Liberty. In short; no Man that loves to be vicious, and lives in the practice of Sin, can be said to be a Free-man; for he is wholly at the command of his Lusts: There is not a greater Slave in Algiers or Tripoli than such an one. This not only the Sacred Scriptures but Heathen Wri∣ters inculcate. Tully defends that Maxim, Quòd omnes sapientes, liberi; & stulti, servi: and en∣larges on it most admirably. This Zeno and all the Stoicks maintain'd, as we learn from* 1.131 Laer∣tius: and Isocrates more than once in his Orations to Demonicus and Nicocles, speaks thus. So doth† 1.132 E∣pictetus, who expresly asserts that Vice and Immo∣rality are the greatest Drudgery and Slavery. So doth Arrianus, who tells us, that‖ 1.133 he is a Free∣man who lives as he willeth, i. e. who makes the Rational Dictates of his Will the Rule of his Life; which none but a Good Man doth. Horace's admi∣rable Character of a Free-man is worth the consult∣ing;

Quisnam igitur Liber? Sapiens, sibi{que} imperiosus, Quem ne{que} pauperies, ne{que} mors, ne{que} vincula terrent: Responsare cupidinibus, contemnere honores Fortis, & in seipso totus teres atque rotundus.

And more he hath to the same purpose, which ac∣quaints us what Apprehensions the Moralists had of Freedom.* 1.134 Free-men, saith Euripides, are very rare in the World; for there is scarcely a Man to be found who is not a Slave to his Wealth or For∣tune, or some other thing. A Man that extremely loves his Money is† 1.135 a Golden Slave, in Socrates's Language.‖ 1.136 That is the worst kind of Servitude, saith Boethius, when the Souls of Men are given up to Vice, and are faln from the possession of their own Reason.* 1.137 There is no Man, saith Seneca, can be said to be Free, that is a Slave to his corpo∣real and sensual Part.† 1.138 You see, saith he in another Place, what a base and pernicious Slavery that Man hath brought himself into, who suffers unlawful Pleasures and Sorrows, those unconstant and impotent Mistresses, to domineer over him by turns. Thus 'tis the Stile of the Pagan as well as Inspired Writers, that Goodness is the true Freedom, and that Vice is real Bondage and Slavery.

So that Other Notion, that Good Men are only Wise, and that Sinners are Fools, is the Language both of Scripture and Profane Writers. Moses as∣sures the Israelites, that to keep and do God's Com∣mandments is their Wisdom and Understanding, Deut. 4. 6. with which is parallel Iob 28. 28. The Fear of the Lord, that is Wisdom; and to depart from Evil is Understanding. But on the contrary, he that

is destitute of the true and saving Knowledg and Fear of God, is a Fool, in the Stile of Holy Writ; * 1.139 The Fool hath said in his Heart, There is no God. And the following Words acquaint us that this Fool is one of a Vicious and Corrupt Life;† 1.140 This their Way is their Folly, saith the same Pious King. And his Royal Son had learn'd to speak the same Lan∣guage; whence in the Book of Proverbs Wicked Men and Fools are Synonymous, they are such ‖ 1.141 Fools as make a mock of Sin. So in the New Testa∣ment, the Man that studied nothing but his Unlaw∣ful Gain and Pleasure, is pronounc'd a* 1.142 Fool by Him who throughly understood the right Measures of Wisdom and Folly. This is agreeable to the Language of the Moral Philosophers in their Wri∣tings, especially of the Stoicks, whose Wise Man (it is well known) is no other than the Vertuous. In Cicero's Paradoxes this is expresly maintain'd and proved. Goodness and Integrity are† 1.143 a stable and solid Wisdom, saith Maximus Tyrius: and o∣thers of the Platonick School talk after that man∣ner. ‖ 1.144 He that lives as without God in the World; he that is irreligious and profane, is a Person void of Understanding, saith another Excel∣lent Man. Nay, the Stoicks went further, and pronounced all Vicious Men to be Mad. The Foun∣der of that Sect was wont to say, as Diogenes Laer∣tius informs us, that‖‖ 1.145 all Fools are Frentick, i. e. all Wicked Men are so. A Man given to Vice is com∣pared bya 1.146 Maximus Tyrius to one whose Brain is disorder'd with Drunkenness or Madness: and though (as he saith) he hath his Intervals, and

now and then makes use of his Reason, yet his Head is extreamly disorder'd. And Horace, who hath as many Excellent Moral Axioms as any of the Antients, speaks after this rate:

—Quid avarus? Stultus & insanus.—

Which is the very Stile of the Holy Scripture like∣wise: Madness is in in their Heart, Eccles. 9. 3. which is explain'd in the words immediately fore∣going, The Heart of the Sons of Men is full of Evil. And from the ensuing Texts you may see this made good, Eccles. 2. 2. Ier. 50. 38. and 51. 7. Acts 26. 11. Where Excess of Wickedness bears the Name of Madness. Conformably to which it is said of the Debauched Son in the Parable, that he came to himself, Luke 15. 17. which manner of Expression lets us know that he that runs into Excess of Riot is besides himself, and that an extravagant Sinner is a Bedlam.

And here I will make bold to interpret another Text to this purpose, (altho all those Commenta∣tors upon it that I have seen are pleased to be of another Mind) Iohn 20. 10. which in Greek is thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and hath this Translation in English, Then they went away again to their own home: but it seems not to be rightly translated: For first, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not then but therefore, and gives a Reason of what went before. 2dly. There is not any word in the Text that denotes Home, and therefore we cannot put that word into the Eng∣lish Translation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the Greek Word, signifies themselves, not their own Home. It should have been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if it were to be transla∣ted they went to their home, as you find the Greek

rendred in Mark 3. 19. Luke 15. 6. 3dly. We do not read that the Disciples or Apostles, of whom these words are spoken, went before to their Home, or that they came from thence: How then can it be said that they went again? Wherefore I render it thus, They therefore came again to themselves, i. e. were reduced to a sober Mind. It is the same Phrase with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is spoken of the Prodigal; he came to himself. For sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 venire as is clear from* 1.147 Plato and other Writers. And so here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to come to themselves, i. e. to be of a right and sound Mind. It is a way of speaking used by very good Authors: In† 1.148 Arrianus and others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bears the same sense. Yea, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 redire, as we may inform our selves from‖ 1.149 Suidas, who tells us that T••ucy∣dides takes the word in this sense. And so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers exactly to ad se redire, which is a Phrase among the* 1.150 Latins that signifies to come to a right Mind or Understanding. Or if you take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for venire only, yet the Ad∣verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being join'd with it, directs us to this very sense which I offer; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, iterum ad se venire, is all one with ad se re∣dire, to return to himself. So the Apostles Peter and Iohn (of whom this Text speaks) returned to themselves, or came again to themselves, i. e. to a found Mind and Understanding, which they had lost for some time. For notwithstanding Christ had

so frequently* 1.151 told them, when he was alive, that he would rise again after his Death, yea and had set the time of his Resurrection, viz. within three days; yet when they saw he was dead▪ they had no belief of any such thing, but utterly despair'd of it. Herein they shewed themselves very Dis∣composed Persons, this argued them to be besides themselves, and that Conduct of Reason and Faith which might have been expected from them. But when they went into the Sepulchre, and saw the Linen Clothes lie by themselves, v. 6, 7. which was a plain sign that the Body was not stolen away, for then the Clothes would have been taken away too, be∣cause they would not have staid to strip the Body: When the Disciples saw this, they believed, v. 8. tho (as it follows) as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the Dead, v. 9. The mean∣ing is, they were not induced to this Belief by considering the Prophecies in the Old Testament concerning Christ's Resurrection, but they believed because they saw. The sight of the Linen Clothes and the Napkin lest in the Sepulchre, cured them of their former Unbelief, and convinced them that Christ was really risen, and had thrown off those Ensigns of Mortality, and lest them behind him in the Sepulchre. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. therefore the Disciples came again to themselves. This word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gives a Reason of what is here spoken of from what is said before. St. Peter and St. Iohn were heal'd of the former Distemper and Malady of their Minds which they laboured under, by descen∣ding into the Grave, and seeing what was there. Now their Ignorance and Infidelity vanish, now they are brought to a due Composure of Thoughts,

which they wanted before. And indeed this is not the first time that these very Apostles were dis∣ordered in Mind. They knew not what they said (Mat. 9. 6.) when they were on the Mount at Christ's Transfiguration: one or both of these discovered how disordered they were in their Practice as well as Notions, when they call'd for Fire from Heaven upon the Samaritans, Luke 9. 54. and at several other times they acted contrary to sober Reason and the right Apprehensions which they ought to have had of things. But they afterwards recovered themselves, and had better Notions of things, and acted more conformably to the Dictates of a Composed Intellect. Thus here, they recol∣lected themselves, they came again to themselves. And thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of the same import with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in* 1.152 Philo. I conceive this may be the plain sense of the Evangelist's words: however I pro∣pound it only by way of Conjecture, and am willing in this (as in other things) to submit to the Ar∣bitration of the Wise.

I will mention another Instance of this Agree∣ment of the Stile of Pagan and Inspired Writers. It is usually among the former to honour a Good Man with the Title of the Friend of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is usual in Homer; and among the Philosophers, Plato especially, it is very frequent. Who are the Friends of God, is excellently discoursed of by this brave Man in his fourth Book of Laws. A Religious Man is a Friend of God, saith† 1.153 Max. Tyrius, with whom concurs another‖ 1.154 Eminent Moralist, di∣rectly asserting that Good Men are the Friends of the Deity. Epictetus and Arrianus speak of God as

a Friend, and the Best Friend. Ca••byses's Advice to his Son Cyrus was, Be thou the Friend of God, as * 1.155 Xenophon relates. In short, it was the common Stile and Language of the best Moralists, as So∣crates, Antoninus, Seneca, Plotinus, (besides those be∣fore named) to call a Vertuous Person a Fri••nd or one Beloved of God. Especially this Epithet was given him if he prospered in his vertuous Enter∣prizes, if he found Success in his laudable Endea∣vours. Yea, Epictetus (that Excellent Stoick Phi∣losopher, and Great Master of Ethicks) was ho∣noured with this† 1.156 Title, as the highest that could be, when he left the World, as we learn from his Epitaph. The same Expression we meet with often in Scripture; the same honourable Epithet is vouch∣safed there to Holy Men. Abraham the Father of the Faithful is particularly signalized by it, and that no less than thrice, 2 Chron. 20. 7. Isa. 41. 8. Iam. 2. 23. Of Moses 'tis said, that God spake to him as to his Friend, Exod. 33. 11. Solomon was named Iedidiah, i. e. the Beloved of the Lord, 2 Sam. 13. 25. In that Mystical Book of the Canticles this Name is attributed to both those entire Lovers, Christ and the Church.‖ 1.157 Eat O ye Friends, drink O Beloved, saith the former:* 1.158 This is my Beloved, this is my Friend, saith the latter. In which places Rang and Dod are the like endearing Titles with Ob••b, which was the word used in the Texts before-mentioned. And this further I could observe to you, that the words Obeb and Obebim, which are translated Friend and Friends in those places, might be rendred so in many† 1.159 others where our Translators english them him, or those that love God. In the Evangelical

Writings the same Stile is observable: thus those words in L••ke 12. 4. are spoken by our Saviour, particularly to his dear Companions and Disciples, where he calls them his Friends. And in three Verses together these his faithful Followers and Associates, and with them all True Believers and Holy Men are stiled his Friends, Joh. 15. 13, 14, 15. And hear what an Honourable Epitaph our Savi∣our bestowed on La••arus, John 11. 11. Our Friend Lazarus sleepeth.

What is more usual in the Language of the New Testament, than to say, a Wicked Man is dead? This my Son was dead, saith the Father of the Pro∣digal Son, Luke 15. 24. giving us to understand, that the Profligate and Debauch'd are morally dead. And so some think this Term is to be understood in the former part of those words, Let the Dead bury their Dead, Mat. 8. 22. Of the Widow gi••en to Luxury 'tis said, she is dead while she liveth, I Tim. 5. 6. And to be dead in Sin is in Scripture-Phrase∣ology applied after the same manner, Ephes. 2. 1, 5. Col. 2. 13. And in several other places the like mode of Speech is observable. To which the An∣tient Philosophers were no Strangers, in whose ac∣count Vicious Men were reputed as dead. Hence an* 1.160 Antient Writer of the Church observes that even in the Barbarick Philosophy they were wont to call those Dead who abandon'd the right Senti∣ments of things which they had, and made their Souls slaves to the Animal Passions. Not only Py∣thagoras himself was wont to place a Coffin in the room of his outcast Scholars, as if they had been dead, but his Followers (and the Platonists in imi∣tation of him) had the same Practice among them.

For it was an acknowledg'd Notion that Vertue makes us live, and consequently that wicked Men do not properly live, but that in true Morality they are rightly said to be dead.* 1.161 There is wanting in them an inward Principle of Life, as the Spartan said after all his trials of erecting a dead Body into a living Posture. Hence Vice is deservedly stiled† 1.162 the Death of the rational part of Man, and‖ 1.163 the Morta∣lity of the Soul. With relation to which guise of Speech intermortui mores are in Plautus, Corrupt and Vicious Manners. And the like Phrase is used by the Jews; the Wicked (say they) are Dead while they live: and again they tell us, that* 1.164 a Dead Car∣case is better than a Disciple that is void of Knowledge and true Wisdom. And other such like Expressions there are not only among the Hebrews but the Arabians.

Once more I will observe how the Scripture speaks as the best Moralists do, viz. when it calls Death a Sleep. The Hebrew Verb Shacab signifies to lie down to sleep, Gen. 19. 4. and likewise to die, •• Sam. 7. 12. Isa. 14. 8. whence to sleep with their Fathers is an usual Phrase in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Thence the Grave is call'd a Bed, Isa. 57. 2. Gneres is both lectus and feretrum, the Bed of those that sleep, and the Bed or Bier of those that are dead, (as perhaps our Saxon word grave, or grab, as other Germans write it, is from grabatus.) The Psalmist mentions the Sleep of Death, Psal. 13. 3. And it seems this was the Stile of the Antient Arabs, as appears from Iob 7. 21. I shall sleep in the Dust. If we descend to the New Testament, we shall read there that Lazarus sleepeth, Joh. 11. 11.

and of St. Stephen 'tis said that* 1.165 he fell asleep, and of other holy Men that† 1.166 they sleep in Iesus, and ‖ 1.167 are fallen asleep in Christ. When a good Man dies, he lays himself down to Rest, he betakes himself to his Repose: bidding the World good night, he shuts his Eyes, and opens them no more till the Morning of the Resurrection. The like Expression is in use among the Pagans: to sleep and to die are synonymous Terms with them. With the Prince of Poets Sleep is not only* 1.168 the Bro∣ther of Death, but it is the very word to express † 1.169 Death it self. Nox est perpetuò una dormienda, saith Catullus. Perpetuus Sopor is Horace's Language: Nox perpetua is Propertius's; which is the same with Virgil's Nox aeterna. Alluding to which Phrase is that of‖ 1.170 Tully and other good Authors, decum∣bere to lie down, to betake himself to sleep, i. e. to die. Accordingly the Poets feign the Palace of Sleep to be bordering on the Infernal Regions of Hell and Death. Thus I have let you see in several Particulars (and many more might have been pro∣duced) that there are the very same Expressions in Scripture that we ••eet with in other Writers: and certainly it is some Satisfaction to intelligent Minds to observe the handsome Agreement be∣tween both.

CHAP. III.

There are in the Sacred Writ the same Grammatical Figures which are found in other Writers; as an Enallage of Person, of Number, of Time. One Bodily Sense is mentioned instead of another. There is an exchange of the Positive, Comparative and Superlative. A Negative is put for a Compara∣tive: this shew'd in a great number of Instances in the Writings both of the Old and New Testament. An Hendyadis is usual in Scripture. So is a Pro∣lepsis. And an Hysterosis. The reason which Monsieur Simon gives of this latter is refuted, 1. By proving the Antiquity of Parchment-scrolls used in writing. 2. By shewing that they were well fastned together, so that they could not easily be misplaced and transposed, much less be lost, as this Writer imagines. Josephus's remarkable Te∣stimony produced to confirm both these. The true reason and occasion of some Transpositions in the Old Testament assigned.

IN the next place I will shew you that there are in the Sacred Writ the same Grammatical and Rhetorical Figures which are found in Other Writers. It will be very useful to insist a while upon these, because we cannot attain to a right understanding of the Scriptures unless we have some insight into them; yea we shall sometimes miserably mistake the sense and meaning of this Holy Book if we are not acquainted with the na∣ture of the Scripture-Stile as to this very thing. I know these Figures (some of them especially)

are observed and taken notice of by* 1.171 several Writers: but my chief Design is to give some Instances of them which are not taken notice of by Others, and yet are very necessary to be known in order to the right understanding the Holy Scrip∣tures. There are several of these I shall produce. You must know then that those Grammatical Fi∣gures or Defective Modes of speaking which are found in the Bible, are such as these. First, there is an Enallage of the Person, i. e. it is usual to put one Person in Grammatical Construction for ano∣ther. Thus we is instead of they, Psal. 66. 6. your Heart for their Heart, Psal. 22. 26. They for he, Eccles. 7. 29. they have sought out, which refers to Man in the preceding Clause. They instead of ye, Isa. 61. 7. They for she, as in 1 Tim. 2. 15. if they continue, i. e. if she, viz. the Woman spoken of before, continue in Faith, &c. and she is expresly mentioned in the Clause immediately foregoing. So in Gal. 6. 1. thy self should be themselves, for it refers to ye in the preceding words. But the In∣stances are almost numberless, wherein I might shew you this Change of Persons. It is enough to have hinted this at present, that you may continually take notice of this in the Stile of the Sacred Wri∣ters, and that you may direct your selves in the understanding of some places, which cannot right∣ly be interpreted unless we observe this Gramma∣tical Alteration, and thereby guide our Thoughts to the sense of the words. And this also might be suggested, that this way of Speech is used then ge∣nerally, when there is a sudden Transition from one thing to another, or when there is a Distribution of the Matter treated of, and sometimes when there

is a Familiar and Easy expressing of things yea at other times, when a near Concernedness of the Per∣sons spoken of is to be taken notice of.

Next you may observe the Change of Number; you will find it common in Scripture to express one Number by another, especially the Singular by the Plural. As 'tis said the Ark rested on the Moun∣tains of Ararat, i. e. on one of those Mountains, Gen. 8. 4. for it could not rest on them all. The Graves are ready for me, Job 17. 1. instead of the Grave, and so in ch. 21. v. 32. according to the Hebrew, tho not in our Translation. A single Ri∣ver is meant when Rivers are named, as you read of the Gates of the Rivers, when Tigris only is meant, Nah. 2. 6. That Sacrifices is put for a Sa∣crifice in Heb. 9. 23. is plain; for the Apostle there speaks of the Sacrifice and Death of Christ. In these and many* 1.172 other places the Plural Num∣ber supplies the room of the Singular. And in some other Texts the Singular is mentioned in∣stead of the Plural, as in Iob 37. 6. Cloud for Clouds. Psal. 9. 20. That the Nations may know themselves to be but Man (for so 'tis in the Hebrew) instead of Men. Isa. 3. 12. Child (for so you have it in the Original) for Children. Ezek. 31. 3. Branch (as the Hebrew hath it) for Branches. A Sheaf for Sheaves, Amos 2. 13. And the like is observable in the New Testament, that they may shave their Head, (so 'tis in the Greek) Acts 21. 24. for Heads: Loin for Loins, Heb. 7. 5. Body for Bodies, Phil. 3. 21. Heart for Hearts, Rom. 1. 21. and the same Enallage is in 1 Cor. 4. 2. Thus it is the usual way of the Sacred Writers (who in this, as in many

other things are followed by the best Greek and Latin Authors) to exchange one Number for ano∣ther▪ and it will be requisite for the Inquisitive Reader to observe this manner of speaking, be∣cause otherwise sometimes he will miss of the true Sense of the Place where this kind of Stile is made use of.

I pass to the Enallage of Time, which is very fre∣quent in the Holy Writ. In the Prophetick Wri∣ters especially this is observable; there the Present, or rather the Praeterperfect Tense (for the He∣brews have no Present Tense) is used very com∣monly for the Future, as in 1 Kings 13. 2. A Child is born (according to the Hebrew) for shall be born. Isa. 9. 2. The People that walked in Darkness have seen a great Light, prophetically for shall see. Ch. 9. 6. Unto us a Child is born; unto us a Son is given, instead of shall be born, shall be given. So in the New Te∣stament, in that Prophecy of Enoch quoted by St. Iude, ver. 14. The Lord cometh (or hath come) with ten thousand of his Saints; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 supplies the place of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I come unto you, John 14. 18. (for so 'tis in the Greek) should in Propriety of Speaking be, I will come unto you; and therefore it is so tran∣slated in our E••glish Bibles. In such like Places things are spoken in the Present or Praeterperfect Tense, to signify the Reality and Certainty of them, to let us know they shall as surely be fulfill'd as if they were so already. And as the Present or Praeterit is put for the Future, so this is sometimes used instead of that, as in Exod. 3. 14. Ehjeh, ero, is instead of sum; and accordingly the 70 Interpre∣ters render that Place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and we after them, I am that I am. The like Enallage you will find in Isa. 30. 32. And sometimes the Praeterit is used where the Present Time is understood, as in

Rev. 3. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have stood, which therefore we rightly translate I stand. Nothing is more common than this way of speaking in the Old and New Testament, insomuch that I need not have taken notice of so frequent a thing, unless I had undertaken to give a short Specimen of all or most of the Observables relating to the Scripture-Stile.

And as one Person, Number, and Tense, is put for another in the Holy Writings, so it might be remark'd that one Bodily Sense is mentioned instead of another; especially the Use of the Sight is fre∣quently put for Hearing, as in Isa. 2. 1. The Word that Isaiah the Son of Amos sa••, i. e. the Prophecy which he immediately heard from God's Month, and which he delivers in express Terms in the next Verse. To see the Voice, Rev. 1. 12. is to hear it, unless you will say, that seeing of the Person, whose Voice it was, is meant. Other Places might be produced where these two Senses are exchanged, but I will only here note, that this is common a∣mong Profane Writers:

* 1.173 Sex etiam & septem loca vidi reddere voces Unam cùm jaceres.

And another;

† 1.174—Nec quae sonitum det causa videm••••.

And visa loqui is instead of audita loqui in‖ 1.175 Claudian.

Sometimes you will find a Change of the Compa∣rative for the Positive, as in Matth. 18. 8. according to the Greek, It is good for thee, i. e. it is better

thee to enter into Life h••lt and maimed, than ha∣ving t••o Hands, &c. And in Mark 14. 21. Good i. e. Better were it for that Man if he had never been born. So in 1 Tim. 3. 13. They that have used the Office of a De••con well, purc••ase to themselves a Good Degree, i. e. a Better or Greater Degree, viz. of a Fresbyter or Bishop. Sometimes the Positive or Comparative is mentioned when the Superlative is understood, as in Matth. 22. 36, 38. The great Commandment, i. e. the greatest; and is explained there by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first. Those Words in Luke 7. 28. are generally reduced by Expositors to this Head, and therefore our English Version is [He that is least in the Kingdom of God is greater than he]: but I do not see any Reason to bring it under this way of speaking. For according to the Greek it should be, he that is lesser: and this is the true and natural Translation, the meaning of our Savi∣our's Words being this, I am lesser, i. e. in Age, I am Younger than Iohn the Baptist, and am Lesser in the Estimation of the People than he is; but yet I am far Greater than he, for he was but my Fore∣runner, my Messenger, as he saith in the foregoing Verse. So Theophyla•••• interprets the Words; and our own Translators in another Place favour this Exposition, when those Words in Rom. 9. 12. which according to the Greek are [the greater shall serve the lesser] are rendr••d by them thus, the elder shall serve the younger. So that you see the lesser is interpreted the younger; and there seems to be good Ground to understand it so in this Place. And indeed this is according to the Stile of the best La∣tin Authors, among whom, major and minor natu, are the elder and younger. Nay,* 1.176 minor, absolute∣ly

and without any Addition, is as much as junior▪ But in Phil. 1, 23. Having a Desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better, it is not to be questioned, I think, that the Superlative is changed for the Comparative; far better is instead of best of all. And so in Matth. 13. 32. the lesser of all Seeds (according to the Greek) for the least; and accord∣ingly we translate it so. Other Examples of this you have in Luke 9. 46. Iohn 10. 29. These are the Grammatical Changes which are observable in the Holy Book; and any one that hath perused the Writings of Other Authors, especially of the Greek and Latin Poets, is not ignorant that the very same occur in them, and that very often; so that I thought it needless to present you with Pa∣rallels out of those Writers.

But among the several Enallages, i. e. Changings of one thing for another in the Stile of Scripture, I will in the last Place mention this, viz. that a Ne∣gative oftentimes is put for a Comparative. The due observing of this will help us to reconcile ma∣ny Places of Scripture, which seem to jar with some others. I will begin with Numb. 23. 21. He hath not beheld Iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen Perverseness in Israel: Which is a Text that the Antinomian Party lay great Stress upon; for hence they say 'tis evident that God sees not any Sin in his own People, and consequently that he is not dis∣pleased with them for it: whence it will follow that they need not be displeased neither; their Sins (be they never so great and flagitious) are not to be the matter of their Sorrow, seeing God is not offended with them: which Doctrine soon opens a Door to all Licentiousness and Profaneness: but it is easily shut again by applying this Rule, that Scripture oftentimes, and here particularly,

speaks Absolutely, but is to be understood in a Com∣parative or Limited Sense. God beholds not Iniquity in Jacob, in his Chosen, as he doth in profligate Persons, and such as are given up to their Lusts; i. e. he beholds it not so in them as to reject them utterly, and to punish them eternally for their Mis∣doings. Thus if we compare God's beholding Sin in the one, with his beholding it in the other, he may be said not to behold it in the former, i. e. in his own People and Servants. But God hates and pu∣nisheth Sin in both sorts of Persons, and more par∣ticularly in those that are his, according to what he declares in Amos 3. 2. You only have I known of all the Families of the Earth, therefore I will punish you for all your Iniquities. Thus God did not behold Ini∣quity, did not see Perverseness in Israel; for we are assured by the Prophet* 1.177 Habakkuk, that he is of purer Eyes than to behold Evil, and cannot look on Ini∣quity. He cannot look on it long without punishing it, as well as he hated it always. Why then do some confidently aver, that God neither punishes nor hates Sin in his People, nor is displeased with them for it? Thus by making use of the foregoing Rule, we see what is the plain and natural Meaning of the Words. In a Comparative Sense, not in an Absolute and Unrestrained one, it is said, He beholds not Iniquity in Jacob: which is so far from favour∣ing the Antinomian Doctrine, that it clearly baf∣fles and confutes it. I will pass to another Text, They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, 1 Sam. 8. 7. They did reject Samuel from being Judg, in that they chose a King over them: yet God saith, They have not rejected thee, i. e. Compa∣ratively

they have not: they have not so much by this Action of despising Samuel their Judg, rejected him, as they have manifested their Rejection of Me, who am their Chief Judg and Ruler, and who set Samuel over them as my Deputy. They may be said to have rejected Me rather than him. The Psalmist faith, Against thee, thee only have I sinned, Psal. 51. 4. But though he speaks Exclusively, and in a manner Negatively, (for it is as much as if he had said, Against thee have I sinned, and not a∣gainst any one besides) yet he is to be understood Comparatively, for it is certain that he sinn'd a∣gainst Others, namely, against Uriah in a signal manner, whom he made drunk, and whose Blood he shed, and whose Bed he desiled; yea, as he was King, he notoriously sinn'd against all his Subjects and People: But because he Chiefly and Principally sinn'd against God who had raised him to the Throne, and done such wonderful things for him; because he had most of all offended God, he con∣fesses that he had sinn'd against Him, and Him only, Him and none else. A Negative is used for a Com∣parative. And so it is in Hos. 6. 6. I desired Mercy and not Sacrifice; which is explained in the next Clause of that Verse, and the Knowledg of God more than Burnt-offerings. Not is interpreted by more. God values Acts of Mercy and Charity, and such indispensable Duties of the Moral Law, more than all the Performances of the Ceremonial one. So that the Antithesis here is but in way of Comparison, as we may see in 1 Sam. 15. 22. To obey is better than Sacrifi••e.

The New Testament speaks after this manner, there you will frequently observe that our Saviour and his Apostles pronounce many things simply and absolutely, which yet we ought to understand and

interpret with a Limitation.* 1.178 She is not dead, but sleepeth, faith Christ of Iairus's deceased Daughter. She was dead, that cannot be denied; therefore this Negative must be expounded so as to qualify the Sense: She rather sleepeth than is dead: Her Departure is a Sleep to her, and I will soon awa∣ken her out of it, as you shall see. Thus our Savi∣our must be supposed to have spoken. Again, he faith,† 1.179 When thou makest a Dinner or a Supper, call not thy Friends, nor thy Brethren, neither thy Kinsmen nor thy rich Neighbours; but call the Poor, the Maimed, the Lame, the Blind. The meaning is, rather call these than them; yea, rather wholly omit these Feasts and Invitations, than forget to be charitable to the Poor. If the Necessitous be not excluded from your Charity, you may feast your rich Friends and Relations: but you must not feast Them, and neglect These; yea, you must chiefly and most of all take care of these. So is that other Passage of our Saviour to be understood, Labour not for the Meat which perisheth, John 6. 27. i. e. labour more for that Meat which endureth unto Everlasting Life (which he immediately after speaks of) than for this. You may labour for the perishing Meat, but let your greatest Care and Indeavour be for that which ne∣ver perisheth. Still you see the Negative is to be explain'd by a Comparative. And so it is in Iohn 16. 24. Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my Name, i. e. ye have asked little, which is comparatively Nothing. Thus the Apostle is to be meant when he saith, 2 Cor. 2. 5. He hath not grieved me, that is, me only, as is clear from the following Words, but in part all, for so it should be rendred according to the Greek, and a Parenthesis should be made.

In part (saith the Apostle) he hath brought Grief and Trouble to you all; I say, in part, that I may not overcharge him, that I may not aggravate his Fault too much. But, to speak Comparatively, and with respect to the whole Church, he hath not grieved me, because I am inconsiderable in compari∣son of all of you. The following Texts of St. Paul are to be explained thus: 2 Cor. 5. 4. We that are in this Tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not for that we should be unclothed, i. e. not for that only, or Comparatively not for that. Charity seeketh not her own, 1 Cor. 13. 5. i. e. not solely and chiefly. In respect of her generous Designs of Good for Others, she may be said not to seek her Own Good and Ad∣vantage. From which Sense of the Words we may know to interpret those other Texts; Let no Man seek his own, but every Man another's Wealth, 1 Cor. 10. 24. All seek their own, Phil. 2. 21. When this Apostle faith, We wrestle not against Flesh and Blood, but against Principalities, &c. Eph. 6. 12. the Sense certainly must be this, We wrestle not only or chiefly against those, but rather, yea most against these. Though we combate with our selves and our corrupt Natures, and with evil Men, yet our main Conflict is with the Spirits of Darkness, the Apostate Angels, who are hourly tempting and solic••ting us to Vice, that they may bring us into the same State of Condemnation with themselves. So when we are told that the Law is not made for a righteous Man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the Ungodly and for Sinners, &c. 1 Tim. 1. 8. we must not with an Antinomian Gloss upon the Words exempt righteous and godly Men from their Obligation to the Moral Law; for the Negative here hath not the Import of an Absolute Denial, but signifies only that the delivering of the Law,

and especially the Commination of it, were not pri∣marily and chiefly designed for the Righteous, for those that by the Grace of God observe the Pre∣cepts of it, but for those notorious. Offenders par∣ticularly enumerated in the following Words; the Comminatory Part belongs to them. Women are bid to adorn themselves not with broidered (it should be broided) Hair, or Gold, or Pearls, or c••stly Array, but with good Works, 1 Tim. 2. 9, 10. With which we may join that of another Apostle, Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of plaiting the Hair, and of wearing of Gold, or of putting on of Apparel, but let it be the ••idden Man of the Heart, 1 Pet. 3. 3, 4. None can imagine that all outward adorning and wearing of Gold, or putting on Apparel or costly Array, are utterly unlawful, and consequently forbidden here; wherefore the Words are to be taken with some Restriction; they are spoken Comparatively, that is, the Inward Adorning is far better, and much more to be look'd after than the Outward and Bo∣dily one. Christian Women must adorn them∣selves rather with Humility and Sobriety than with these. They ought not to be so solicitous about Apparel, as about the Inward Ornaments of the Soul. Nay, whatever Apparel is light and vain, and any ways administers to Lust, or Pride, or Wantonness, is wholly to be laid aside, as sinful and unlawful. In the same Chapter of the fore∣named Epistle to Timothy you read, that Adam was not deceived, but the Woman, ver. 14. We know that Adam was deceived, but yet in a Comparative way of speaking he was not, that is, his Deception was not so gross and inexcusable as that of the Wo∣man. It is said of the faithful Patriarchs, that they received not the Promise, Heb. 11. 39. i. e. in comparison of what we have since received. They

received it not in the full extent; else you cannot make sense of the following words, God ••aving provided, &c. In the foresaid Chapter of St. Peter 'tis said, Baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh, but the answer of a good Conscience towards God, ver. 21. This not seems to be Exclusive and Negative, and thence some have made use of this Text to null the sacred Ordi∣nance of Baptism, which in Contempt they call Water-Baptism. But they err, not knowing the Scriptures, and particularly not attending to the sense of this place, where not is no Absolute Ne∣gative, but a Comparative. Not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh, i. e. not the Outward Bap∣tism simply and only, or not that in Comparison of the other, viz. the Inward washing and purifying by the Spirit. And many other places it is im∣possible to understand aright, unless you make use of this Observation which I have here exemplified, namely that a Comparison is commonly in Scripture express'd by an Antithesis, or, which is all one, that a Negative is put for a Comparative.

In the next place, I might observe to you that an Hendyadis is very usual in Scripture, that is, two things are put severally to signify but one, as Let the Lights be in the Firmament for Signs and for Seasons, Gen. 1. 14. i. e. (as some Expositors think, tho I am not satisfied about it) Let them be for Signs of the Seasons. And they who read Psal. 17. 13, 14. thus, Deliver my Soul from the Wicked by thy Sword, from Men by thy Hand, tell us here is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Sword and the Hand, for a Sword handled or drawn, as if the Psalmist called upon God here to be his Champion, and to deliver him by fighting for him. That in Mat. 3. 11. is of the nature of an Hendyadis; for ••aptizing with the Holy

Ghost and with Fire, is the same with baptizing with the Holy Ghost, who is as Fire; and so here One thing is express'd as if it were Two. Some think there is the same Figure in Iohn 3. 5. Except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Water and the Spirit, i. e. say they, the Spirit that is like Water, cleansing and purifying the Soul. But I conceive it may be doubted whether this and the former way of speak∣ing be the same; for if Water in this place signi∣fies Bapt••sm, as the Antients interpreted it, then 'tis not the same thing with the Spirit, but distinct from it, and consequently here are not two things put for one. But doubtless there are in Mat. 24. 31. He shall send his Angels with a Trumpet, and a great Sound, i. e. with a Trumpet that hath a great Sound, that makes a great Noise, or, as our Translators render it, with a great Sound of a Trum∣pet. To this way of speaking may be referr'd Iohn 11. 33. He groan'd in the Spirit and was troubled, i. e. he groan'd in his troubled Spirit. And of this kind is Acts 14. 13. The Priest of Jupiter brought Oxen and Garlands, i. e. Oxen crown'd with Gar∣lands, as was usual when they sacrificed to Iupiter. One thing is here intended, tho 'tis express'd by two. To this Figure appertains Acts 15. 28. It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and to us, that is, to us directed, moved and guided by the Holy Ghost. I doubt not but an Hendyadis gives the best account of 1 Cor. 2. 4. My preaching was in Demonstration of the Spirit and of Power, i. e. of the Spirit who was Powerful, and enabled me in an extraordinary manner to demonstrate the Truth of the Gospel, and to convince Gainsayers; and who also enabled me to work Miracles for the confirming of what I preached. This is the same with Rom. 15. 19.

the Power of the Spirit of God, by which (as he there tells us) mighty Signs and Wonders were ef∣fected. The like mode of Speech is observable in the Apostle's words, in 1 Thess. 1. 5. Our Gospel came unto you in Power and in the Holy Ghost, i. e. the Holy Ghost shew'd himself Powerful in the Apo∣stles Preaching and Miracles. Lastly, under this Head may be rank'd Col. 2. 8. Philosophy and vain Deceit, that is, Philosophy which is both vain and deceitful.

To proceed, a Prolepsis is another usual Figure in Scripture, especially in the Old Testament. Such is that in Gen. 4. 16. Cain went and dwelt in the Land of Nod, where it seems to be implied that Nod was the Name of that place which he went to, and that it was named so before he went to it: whereas it is most probable that that Place was not call'd by that Name at that time, for it had its Name of Nod given to it from Cain's going thi∣ther, who was a* 1.180 Vagabond. So there is a plain Prolepsis or Anticipation in Gen. 14. 7. They smote all the Country of the Amalekites, tho at that time there were no Amalekites, and therefore the Coun∣try could not be named from them. In 1 Sam. 4. 1. it is said Israel pitched beside Eben-ezer, but there was no place of that Name then, for you will find it given afterwards. Those words in Gen. 29. 20. Iacob served seven Years for Rachel, are spoken Pro∣leptically, not as if he did not marry Rachel before the seven Years were expired. We read in Gen. 35. 19. and ch. 48. v. 7. that Rachel was buried in Bethlchem, but it is well known that that was not the Name of the Place till after Moses. So Hebron and some other Names of Cities are mention'd in

the Pentateuch, and yet the Names were not given till after Moses's Death. In Ios. 4. 19. the Israe∣lites are said to encamp in Gilgal, but that place is called so by Anticipation, for it had that Name afterwards, ch. 5. v. 9. And other Instances there are of this nature in the Book of Ioshuah; the Names of several places mentioned in it are of a later Date than Ioshuah's time. The Jews con∣jecture is very probable that Ezra after the Cap∣tivity, (when he collected the several parts of the Bible, and set them in order) left out some of the antient Names of Places, and inserted some mo∣dern ones; that is, he added the Names of Places which were unknown, and not used in the days of Moses or of others who writ those Books: whence it is that we now read of the Names of Places which were not given at that time when they are mentioned, but are only by way of Anticipation in∣serted into the History.

Near of kin to this is Hysterosis, another Usual Figure in Scripture, which is when the proper and genuine Order of the Words is not kept. And this is observable either in some single Words and Verses, or in some Chapters. Of the former sort is Gen. 10. 1. where the Sons of Noah are reckoned in this order, Shem, Ham and Iapheth; yet Iapheth was the Eldest Brother. It is true Scaliger holds the very order of the Generation which this Verse sets down, and saith Shem was Noah's First-born, and Iapheth his youngest. But 'tis generally agreed on by the Learned that this is not the right order: for first, the Septuagint expresly say Iapheth was the Elder Brother of Shem, v. 21. Again, Iosephus in his* 1.181 Jewish Antiquities reckons them thus,

Iapheth the eldest Son, Cham the next, and She•• the youngest of all. Moreover, according to the Chaldee Paraphrast, who is of good Repute, this is the true Order. Lastly, you will find it ob∣serv'd in the following Parts of this Chapter; the Generations begin first with Iapheth, then pass to Cham, and end with Shem. All which shews that there is a Transposition in the first Verse, and that the true ranking of them is not there kept. We read in Gen. 11. 26. that Terab begat Abram, Na∣hor, and Haran; but the naming of Abram first of the three Brethren, doth not prove that he was eldest; but there is some Ground to believe that he was not. And as the true Order of Words in some Verses is not always exact, so neither is the true Se∣ries of History observ'd in some Chapters. Thus in Gen. 2. after God's resting on the seventh Day, v. 1. you read of God's forming Man and Woman, v. 7. & 18. which was the Sixth Day's Work, and there∣fore according to the True Order of things should have been part of the Contents of the First Chap∣ter. So the Division of the Earth, which is the Sub∣ject of the 10th of Genesis, is set before the Confu∣sion of Tongues, spoken of in the 11th Chapter, notwithstanding this was before that, and was the occasion of it. And some Instances of this Nature are in those Historical Books of Samuel, the Kings, and Chronicles. The seventh and eighth Chapters of Daniel are misplaced; they should of right have been inserted before, viz. immediately after the 4th Chapter; for they speak of what happened in Belshazzar's time, although the foregoing Chapter relates what was done by Darius after Belshazzar was slain, and the Kingdom of Babylon became his. And in many other Places of the Sacred Writings there is a Transposing of things, and sometimes

that is placed first which was done last To which purpose the Hebrew Doctors have long since pronounced, that there is neither Before nor Af∣ter in the Law. A‖‖ 1.182 late Author tells us that the Reason is, because the Books of the Pentateuch and some others were written upon little Scrolls or Sheets of Paper, not so well fastned together as our Books now are, and so the Order of these Scrolls was changed. But this is an upstart In∣vention of this Gentleman's Brain, and hath no Foundation but his own Fancy; for as he mistakes Paper for Parchment, (there being perhaps no such thing as the former in those Days) so he is mistaken in his Conceit about fastning those Parchment-Wri∣tings together.

First, I say, he proceeds upon a wrong Foundati∣on, because he asserts the antientest Books of the Bible to have been written on Paper, whereas it doth not appear that this Invention is so old: and on the other side, there are undeniable Proofs of the great Antiquity of Parchment, and that it was made use of for Books to write upon. That which hath occasioned some Learned Men (and 'tis likely our present Author, who is most justly rank'd in the Number of the Learned) to think otherwise, was that Passage in Pliny's* 1.183 Natural History, where he reports that Ptolomee Philadelph, King of Egypt, forbad the exporting of the Papyrus (of which Pa∣per was made at that time) out of his Territories. Whereupon Eumenes, King of Pergamus, found out another way of making Paper, of the inmost Skins of Beasts, which was call'd Pergamena, be∣cause 'twas invented in Pergamus first. But this was a great Oversight of Pliny, for that was not

the first Use of them; they were much antienter than that time.† 1.184 Diodorus the Sicilian tells us, that the Persian Annals were writ in Parchment; which is a great Proof of its being very Antient. Salmuth, in his Commentary upon‖ 1.185 Pancirol, thinks the Antiquity of this Membrana is proved from Io∣vis diphthera, the Skin of the Goat that suckled Iu∣piter, in which the Antientest Memorials of things in the World were thought to be written. And out of Herodotus, the great Father of History, he hath a very considerable Quotation, who relates that some of the Old Grecians made use of the Skins of Goats and Sheep to write in; and therefore * 1.186 they call their Books Skins. And he adds, that † 1.187 many of the Barbarians write in such Skins. Now we know who they were that the Pagans used to call Barbarians, viz. the Iews; and therefore it is probable these are meant here. It may have rela∣tion to their writing the Books of the Old Testa∣ment in Parchment. But if This, concerning the particular Reference of these Words to the Iews, be a Conjecture only, yet the other things which have been suggested, are a clear and evident Proof of the Antient Use of the Membrana, and we have no reason to question that the Bible it self was writ∣ten in it. That it was so, we learn from Iosephus, who assures us, that Eleazar the High Priest sent away the 72 Elders or Interpreters to Ptolomee, with the Bible written in ••ine Parchment; and he tells us in‖ 1.188 the same Place, (which is very remarkable, and to our purpose) that King Ptolomee was asto∣nished to see the Parchments so fine and delicate, and to observe the whole Form of them so exactly joined toge∣ther,

that no one could possibly discern where the Seams were. From which Testimony of this Learned Jew it is evident, that there was Parchment found out and used in Writing before the time that Pliny talks of, i. e. before Eumenes's time. And as for this Eumenes, (who is by some Writers also call'd Attalus, for it appears plainly that 'tis the same Man, the same King of Pergamus) he was not the Person that in∣vented it, nor was it in his time invented; he on∣ly procured a great Quantity of it to be made, and so it became common in Greece and Asia: whence some (and Pliny among the rest) thought he was the first Inventer of it. This was the Rise of the Mistake: But the Truth of the Matter is this, (which the Learnedest Men now agree to) that Parchments which were made of Sheepskins dress'd, were long before the Emulation between Ptolomee and Eumenes, (who both at the same time were ambitious to procure an Universal Library;) but when this Quarrel arose, Ptolomee forbad Paper to be sent out of Egypt, whereupon Eumences caused Parchments to be made in greater Abundance than before, that so there might be no need of the Pa∣per. Again, 'tis evident from this Testimony of Iosephus, that the Books of the Old Testament were written in Parchment. And seeing we have proved that Parchment was long before, it is credible that the Bible was copied out at first into it. That Pro∣verbial Saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shews the great Antiquity of this sort of Writing-materials; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Membrana, and it is also a Book made of the same, which they of old used to write in. I might take notice of the antient Practice of the Jews, viz. their wearing of Phylacteries, which were pieces of Scrolls of Parchment, whereon they wrote some part of the Law, and bound it to their

Heads and Hands: whence we may probably ga∣ther, that the Books of the Old Testament were first of all Parchment-Writings; for the Jews were strict Observers as well as Admirers of Antiquity, and therefore their writing some Sentences of the Law in Parchments shews that the Bible it self, from whence they were taken, had been usually and of old transcribed into those very Materials. Much more might be said, but I will only add, that the Jews Rolling up their Sacred Writings (whence their Books were call'd Megilloth, Volumina) is a plain Argument that they were not composed of Egypti∣an Paper, which was thin and weak, and conse∣quently was not capable of this Rolling. But a Long and Broad Skin or Parchment would endure this without tearing, and therefore it is not to be doubted that this was made use of. The Sense of which (besides the common Report and Notion among the Jews) caused the Famous Rabbi Ionathan to say in his Targum on Deut. 31. 24. that Moses writ the Law upon Parchment: Which shews, that it was the Opinion of the Learned Jews, that the Bi∣ble was originally written in Parchment, not on Paper. And the Talmud often mentions this Parchment-Writing as a known thing. It is ratio∣nal then to believe and assert, that these Holy Re∣cords were written in Parchment: and though we are informed from sufficient Authors, that other Materials of old were used, as the Egyptian Papy∣rus, Leaves, as also the Inward Bark or Coat of Trees, &c. when they wrote but few Words, yet Parchment was the old and usual Matter on which they wrote when they had occasion to compose a whole Book: which confutes F. Simon's Notion, that the Old Testament was written in Paper; which, upon serious Reflection, so searching a Per∣son

as he is cannot but discern to be a Mistake: and he knows that Charta, Writing-Paper was not ge∣nerally used till Alexander the Great's time, as * 1.189 Pliny himself acknowledges, who quotes Varro for this, that the first use of Paper, made of the Cor∣tex of the Egyptian Papyrus, was found out in Egypt in that Monarch's Reign; and that before that time they wrote upon Leaves of Trees, on Wax, &c.

Then in the next Place, it were easy to disprove this Ingenious Author's Conceit about the fastning, or, rather as he would have it, the not fastning of these Parchments together, whence he fancies it was that the Transposition and Misplacing of some Parts of the Bible happened. He tells us, that heretofore they wrote upon Sheets or Leaves rolled together one over another, round a piece of Wood: and these being not well joined together, there was sometimes a misplacing of what was written in them, because their Order was altered. This may be partly true, and I cannot deny that it so happen∣ed sometimes, that is, when there was no Care taken to sow, or other ways to fasten the Leaves or Sheets to the Stick of Wood about which they were rolled, or to one another. But it was not so in the present Case; for you may be sure that they took all the Care imaginable to secure the Order of the Sheets, and they were not destitute of a particular way of doing it; so that their Books were suffici∣ently fastned. But if he means that they were not bound as our Books are now a days, then his new Discovery is only this, that the Trade of Book∣binding was not set up in Moses or Ezra's Days. Or, if he means that the written Sheets and Scrolls

were loose, and not well tack'd together, he wil∣fully speaks against his own knowledg of this Mat∣ter; for he knows very well that the Jews wrote in Rolls or continued Sheets or Skins, which were not liable to be separated, as our Writings are now. He is Antiquary enough to confute himself from what he hath read concerning their manner of making their Books or Volumes, their fixing the Sheets of Parchment at one end, by sowing or fastning the first Sheet between two Sticks or Pieces of Wood, their joining the several Sheets together, (as appears from the forecited Testimo∣ny of the Jewish Historian, who saith, the Parch∣ments in which the Bible was written, were so closely and firmly joined together, that 'twas not possible to discern the Seams or Places where they were joined) their Rolling them up close, and their keeping them in safe Repositories, (for they had places on purpose for all Valuable Books) so that it was not likely▪ yea scarcely possible, that any of these Scrolls or Sheets (which were not little ones, as he suggests, but of a considerable size) should be put out of their places, much less lost: for he goes so far as to as∣sert, that many of these Scrolls were embezzel'd and lost, and thence the Scriptures of the Old Te∣stament are so maimed and imperfect. But we know the Man and his Design, which is to depreti∣ate and vilify the Scriptures, thereby to advance the Credit of Tradition, and by that means to exalt the Church of Rome (though this is not so forward to exalt him): This was it which made him give us this Specimen of his Wit and Invention (of which, it must be confessed, he hath no small Stock); this made him attempt by these Paper-Proofs to lessen the Authority of the Bible: Otherwise it is cer∣tain this Parisian Critick is a Person of great Worth

and Learning; and it is his singular Commendati∣on that he is no Furious Bigot, but is Moderate and Discreet in many things, and is one that dotes not on the Opinions and Assertions of the Catholick Doctors. But if you would know the true Reason or Occasion of that Transposition which you some∣times meet with in the Holy Writings, not only of the Old but New Testament, it is chiefly this as I conceive; The Holy Writers study not Exactness, they are more intent upon the Thing and Matter which they write, than upon the due Order and Marshalling of it: they are not Nice and Accurate in giving every Occurrence or Event its right Place; whence it is that you meet with some things in these Writings that are transposed and out of Order: and it is left to the Diligent and Inquisitive Reader to amend and reform tho••e Dislocations. Those who would see farther Reasons of that fre∣quent Metathesis and Misplacing which are in the Sacred Books, may consult the Learned Dr. Light∣foot in his Chronicle of the Times of th•• Old Testa∣ment.

CHAP. IV.

There are not only Grammatical but Rhetorical Fi∣gures in the Sacred Volume. The Psalmist's Words, Psal. 120. 5. are Hyperbolical, though not gene∣rally interpreted to be such. So are our Saviour's Words, Matth. 13. 32. though commonly expound∣ed otherwise. Luke 19. 44. rejected▪ form being Hy∣perbolical. John 21. 25. proved to be an Hyper∣bole. This way of speaking in Scripture is no Lie. Ironies are frequent in this Holy Book, of which se∣veral Examples are produced. Luke 22. 36: is shew'd to be of this sort. And so is Acts 23. 5. I wist not that he was the High Priest. This man∣ner of speaking is not unworthy of the Sacred Penmen: Synecdoches frequent in Scripture; proved from se∣veral Instances; Metaphors also common. So∣lomon's Metaphorical Description of Old Age in Eccles. 12. expounded in all its Parts.

THere are not only Grammatical but Rhetorical Figures in this Sacred Volume, the chief of which I will briefly speak of, not to say that I have mentioned some of them already. And though (as I said of the former) they have been observed by several Writers, yet one Reason why I mention them here is, because I shall have occasion to reduce some Texts to these Figures which have not been so interpreted by other Authors. First, Hyperboles are not unusual in these Holy Writings; these are such Speeches as seem to surpass the bare Truth, either by augmenting or diminishing it. Thus a Great Caldron, one of the Vessels of the Tem∣ple

that held a vast Quantity of Water, is call'd a Sea, a molten Sea, 1 Kings 7. 23. a brazen Sea, 2 Kings. 25. 13. It is said, that the Cities were walled up to Heaven, Deut. 1. 28. and that Solomon made. Silver in Jerusalem as Stones, 1 Kings 10. 27. and that at his being anointed King the People rejoiced with great Ioy, so that the Earth rent with the Sound of them, 1 Kings 1. 40. Upon which Places, and some others, the Jews found that Saying of theirs, The Law sometimes speaks Hyperbolically. The De∣scription of Behemoth is full of this sort of Lan∣guage; He moveth his Tail like a Cedar; his Bones are as strong pieces of Brass, and Bars of Iron; he drinketh up a River, he trusteth that he can draw up Jor∣dan into his Mouth, Job 40. 17, &c. Xerxes's Ar∣my was said* 1.190 to drink whole Rivers dry, in that Hy∣perbolical Sense in which this is spoken of Behemoth: which proves what I have asserted, that the Scrip∣ture symbolizeth with other Writers, or rather they with it. The like Hyperbolical Description you have of the Leviathan, Job 41. 18, to the end. And such is that of the Locusts, Joel 2. 2—12. all which is indeed one Continued Hyperbole, wherein he elegantly and pathetically describes them as a well-formed Army, as Virgil in his Geor∣gicks loftily doth the Ants, It nigrum campis agmen. So all is Poetical and Hyperbolical in Psal. 18. 7—16. As for Psal. 120. 5. Wo is me that I so∣journ in Mesech, and dwell in the Tents of Kedar; few Expositors take it to be of this kind. Becaus•• Mesech signifies protracting or prolonging, some in∣terpret the first Clause thus, I have a LONG time dwelt: and because Kedar signifies Blackness, they

understand it of the Sadness of his Condition. O∣thers would translate the pious King to those Places and Countries which bear the Name of Mesech and Kedar, thinking that he was for some time confined to those Places. And there are other Conjectures about the Words, but the true Import of them in my. Apprehension is this; David being banished from home, expresseth it as if he were among the barb••rous Scythians, as if he were in the wild De∣sarts of Arabia. Or, if you take Mesech and Ke∣dar to be both of them in Arabia, (as some do) then still the Sense is the same; I sojourn, I dwell, I inhabit among the inhospitable People of Arabia, call'd Scenitae, because they lived in Tents, or in that part of the Wilderness where the Israelites pitch••d in Tents when they travell'd to the Land of Canaan: There is my Abode at present, I am no longer one of Iudea. This is an Hyperbolical Speech to set forth the Nature of those Inhuman•• and Malicious People into whose Hands he was fallen, and with whom he was forced to converse at that time. To this sort of Speech we may refer Psal. 97. 5. The Hills melted like Wax. Isa. 34. 3. The Mountains shall be melted with their Blood. Ezek. 32. 6. I will water with thy Blood, &c. I will mak•• the Blood of the slain so abundant, that it shall reach upto the very Mountains, and all the Rivers shall be ••ill'd with Blood; which is to be look'd up∣on as an Hyperbolical Description of Egypt's De∣struction. So Ezek. 39. 9, 10. [They shall burn the Weapons with ••ire seven Years; so that they shall take no Wood out of the Field, nor cut down any out of the Forests] is an elevated Strain of speak∣ing, to express the Multitude of the Weapons and Spoils taken from the Enemy, and the vast Slaughter of them. At the first View those Words in Oba∣dia••,

ver. 4. Though thou set thy Nest among the Stars, must be acknowledged to be highly Hyperbolical.

Neither is the New Testament without this kind of speaking; as to instance in Matth. 13. 32. which I grant is not reckoned by Writers among the Hy∣perboles of Scripture, but I appeal to the Learned, whether it ought not. Of the Mustard-seed there in the Parable Christ saith, It is indeed the least of all Seeds; (for though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be the Greek Word, yet (as hath been noted before) it is here put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as is plain from its being join∣ed with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so it is rightly rendred the least of all Seeds:) but this is not exactly true, for the * 1.191 Seeds of Sweet-marjoram and Wild Poppy are far less; and the Seeds of Tobacco are so small, that a thousand of them make not above one single Grain in Weight: but all must give place to the Seed of Moon-wort, which c••rtainly is a Seed of the least size that is. And† 1.192 another reckons a∣mong the smallest Seeds of Plants those of Reed∣mace, and of Harts-tongue, and of some sorts of Mosses and Ferns. And of these latter I have read that some of them are so small, that they cannot be seen without the Help of a Microscope. But our Saviour, to set forth and magnify the wonderful Power of the Word of God, and the Increasing and Spreading of his Kingdom, though from very small Beginnings, compares them to a Grain of Mustard-seed; and by a Lessening Hyperbole calls this the Least of all Seeds, though in exact speaking it be not so. But if this way of interpreting Christ's Words, which I now offer, be not approved of, then you may expound them thus, that this Seed is o••e of the least of all Seeds; or you may understand

them spoken Respectively, that is, it is the Least of all such Seeds as extend to large Productions; no Seed so little sendeth forth Branches so wide, or bringeth forth its Fruit after that plentiful man∣ner Thus you may understand the Words, but in my Judgment the resolving them into an Hyperbole is the best way, though it be not made use ••f by Expositors. And how indeed could it, when they took the Seed of Mustard to be Absolutely the least of all Grains whatsoever? That of our Saviour in Luke 19. 44. They shall not leave in thee one Stone up∣on another; which is spoken of the Last and Final Devastation of Ierusalem, is generally supposed to be an Hyperbolical Expression, and consequently not true in Strictness of Speech: for can we think, say some, that the Roman Armies had nothing else to do but to pick out all the Stones in the Founda∣tions, and throw them away? Those who talk thus, do not remember what was done at several times towards the compleat and total Destruction of that Place. This Passage of our Blessed Lord seems to refer particularly and signally to the digging up the Foundations of the City and Temple, and the very ploughing up the Ground by Titus's Command, (which the Jews themselves do not deny) and also to that Prodigious Earthquake in Iulian's time, whereby▪ the remaining Parts of the Foundations were wholly broken up and scattered abroad. Here was an Exact fulfilling of Christ's Prediction with∣out any Hyperbole.

As for that Close of St. Iohn's Gospel, Even the Wo••ld it self could not contain the Books that should be written, chap. 21▪ 25.* 1.193 Eus••bius and St. A••gustin

of old, and* 1.194 others more lately understand it thus; The World, that is, the Men of the World could not contain, that is, conceive, comprehend and digest the Books that should be written concerning our Saviour's Deeds. Their Understandings are weak, and must needs have been oppressed with so many Books on that Subject. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the word here used, is to be taken in Matth. 19. 11. All Men cannot receive (or contain) this Saying: and in this Sense it is used by Philo, who, speaking of the Knowledge of the Nature of God, and how unsearchable it is, saith, that† 1.195 neither Heaven nor Earth are able to contain, i. e. to comprehend it. But a‖ 1.196 modern Critick thinks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here signi••ies to entertain and approve of; and accordingly his Gloss on the Words is this, The whole World would scorn, reject and slight all the Books which should be writ of Christ, it having despised these that are already writ. The World hath other Em∣ployment, it would not read and peruse such Writings. This seems to be the meaning of the Verb in 2 Cor. 7. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, receive, entertain, approve of us. And‖‖ 1.197 Dionys. Halicarn. uses the word thus, saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the City ad∣mits not of, i. e. scorns good Men. But though this and the other be the meaning of the Word sometimes, yet it is very Rare and Unusual: be∣sides that it is Improper and Metaphorical; and in such a case it is more reasonable to choose and im∣brace that Sense of the Word which is common and usual, as also genuine and proper; and then the meaning is, that the World, as capacious and wide as it is, is not able to hold o•• contain all the Books that might have been written concerning

Christ and his Works. But this cannot be the S••ns•• here, you will say, because then our Saviour'•• Words would not be true; for the World is able, is wide enough to contain, to hold those Books, and many more besides. I answer, I grant this to be true in the strict way of speaking, but the E∣vangelist St. Iohn had a mind to conclude his Book with some Great Word concerning his Dear Ma∣ster and Saviour, and therefore expresseth himself thus in a High and Hyperbolical manner, The World it self could not contain the Books that should be written of him. As if he had said, Though I and other•• have recorded the Sayings and Doings of the Blessed Jesus, yet this is nothing in comparison of what might be said on this vast Subject. The••e is unspeakably much more re••naining than hath been told you. What he said and did was so Great and so Admirable, that Innumerable Volumes might be filled with enlarging on that copious Matter. I may say to you, the Whole World, as wide and am∣ple as it is, is not able to contain those Immense Treatises, those Infinite Discourses which might be written in relating all the Passages that con∣cern'd our Blessed Lord, and in commendation of them. Observ•• it, the Evangelist saith, the World it self, i. e. this Material Local World, therefore it cann't be understood of the Men of the world, as those of the former Opinions fancied. Besides, it is observable that he speaks not Absolutely here, but in a Qualified Manner; I suppose, I think, I conceive the World it self cannot contain, &c. which plainly shews that the Words cannot be meant in the former Senses. For what Sense can you make of this; I suppose, I think that all the Men in the World cannot comprehend the Books which should be written; or, I suppose all the Men in the World cannot

entertain and approve of them? Whether he supposed it or not, it would be so: and this is a thing not to be supposed, but really believed and directly assert∣ed, if it be true. But if you admit of the plain Sense of the Words, which I have propounded▪ then his supposing may be very pertinent and con∣sis••ent here; for it is but a kind of a Supposition. not an Exact and Strict Truth which he here utter∣eth: it is a Lofty Strain or Hyperbole, which he shuts up his Gospel with; I think in a manner, ••aith he, that the Whole World it self cannot con∣tain the Books that might be composed and written on this Glorious Theme, which is so Various, so Voluminous. Thus you see the Words must be un∣derstood in this way, for the others are not recon∣cilable to good Sense. And indeed this manner of Stile is but parallel with other Passages in Scrip∣ture, as Gen. 13. 6. The Land was not able ••o bear them, viz. Lot and Abraham, and their Flocks; which expresses how exceeding Numerous they were. So some understand Luke 2. 1. There went out a Decree that all the World should be taxed: which sets forth the Largeness and Vast Extent of the Emperor's Dominions; not that all the World (strictly speaking) was to be tax••d, for 'twas not all in his Power. It was said of our Saviour, The World is gone after him, John 12. 19. which only expresses the Vast Numbers of People that flock'd to him wheresoever he went. Such is the Stile here, The World it self cannot contain, &c. The E∣vangelists and Apostles must in a manner have fill'd the World with their Writings concerning Christ; the Books would have been so Numerous, that even the Whole World could scarcely have held them, that is, in plainer terms, there must have been an Incredible Number of Books to have con∣tain'd

all those Matters. There are many other Instances of this Hyperbolical Manner of speaking in the Holy Writings, but my Design is only to give you a Taste of these and the like Figurative Expressions, in order to your being better acquaint∣ed with the Stile of Scripture. There is a‖ 1.198 Learn∣ed Modern Divine, who thinks there is no such thing as an Hyperbole in Scripture; he will by no means grant that this way of speaking is to be found in the Sacred Writings, because it is a kind of Lie. But all that is to be said in answer to him, is this, that it is impossible to give any other Account of some of the forenamed Instances, and several o∣thers, than by resolving them into an Hyperbole; which is no Lie, nor a kind of one, because it is not contrary to the Mind of him that speaks it, nor is it spoken to impose upon them that hear it. Yet it is to be granted, that there is a Moderation to be observed by us, as there is in Scripture, in using this sort of speaking. You meet with but few Hy∣perboles in the Holy Writers; and as they are rare∣ly and sparingly used, so it is done in a fit and con∣venient Subject; and where there is no likelihood of their degenerating into a Lie; and where the Story or other subject Matter is not thereby falsly misrepresented▪ But it is otherwise where Wri∣ters immoderately affect an Hyperbolick Strain, for they make use of it in Matters where it is not fit to be used, and where the Truth and Reality of the Subject are endangered, and where it administers to Falshood, Thus it is in the Poems of that Hi∣storical Poet Lucan, who is a Prodigious and Un∣sufferable Hyperbolizer. And thus it is in Mon∣sieur Balsac: An Extravagant Hyperbole goes all

along through his Letters, though to the Greatest Persons, and Men of profess'd Gravity. A great Fault certainly it is in those Ingenious Pieces of his. But there is no such thing in the Sacred Wri∣tings, there is nothing there Romantick and Ex∣travagant; the Hyperbole is seldom used, and when it is, it is Modest and Becoming, Fit and Convenient, and doth not in the least administer to Levity, or impair and endamage the Truth.

Again; in this Holy Book, as well as in Other Writings, there is that sort of Speaking which is call'd an Irony, i. e. when something is said in way of Derision or Scoff, contrary to what is meant; as in that commonly observed Place, Gen. 3. 22. Behold! the Man is become as one of us, to know Good and Evil: which refers to Satan's Words to Adam, Ye shall be as Gods, knowing Good and Evil, ver. 5. And so Man is here upbraided with his Belief of the Devil before the God of Truth. Look you now, is not Man become a God? Yes, this mighti∣ly appears indeed from what hath befallen him; he hath lost the Divine Image wherein he was crea∣ted, and is become a Wretched Sinner and Apo∣state. Is not this Creature then become as one of us? or, now* 1.199 he hath been as one of us; he hath already experienced what it is to be like God: Hath he not? Thus he is justly derided for his wilful Folly by the Sacred Trinity. And if they think fit to speak after this manner, it will not unbecome the Sons of Men. This Ironical way of speaking you meet with in 1 Kings 18. 27. Cry aloud, for he (that is, Baal) is a God: either he is talking, or he is pur∣suing, or he is on a Iourney, or peradventure he sleep∣eth, and must be awaked. Thus the Prophet Elijah

mocks those deluded Priests of Baal, he makes him∣self pleasant with them. Even Grave and Austere Elijab laughs at the Baalites invoking of a Deaf Dei∣ty: he plays upon their serious but idolatrous De∣votion. Whence I gather, that it is not light and unbecoming to scoff at Superstition, and jeer Ido∣latry. Those Words of the Prophet Micaiah to King Abab, 1 Kings 22. 15. Go and prosper, are a plain Ironical Concession. In this Sense those Wo••ds are to be understood, Iob 5. 1. Call now, if there be any that will answer thee: and to which of the Saints will thou turn? And chap. 12. 2. No doubt but ye are the People, and Wisdom shall die with you. And that of Solomon to the Youthful Sinner, Rejoice, O young Man, in thy Youth, &c. Eccles. 11. 9. Which manner of speaking is more particularly suted here to the Humour and Genius of the Young Man, whose Fashion is immoderately to scoff, and to entertain himself and others with Pleasantry and Drollery▪ But that he might see that this was intended as a Rebuke to him, and that he might be sure that So∣lomon was serious and in good earnest, notwith∣standing this way of speaking, 'tis added in the Close of the Verse, Know that for all these things God will bring thee to Iudgment: And he that consi∣ders that will have no Reason to rejoice, i. e. to be loose and inordinate in his Mirth, but rather to be sober and retired, and to be preparing for Judg∣ment, and to set about so great a Task betimes, and not fondly presume on Health, and Length of Days. No Man need question whether those Words of Isaiah, ch. 8. 9. Associate your selves, O ye People, be not spoken Ironically: (which are pa∣rallel with Ioel 3. 11. Assemble your selves, and come all ye Heathen, and gather your selves round about, &c.) And those in Isa. 50. 11. Walk in the Light of

your Fire, and in the Sparks that you have kindled, i. e. trust in those things that cannot help you, Spark•• that give a short Light, and soon vanish. That is a terrible Biting Taunt in Ier. 22. 23. How gracious shalt thou be when Pangs come upon thee, the Pain as of a Woman in Travail? And so is that other, Lam. 4. 21: Rejoice and be glad, O Daughter of Edom, the Cup (viz. of Vengeance) shall pass through to thee. Who doubts whether Ezek. 20. 39. be not Sarcasti∣cal? Thus faith the Lord God, Go ye, serve ye every one his Idols. The like Command we read in Amos 4. 4, 5▪ Come to Bethel and transgress, at Gilgal multi∣ply Transgression, &c. That also in Mic. 5. 1. must be reckon'd as spoken Ironically; Now gather thy self in Troops, O Daughter of Troops, &c. i. e. O Assy∣rians, come and do your worst, with your joint Forces invade us, and most severely treat our Prince and People; yea, by all means destroy, ex∣tirpate, and even annihilate the Church of God: whereas the Prophet, who speaks this, intimates in the whole Chapter afterwards, that the Church shall flourish, and that it shall be impossible for its Enemies to do it harm. So that in Nah. 3. 14. Draw thee Waters for the Siege, fortify thy strong Holds, is said in way of Derision to Niniveh, whose una∣voidable Ruine is foretold in that Chapter.

And besides many such Sarcasms in the Old Te∣••••ament, there are several in the New, as that of our Blessed Lord to his drowzy Disciples, Sleep on ••ow, and take your Rest, Matth. 26. 45. This is a downright Irony, because Christ here intends a different thing, nay contrary to what he saith: His meaning is, not that they should sleep, when both he and they were in so great Danger, but his Inten∣tion rather was, that they should watch and pray, as you read, ver. 41. By this way of speaking he

corrects them for their unseasonable Drowsiness, that they could not watch at such a time as that, when he had just before foretold them that he was to be betrayed. That is another clear Text, Full well (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fairly, as Sir Nort. Knatchbull renders it) ye reject the Commandment of God, saith our Sa∣viour to the Pharisees, Mark 7. 9. Ye do very well and laudably in preferring the Traditions and Con∣stitutions of Men before the express Commands of God. This is a commendable piece of Religion indeed: Is it not? Do you think that this will be acceptable to God? There is another Passage of our Saviour which seems to me to be perfectly Ironical, though Commentators generally carry the Sense another way: But now (saith Christ) he that hath a Purse, let him take it, and likewise his Scrip: and be that hath no Sword, let him sell his Garment, and buy one, Luke 22. 36. Which is thought by Expositors to be a plain and direct Exhortation to the Apo∣stles to furnish themselves with Money, Provision, and Swords. But this cannot be meant here, be∣cause, 1. Christ had declared against Fighting, for he tells Pilate, (Iohn 18. 36.) that if his King∣dom were of this World, then would his Servants (i. e. his Apostles and Disciples) fight, that he should not be delivered to the Iews. Swords then were to no purpose. 2. When they brought two Swords to him, his Answer is observable, It is enough. If he had meant real Swords, he would not have said that two of them were enough, for those could serve but two Men: They should all of them be appoint∣ed with that sort of Weapons, and have stood on their Guard. When therefore he saith, It is enough, he doth as good as say, I do not mean Carnal Wea∣pons: You mistake me, as you have often done, and dream of a Temporal Kingdom of the Messias.

3. It is evident that Christ meant not Swords in the usual Signification of the Word, because after∣wards he sharply blamed Peter for making use of this Weapon, Matth. 26. 52. It appears that he had no Commission from our Saviour to draw his Sword. I cannot therefore subscribe to those who interpret these Words of our Lord in the direct and obvious Sense. But if we understand them to be spoken ••ronically, they are very intelligible, and are consistent with what Christ saith at other times. And let no Man wonder that our Blessed Master uses this sort of Stile here, for I have shew∣ed you before, in two undeniable Instances, that he made use of it, yea even when he was approach∣ing to Death, as when he said to his Apostles, Sleep on, and take your Rest. And so he speaks after the same manner here, upbraiding his Apostles, who he knew were afraid of Suffering, and had so often been talking of Christ's Kingdom on Earth, and of the Prosperous Times that were to accom∣pany it. He now in a Sarcastick way chastises their fond and groundless Conceit, and bids them go and buy Swords, and lay in Provisions. If you are for a Temporal Reign, saith he, then sight for it. You are specially well skill'd in your Weapons without doubt, you are excellent Sword-men. This I take to be the Sense of the Words: and truly a Man might gather it from that one Passage before men∣tioned; It is enough, said our Saviour to them, when they brought him a couple of Swords. This it self is an Ironick Quip; it is as if he had said, This is brave Armour indeed! Now you are well ap∣pointed surely. You are like to defend me and your selves against all that come against us. Two Swords amongst you all are a very great Armory▪ This plainly shews what our Saviour's meaning

was, when he bid them buy Swords, he handsomly check'd them for their Cowardice and Fear of Suf∣fering. But yet I will not deny that something more may be included and comprized in these Words: he bids them make the best Provision they can against the Calamitous Times that were coming: he exhorts them to be provided with Spi∣ritual Weapons, Faith and Patience, and th•• Sword of the Spirit, yea with the Whole Armour of God. This higher and spiritual meaning may be contain∣ed in what Christ here uttereth. But if you take the Words as they sound, and in the more direct and literal Tendency of them, I do not see that they can be interpreted in a better way than I have offered.

And as our Blessed Saviour himself, so the Apo∣stle St. Paul sometimes uses this Figure which I am now speaking of. I am enclined to think that those Words in Acts 23. 5. I wist not that he was the High Priest, are to be taken in this Sense: He makes use of an Irony, and is to be understood as if he had said, Is this the High Priest? Alas, I did not know that this was that Reverend Gentleman. I should have shewed my self more civil to him, if I had been acquainted that this was that Worshipful Man, that Gay Pontiff to whom you pay so great Veneration: But who would take this Person to be the High Priest, the Great Leading Officer of the Church, who is to be an Example of Mildness and Gentleness to all Men? His furious way of speaking and acting towards me, doth not discover him to be one of that High Character and Order: He doth not shew himself to be a Spiritual Man: Surely this cannot be He: This Behaviour speaks him to be another Person. So it is spoken in a jtering way. Nor is this Sense of the Words (as ••••me

may think) too light and jocular for the Apostle, though he was before the Sanhedrim, the most Grave and Solemn Council of that Nation: For in several of the Instances before mentioned, we see this way of speaking hath been made use of before very Great and Venerable Persons, and in Causes that were exceeding Serious and Weighty. And whereas the Apostle immediately adds, For it is written, Thou shalt not speak Evil of the Ruler of thy People; which may make it seem incredible that St. Paul spoke in a Sarcastick way, which is speaking one thing, and meaning another: for is it likely he would back this with a serious Text of Scripture? I answer, It is likely, for hereby he lets them see, that there is Substantial and Real Truth at the bot∣tom of this Sarcasm. He lets them know, that he is very Grave and in good earnest whilst he speaks to them after an Ironick rate: You are, saith he, very well vers'd in Scripture, I know; You are rea∣dy to quote that Place against me in Exodus, Thou shalt not speak Evil of the Ruler of the People. This it is, Sirs, to be so well skill'd in the Law, you can∣not but be very Good People certainly, and parti∣cularly you must be very Obedient to your Rulers, and are never heard to use any irreverent Language towards them. It is therefore an unpardonable Crime in me that I call'd your High Priest (your Painted Piece of Justice) a Whited Wall. Yea, 'tis an unsufferable Fault not to know that this Person (among all those that sit on this Reverend Bench) was the High Priest, especially when there are two of them at a time. O! by all means every Man and Woman is bound to know that this individual Person is the Jewish Pope, the Supreme and Infalli∣ble Head of your Church What a dull ignorant Creature was I that I wish not this? that I shoul••

not know that this was the Prince of this Reverend Senate, even this Worthy Gentleman, this simo∣niacal Merchant that bought his Place of the Ro∣man Governour? How should I understand that this Person is my Iudg at this time? This, I con∣ceive, may be the meaning of the Apostle's Words: he prudently orders them, and jirks his Adversa∣ries, but with Safety to himself. And this Ironical way seems the rather to be that which the Apostle here chooseth, because you presently find (in the next Verses) that he pursues this prudential way of speaking, and cries out in the Council, Men and Bre∣thren, I am a Pharisee, though he was none at that time; only he held the Doctrine of the Resurrecti∣on, which the Pharisees maintain'd, and so might be said to be of that Sect, if of any. But there is an Ironical Strain in it, and so his Discourse is all of a piece. This is the Apprehension which I have of these Words, but I am not very forward to urge it upon any; only I will say this, that I had not pitch'd upon this Interpretation, if some of those that are usually propounded had not displeased me. This Sense of the Words is certainly preferable to that of Oecumenius, who tells us in plain terms, that the Apostle* 1.200 dissembled. And St. Ierom blames him for his Conduct in this Business. Nor is there any Ground (so far as I see) for Dr. Light∣foot's Account of these Words, viz. that the meaning of them is either, 1. That St. Paul owns not Ananias for a lawful High Priest. Or, 2. He owns not any lawful High Priesthood now, Anani∣as being an Usurper, getting the Place by Money and ••raud. For though all this is true, yet it is utterly inconsistent with what follows; for it is

written, Thou shalt not speak Evil of, &c. where there is an Acknowledgment of his being the Ruler of the People. Besides, I wist not, and I own him not to be the High Priest, are two different things: So that this cannot be the right Import of the Words. Others therefore say, the Apostle is to be under∣stood in the most plain and obvious Signification, viz. that he really knew not that Ananias was the High Priest, because it is probable, say they, this Great Man appear'd not at that time in his Ponti∣fical Habit, coming to the Council perhaps in haste, which might incline the Apostle to think it was not He who sat there to judg him. But no Man can prove that the High Priest came to the Sanhedrim in haste, or that he was not in his Robes proper to his Office; and therefore this Answer is not satis∣factory. But they tell us, that in those Days there were two High Priests, one bought the Place, and the other executed the Office; therefore it was no easy Matter to know which of the two was the High Priest indeed, which made St. Paul profess before the Council, that he wist not that the Person who commanded him to be smitten on the Mouth, was the High Priest. If he had known him (say they) to be Him, he would not have spoken as he did of this Great Ruler of the People. But grant∣ing there were two High Priests at that time, yet it is likely that one (who executed the Office) was distinguish'd from the other in some manner that was easily discernible: So that St. Paul could not pretend he had no notice of him. However, St. Paul knew that this very Person who ordered him to be smitten, was one of his Iudges, (for he ex∣presly saith, that he sat there to judg him after the Law) and on that account was a Ruler, and conse∣quently he was not to speak Evil of him, much less

to curse him, for he was not to u••e Malediction to∣wards any, as himself acknowledgeth, Rom. 12. 14. This Interpretation therefore is not to be admit∣ted. But if the Sense which I have before offered be disliked, then I know no other but this, that when St. Paul saith, he wist not that he was the High Priest; the meaning is, that he remembered not, he considered not that he was such a Person, and so was unawares surprized and precipitated into Passion, and spoke unbecomingly of this Great Man. It was want of Considering and Attending that be∣trayed him to that passionate and unseemly Lan∣guage: or, being moved and exasperated, ••e did not consider that he was before so Great a Person. This is no improbable Interpretation, if you can be sure that these two Words, to know and to consi∣der, are sometimes equivalent in the Stile of Scrip∣ture. But if you cannot satisfy your selves as to this, I think you may safely recur to the first Inter∣pretation, and look upon St. Paul's Words as an Ironical Speech, especially if you consider that his Stile is very full of them.

This I shall make good to you from ••everal In∣stances in his Epistles; as that in 1 Co••. 11. 6. If the Woman be not covered, let her also be sh••••n: If she lays her Vail aside, and appears in the publick As∣semblies wihtout a Covering▪ then I say, let her also be shorn or shaved, let her Hair be cut close to the Skin, let her go like some of the Cropp'd Philosophers among the Stoicks. Not that he would have her do so, but only by this Sarcastick way of speaking he signifie•• that one is as decent as the other. It is as disgraceful to be Uncovered as to be shaved: for 'twas the l••••dable Custom then ••n the Christian Churches for the Women to b•• ••ailed, and it was disgraceful and rep••oac••f••l for

any of that Sex to appear bare-fac'd in the time of Worship. Again, those Words in 2 Cor. 10. 12. We dare not make our selves of the Number, or com∣pare our selves with some that commend themselves, &c. are spoken meerly in Derision of the False Apo∣stles and Teachers, who had gain'd upon the Corin∣thians and other Churches by their confident Boast∣ing and vain Brags. I dare not presume, ••aith the Apostle▪ to think my self as worthy as they are, and so rank my self with th••se high-flown Tea∣chers. Yet we know he commends himself in the beginning of the 11th Chapter; and again in ch. 12. 11. which shews that these Words are said in an Ironical way. This is that which he seems to say in ch. 11. 17, &c. That which I speak, I speak not af∣ter the Lord, but as it were foolishly in this Confidence of Boasting. Seeing many glory after the Flesh, (brag of their Parts and Attainments) I will glory also. For ye suffer Fools gladly, seeing ye your selves are wise. Which is all of the same biting Strain, and is as much as if he had said, You that are so great Admirers of the false Apostles, and are Men of such wise Heads, and of so profound Capacities, I know it is below you to censure such a shallow Fool as I am, who cannot forbear prating of my Gifts and Abilities, of my great Feats and Exploits for∣sooth, which alas are nothing in comparison of what your famous Teachers and new Evangelists may glory in, and value themselves upon. But then in the following Verses he leaves off (and 'twas time to do so) this looser sort of Stile, and in a plain and close manner vindicates his Reputati∣on and Dignity by vying with those bragging Im∣postors, Are they Hebrews? so am I, &c.

That is a plain downright Irony in 2 Cor. 11. 4. If he that cometh preacheth another Iesus, ye might well

(〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fairly and honestly) bear with him. As if he had said, Yes indeed you Men of Corinth are a civil easy sort of People; if a new upstart Tea∣cher should bring another Gospel to you, you would do very well to receive him and bid him wel∣come. Thus he in an Illusory kind of way rebukes their shameful Inconstancy and Levity. In the same Vein▪ is that in 2. Cor. 12. 13. Forgive me this wrong. He had told them in the same Verse, that they were inferiour to no Churches in any thing, i. e. in any Privileges or Excellencies whatsoever, except it was in this, that he was not burdensom to them; that is, he put them to no Charges for his Preaching, he preach'd the Gospel gratis: For which great Wrong and Injury done to them he hopes, he saith, they will pardon him. A very smart and pleasant Irony. Thus it appears, that this Figurative way of Speech is frequent in the Holy Writings. Some perhaps would scarcely believe that there are so many Ironical Passages in this Holy Book; they may think it is below the Gravity of the Sacred Stile to use Expressions of this kind: But herein they are mistaken, for the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures uses several different ways of dealing with Mankind, and sutes himself to the various Dispositions, Ge∣nius's and Inclinations of Men: and therefore a∣mong other ways of Address and Application he disdains not This in particular, because it may be made serviceable to very good Ends, and be fitted to the Purposes of Religion. Even in the Holy Tongue* 1.201 the same Word signi••ies to Deride and to Argue or Ratiocinate: Both these may go together when there is a fit occasion for them. A Man may use his Rational and Risible Faculty at once.

* 1.202—Ridentem dicere verum Quid vetat?

A Man may laugh and speak Truth at the same time. This Urbanity may sometimes be very use∣ful. Very excellent things may be suggested in a Scommatick way. For this Reason it is not un∣worthy of the Holy Ghost, it is not unbecoming the Gravity and Seriousness of the Holy Prophets, A∣postles, and even Christ himself, to use this nipping sort of Raillery sometimes.

A Synecdoche is another common Figure in the Holy Writings, whereby the Whole is mentioned instead of a Part, and a Part instead of the Whole. Of the former, which is but rare, there are some Instances in Glassius, and such other Writers as treat of the Grammatical and Rhetorical Part of the Bible, which the Reader may consult if he please. Of the latter (which is most observable) there are various kinds, but it will be sufficient to mention these which follow. Sometimes the Soul, which is but one half of Man, is put for the whole Person: All the Souls that came with Jacob into Egypt were threescore and ten, Gen. 46. 26. i. e. so many Men and Women came with him: And there are abundant Examples of this sort, both in the Old and New Testament. Sometimes the other Moie∣ty, the Body, is expressive of the Whole Man, as Rom. 12. 1. Present your Bodies (i. e. your selves) a living Sacrifice. And Phil. 1. 20. Christ shall be magnified in my Body, i. e. by me, my whole per∣son. There is another Text which I will name, Luke 21. 34. wherein there is this kind of Synecdo∣che,

though I find not that it is observed by those that comment on it: Take heed to your selves lest at any time your Hearts be overcharg'd with Surf••iting and Drunkenness, and Cares of this Life; your Hearts, i. e. your selves. It must be meant of the Whole Man, Body and Soul, because not only Surfeiting and Drunkenness (which belong to the Body only) but Cares of this life (which belong to the Soul and Mind) are expresly mentioned. Again, some Parts of the World are mentioned for the whole, as in Z••ch. 8. 7. I will save my People from the East Coun∣try, and from the West Country, i. e. from all Regi∣ons and Parts of the World. And in other Places two or three of the Cardinal Points stand for them all. To the Synecdochical way of speaking belongs the using of an Even Number for an Odd one; or a Round Number for one that is lesser or greater. So* 1.203 some think the Year of Iubilee is call'd the Fiftieth Year, Lev. 25. 10. meerly for the Evenness or Roundness of the Number, and not because full Fifty Years go to every Jubilee; for they hold that Forty nine Years make a Jubilee, or rather that the forty ninth Year is the Year of Jubilee. And truly it is adjusted to Reason and the Discovery we have concerning this Matter: for the Jubilee is the Great Sabbath of Years, and is composed of seven times seven Years, which is exactly forty nine, the last of which is the Jubilaean Year. Odd Numbers are not regarded sometimes. The Scripture is not so minute and critical as always to reckon preci••ely. It is not unusual to omit a small Number of Years in a greater and bigger one. In Numb. 11. 24. the Elders are said to be seventy, though two of the Number be wanting, as is plain from ver. 26. But

others solve this by saying, the full Number of them was seventy two. It is recorded that the Per∣sian King reigned over a hundred and twenty seven Provinees, E••th. 1. 1. But in Dan. 6. 1. the odd Number seven is omitted, and so in other Places the imperfect Number is left out. Some Parts on∣ly of the Twelve Tribes are call'd the Twelve Tribes; Acts 26. 7. Our twelve Tribes instantly serving God Day and Night. And St. Iames directs his Epistle to the Twelve Tribes, whether there were that Number extant at that time or not. So a Round Number is used for an odd one in Iohn 20. 24. where Thomas is call'd one of the Twelve: yet there were but Eleven Apostles then. But because the Number of the Apostles was twelve before Iu∣das's Apostacy; and afterwards, when Matthias was chosen in his room, the Number was filled up, therefore they are call'd the Twelve by the Evange∣list, but 'tis in a way of Synecdoche. He was seen of the twelve, saith St. Paul, 1 Cor. 15. 5. Yet there were not above Eleven at that time. The true Account of this is, that the Greatest Part hath the Name of the Whole. And sometimes an Uneven Number is put for an Even one, as in Mark 16. 14. He appeared to the eleven, when there were but ten present, for Thomas was not there, and Iudas had hang'd himself. Thus the strict Number of Per∣sons and Things is not made use of sometimes in Scripture. It was generally believed by the Anti∣ents, that the seventy Disciples mentioned Luke 10. 1, 17. were in strict speaking seventy two: and indeed some Greek Copies have it* 1.204 so, and the Vulgar Latin renders it† 1.205 accordingly. So the fa∣mous Interpreters of the Old Testament were se∣venty

two, (six out of every Tribe) but are gene∣rally known by the Name of the Septuagint. This is not unfrequent in Profane Authors, and in our Common Discourse, as those that are call'd the Se∣ven Stars are according to some Astronomers but Six. Yea, this was taken notice of long ago by * 1.206 Ovid:

Quae septem dici, sex tamen esse solent.

So we call them the Cinque Ports, which are more in Number; for the Privileg'd Ports in Eng∣land were three at first; afterwards two were added, and then they were call'd the Cinque Ports. Yet after that, when two more were added, still they retain'd the former Name: nay, another was added, which made eight, and yet they are to this Day call'd the Cinque Ports. And several other In∣stances there are of this sort of Synecdoche, but my Design is not to enumerate all of them, nor of any Others that belong to the rest of the Figures, but only to give you some few Examples of them, that you may thence know how to discern the rest, and by all together understand the Nature of the Scrip∣ture-Stile.

But of all the Figurative ways of speaking in Sripture, there is none so common as the Metapho∣rical one, which is when the Words are translated from their proper and genuine Signification to ano∣ther. Thus you read of trusting in the shadow (i. e. the Protection) of Egypt. Isa. 30. 3. Thus the Psalmist complains that the Plowers plowed upon his Back, and made long their Furrows, Psal. 129. 3. i. e. they exceedingly troubled, vex'd and plagued

him. So the Jews are call'd the threshing, and the Corn of the Floor, Isa. 21. 10. i. e. a People that had been extremely harassed and persecuted by their E∣nemies. And that is another Metaphorical De∣scription of Affliction; Psal. 42. 7. All thy Waves and thy Billows have gone over me. And a great Multitude of such like Expressions there are every where in the Old Testament. Sometimes there is a double Metaphor, as in Psal. 97. 11. Light is sown for the Righteous. The Joy, the Comfort which is promised to Good Men, is here in a borrowed Stile called Light; and not only so, but Seed, precious Seed which is covered for a time, (hid under Ground) but shall in due Season sprout forth: and they that sow in Tears shall reap in Ioy; which is still a farther Instance of this kind of speaking. Sometimes there is a Continued Meta∣phor, as in Hos. 10. 12, &c. Sow to your selves in Righteousness, reap in Mercy; break up your Fallow∣ground: for it is time to seek the Lord, till he come and rain Righteousness upon you. Ye have plowed Wicked∣ness, ye have reaped Iniquity, ye have eaten the Fruit of Lies. Here is a Heap of Metaphors taken from the Field and Husbandry. Throughout the whole 23d Psalm, the Metaphor of a Shepherd is carried on with relation to all the Particulars of his Pasto∣ral Charge, as I may have occasion to shew at ano∣ther time.

But at present I will choose to insist upon that ex∣cellent Description of Old Age which Solomon gives in the 12th Chapter of Ecclesiastes, and which is made up all along of an admirable Chain of Meta∣phors. This is that Time of a Man's Life which is rightly called his* 1.207 Evil Days, ver. 1. and that both in regard of his Mind and of his Body. The Wise

Man here ••egins with the former, deciphering that black and dismal State of Mankind by such Ex∣pressions as these, The Sun, and the Light, and the Moon, and the Stars are darkned, ver. 2. That No∣ble and Illustrious Part of Man, the Soul, ••s the Glorious Sun and Light of this Little World: and the Meon and Stars fitly denote the several bright and shining Faculties of it, which are all darkned and clouded by Age. The Intellectual Part is mise∣rably obscured and impaired by the Clouds of Ig∣norance, Prejudice, and Mistake, which insensibly increase upon those who are much declined in Years, especially if they had not laid in a considera∣ble Stock of useful Notions before. The Memory becomes weak and faithless, so that they let slip many Notices and Observations which they were once Masters of, and they cannot Retain those which are now daily administred to them. The Imagination, another Radiant Power of the Soul, is corrupted: they are grown Conceited and Fan∣tastick; they are (as the Philosopher observes of them)* 1.208 suspitious of Evil, and backward to believe any Good. They nourish wrong Apprehensions, and have a false View of things. Notwithstand∣ing this they are not desirous to correct their Er∣rors and Misprisions, and to be better taught:

† 1.209 Vel quia nil rectum nisi quod placuit sibi ducunt, Vel qui•• ••urpe putant parere minoribus, & quae Imberbes didicere, senes perdenda fateri.

Thence it was a kind of Proverb with Diogenes, ‖ 1.210 To cure a Dead Man and instruct an Old one, are

the ••ame. The Reason is▪ because their Wills (a∣nother Mental Endowment) are strangely per∣verted and distorted. Where the Divine Grac•• hath not the Predominancy, they generally are wayward and testy, froward and stubborn; they are dispeased at what others (especially their Infe∣riours in Years) say or do, and nothing scarcely is acceptable but what they speak and act themselves, because they will it, and because they affect it▪ which reminds me of the gross Darkness which hath invaded another F••••ulty, viz. that of their Affe∣ctions: This is wholly spent in Self-Love, in an Eager Desire of lengthning out their Days, and in an Extravagant. Doting on the things of this Life. They must soon die and leave the World, (which they detest. so much as to hear of) and yet they do as 'twere hug it the more. They are shortly to bid adieu to it, and therefore they more ••arnestly desire and pursue it, as we are most busy in saluting and imbracing those Friends that we must part with presently. Though there is a Period to all their other Labours, yet* 1.211 they are not wearied with getting Gain. In nothing else but this do they seem to possess their Youthful Vigour again. In brief, all their former Passions are swallowed up in Avarice and Concernedness for the Profits and Advantages of this present World. The longer they are here, the more enamour'd they are with it; for as† 1.212 One hath observed, The more a Man drinks of the World, the more it Intoxicates. Thus the Sun, and Moon, and Stars are darkned: Thus the Minds of Aged ••ersons are vitiated and cor∣rupted: These are the particular Defects and Fail∣ings which they are generally liable to, (and there∣fore

are made part of their Character here) I mean when a Divine Principle and a Lively Sense of Ver∣tue and Holiness do not actuate them, when Reli∣gion hath not had its due Operation on their Hearts, and their Lives are not reformed by the Influence of the Holy Spirit. For otherwise it is certain that Years administer to Vertue, and are an excellent Help to Religion. The bravest and noblest Actions that have been atchieved, have been from the Counsels and Directions of Men of Long Experience in the World; for now their Minds and Judgments are arrived to the utmost Maturity: like Old Wine, they are the more Ge∣nerous and Refined. This Stage of Life (of all others) is most calculated for the serious Practice of Goodness and Piety, and the very Height and Perfection of all Vertues, when it is season'd with Divine Grace, and assisted by the supernatural Aids of the Holy Ghost. But the Wise Man here speaks of it under another Capacity, and as this part of a Man's Life is generally and most commonly inci∣dent both to natural and moral Defects of th•• Soul. This is the darkning of this glorious Sun: these are the unhappy Clouds that obscure its Light. Yea, (as it follows) the Clouds return after the Rain; for this belongs to what was said before, and so re∣fers to the Soul, which so frequently in the Close of Mens Days is overwhelm'd with Ignorance, Do∣tage, Forgetfulness, Conceitedness, Wilfulness, Self-Love, and other Distempers which cast a Scum over this Sun, and hinder it from shining forth. And accordingly as the Unhealthful and Sickly Years of their Lives come faster upon them, these Clouds increase, and grow thicker and darker, and so the Sun is overspread at last. One Mental Evil succeeds another in this Concl••ding Stage of

Mens Pilgrimage: There is a Circle of these Ma∣ladies; as Clouds produce Rain, and Rain falling on the Earth begets new Vapours, and from these proceed Clouds again: So it is here, there is a con∣tinued Succession of Evils; thus the Clouds return after the Rain. Hitherto you have the Character of Old Age, as it hath respect to the Soul of Man, for so I understand it, though Expositors are pleased to go another way. But I would ask this, Is it not most unlikely that Solomon undertaking here the Description of Old Age, would give so lame and imperfect an Account of it, as to relate some In∣conveniences and Defects which have reference to the Body, and wholly to pass by in silence those that appertain to the Other and more Considerable Part of Man? Again, I would ask whether there could be any Words in the World that are fitter and apter to express the Defects of the Mind, the Nobler and Brighter Moiety of Man, than these which the Wise Man here useth? Wherefore I doubt not but this first Part of his Character is to be understood as I have represented it to you. And indeed since my finishing this Part of my Discourse, I have found that some others, as* 1.213 Glassius, and an † 1.214 Ingenious Person of our own Nation, interpret Solomon's Words after this manner.

From the Soul he passes to the Body and Outward Man: and that it may appear the better that this is a distinct Partition from what went before, he inserts these Words, [in the Day when] ver. 3. and doth not repeat them any more afterwards; which shews he begins a New Head, and that these Words are only to mark out here to us this Division which I am speaking of: which Commentators not at∣tending

to, have mistaken the Sense of the second Verse, (which I have been explaining) and hav•• applied it to the Evils of the Body: Whereas Those are now in the next Place enter'd upon, and I will endeavour to give you a particular Account of them. First, he tells us, that the Keepers of the House tremble, ver. 3. where the Body is compared to a House; and what more fitly can be said to be the Keepers of it than (as Castalio and Grotius ex∣pound it) the active Hands and Arms, which were made on purpose to guard and defend the Body, and therefore on all Occasions officiously bestir themselves, and are lifted up or stretch'd forth to preserve it from harm, to keep and secure it from Danger? But even these Nimble Guards, these Stout and Brawny Keepers, shake at the Arrival of Old Age, and with a Paralytick Trembling confess their Inability to discharge their Office, to keep and defend the House (the Tabernacle of the Body) from Assaults and Injuries. Yea, these once-Trusty Guardians, who were wont to make use of Staves and other Weapons for their Defence, now use the former only for a Support. With this they knock at the Earth at every Step, as if they call'd on their Graves: Or, as the Spanish Proverb hath it, The Old Man's Staff is the Rapper at Death's Door. And the strong Man, i. e. according to Va∣tablus and Grotius, the Legs and Thighs, which are placed in another Extremity of the House, to be its Security, and which are particularly taken no∣tice of for their Strength, Psal. 147. 10. and which Strong Men so much glory in, these bow themselves, i. e. become weak and feeble with Age; yea, they really bend and give way, they are so far from be∣ing able to support the Body they belong to, that they can hardly sustain themselves. These bow,

these stoop towards the Place where they are shortly to take their R••st. Next, it is said, that the Grin∣••••rs cease, because they are few; i. e. the Teeth with which we grind and chew our Meat fail us at last, and are not able to do their Office, because not only the Strength but the Number of them is dimi∣nish'd: yea, sometimes the Toothless Jaws (as well as other Defects) shew that Aged Persons are a second time Children. It follows, those that look out of the Windows are darkned: for he had compa∣red the Body to a House, and so here he continues that Metaphor, as well as goes on with several others. The Windows of this House are the Holes or Sockets wherein the Eyes are placed, (the two Bonny Cavities where these precious Lights are safely enclosed, to defend them from Hurt) which are said to look out of these Casements, i. e. there (as Drusius and Grotius well interpret it) they were appointed by Heaven to exert their Visive Faculty for the use of Mankind. But Length of Years im∣pairs or hinders their looking out: the Visual Nerves and the Spirits which are derived to them decay; the Humours dry up, the Coats wear out, the Mus∣cles flag, and so 'tis no wonder that the Sight is dim and imperfect, and that there is a necessity of using some Artificial Helps to amend it. Whence Gejerus and some others have fancied, that those that look out of the Windows are such as are forced to use Spectacles: but this Gloss, I think, will hardly be admitted till it be proved that there was such an In∣vention in Solomon's Days.

The House of our Body hath a Door, and there∣fore 'tis said in the next Place, the Doors are shut in the Streets, ver. 4. And what can more properly be called the Door of this House than the Mouth, the Throat, the Wind-pipe, the Lungs, the Stomach,

all those Vessels that are to let in Air or Food? These Doors are in the Street, that Great Passage and Hollowness in the Body which is like a Street or High-way, and by which there are other Passages into several Parts of the Body. These Doors are shut, when by reason of Age they are obstructed, when they are clogg'd with ex∣cessive Colds and Catarrhs, when the Jaws and Throat are inflamed, when the Muscles of them are swell'd, whereby the Ways of Breathing and Swallowing are stopp'd; when the Lungs are im∣peded by Asthma's, and fail in their reciprocal Motion of Inspiration and Respiration; when the Chyle is not duly separated, and the Ferment of the Stomach is vitiated; and other the like Di∣stempers, which the Aged are subject to, invade those Parts. But more especially and signally the Mouth is the Door of this House, which I confirm from what follows, when the Sound of the Grinding is low; that is, this Door is shut, or but seldom open∣ed, when their great Weakness and Indisposition will not suffer them to take any Food, or but an inconsiderable Portion of it, then the Sound of the Grinding is low. And it is low, not only because of this Weakness of the Body, but because (as was said before) the Grinders are few, they have not a sufficient Number of Teeth for Mastication. Hence 'tis that there is none or little Grist brought to the Mill. I know some have thought, that the Doors being shut in the Street, signifies here, that those Persons who are of Great Age desire to keep up, and come not into Company, as before. The thing it self, I grant, is true; the Indispositions which some Aged Persons labour under, cause them to shut up their Doors, especially when the Winter approacheth, and they appear not till a

very Warm Sun invites them to shew themselves. Then they get to the next Sunny Bank, and there lie basking in the comfortable Rays which they feel. But if we consider that the Royal Preacher had been comparing the Body of Man to a House, assigning its Keepers, yea its Grinders, (the most ne∣cessary Office of old in a Family) its Windows, its Doors, we must needs look upon this Interpretation as foreign and impertinent, and especially when we take notice of the Design of this Inspired Wri∣ter, in this Chapter, which is to insist upon those Evils and Maladies which belong to such and such particular Parts of the Body, as will appear in the Sequel. Yea, by looking into the very next Words we shall find that this Clause, which I have been now speaking of, is to be understood in this Sense, and no other; for it is to be joined with those Words, (because of its Affinity with them) he shall rise up at the Voice of the Bird: which I inter∣pret thus; his Appetite declining, and his Sto∣mach nauseating Food, especially all coarse Fare, all common and vulgar Sustenance, he will yet be desirous of Dainties, some* 1.215 small Bird or Fowl; for Tsippor, which is the Word here used, signifies the lesser sort of Birds (and particularly a Sparrow) and also such as are† 1.216 pleasant and delicious. This (if any thing) is most acceptable to his squeamish Stomach, he rises up at the Voice of the Bird, that is, at the very naming of it; for the Hebrew Word Kol (whence the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and our English Call) denot••s so much in this Place. Or at the ve∣ry Word, the very Sound of that word Tsippor, the small delicate Bird, he rises up very chearfully to

eat it, or some part of it at least. The Hebrew Verb Kum, which is used here, most frequently signifies to stand up, or lift up one's self. This the sickly Old Man is observed to do when some Deli∣cious Fare is set before him, when some choice Dish, some delightful and savory Morsel is pre∣sented to him. This is part of the genuine De∣scription which may be given of the Aged Persons Condition, and therefore 'tis no wonder that Solo∣mon brings it in here. A little Food serves him, but he longs for that which is Uncommon, and may please his Taste, and provoke his Appetite at the same time: He rises up with Complacency at the very mentioning of some dainty Bird, some be∣loved Bit. This is my Conjecture on the Place, and I do not (I must needs say) see any Ground why it should be rejected for I have shewed you that it is to the purpose which Solomon is speaking of; it exactly agrees with the preceding Words, but the Vulgar Exposition doth not so.

To proceed, our Royal Author having repre∣sented the Defects of Old Age, as to the Weak∣ness of the chief Limbs and Ioints, as to the Pau∣city of Teeth, Dimness of Eyes, and the Evils inci∣dent to those Parts which are call'd the Doors, he lets us know next, that this Portion of a Man's Life is as defective, in respect of Other Useful Or∣gans of the Body, and particularly that of the Ear: all the Daughters of Musick are brought low: that is, the Ears, which were made for Hearing, and particularly delighting themselves in excellent Notes of Musick, whether Vocal or Instrumental, are now indisposed, and rendred uncapable of that Pleasure which before they were so charm'd with: Now these Daughters of a Song are grown deaf, as the Vulgar Latin renders it. As Old Bar∣zillai's

Complaint was not only,* 1.217 Can I taste what I eat or drink? (which refers to the former Parti∣cular we just now spoke of) but likewise, Can I hear any more the Voice of singing Men and singing Women? Even these Daughters of Musick are brought low, their most exquisite and ravishing Harmony is no longer delightful, they are vile and of no ac∣count: for the Youthful and Mercurial Spirit is exhausted: in this Foggy Cloudy Weather of Ex∣piring Age the Quicksilver subsides in these Old Weather-Glasses, and will never ascend again. I might add also, that the Vessels and Organs that pro∣perly belong to the forming of the Voice, those Daughters of Singing, are by Age disabled and weak∣ned. Next, it is said, ver. 5. They are afraid of that which is high: The plain meaning whereof is this, that Aged Persons dare not ascend any high or steep Place; their Breath is short, and there∣fore they avoid climbing. And when they tread on low Ground, and walk in a smooth Path, yet even then Fears are in the way, i. e. they are afraid of stumbling and falling, because their ••eet are in∣firm, and their Steps unsteady, which they there∣fore indeavour to fix with a Staff. To which the Hebrew Masters allude when they say, Two are bet∣ter than three: that is, the Feet of Young Men are better to walk than those of the Old, though they are usually three. Another Member of this De∣scription is, that the Almond-tree flourisheth, i. e. (as it is expounded by† 1.218 Grotius, and by the Gene∣rality of Commentators) Gray Hairs, which are the usual Badg of Decrepid Years, appear; the Head now grows white and hoary, like the Blos∣soms

and Flowers of the Almond-tree, whose Fruit was call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Head, saith Athenaeus, as if it had relation to this Part. Again, 'tis added, the Grashopper is a Burden, i. e. the least, the lightest thing (say Expositors generally) seems to be hea∣vy and burdensom to the Aged, because of their Faintness and Weakness: Or rather, I should in∣terpret it thus, (with reference to what was said before, and is so noted and common an Indication of Declining Years) the Grashopper, as little as it is, lies heavy on their Stomachs; for you will find in Lev. 11. 22. that the Grashopper is reckoned a∣mong the Clean Meats, and was commonly eaten in those Days. And this here mentioned is of that very Species, as the using of the same Hebrew Word both here and there lets us know. Even this light kind of Food was a Burden to their weak Stomachs. What can be more obvious and plain than this Exposition of the Words? especially when it follows, Desire fails; as all other Inclinati∣ons that were vigorous in them in their juvenile Years do now flag, so this towards Food more sig∣nally doth so. And that this was thought to be the meaning of this Clause of the Words, is ap∣parent from the* 1.219 Version of the LXX and the † 1.220 Vulgar Latin, both which express Desire by Ca∣pers, a known Fruit, whereby an Appetite is ex∣cited. So that this way of speaking is metapho∣rically used to denote the Defect of Appetite in Aged Men, whose Stomachs are depraved. And this is no wonder, because they go to their long Home, and the Mourners go about the Streets; they are hast∣ning to the Grave, and shall in a short time be car∣ried out by the Mourners to their Funerals.

But yet before this Day arrives, they have far∣ther Evils to undergo; For, saith the Wise Man, when this great Number of Years is gone over their Heads, they will find that the silver Cord is not lengthned, for so the Hebrew hath it; the word Rachak (which is here used) signifying elongari, longè esse: and then in the General this may be the Sense of this Clause, the Thread of Life (that is the Precious Cord or String of Silver) begins now to be cut short; they must not expect to stay many Days in the Land of the Living. But we may ra∣ther follow the Interpretation of* 1.221 those who ap∣ply this Passage to some particular Part of the Bo∣dy, (as the other Members of this Verse seem also to be restrained) and so the silver Cord is loosed, (as we translate it) i. e. the Spinal Marrow, which is white like Silver, and lengthned out like a Cord or Rope, decays and grows loose: and then the Nerves, which are derived from it, and conse∣quently the whole Body, feel the ill Effect of it in Palsies and Convulsions, and an universal Weak∣ness. Thus it is when the Body is worn out with Age; when these evil Days come, all things portend Ruine and a final Period. The House, as the Body is said to be, is falling; and all things belonging to it are hastning to their Destruction. Not only the silver Cord is loosed, but the golden Bowl is broken; by which some think is here meant the Cranium, or Pan, in which that choice Vis••us of the Brain is contained and secured; or perhaps the Semicircu∣lar Membrane which is next to this Bowl, and is it self lined with a thinner Membranous Substance, is here designed. Vatablus and Drusius, and others, interpret the Words thus, and tell us, that these

Meninges are said to be of Gold, not only by reason of their Colour, but because of their great Worth and Value, in that they are a Guard and Covering to the noblest Part of Man's Body: Or the Brain it self may be here meant, the Seat and Throne of the Rational Soul, and the Origine of all the Nerves. And then observe here, that the Golden Bowl and the Silver Cord are fitly joined together by this Divine Writer, for the latter is but an Ap∣pendix of the former; the Marrow of the Back∣Bone is but the Cerebrum extended, the Brain lengthned out; or it is according to Solomon's Stile here a Rope, a Cord of Brains. But the Head and Beginning of that Medulla is that which is proper∣ly called the Brain, the Great and Only Laborato∣ry of the Animal Spirits, from whence they are diffused by the Nerves into the several Members of the Body, in order to all the Functions and Opera∣tions of Life. This gullath hazahab, this Golden Bowl, this Lordly Dish, this roundish Mass of choice Matter is at last broken: which is as much as to say, this upper and nobler Part of the Body shares in the Ruines which Old Age makes: whence it is that the Clogging of the Passages of the animal Spirits with indigested Humours, the Obstructions or Relaxations of the Nerves, Pains in the Head, Melancholy, Giddiness, Drowsiness, yea Lethar∣gies and Apoplexies (which impair or wholly de∣stroy both Sense and Motion) are the dangerous Maladies of this Part of the Body, and are more especially the mischievous Companions of the Aged.

And as the Animal, so the Vital Parts feel the Decays which a Long and Sickly Life brings with it, which the Wise Man means when he adjoins, the Pitcher is broken at the Fountain. The Pitchers

(for the Plural is intended when the Singular is mentioned, as I have shewed to be frequent in Scripture-Stile) are the Veins and Arteries, whose Office it is to carry and recarry Blood to and from the Heart, (that is the Fountain) as Pitchers or Buckets are first let down into the Well, and then convey Water thence. Through these Vessels the Blood continually passes, and that swiftly, begin∣ning its Course from the right Cavity of the Heart, through the Arterious Vein, the Branches of which are dispersed through the whole Lungs, and joined to the Branches of the Veiny Artery, by which it passes from the Lungs into the left side of the Heart, and thence it flows into the Great Artery; the Branches of which being spread through all the Bo∣dy, are united to those of the Hollow Vein, which carry the same Blood again into the right Ventricle of the Heart. But these Vessels by length of time become disordered and shattered, these Pitchers are broken at the Fountain; the Heart it self, as well as they, decaying and declining in its Office; whence proceed Faintings, Swoonings, Tremblings, Pal∣pitations, and other Distempers, which are the Product of an undue Sanguification.

Lastly; 'tis said, the Wheel is broken at the Cistern, which an* 1.222 Ingenious Person understands of the Circulation of the Blood, (for that he thinks is inti∣mated by the Wheel) and its being obstructed by the Indispositions of Old Age. But it is much to be questioned, whether Solomon, as Wise a Man as he was, knew any thing of the Circular Motion of the Blood throughout the whole Body. I have no stronger a Belief of his Knowledg in this kind, than that his Ships went to the East or West-Indies,

though I find both of these asserted by different Writers. However, I conceive this Circulation is not meant in this place; for the word Bor, Puteus, or Cisterna, baffles this Notion, for this Author makes the Cistern here to be the Left Ventricle of the Heart; whereas the Heart, with both its Ven∣tricles, is rather a Fountain than a Cistern: yea, he had himself applied this Word to the Heart, in his Exposition of the former Clause of the Verse; and there was Reason for it, because the Waters do spring and flow in a Fountain, but they lie dead and moveless in a Cistern or Pit under Ground, which is the same thing. Wherefore I conclude that this Cistern must be something of another Nature; and what is that but the Vrinary Vessels, especially the Bladder? This, without any fanciful straining, must be acknowledged to be the Cistern of the Bo∣dy, it being a Vessel situated beneath, on purpose to receive and keep the Water that comes from the Ureters. And here, as in those Receptacles in the Ground, the Water gathers a Sediment, and grows muddy; the evil Effects of which are too well known to Mankind. This Vesica then, which is made to gather and hold the Urine, is properly Bor (the word in this Place) Puteus, Cisterna. And the Wheel is said to be broken at this Cistern, when those Vessels and Organs which were appointed for the Percolation of the Blood, that is, the sepa∣rating the serous Humour from it, and for the transmitting it through the Emulgent Arteries into the Ureters, and thence carrying it to the proper Vessel (the Cistern) which is made to receive it; when (I say) these are put out of order, and di∣sturb'd, then they cease to perform their proper Administrations in the Body; whereupon imme∣diately are produced, in these dark and narrow

Passages the Painful Stone and Gravel in the Kid∣nies and Bladder, all other ••ephritick Distempers, Ulcers, Inflammations, the Strangury, and some∣times a total Suppression of the Urine, together with the undue Evacuations of it. Thus the Wheel is broken; thus the whole Periodical Series of Ope∣ration in those Parts is spoiled and destroyed. And perhaps this particular Phrase is here used by Solo∣mon, because the great Work at Wells and Ci∣sterns (or Pits for retaining of Water for a time) was performed by Wheels. So much for this excel∣lent Delineation of Old Age, which is it self a Dis∣ease, a constant and inseparable Malady, and is attended with many more. And as the Bodies of the Aged are the Scene of Weakness and Infirmi∣ties, of Pains and Languishments; so their Souls are usually decayed and distemper'd. Of both these Solomon gives us a particular Account, (and perhaps too much from his own Experience, for 'tis probable that the Miscarriages of his Youth had enfeebled Nature; and we read, that towards the Close of his Days, he degenerated from his former Piety;) and so we have here a Full and Compleat Description of the Defects, which too often ac∣company this Last Declension of Life, which are set forth by Variety of Metaphors, which I have made it my Business to explain to you.

CHAP. V.

The Writers of the New Testament are delighted with the Vse of Metaphors. Here is sometimes a Com∣plication of them. Ephes. 6. 13. &c. Take unto you the whole Armour of God, &c. largely in∣sisted upon. The Olympick Games and Prizes ad∣minister religious Metaphors. The Antiquity, Names, Kinds, the Laws and Observances of these Grecian Combates, (before, in, and after them) the Iudges, the Rewards, and all other things appertaining to these Athletick Enterprizes, distinctly consider'd; 'tis shew'd how they are all applied to Christianity in the Apostolick Writings. Hence is inferr'd the Grace∣fulness of the Sacred Stile: Notwithstanding which some have vilified it, whose Character is represented. Proverbial Sayings used by other Writers, especially the Jews, are frequently mentioned by our Saviour in the New Testament. To which is reduced his bidding the Apostles shake off the Dust of their Feet, Mat. 10. 14. concerning which the Author adds his particu∣lar Sentiment.

IF we pass to the New Testament, we shall there find that those Inspired Penmen are much de∣lighted with the use of Metaphors. We have a Complication of them in Iohn 15. 1, &c. I am the true Vine, and my Father is the Husbandman, &c. In 1 Tim. 6. 9, 10. the extreme Dangers which Men are exposed to by the Sin of Covetousness, are ex∣pressed by a Snare, by drowning, by piercing through, as with Thorns and Briars. In those Words, Eph. 5. 14. Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the Dead, and Christ shall give thee Light, there are

likewise three Metaphors together, for Sin is call'd a Sleep, Death, Darkness: yea, if we be exact, we shall find three more; for if Sin be a Sleep, then Grace or Conversion is Awakening out of that Sleep, (and this is expressly mention'd in the Place) if the one be Darkness and Death, the other is Light and Life, and Rising again. But as before I chose out a remarkable Place of the Old Testament, to enlarge upon under this Head, so I will now do the like in the New, and insist upon that choice Passage in Eph. 6. 13, to ver. 18. Take unto you the whole Ar∣mour of God, &c. which under that one Great and General Metaphor of Armour comprehends several other particular ones. Christians are represented as Souldiers in other Places by this Apostle, and here he lets us know what is their Armour, what Weapons they must fight with: which are thus me∣taphorically expressed.

1. They must be careful to put on the Girdle of Truth, which some Expositors have thought is meant in opposition to Error and Heretical Perswa∣sions: To be girt about with Truth, is the same, they think, with holding fast the Form of sound Words, or the embracing of the pure Doctrine of the Go∣spel. But this Exposition is not to be admitted, because it confounds this piece of Armour with a∣nother that is afterwards mentioned; it makes the Girdle and the Sword (which is the Word or Doctrine of God) the same. Therefore it is more reasona∣ble to assert, that Truth here is synonymous with Faithfulness or Sincerity, and that it stands in op∣position to Hypocrisy. Thus Sincerity and Truth are equivalent Terms, 1 Cor. 5. 8. and in several other Places. Wherefore when the Christian Soul∣dier is commanded to have his Loins girt about with Truth; the plain Import of it is, that he ought to

be established with Sincerity and Integrity of Con∣s••ience. Hypocrisy enervates and dissolves the Mind, renders it loose and unsettled; but Up∣rightness and Faithfulness keep it close and entire, make it firm and steady; yea, strengthen and con∣firm all the other Graces, as the Girdle of War was used to fasten their Clothes together, and to keep their Loins firm. It is not unlikely that this Place refers particularly to Isa. 11. 5. Faithfulness shall be the Girdle of his Reins. This Truth also implies For∣titude, Resolution and Constancy, that they will never revolt from the Captain of their Salvation, but fight under his Banner even unto Death; for he that is Sincere and Faithful will do so. This is the first Martial Accoutrement of the Christian Souldier, and 'tis of indispensable Use and Necessi∣ty in the Holy Warfare: as among the antient Warriors there was no fighting without the Milita∣ry Girdle or Belt. Whence Cinctus, simply, with∣out any Addition, is as much as* 1.223 Miles. And we read that it was a† 1.224 Punishment inflicted on delin∣quent Souldiers to expose them without their Gird∣les, to make them stand Vngirt in some publick Place. This piece of Warlike Furniture, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was so considerable of old, that is was a word (as ‖ 1.225 ••ausanias testi••ies) to signify all sorts of Weapons for War. It is often mentioned by Homer Synec∣dochichally for the Whole Military Armour; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as much as to be compleatly Armed. The Girdle of Truth, which this Great Commander here enjoins us, is as requisite in the Christian War∣fare: there is no Fighting without it, because this fastens all the other Parts of our Spiritual Armour:

a Sincere and Upright Heart is of universal Influ∣ence in the Life of a Christian.

2. The next Accoutrement is the Breast-plate of Righteousness, i. e. a Holy and Pious Conversation, Impartial and Universal Obedience to the Will of God. This guards the Breast against all Assaults, as we see in the Example of our Apostle, 2 Cor. 1. 12. for he had this as well as the foregoing piece of Armour on when he said, Our rejoicing is this, the Testimony of our Coscience, that in Simplicity and godly Sincerity, not with fleshly Wisdom, but by the Grace of God, we have had our Conversation in the World. And again, I have fought a good Fight, I have finished my Course, I have kept the Faith, 2 Tim. 4. 7. And in other Places he defends himself against the malicious Cavils of others, by appealing to his own Innocency, his Sanctity and Exemplary Life. This perhaps may have particular reference to Isa. 59. 17. He put on Righteousness as a Breast-plate. But this Breast-plate of Righteousness must be covered with another, viz. that of our Blessed Redeemer, which is Compleat and Perfect, and will amply protect and secure us from all Dangers. The In∣herent Righteousness of the best of Men is exceed∣ingly defective, and cannot shelter them from the Divine Wrath; this Breast-plate is too narrow, too thin, too little, too mean to cover us; but that of the Meritorious Righteousness of Christ Jesus is great and large enough, and is able to hide all our Defects, and perfectly to defend us from the An∣ger of our offended God. This Evangelical Breast-plate must be put on by Faith, of which after∣wards.

3. The Shoe of the Preparation of the Gospel of Peace is an Allusion to that Military Provision which the Infantry, among the antient Warriors, made for

their Feet, to defend them from what was offensive in their way. For the Armies heretofore (as ap∣pears both from Greek and Roman Authors) were wont to fix short Stakes, or cast Gall-traps in the way before their Enemies, to wound their Feet, and to cause them to fall. Wherefore it was usual to have Harness for their Legs and Feet: they wore a particular sort of Shoe or Boot to secure them from being hurt and gall'd. So the Christian Souldier ought to have his Feet shod, and that with the Prepa∣ration of the Goslpel, i. e. he must be sitted and pre∣pared by the preaching of the Gospel for all Hard∣ships and Distresses. I do not much like St. Au∣gustin's way of proving this Interpretation, viz. by telling us, that by the Shoe the Preaching of the Gospel was meant when the Psalmist said, Over Edom will I cast out my* 1.226 Shoe, Psal. 60. 8. which he labours to confirm from Isa. 52. 7. How beautiful are the Feet of him that bringeth good Tidings? And this Pious Writer is so fanciful as to say, that when our Saviour bid the Disciples be shod with Sandals, Mark 6. 9. he meant the open and free Preaching of the Gospel. But waving this weak sort of Proof, yet I am satisfied, that in this place, the Christians Military Shoe is the Gospel, and the Preaching of it: he is then shod with the Preparation of it, when he is enabled to make his way through all Hindrances and Di••••iculties whatsoever, by vir∣tue of those Excellent Principles which the Gospel hath discovered to him, by virtue of those Extra∣ordinary Helps which this affords him. And 'tis ••itly added, the Gospel of Peace, because the Consi∣deration of that Peace and Reconciliation which

the Gospel tenders through the Blood of Christ, mightily influences upon his Spirit, and gives Cou∣rage and Valour amidst all the Hardships he meets with in his Christian Warfare.

4. The Shield of Faith is another necessary part of Spiritual Armour. And it is signally added, that we must take this above all, which it is probable is said with allusion to what was the sense of the Old Warriors, viz. That their Shield was their Principal Armour. This they prized above all the rest, and were most careful in keeping it: of which we have several Instances in Antient History: and there was a Remarkable Punishment inflicted on those (saith* 1.227 Plutarch) who lost their Shields in Battel. Much more Valuable is this Evangelick Armour, our Faith, a Firm Assent to all Revealed Truths, a Steady Belief of the Promises of Eternal Life, through the blessed Undertakings of our Lord, a Hearty Compliance with the Gracious Terms of the Gospel, which enjoins Universal Obedience to the Laws of Christ, a Well-grounded Trust and A••••iance in the Mercy and Goodness of God, a firm and unshaken Dependance on the Merits of our Redeemer and Saviour. This is that Hardned Shield wherewith we keep off and beat back all the furious Insults of the Evil Spirit, that Implacable Enemy whom we are to encounter with in our Spiritual Warfare. His Temptations are here call'd Darts, with allusion still to the antiet way of ••ighting, which was with Darts and Arrows. And they are call'd fiery Darts, with reference per∣haps to the Heat which those Weapons acquired by their swift flying: or they may be said to be fiery, because they are sent in an Hostile manner▪

the word being as 'twere appropriated to Fighting, as among the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is both fax or taeda, and pugna; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is both ardens and pugnax: and among the Latins ardere is particularly applied to War and Battel: as in Virgil, Ardet in arma magis. —Instant ardentes Tyrii.—And besides, these Darts, these Suggestions, when they are very fierce and raging, do as 'twere inflame the Heart and Conscience, they set the distracted Soul on fire. But by Faith the Christian Soldier is able to quench them, as the Apostle excellently phraseth it; by a vigorous exerting of this Grace he defeats the malicious Attempts of Satan, he stifles all his hel∣lish Darts; alluding to the known use of the Shield, which was to repel the Arrows shot by the Enemy. And these were sometimes Poisoned, and thereby became hot and inflaming, to which some have thought the Apostle here might have glanced when he speaks of fiery Darts. This is certain that a Shield is for Defence, and such is our Faith, whereby we defend our selves from the inslamed Darts of the Wicked, which he flings at us with the utmost Indignation and Fury. We quench, we extinguish, we utterly frustrate all his Assaults by a firm Trust and Reliance on our Blessed Jesus, who baffled him himself, and will effectually teach us by the guidance of his Spirit to do the like. * 1.228 This is our Victory that overcometh the Devil (as well as the World) even our Faith.

5. We are to take the Helmet of Salvation, i. e. (as St. Paul himself explains it)† 1.229 the Hope of Sal∣vation, the certain Expectation of the Everlasting Reward in another World, which is brought to light by the Gospel of Christ Jesus. The Christian

Souldier is unspeakably animated by this: he hath the Triumph in his Eye: this makes him sight with undaunted Valour and Resolution. He is safe whilst he is cover'd with this Helmet: nothing can hurt him whiles he is inspired with this Vi∣ctorious Hope. Having this Armour of Defence, he de••ies his insulting Adversaries, he fears not their Blows, he shrinks not at the Batteries of his fiercest Enemies. This also seems to be borrow'd from Isai. 59. 17. He put on an Helmet of Salvation on his Head.

6. The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, is another part of the Christian Panoply, which eve∣ry Spiritual Souldier ought to be appointed with. This is the two-edged Sword spoken of in Heb. 4. 12. and Rev. 1. 16. This our great Captain dexterously made use of when the Infernal Spirit assaulted him, Mat. 4. 4, 7, 10. And the same Weapon was bran∣dish'd and managed by the whole Army of Martyrs and Confessors, by all the Servants of Christ in the several Ages of the Church. By this they have done great Execution, and put their Spiritual Enemies to flight. They have in their most pressing Straits repair'd to the Holy Scriptures, and thence fur∣nish'd themselves with those Divine Consolations, and applied those Sacred Promises, whereby they soon vanquish'd their Ghostly Assailants. And this is that Weapon which we must all of us in our Holy War learn to wield: but let us be careful to make use of it faithfully and sincerely, remembring that the first Piece of Armour and This last must be joined together, for the Warlike Girdle or Belt is in order to wearing the Sword, which is to hang at it.

The last Weapon the Apostle mentions is Prayer, Praying always with all Prayer, &c. We must fight

on our Knees, we must constantly invoke the Divine Aid, and with importunate Cries solicite the Eter∣nal Father that he would teach our Hands to War, and our Fingers to Fight.

These are the Spiritual Weapons, which are cal∣led here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The whole Armour, because 'tis fitted for every part of the Christian Combatant. He is here armed at all Points, he is provided with Military Accoutrements for all Assaults. And you may observe, that the Spiritual Armour answers to the Bodily one, that is, it is both Defensive and Offensive. Our Weapons are both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as defend and preserve our selves, and also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such whereby we beat off the Enemy▪ both which are express'd in those two Military words, Standing and Withstanding, ver. 13. The first sort are the Girdle of Truth, the Breast-plate of Righteousness, the Shoe of the Preparation of the Gospel, the Shield of Faith, and the Helmet of Salvation: of the Second sort are the Sword of the Spirit, and Prayer, which two likewise are both for Defence and Offence, not only to guard our selves, but to oppose our Enemies. This is the Panoply of the Gospel, the whole Armour of God which the Apostle here commends, and which I have briefly descanted upon in prosecution of what I propounded, viz. to give you some account of the Metaphorical Terms in Scripture.

In other places the Olympick Games and Prizes ad∣minister to the Apostle very Religious and Devout Metaphors: those Grecian Combates being made use of by him to set forth the Laborious Life and Un∣dertakings of a Christian. I will in farther pursuit of this part of my Discourse concerning the Stile of Scripture, let you see what Excellent and Divine things are comprized under those Agonistick Phrases.

We must know then, that the Olympick Games were of very great Antiquity, being instituted (as it is said) by Hercules, and restored by Iphitus, who at the same time began the Accompt of the Olym∣piads, that famous Epoche of the Greeks which commenced A. M. 3173. in the time of Vzziah King of Iudah. They had their Name from Olym∣pia, a City of Achaia, near to Elis, on the Plains whereof these Exercises were celebrated, and they were in honour of Iupiter Olympius. And there were Sports of the like Nature in other parts of Greece, as those that were call'd the Isthmian, be∣cause they were begun in the Corinthian Isthmus: and as the Olympick Plays were dedicated to Iupiter, so these were in honour of Melicerta; others say, of Palaemon. The like Exercises in other adjacent Towns of Greece were call'd Pythian, in memory of Apollo Pythius; and others Nemaean, (call'd so from the Nema••an Wood, near which they were) and these were in honour of Archemorus, the Son of Lycurgus. But all these were in imitation of the Olympick (as being the Antientest) Combates; and because they were so like them, they sometimes go by that Name. Great Numbers of People flock'd from all parts in Greece to these Solemn Di∣versions, either to try their Skill, or to be Specta∣tors. And I question not but St. Paul, before his Conversion, had been present at these Exercises, and observ'd their Customs and Practices: whence it is that he so often in his Writings makes use of them. And these Games were very well known to the Corinthians particularly, as being celebrated in their Isthmus, not far from Corinth; whence it is that the Apostle speaking to these People, saith emphatically, Know ye not that they which run in a Race, &c. 1 Cor. 9. 24. and therefore the frequent

Metaphors taken from them by St. Paul, were the better understood by them. There were five sorts of these Gymnastick Entertainments in use a∣mong the Grecians, which* 1.230 Eustathius reckons up in this order, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And† 1.231 Simonides comprehends them in this Verse, in the First Book of his Epigrams;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:

that is, 1. Leaping, or exercising the Legs and Arms by Jumping. 2. Running or Racing. 3. Coyting or hurling the Bar. 4. Casting the Dart, or throw∣ing the Spear. 5. Wrestling: to which afterwards was added 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pugilatus, Fisty-Cuffs: and after that they struck with Battoons and Leaden Pellets. These five Grecian Excercises were call'd by one name, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and he that was skill'd in them all, or won the Prizes at them all, was stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (though the Epithet is sometimes taken in another Sense, as when 'twas given to Demo∣critus, because he was the Master of five noble Ac∣complishments). Of these several Olympick Con∣flicts, the chiefest and most renowned was their Running or Racing, for which the Grecians were so famous and eminent above all others; and therefore St. Paul, who had been a Spectator of their Races, principally borrows his Metaphors from this Manly as well as Applauded kind of Sport, as you may see in his Epistles, which abound with Expressions taken from this Athletick Exercise. But he sometimes alludes to Wrestling, and the other Agonistick Enterprizes which the Grecians in those days were celebrated for. He frequently

uses the Terms which are proper to these Un∣dertakings, as when he saith,* 1.232 He herein ex∣erciseth himself to have a Conscience, &c. where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken from those Combates among the Gentiles, and is applied to Sacred things. The same may be observ'd of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2 Tim. 2. 5. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heb. 10. 32. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Tim. 6. 12. 2 Tim. 4. 7. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is another Olympick word, and is used in very many places by our Apostle. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heb. 12. 11. is an Athletick word, and properly signifies that Exer∣cise which Wrestlers or the like Combatants are train'd up to by long use and Discipline. And this occurs again in 1 Tim. 4 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Exercise thy self unto Godliness, i. e. be as eager in pursuit of Piety, as those who are train'd up to the Olympick Exercises, are in their Wrestling and other Strivings for Victory. And therefore I am of opinion, that those next words, Bodily Exercise profiteth little, are to be understood of those Olym∣pick Games, which I find Expositors do not take notice of, but interpret them of External and Bo∣dily Religion, some outward Austerities and Acts of superstitious Worship. But the Apostle (as I conceive) refers here to the immediately foregoing Expression which he had used, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he was apprehensive was taken from the Olympick Combates; and accordingly he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bodily Exercise profiteth a little, (for so I would translate it) i. e. as I apprehend the words, that Athletick Exercise of their Bodies is useful to some ends, they have some small advan∣tage and profit by it, viz. as to Health, encreasing their Strength and Courage, gaining Repute and

Credit, winning the Prize: But alas (saith he) these are mean and inconsiderable Things in com∣parison of that Solid Profit which accrues by God∣liness, for this is profitable to all things, procuring all Benefits not only to our Bodies but our Souls, advancing both the Temporal and Eternal Interest of those who study and practise it. There are three Agonistical terms together, in Rom. 9. 30, 31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to pursue or follow after; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to attain to; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be foremost in the Race, to come first to the Goal; but our Translators render it to attain. And in several other places the Gymna∣stick words are made use of; especially in 1 Cor. 9. 24, to the End of the Chapter, and in Phil. 3. 12, to the 17. v. which are a Continuation of the Meta∣phor of the Grecian Exercises so much in use at that time. By these the Apostle sets forth the Laws and Rules of an Evangelical Life, by which all the Followers of Christ are to direct themselves.

This then were are to take notice of, that there were certain Laws observ'd in the Agonisticks, there were peculiar Rules and Orders which they tied themselves to, which the Apostle means when he saith, If any Man strive for Masteries, he is not crowned except he strive lawfully, 2 Tim. 2. 5. i. e. (as S. Chry∣sostom rightly explains it) except* 1.233 he observe all the Laws of the Striving, and omit nothing re∣quired of him. This was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and ac∣cordingly there was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Crier, an Offi∣cer on purpose to acquaint the Combatants with the Laws of the Place. So in the Exercise of a Christian Life we must strive lawfully, we must carefully act according to the Orders of our Holy Institution, for our Great Agonotheta hath pre∣scrib'd

us certain Laws which we are to follow with all exactness. And these we shall find express'd according to the Stile of the Athleticks, who had Laws to direct them what they were to do before the Combate, what in the time of it, and what afterwards.

First, They had certain Observances which re∣lated to their behaviour before the Combate, and they were such as these, as you may find them briefly summ'd up by Epictetus (who compares the Life of a Good Man to these Bodily Exercises)

* 1.234 An Olympick Gamester, saith he, must order himself aright before the Contest, he must some∣times force himself to take food, at other times he must by force abstain from it, especially from what is dainty and delicious: he must use himself to his Exercises, though he finds himself unwilling; and this at a set and fix'd time both in Summer and Winter: he must not be permit∣ted to drink cool Liquor, or any Wine, as he thinks fit. In short, he must deliver up himself to the Master of Fences as to a Physician.

Galen on the 18th Aphorism of Hippocrates very well de∣scribes this Abstinence of the Athleticks. And Tertullian gives this short account of their Auste∣rities, † 1.235

They are set apart, saith he, to a strict Discipline, that they may be at leisure to mind the building up of their Bodies (as 'twere) and to make them strong according to

Art. To which purpose they are kept from all Luxury, they are forbid all delicate Meats, and all sweet Drinks.

But the Apostle hath contracted this into fewer words, yet as full and significant, 1 Cor. 9. 25. Every Man that striveth for the Mastery is temperate in all things; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he observes all the Laws of Abstinence and Continence which are prescrib'd him. And there was an Overseer for this purpose, one that took care of dieting them, and saw that they duly kept their other Rules. A Christian must herein imitate the Grecian Combatants and Racers, he must manage himself with great Caution and Cir∣cumspection, he must suffer himself to be order'd and disciplined, he must strictly observe the Laws of Sobriety and Temperance, and abstain from fleshly Lusts which war against both Soul and Body. Thus the Apostle pursues the Metaphor in the fol∣lowing words, v. 27. I keep under my Body, and bring it into subjection: i. e. I am careful to get a good Temper of Body as well as of Mind: as the Cuffers and Wres••lers labour to beat down and keep under their Antagonists Bodies, so I do with my own: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is the word here used) is a known Metaphor taken from the practice of the Grecian Combatants, who beat their Adversa∣ries down with their Fists, and sometimes with Clubs, and will not suffer them to rise. In the same manner, saith he, I beat down and keep under my Body, I severely chastise it by Temperance and Sobriety. I am as exact as those Combatants were, who before the Contest dieted themselves for certain days, that they might attain to a good habit of Body. Again, they took care to rid them∣selves of all Incumbrances whatsoever: they stript themselves of their Clothes, and generally came

naked to the Conflict, (whence they were call'd Gymnastae) that they might be the more nimble and agile. To which the Apostle plainly refers, and applies it, Heb. 12. 1. Let us lay aside every weight, and the Sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with Patience the Race that is set before us. In this our Christian Race, we must throw off what∣ever we know will be an Impediment to us in our course, especially we must discard those Vices which we have been most accustomed to, and which have had the greatest Ascendant over us. And it is to be observed, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which the Apostle here useth) is applied by Galen and other Greek Authors to the Corpulency, the weight of Flesh which the Olympick Strivers were to bring down and macerate.

In the next place, we are to order and manage our selves aright in the time of the Spiritual Com∣bate: And here likewise the Apostle leads us by the same Metaphor. For,

1. The Combatants were careful to act, to strive, to labour to the utmost.* 1.236

There is a Force and Violence put upon them by themselves, they are cruciated and tormented, they are tired and worn out: and (as the same Author adds) the more they labour in their Combats, the greater is their hope of Victory.

This Excessive Pains and Labour are express'd in the Writings of the Apostle by several terms, as following on (for so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be translated, and not following after, that being a bad word in Racing) and reaching forth, and pressing on (or following on) for the Apostle

uses the same Greek word again. These Agoni∣stick terms, which are used particularly in Run∣ning, are in a Religious manner thus applied by St. Paul, that Eminent Christian Racer,* 1.237 Not as though I had already attain'd, but I follow on: this one thing I do, for getting those things which are behind, (not looking back in the Race to see how much Ground I have ran already, but) reaching forth unto those things which are before, I still press on. The meaning of which is, that he was extremely In∣dustrious and Laborious in his Christian course, he not only ran with Patience (Patience of Body and Mind) this Race that was set before him, (as he speaks in an† 1.238 other place) but he exerted all other V••r∣tues and Graces whatsoever, he lived in a diligent and faithful discharge of all Christian Duties. Or perhaps 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, imports all the hard∣ship he underwent in his Christian Race; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a word applied to the Athletae, (as Pe∣ter Faber observes) and is expressive of all the Fa∣tigues in that Exercise. So in their Wrestlings and Fencings (two other great Employments of the Grecian Agonists) they acted to the height of their Art, to the utmost of their Strength. Their Blows were directed with the greatest Skill, and laid on with the most lively Vigour: to which the Apostle refers, when he saith, So fight I, not as one that b••ateth the air, 1 Cor. 9. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (which is a known word used among the Olympick Gamesters) I fight, I fence, I cuff, saith he, not as they that brandish their Weapons for Sport∣sake, or to exercise their Limbs, or to divert the Spectators, as it seems was usual before they

fell on in good earnest. Whence* 1.239 Virgil saith of Dares, a Great Fenc••r,

—Alternaque jact at Br••••••ia protendens, & verber at ictibus aur as.

But I fight, saith the Apostle, as one that is actu∣ally enter'd into the Combate, and is used to the Olympick Combates, where there is no vain beat∣ing of the Air, but a serious falling on. The Cham∣pions there come not to flourish, but to fight with one another. Accordingly they were wont to cast Dust upon one another, that they might take the more sure Hold: and the Place was strewed with Sand, that they might stand the more steadily to their Work. This Place therefore was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their Station, as appears from† 1.240 Aelian. They stood here all the time they fought, and would not quit it whatever they endured. Thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are Epithets given by Phi••ostratus and Pausanias to the Athleta••. This was the particular Commendation of the Olympian Combatants, that they never ••linch'd from the Ground which they first stood upon, as Aelian tells us. To which it is most probable the Apostle alludes when he exhorts the Christians to stand, Eph. 6. 13. and so again, ver. 14. and to stand fast, and quit themselves like Men, and be strong, 1 Cor. 16. 13. and to stand fast, —striving together, Phil. 1. 27. where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is an Agonick Term as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But this latter is a very noted Word among those that write concerning the Olympick Concertations. Further, I might remark, that it was a Rule with them gene∣rally in these Encounters, not to leave off till they

were wounded on one side or other: yea, 'twas look'd upon as a shameful and base thing to yield before Many Wounds had been given and taken. This however was agreed upon among them, that they must draw Blood of each other: Whence that of the Apostle, Heb. 12. 4. Ye have not yet resisted unto Blood, striving against Sin: for both the Verbs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 belong to the Athle∣tick Exercises.

2. In their Running they minded the Mark that was before them, and distracted not themselves with taking notice of any thing else. This is re∣ferr'd to in Phil. 3. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I press to∣wards the Mark, the Goal, where the Prize is set up to be seen: and in Heb. 12. 1. Let us run the Race that is set before us, looking unto Iesus. And again, in the next Verse, Consider him, have an Eye to him, who himself look'd unto the Ioy that was set before him. Gaze not on the World, and what is tempting and alluring in it, but with an intense and vigorous A∣spect look on that Inheritance which Christ hath purchased for you, fix your Eye on the End of your Faith, even the Salvation of your Souls: and thus you will rightly perform your Christian Course.

3. The Olympick Racers had certain Limits and Bounds set them, and these they very accurately observed. There was a particular Place where the Match was run, which was by those Greeks call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and is so call'd by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we render those that run in a Race, are those that run in a certain Plot of Ground set out for that purpose, for that is the pro∣per Notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 'tis a certain measure of Ground, shorter or longer, as they were pleased to appoint it. This Stadium was mark'd out with a Line, from the Place where they set forth, to

the End: and of this the Apostle makes mention three or four times in 2 Cor. 10. 13, &c. We will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the Rule, or the Line, as 'tis ren∣dred, ver. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (which is the Greek Word here used, and was a common Athletick Word, as appears from* 1.241 Pausanias, and† 1.242 I. Pollux, and other Writers that speak of the Olympick Stri∣vings: and Linea is a Term used by Statius in the same Sense) was the White Line that bounded or mark'd out the Path where the Greek Racers run: in Allusion to which the Apostle's particular Pro∣vince is call'd by him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the measure of the Rule which God had distributed him. The Apostle had first converted the Corinthians, and therefore those he calls his Proper Line. And because each of the Racers had his particular Path chalk'd out to him, thence he speaks of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 16. another Man's Line. And Phil. 3. 16. is an unquesti∣onable Reference to this Grecian Custom, whereto we have already attained, (in as much as we have gotten the Start, for so the Greek Word signisies, and are before others, and have attain'd some De∣grees of spiritual Proficiency) let us walk by the same Rule, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Line we are to run by, the same Path: for tho there was but One Racer run in the same Track among the Grecians, yet 'tis supposed that many Christians run together in one and the same way. I question not but those Words in Heb. 12. 12. have a reference to what we are now speak∣ing of, Lift up the Hands which hang down, and the feeble Knees, and make streight Paths to your Feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way, but let it rather be healed. The whole Period is perfectly

Athletick; but more especially 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all••des to the Racers that ran right forward, a Line being drawn on both sides: so that their Paths were streight or direct.

4. The Wrestlers and Racers were to continue in the Combat to the end; otherwise they had no Advantage of it: which the Apostle hath respect to when he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have fought a good Fight; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have fi∣nished my Course, 2 Tim. 4. 7. I have fully Com∣pleated my Race, I have with Constancy and Per∣severance accomplished that great Work, that is, (as I conceive) through a very strong Faith he was assured that he should do so; for when he writ these Lines, he had not done it. And here also I could observe that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which the Apostle u••es here) and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which he makes use of in other Places) are borrowed from the Athletick Exer∣cises, as we learn from those Writers who have occasion to speak of them, and express them in their proper Terms. Thus I have mentioned some of the Chief Laws and Observances among those who strove for Masteries in the Grecian Plains. And with respect to all these our Divine Author saith, So run that ye may obtain, 1 Cor. 9. 24. So, in such manner, and according to the Laws and Or∣ders of that Exercise, see that you discharge this Duty.

Having thus spoken of the Laws and Conditions of the Olympick Games, I will add something concerning the Iudges: for after the Combate was over, they proceeded to judg who had got the bet∣ter. These Arbitrators, or Judges, were call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whose Business was to determine whether the Agonists had observ'd the Laws, especially to

order and appoint the Reward: which is taken no∣tice of, and religiously applied in 2 Tim. 4. 8. where after St. Paul had with rejoicing professed that he had finished his Course, (which is, as hath been said, a palpable Allusion to the Athletick Enterprizes) he adds, There is laid up for me a Crown of Righteous∣ness (of which I shall speak in the next Place) which the Lord, the righteous Iudg, shall give me at that Day; even that Iudg, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who gives the Prize to those faithful Christians who persevere in their Course to the End. In the last Place, then this Prize, this Reward is to be considered; which is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Cor. 9. 24. Phil. 3. 14. the ve∣ry same Name that was given by the Grecians to the Recompence of the Victors after the Athletick Strivings. This is call'd a Crown, 2 Tim. 2. 5. be∣cause the Olympick Conquerors were rewarded with Crowns or Garlands, made of the Leaves of Bays or Lawrel, or sometimes of Flowers. Gene∣rally they were deck'd with Wreaths of Olive in the Olympicks, of Pine in the Isthmian Games, of Palm-Branches or Oaken Boughs, or some such sorry thing in other Places; and yet (as the Ro∣man Orator observes)* 1.243 these Masters of Exer∣cise reckon'd one of these Prizes won at those Games, as honourable as the Roman Consulship was of old. These the Apostle well deciphereth when he tells us, that they that strive for the Mastery do it to obtain a Corruptible (a fading, withering) Crown, 1 Cor. 9. 25. To which another Apostle opposeth a Crown of Glory that fadeth not away, 1 Pet. 5. 4. i. e. such a Crown as is not made of these perishing Ma∣terials. This is the Crown of Life mentioned by St. Iames, ch. 1. 12. in contradistinction to the wi∣ther'd

dead Crown of the Olympick Strivers. This is that Crown of Righteousness which the Righteous Judg, the Great Arbitrator of the Christian Com∣bates, bestows at the great Day of Recompence, 2 Tim. 4. 8. This is that Prize which St. Paul pressed towards the Mark for, Phil. 3. 14. (alluding to the Crown, the Garland which hung over the Mark or Goal, and was given to the Victor by the Judges) and which he there calls the Prize of the High Calling of God in Christ Iesus, i. e. the Hea∣venly Reward to which he was call'd from above by God, through Christ his Saviour. It is a plain Al∣lusion to the Iudges of those Grecian Sports, who were placed on a high Seat to behold the Perfor∣mance, and then 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Cri••r or Herald, called the Combatants to appear before them, and receive their Sentence. And as soon as the Prize was ad∣judged to them, they used to snatch at it, and take it from the Place (where it was hung up) with their own Hands, as Aelian, Pollux and Cassiodorus testify. The* 1.244 last of these particularly saith, they did rapere praemid: which gives Light to •• Tim, 6. 12. Fight the good Fight of Faith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and lay hold on eternal Life, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; imi∣tate the Victors at the Olympick Games, who pre∣sently lay their Hands on the Crown, and take it, and wear it. The gaining of this Prize is call'd in 1 Cor. 9. 24. Obtaining: and in Phil. 3. 12. Attain∣ing or receiving, as 'tis in the Greek; and Appre∣hending, which is of the same Import, it being a laying hold on, or receiving the Reward: which all are Gymnastick and Agonick Terms.

And lastly, I might observe that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is another Word used here on this Occasion,

1 Cor. 9. 27. is ••o too: I keep under my Body, (saith he) I am always prepared for the Christian Com∣bate, I run, I fight, I strive that I may not be a Cast∣away, a Reprobate, one that loseth the Prize: for he that ran, or wrestled, or performed any other Exercise at the Olympick Games, and upon trial was rejected; he that fell short of the Victory, was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: As on the contrary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is he that strives as he ought, and obtains the Victory. Ac∣cordingly St. Iames, speaking of the Blessed Man ••hat indureth Temptations, saith, when he is tried (when he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, approved of) he shall receive the Crown of Life; he shall have the Reward of a true Christian Combatant bestowed upon him, as the Olympick Strivers were rewarded with a Crown. Thus you see how this Sacred Author makes use of the Olympick Sports, to set forth the Life of a Christian, and the Eternal Rewards of it. A Good Man is stiled by the Royal Philosopher, * 1.245 an Athletick that is exercised in the greatest Con∣flicts. † 1.246 Maximus Tyrius resembles the Life of Man to these. And‖ 1.247 Epictetus compares the Study of Philosophy to the Hardships of the Olympick Agonies: and Seneca makes all Vertuous Men of the Number of the Athletae, and that very fre∣quently. And even St. Paul (as I have shewed) resembles Christianity it self to these Encounters and Hardships, and calls the Christian Conflicts by the very same Names that are given to them. Yea, the Rewards laid up in Heaven for faithful Souls, af∣ter all their Pains and Labours here, are compared to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Garlands of those Grecian Combatants. And in the Close of all, to add one Place more, I am inclined to think, that that Pas∣sage

in 2 Thess. 3. 1. [that the Word of the Lord may run and be glorified, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] hath re∣spect to the Applause, the Acclamation, the Glory, which were part of the Reward of those who got the Victory at the Olympick Exercises, and particu∣larly the Racing. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a Gymnastick Word. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used by* 1.248 Lucian to express that great Honour and Applause which was the Recompence of the Victors in those Com∣bates. And Gloria is the word used by† 1.249 Tertullian when he speaks of these things. It is peculiarly applied and appropriated, as 'twere, to this pur∣pose by Classick Authors, as‖ 1.250 Tacitus and* 1.251 Sene∣ca. It is no wonder then that running and obtaining Glory are here join'd together by the Apostle. The Word of the Lord, i. e. the Preaching of the Gospel, is said to run when it hath its free and undisturb'd Passage; and it is glorified when it proves Prevalent and Victorious in the Hearts and Lives of Men. If I had been Curious in citing what those† 1.252 Au∣thors who have writ concerning the Agonisticks, have delivered on the several Particulars above menti∣oned, I might have enlarged this part of my Dis∣course. And it might have been beautified and adorned from what occurs in those‖ 1.253 Fathers who have spoken of the Olympick Exercises, and the Manners belonging to them. But I was rather de∣sirous to be brief, and to suggest something of my own on this Subject, than to be beholden altoge∣ther to others. And in the whole I have endea∣vour'd to avoid the Fault of that Learned French∣man

Peter Faber, and some others, who have stretched this Metaphor too far, and have perswa∣ded themselves that the Apostles use it, when they never thought of it.

But this is certain, that both in the Old and New Testament, the Metaphorick manner of speaking is very usual, as it is also among all Writers: for in∣deed we may observe, that words in their Primitive and Proper Signification, are not so much used by the best Writers, as they are in their Metaphorical and Improper Sense. Our Business only is to dis∣cern the way of their Speaking, and not to mis∣take an Improper for a Proper Signification. In the Holy Writings especially we ought to take notice of this, and to observe when words are to be understood in their Primitive and Genuine sense, and when not. And with the like Caution we should observe when the other forenamed Fi∣gures are used by the Inspired Writers, (which was the Design of my mentioning them here) that we may carefully distinguish between a Proper and a Figurative Speech, and that (as* 1.254 St. Au∣gustin long since advised) we may not take one for the other.

There are many Other Rhetorical Figures in the Sacred Volume (as Metonymies, Prosopopoeias, Epa∣northoses, Aposiopeses, &c.) which likewise the Choi∣cest Authors abound with: but it shall su••••ice to have mention'd the foregoing ones, the explain∣ing of which is sufficient to give us an account of the Stile of Scripture, so far as it is Figurative. And from what hath been said, we may gather that these Divine Writings come not short of the

most Applauded Pieces of the Greek or Latin Ora∣tors; for here are those very Schemes and Modes of Speech which imbellish those Authors Works; here are all the Graces and Elegancies which en∣rich and adorn them. Therefore in that place beforementioned, where Origen saith, the Scrip∣tures are not written Politely; his meaning is, that that is not the Scope and Design of those Writings, and that it is not the thing that is pursued gene∣rally, there being a Greater and Higher Design; yet in many places there are very Excellent Strains of Oratory, there are very Artificial Periods and Sentences, there are Words, Phrases and Expres∣sions in a very Rhetorical Dress. But where you find others that are, as you think, Inartificial, Un∣couth, and no ways Graceful, you must remember this (to take off your prejudice against the S••rip∣ture-Stile) that the Eastern Eloquence is vastly different from ours in the West. The Mode and Guise of their Oratory were unlike that of the Greeks and Romans, and of Ours at this Day, and therefore we are not to expect that they should be fitted to it. It is certain (though we perceive it not) that their Stile was Graceful and Fashionable: which is clear from the considering the Persons that were the Penmen of some parts of Scripture; namely, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Daniel, Men of great Improvements and Accomplishments, and Masters of the Language they spoke. Neither are the Scriptures in some parts of them Defective in the Western Oratory: they abound with the Choicest Schemes of Speech, with the Greatest Ornaments of Language, with the Chiefest Elegancies which Greece or Rome were famous for.

Yet, notwithstanding this, there are those who have vilified the Stile of Scripture. Some Preten∣ders to Criticism, but of debauched Minds, and loose Lives, have endeavour'd to render it very Mean and Despicable. You have heard of the Canon of Flor••n••••, who preferr'd an Ode of Pindar before the Psalms of David: though he could not deny, as Caspar Peucer tells us, that there were Ex∣cellent Sentences, Histories, Examples, and Figures of Speech in this Divine Poem. Yet such was the Sottishness of Politian (for that was his Name) that he profess'd he never spent his time worse than in reading this and other parts of the Bible: and at last he desisted from reading any further, because of the Barbarity of the Stile. But observe what Character* 1.255 Ludovicus Vives (a Man of his own Religion) gives him: he represents him as a Person, who, though he had more Polite Learn∣ing than was frequent in those Days, made but ill use of it, and employ'd it wholly in the worst sort of Criticism and Playing with words. It was this Busy but Idle Critick that spoke so contemptibly of the Bible; where, because he met with some things unsutable to his Grammatical and Critical Genius, he censured and condemned all. Of the same Profane Disposition was Domitius Calderinus, who advis'd his Friends, especially those that were Youthful, not to read the Bible; for it would be of no use to them. But what it was that these two Persons were employ'd about, which wholly estrang'd their Minds from that Sacred Book, may be guess'd from the† 1.256 Shameful Epigram which the former composed, and the‖ 1.257 Obscene Comment

which the latter made, both which they publish'd to the World. It is no wonder such Men disre∣lish'd the Sacred Truths contain'd in the Inspired Writings, and found fault with the Language and Stile of them: this proceeded from their aversion to that Purity and Holiness which those Holy Writers urge upon the Practices of Men, and which these two Vile Italians knew were directly contrary to what they both loved and acted. Who would not think the better of this Holy Book, because it was despised and vilified by these Men? Who would not highly esteem those Wri∣tings which by such Dissolute Wretches as these were scorn'd and trampl'd under Feet? If it was an Argument that Christianity was Good because Nero persecuted it, then we may with as much reason infer, that the Bible is an Excellent Book, because this pair of Lewd Varlets disparaged it. This certainly was founded in the Wickedness and Profaneness of their Lives. They could not think or speak well of those Writings which con∣tradicted their beloved Lusts and Vices. It was thus with Ierom and Augustin, whilst they were wicked and unreclaim'd Persons: the Scripture-Language seem'd very harsh and unpleasant to them; so far were they from discerning any Elegancy in it. The former of these tells his Eu∣stochium, that he us'd, when he awaked in the Night, and could not sleep, to read Plautus: and if after that he read the Prophets, as sometimes he did, their Speech seem'd to be* 1.258 horribly rough and ••npolished, devoid of all Fineness and Eloquence. And the† 1.259 latter of these Persons freely confesseth,

that before his Conversion, the Stile of Scripture was deemed by him very Rude and Unstudied, and as having nothing Neat and Delicate in it. This is the apprehension which those Men have of it who are not Competent Judges: and they are not so, not because they have not Understanding enough, but because they have an Inward Abhor∣rence of the Sacred Verities which they find in that Book. This is the true Reason why so many in this Age, yea, within our own Borders, scoff at and ridicule the Language of the Bible. The Matter of this Volume makes them dislike the Stile of it. Nothing can be Eloquent which speaks against their Vices. B••t let it offend none that this most Excellent Book is depretiated by some Vitious, or by some Half-witted Men, for there are no other that ever spoke against it. In the Stile of this Book of God, there are no Blemishes but what are approved of in the Best Classical Au∣thors, as those who were of the greatest Skill in Grammar and Rhetorick have fully demonstrated: therefore the Bible is not a Book to be disparag'd, no, not by the greatest Grammarians and Rheto∣ricians. The Excellent and Choice Wording of the Scripture is commended by St.* 1.260 Chrysostom. When I read the Bible, saith St.† 1.261 Augustin, I find that as nothing is more Wisely said, so nothing is more Eloquently spoken than there. And par∣ticularly, I have shew'd that it is beautified and enrich'd with many Figures. Thus I have largely proved, that the Stile of Scripture is generally of the strain of Other Approved Writers as to its Phraseology, or manner of Expression. I proceed, and add,

3dly. This Observation, that Proverbial Sayings and commonly received Adagies used by other Writers, are mention'd also in the Holy Scrip∣tures. This is abundantly proved by* 1.262 those who have Purposely writ on this Subject. I will remit you to them, and at present only confine my self to the New Testament, and there to the Iewish Proverbs only. Our Saviour in his excellent Ser∣mon on the Mount, makes use of that Usual Saying among the Iews, which was used in a Proverbial way, No Man can serve two Masters, Mat. 6. 24. which he applieth to a higher purpose than they designed it, Ye cannot, saith he, serve God and Mam∣mon, it is impossible you should be Servants to these two Masters. No Man can devote himself to God's Service as he ought, and yet at the same time pro∣secute with the utmost Zeal and Concernedness the things of this World; especially the Riches or Profits of it: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other: he cannot serve both with equal care and zeal. Again, it was a Common Proverb among the Hebrews,† 1.263 Measure against Measure; and in the Talmud more than once it is spoken by way of Adage,‖ 1.264 With the Measure that a Man measureth, they measure to him again. Which is applied by our Blessed Teacher, to Mens Censuring and Judg∣ing of others; With what Iudgment ye judg, saith he, ye shall be judged. With what Measure ye mete in this kind, it shall be measured to you again, Mat. 7. 2. If you be rash and unadvised in the Doom which you pass on your Neighbours, you may expect that the like Sentence may pass on you. And in

Luke 6. 37. this very Proverb is spoken with refe∣rence to Giving and Forgiving; as much as to say, if you withhold your Charity from others, either in relieving their Wants, or passing by their Offen∣ces against you, you shall one time or other expe∣rience the same your selves; you shall neither be relieved nor forgiven: thus with the very same Measure that ye mete withal, it shall be measured to you again. In this Sermon he useth again another Jewish Proverb, which was to this purpose,* 1.265 Pull the Beam out of thine Eye, v. 5. applying it to the for∣mer Subject of Judging others. Why beholdest thou the Mote that is in thy Brother's Eye, but considerest not the Beam that is in thy own Eye? Why art thou so Sharp-sighted abroad, why so quick in discerning the least Fault in others, when at the same time thou art Blind at home, and canst not see those gross Miscarriages which thou thy self art guilty of? This is too Evident an Argument of Hypocrisy; therefore Christ adds, Thou Hypocrite, first cast out the Ream out of thine own Eye, abandon those Visible Enormities which are in thy own Life, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the Mote out of thy Brother's Eye, i. e. then thou shalt be more fit to judg of other Mens Failings, and to correct them for them. Again, ver. 6. Christ useth this Common Saying which was usual among the Jews, Give not that which is holy unto Dogs, neither cast ye your Pearls before Swine: in which without doubt was included an Excellent Lesson, and such as was very seaso∣nable at that time, viz. That his Disciples (for to them chiefly he speaks in this Sermon) should Prudently dispense the Gospel, and where they saw it was obstinately refused by any, there they

should not expose themselves to Dangers, when they perceived that they could do no good among such Persons. They must not throw away Pearls among such Swine that would trample them under their feet, and turn again, and rend them, as our Saviour adds there. It was an Old Hebrew Proverb, near of Kin to the former, It is not good to throw the Childrens Bread to Dogs: which you find made use of by our Saviour in Mat. 15. 26. When the Wo∣man of Canaan besought him in behalf of her Daughter, who was grievously vexed with a Devil, he put her off, by telling her, That he was not sent but unto the lost Sheep of the House of Israel; and she being an Alien from the Common-wealth of Israel, had no right to the Privileges which were to be dispens'd to these alone. It is not meet, saith he, to take the Childrens Bread, and cast it to Dogs. But this Woman would not be put off so, but wisely retorted his Proverb by another Common and Acknowledged Truth, that the Dogs eat of the Crumbs which fall from their Master's Table. If she might not have the Childrens Bread, she requested he would not deny her that Common Allowance which fell from his bountiful Hand, and which she firmly believed he would not keep from her. This great Faith of hers made her capable of re∣ceiving this, and a higher Blessing from our Com∣passionate Master. The Talmud uses that Pro∣verbial Saying, An Elephant cannot go through the Eye of a Needle; but Christ instead of an Elephant (which was an Animal that few saw in that Coun∣try) mentions a Camel, which was a Creature well known; and he expresseth himself after a Proverbial manner thus, It is easier for a Camel to go through the Eye of a Needle, than for a rich Man to enter into the Kingdom of God, Mat. 19. 24. which

in plainer terms he had said in the Verse before, A rich Man shall hardly enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; which is explain'd further in another place, It is hard for them that trust in Riches to enter into the Kingdom of God, Mark 10. 24. It is hard, yea, it is impossible, for you may as well draw a Camel through the Eye of a small Needle. Those are said to be Jewish Proverbs, The Disciple is not above his Master, nor the Servant above his Lord, Mat. 10. 24. They are blind Leaders of the Blind, Mat. 15. 14. Ye strain at a Gnat, and swallow a Camel, Mat. 23. 24. A Prophet hath no honour in his own Country, John 4. 44. These and many other Proverbial Speeches among the Jews, are applied by our Saviour, he being pleas'd to con∣form to the Language as well as the Rites and Usages of his Countrymen. Any one that hath read the Books of the Mishnah, where the several Sayings and Sentences of the Jewish Rabbies are recorded, knows how near they come to sundry Speeches and Expressions used by our Saviour. That was an Old Hebrew Proverb, (though used sometimes by Pagans) The Dog is return'd to his Vomit again; and you find the same in St. Peter (1 Ep. 2. 22.) who had it originally from Solomon's Proverbs, Chap. 26. 11. where it is used to express a Fool's return to his Folly.

To the Proverbial Sayings among the Jews, I may refer that of our Saviour's bidding the Apostles shake off the Dust of their Feet, Mat. 10. 14. or. under their Feet, Mark 6. 11. which I have reserv'd for this place, because I wil more distinctly speak of it than I have of the rest. It was Christ's Injun∣ction, that when they came into a House or City, and found not reception, they should behave them∣selves in this manner; and he further tells them

what they must say, Luk. 10. 11. Even the very Dust of your City which cleaveth on u••, we do wipe off a∣gainst you. Some imagine, that this shaking off the Dust of the Feet or Shoes hath assinity with the Jewish Rite of pulling off the Shoe, mention'd Deut. 25. 9. Ruth 4. 7. which was a Ceremony of Dis∣grace, performed by the Relict of the Deceased Brother to the Surviving one who refused to mar∣ry her. But this Opinion hath but few Abettors, and indeed, 'tis a wonder it hath had any, for there is a vast difference between the shaking off the Dust of the Feet, and the plucking off the Shoe. Others think this Practice is of the same Nature with shaking the Lap or Garment, which was an usage among the Hebrews; and they would by this sh••w that they wish'd or pray'd that such an one might b•• shak••n, removed, deprived of his Goods and Possession. Thus Nehemiah used this Rite a∣gainst those that exacted Usury of their Brethren, Ne••. 5. 13. And this shaking of the Rayment was practis'd by St. Paul against the blaspheming Jews, Acts 18. 6. But this is a quite different thing from what we are speaking of, unless we can prove that Dust and Clothing are convertible. But * 1.266 Dr. Lightfoot refers this Passage to that particu∣la•• Saying of the Jews, That the Dust of a Hea∣then Land defiles a Man and makes him Unclean. So that our Saviour bad the Apostles shake off the Dust from their Feet, to shew how they re∣puted those People, viz. as Heathenish and Pro∣phane, and consequently they were not to be convers'd with. The Apostles scorn'd to have any thing to do with them: and as a Sign of that,

they would not carry away any thing that belonged to that Place, no not so much as the Dust of it. But, if I may be permitted to offer my Thoughts, there is something more in these Words than this. It is true, this is signified that they would not hold Correspondence with those unworthy Persons that rejected the Gospel, they would not suffer the very Dust of the Place to adhere to the Soles of their Feet: but that is not all. It is further and more particularly signified, that the Apostles were to leave the Place speedily. When they are commanded to shake off the Dust of their Feet, the more especial Meaning is, that they must stay no longer in the Place, but be gone from it with all the Expedition they can, and they must not carry so much as the Dust to burden them. It is something related (as I apprehend) to that other Counsel of our Saviour, in the very same Chapter; or rather, it seems to be the same, but mentioned again in other terms, (as is usual with our Lord) When they persecute you in one City, flee ye into ano∣ther, ver. 23. with what Speed you can depart from the Place where you are so ill used. When you find that your Preaching is wholly despised, make no Delay, but hasten away, that you may be in a Capacity to do good in some other Places, where you may be kindly received. As soon as you see your Message is scorn'd and rejected, shake the Dust off your Feet, and be gone away immediately. This seems to be the genuine Tendency of the Words; for we must know that Iudea (some part of it especially) was a dry, hot and dusty Countrey, whence it was a Custom among them to have their Feet wash'd as soon as they came into a House: this was part of the Welcome which they look'd for; and when this Ceremony was omitted, they ga∣thered

thence that they were Unacceptable Guests. Therefore, saith Christ, if you find not this Wel∣come, if your Feet are not wash'd, and the Dust wiped off by some of the House, do this part your selves, (that thereby you may be somewhat re∣fresh'd) lightly shake off some of the Dust, and go your way, and leave the Habitation forthwith. So that these Words denote Haste and Expedition; which may be confirmed from that Saying of the Jews, which they used in Traffick, Whilst the Dust is on your Feet (before 'tis all wiped off) sell what you have, i. e. sell quickly. So Pie-Powder-Court among us, which is incident to every Fair and Market (as a Court Baron to a Mannor) is that where Causes are tried cursorily and in haste. This Dusty-foot- Court is so call'd to signify the Quickness of Dispatch in it. Thus among the Greek Lawyers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (rendred by the Latins Pedaneus Iudex) was a sorry, mean, inferiour Judg, a Pedant in Law, that judged standing on foot on the plain Ground, and had not a Chair or Tribunal: he judg'd, as it were, in transitu, passing, going on foot. He was a Judg of the Court of Pie Powder, pedis pulverisati, as our Lawyers call it, because they came to it in haste, and had no time to wipe off the Dirt which they contracted in their Travels. Thus there is some Analogy between this way of speaking, and that which I am now treating of. Our Saviour ad∣viseth his Travelling Apostles to use Prudence, to be gone, as fast as they could, out of those Cities and Towns where the Inhabitants were wholly averse to the Preaching of the Gospel, and especi∣ally when they saw it would be attended with Per∣secution. And we read that the Apostles put this in practice when they were at Antioch, where they were severely handled, and saw they should be ex∣pell'd

out of those Coasts, they shook off the Dust of their Feet against them, and came to ••conium in all haste, Acts 13. 50, 51. This was a Sign of Speed: and so the Meaning of Christ's Injunction was, that when they perceived the Gospel was rejected, and themselves were in great Danger, they should pre∣sently depart from the Place, and stay no longer among such vile People. But withal, I deny not that this was to be for a Testimony against them, as 'tis said, Mark 6. 11. it was to bear witness against the Despisers of the Gospel, and the Persecutors of the holy Professors of it. And moreover, it was a Token of Contempt and Abhorrence, and (with reference to a Jewish Saying before menti∣on'd) might be spoken in a Proverbial way. Lastly, it might be shew'd here, that many of Christ••s Pa∣rables (of which I have treated before) were bor∣rowed from the Iewish Doctors. That of Dives and Lazarus is cited in the Gemara on the Babylonian Talmud. The Parable of the Labourers in the Vine∣yard is mentioned in the same Place, in the Title Beracoth: and that of the five wise and five foolish Virgins is spoken of in the Book of the Sabbath: and some others might be instanc'd in, but I will add no more under this Head.

CHAP. VI.

There is in Scripture a great and delightful Variety of Languages. Some Chapters and Verses of the Old Testament are in Chaldee. Here are Persian, A∣frican, Arabick, Syriac, Phoenician Words. In the New Testament there are some Hebrew and Per∣sian, many Latin and Syriac Words. Hebraisms, i. e. Phrases proper to the Hebrews, are not only in the Old Testament, (where many Examples are pro∣duced) but in the New; where (besides many other Hebrew Modes of Speech) the Vse of God's Name to augment and inhanse the Sense, the Vse of the word Sons or Children, not only applied to Persons but Things; the Import of the word first-born or first-begotten, and of those Expressions, the Son of Man, a Weight of Glory, are chiefly insisted upon. There are no Soloecisms in Scripture. St. Je∣rom, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Castellio, Dr. Hammond censured for asserting the contrary. Sir Norton Knatchbull salves the Grammatical Part of the New Testament, and olears it of Soloecisms. The same things which some call Soloecisms and un∣due Syntax, are found in the best Classical Authors. There are Chasms, Expletives, Repetitions, and at other times unexpected Brevity, seeming Inconsisten∣cies and Incoherencies in the best Greek and Latin Au∣thors. The Propriety and Excellency of the Sacred Stile may be justi••ied from the Writings of the most cele∣brated Moral Philosophers, Orators, Poets, &c.

4thly. I Further offer this to your Observati∣on, that there is in the Scriptures a great and delightful Variety of Tongues and Lan∣guages.

There are in the Old Testament, besides the Hebrew, (of which it is composed) many Chap∣ters written in Chaldee: as in Ezra, part of the 4th Chapter, all the 5th and 6th, with part of the 7th: in Daniel, the greatest part of the 2d Chapter, and all the rest that follow till the 8th: in Ieremiah, one single Verse, viz. the 11th of the 10th Chapter. And besides these greater Portions, there are many Chaldee Words dispersed up and down in several Places, as Chartummim, Magicians, Astrologers, Gen. 41. 24. used also in Dan. 1. 20. ch. 2. 2. Nishtevan, an Epistle or Letter, Ezra 4. 7. Pithgam, a Word or Decree, Esther 1. 20. Sethav, Winter, Cant. 2. 11. Saga, to magnify, Iob 36. 24. Tiphsar, a Cap∣tain, Ier. 51. 27. and some think Macha, Numb. 34. 11. is a Chaldaick Verb. Other Words are of Persian Extraction, as Pardes and Pardesim, Eccles. 2. 5. Cant. 4. 13. Orchards or Gardens; whence the word Paradise; for so the Persians call'd their Or∣chards, Gardens and Parks, saith* 1.267 Philostratus: and we read the like in† 1.268 Iul. Pollux. Partemim, Nobles or Princes, Esther 1. 3. is a Word borrow∣ed from the Persians, and is proper to that Coun∣try. So is Pur, a Lot, Esther 3. 7. and Achashdar∣panim, Lieutenants or Governours of Provinces, Esth. 3. 12. ch. 9. 3. and Chiun, Amos 5. 26. passes for a Persian Name among some Learned Men. From Egypt (with which the Hebrews had great Commerce) several Words are borrowed, as Zaph∣nath Paaneah, Gen. 41. 45. the Title of Honour which King Pharaoh conferr'd on Ioseph, which some interpret a Revealer of Secrets, (as both Iona∣than and Onkelos render it, and most of the Rabbies) but others, with St. Ierom, translate it the Saviour

of the World. But whatever the meaning of it is, 'tis not to be doubted that 'tis Egyptian, for a Ti∣tle given by an Egyptian King was certainly such. And some think the same of the word Abrech, Gen. 41. 43. the Term of Applause and Acclamation which the Egyptian People made use of when Io∣seph was advanced to be the Second Man in the Kingdom, and rid in Royal State through the Streets. Zephardegnim, Frogs, Exod. 8. 3. and Ze∣phardeang a Frog, Psal. 78. 45. are of Egyptian Race: and such is Ob an Inchanter, Deut. 18. 10. if we may credit the* 1.269 Learned Kircher: and Ma∣nor a Weaver's Beam, 1 Sam. 17. 7. and Sarim an Eunuch, 2 Chron. 18. 8. and Sarisim Eunuchs, 2 Kings 20. 18. and several other Words were brought with the Israelites out of Egypt, or were learn'd by Converse. Totaphoth, Frontlets, Exod. 13. 16. Deut. 6. 8. is a compound Word (as† 1.270 Sca∣liger thinks) from Tot and Photh; the first an Egyp∣tian Word, the second used in some other part of Africa. Atad a Thorn, Psal. 58. 9. is also rec∣kon'd an African or Punick Word. From Arabia others are fetch'd, as Raphelingius and Golius, and other great Linguists have observ'd: especially in the Book of Iob they find several Arabick Words, for he was of that Countrey. Leviathan is of this fort, saith Bochart, and signifies a Dragon, and any Great Fish. Seranim, Lords, 1 Sam. 6. 18. and Cabul, 1 Kings 9. 13. and many others, are look'd upon as Phoenician. Zamzummim, Giants, Deut. 2. 20. is purely an Ammonitish Word. Gnerabon, a Pledg, Gen. 38. 17. is Syriac: and Sharbit a Scep∣ter, Esth. 4. 11. ch. 5. 2. (used here, and no where else) is such, rather than a pure Hebrew Word.

The Names of the Months among the Hebrews (several of which occur in the Old Testament) are generally taken from other Languages. And many other foreign Words are brought into the Hebrew Tongue, and mix'd with it, (which was caused by Correspondence with other Nations, of whom they were taught these Words, and particularly by Traffick and Importing of foreign Goods, as * 1.271 Avenarius has observed, the Things and the Names being brought at the same time from foreign Parts) and accordingly we find them in the Writings of the Old Testament. Here that of the Rabbies is true, (though they applied it, as I have shewed be∣fore, in another Sense) The Scripture oftentimes speaks in the Language of the Sons of Men; it hath Words which are used in other Tongues, and borrowed from other Nations.

Thus likewise it is in the New Testament; there is a Variety of Languages in it. For though the main of it be Greek, yet there are sundry Words there of a different Original. Some Hebrew ones are made use of by the Holy Ghost, as Allelujah▪ Rev. 19. 1, 3, 4, 6. Sabaoth, Rom. 9. 29. Iam. 5. 4. Amen, Rom. 1. 25. Eph. 3. 21. and in several other Places; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mark 14. 16. and often used in the Gospels; and in 1 Cor. 5. 7. Heb. 11. 28. is originally Hebrew. These Words were so much in use among the Faithful, that the Apostles thought fit not to translate them, but to retain them as they are. Again, some Words in this Part of the Bible are Persian, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Matth. 2. 7, 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acts 8. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 5. 41. Mark 15. 41. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Paradise, Luke 23.

43. 2 Cor. 12. 4. Rev. 2. 7. is of Persick Extract. Remphan, Acts 7. 43. is thought by some to be E∣gyptian. It is certain that there are a great many Latin Words Grecized, as Quadrans, Matth. 5. 26. Legio, Matth. 5. 9. ch. 26. 53. Census, Matth. 17. 25. Praetorium, Matth. 27. 27. Acts 23. 35. Phil. 1. 13. Custodia, Matth. 27. 65. ch. 28. 11. Spiculator, Mark 6. 27. Centurio, Mark 15. 45. Opsonium, Luke 3. 14. Rom. 6. 23. Modius, Luke 11. 33. Sudarium, Luke 19. 20. Colonia, Acts 16. 12. Semicinctium, Acts 19. 12. Sicarius, Acts 21. 38. Macellua, 1 Cor. 10. 25. Membrana, 2 Tim. 4. 13. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the same Verse, is a Greek Word made out of the Latin one Penula, with a Metathesis. Which Words (and many more without doubt) came in with the Roman Conquest over the Jews, for Con∣querors carry their Language with them; and hence it is not to be marvell'd at that many Roman Words were in use among the Jews, and that some of them were inserted into the New Testament. There are likewise several Syriac Words used by the Evangelical Writers, and generally interpret∣ed in the Places where they are: as Raka, Matth. 5. 22. Golgotha, Matth. 27. 33. Sabachthani, Mat. 27. 46. Boanerges, Mark 3. 17. Talitha cumi, Mark 5. 41. Corban, Mark 7. 11. Ephphatha, Mark 7. 43. Abba, Mark 14. 33. Rom. 8. 15. Mammon, Luke 16. 9. Cephas, John 1. 42. Gabbatha, John 19. 13. Akeldama, Acts 1. 19. Tabitha, Acts 9. 36. Ma∣ran-atha, 1 Cor. 16. 22. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Eph. 1. 14. 2 Cor. 1. 22. is also of Syriac Original. Nor is it a wonder that we find a great Number of these in the Greek Testament; for after the Return of the Jews from their Captivity in Babylon, their Lan∣guage was mix'd of the Hebrew and Chaldee, and named the Syriac Tongue, from the Regions where

it was used. As for the Old Pure Hebrew, the Priests and the Learned Jews only understood it, but this Mix'd Tongue was that which was gene∣rally spoken and understood by all the Jewish Na∣tion. Therefore in this Tongue Christ made all his Sermons to the People, and the Evangelists and Apostles preach'd the Gospel to them in it. Yea, because the Syriac succeeded in the place of the Hebrew, (the Jews having lost this, and taken up that) therefore that Tongue is sometimes call'd the Hebrew Tongue in the New Testament, as in Iohn 19. 13. where it is said, Pilate sat down in the Iudgment-seat, in a Place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew Gabbatha. This is a Syriac Word, or a Dialect of the Chaldee, (which is the same) but it is call'd Hebrew here, because Syriac was be∣come the Vulgar Language of the Hebrews; yea, was their Mother-Tongue in our Saviour's time. So when 'tis said, that the Title on the Cross was written in Letters of Hebrew, Luke 23. 38. 'tis pro∣bable that the Syriac is meant, i. e. the Superscrip∣tion was written in Syriac Words, though in He∣rew Letters.

5thly. It is useful to observe what a considerable Number of Hebraisms, i. e. of Phrases proper to the Hebrews is made use of in these Holy Writings, not in those of the Old Testament only, but in the Greek Writings of the New. Indeed the Books of the Old and New Testament being written by Hebrews, we cannot expect but that they should use the Hebrew way of speaking. Such is that in Gen. 40. 13. Pharaoh shall lift up thy Head, To lift up the Head, is to Account or Reckon, for (as some tell us) they used to cast Accompts with Nails or Pins, stuck in a Table with Holes, and these Pins were call'd Heads: by the lifting them up, or re∣moving

them out of one Hole to another, they performed their Arithmetick. Therefore Moses expresses it thus, He lifted up the Head of the chief Butler and chief Baker, ver. 20. that is, he Reckon∣ed with them, and then differently dealt with them, viz. according to their Deserts. The same Phrase is used in Exod. 30. 12. When thou takest the Sum of the Children of Israel, Hebr. When thou liftest up the Head: And so in Numb. 1. 2. take the Sum, Hebr. Lift up the Head. It is a peculiar Mode of Speech to signify to reckon, to gather the Sum of all; to which answer the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Latin recapitulare, to bring all to one, Head, which were borrowed from the Hebrew Stile. To fill the Hand, Exod. 28. 41. ch. 29. 9. Numb. 3. 3. is a way of speaking proper to the Hebrews, and we fitly render it to consecrate, because, perhaps, when they Consecrated Persons, they delivered in∣to their Hands the Badges and Instruments of their Office. Another peculiar Phrase is used in 2 Kings 10. 21. ch. 21. 16. Ezra 9. 11. which, according to the Hebrew is, from Mouth to Mouth, or Mouth to Mouth, but it particularly denotes a Place to be full of People; and accordingly is so rendred, per∣haps for this Reason, because when it is so, they stand close together, as it were Mouth to Mouth. To give the Hand to one, was heretofore a way of Expression proper to the Eastern Countries, the Hebrews especially; and it was as much as to sub∣mit or yield to one, 1 Chron. 29. 24. Ier. 50. 15. Lam. 5. 6. and it is applied in a spiritual way, 2 Chron. 30. 8. give the Hand, or yield your selves unto the Lord. The same Phrase is used by Gentile Authors: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dare manus, is to confess one's self to be overcome.

The Form of Wishing among the Hebrews is sin∣gular, and not used by others, Who will give? Exod. 16. 3. which we translate would to God: So Numb. 11. 29. Deut. 28. 67. Iob 13. 5. O that ye would! Benjamin is call'd a Lad, Gen. 43. 8. though he was Four and twenty Years old, and had Chil∣dren: the Idiom of the Hebrew Tongue solves it. To this peculiar manner of phrasing things may be referr'd Gen. 49. 10.—Nor a Lawgiver from between his Feet. For so the Hebrews modestly express the place of Generation, stiling it Rage∣lim, the Feet: and so the word seems to be meant in Exod. 4. 25. Deut. 28. 57. Isa. 6. 2. and thus the Masorites, for the word which is used for Vrine, read in the Margin the Water of the Feet, 2 Kings 18. 27. And sometimes instead of Feet, the Hebrews use the word Thigh, Gen. 46. 26. Exod. 1. 5. and Loins, Gen. 35. 11. and in a mul∣titude of other places. Moreover, the peculiar way of using the word Sons among the Hebrews is remarkable; as in Prov. 31. 5. Sons of Affliction, i. e. the Afflicted: Sons of Destruction, ver. 8. Such as are appointed to be destroy'd, as we render it: Sons of Oil, Zech. 4. 14. i. e. the anointed ones. So we read of the Son of the Morning, Isa. 14. 12. and the Sons of Belial, Judg. 19. 22. 2. Sam. 23. 6. And sometimes 'tis applied to Things as well as Persons, as in Iob 5. 7. [As the Sons of the burning Coal, i. e. the Sparks, fly upward.] Whatever is the part of a thing, or whoever belongs to any thing, or is partaker of it, is in the Hebrew Idiom call'd a Son.

Again, the Name of God after the Hebrew manner, is wont to be added, to Magnify and Augment the Signification in several places of Scripture. There have been some Instances of this sort produced by

Critical Writers on the Bible, but I will endeavour here (and afterwards) to make a considerable Ad∣dition to them. But first I will take notice of a place or two which have been brought under this Head, but in my judgment belong not to it. Such is that, Gen. 10. 9. He was a mighty Hunter before the Lord, where (saith* 1.272 One) the Name of the Lord is added to heighten the sense, as is frequent in the Hebrew Stile. But two things I here urge to enervate this Interpretation: First, It is not the bare Name of God or Lord that is here added, as in other Texts. The exact rendring of Lipni Iehovah (which are the words here) is ad facies, ad conspectum Domini, and is well translated before the Lord, which signifies the bold and impudent Usurpation and Tyranny of this first Monarch. This hardned Oppressor had no regard either to God or Man; yea, he committed his Violences and Ravages in defiance of the Great Lord and Sove∣raign of the World: this is to be a Hunter, a Persecutor, a Tyrant before the Lord: and so you see it is not that Hebraism we are now to treat of. Secondly, There was no need of that way of Speech here, for the Greatning and Heightning of the sense, were before express'd by the term Gibbor, mighty: wherefore there was no occasion to add the Name of God as a mark of Intension. If you observe the Instances which I shall afterward pro∣duce, you will find that God's Name is used when there was no word to express Greatness or Eminency in the preceding words. For these Reasons, I ex∣punge this first Text out of the Number of the Instances which ought to be mention'd here. And after the same rate I must deal with that other,

Prov. 20. 27. The Spirit of Man is the Candle of the Lord: where the last word is asserted by a late * 1.273 Learned Critick to be added (in which he fol∣lows Drusius in his Hebrew Proverbs) as an Auxesis, that is, only to augment the sense: and therefore he saith, the Candle of the Lord is no more than a most Excellent Candle or Light. But if we consi∣der the words aright, we shall not find such an Hebraism in them. The Text is easie and plain, without any thing of this Nature; for the Wise Man here acquaints us, that the Spirit of Man, his Nobler and Divine part, the Intellect especially, that Bright and Glorious Faculty was given to him by God, on purpose to be a Light and Guide to him, to make him capable of enquiring into and attain∣ing a knowledge of the Profoundest Truths, the most remote and recondite Mysteries either in Na∣ture or Religion: that is meant here by searching all the inward Parts of the Belly. Thus the Saga∣cious Mind of Man is the Candle or Lamp of the Lord; the word Lord here signifying to us the Author and Giver of this Noble Faculty. And therefore I something wonder at what this Lear∣ned Writer adds in the same place, viz. That our English Translation [the Spirit of Man is the Candle of the Lord] is an odd Expression, and somewhat diffi∣cult surely to make a good sense of; whereas the same Expression is used in the Scripture in other places, and bears a very good sense, as you have heard. Some have thought that Musical Instruments of God, 1 Chron. 16. 42. and Instruments of Musick of the Lord, 2 Chron. 7. 6. denote the Loudness or Excel∣lency of the Temple-Musick; but this Fancy arose from their not attending to the true Reason which

is given in the latter of these places, where after Instruments of Musick of the Lord is immediately ad∣ded, which David the King had made to Praise the Lord; therefore they were so call'd. Nor can I be perswaded that a Man of God, which we often read of, imports only an Excellent Man, as some have suggested; but it speaks his more particular and peculiar Relation to God as a Prophet.

I come now to offer some Examples where the Hebrew way of Speaking, by mentioning God to signify the Greatness or Excellency of a thing, is very apparent and unquestionable; as Gen. 30. 8. Wrestlings of God, according to the Hebrew, i. e. great, strong and vehement Wrestlings: 1 Sam. 14. 15. a Trembling of God, which we rightly translate a very great Trembling: 1 Sam. 10. 5. the Hill of God: Psal. 36. 6. the Mountains of God, i. e. the great Hills and Mountains. Cedars of God, Psal. 80. 10. rendred goodly: the Trees of the Lord, Psal. 104. 16. i. e. exceeding great or high Trees. To which Texts (that are generally acknowledg'd to bear this sense) I will presume to add another, viz. Psal. 65. 9. the River of God, i. e. a Vast Great River. And what is that? The Clouds or Rain, which are poured down upon the Earth in great abundance. For if you read that part of the Psalm, you'll see it speaks of the great Blessing of Rain, Thou visitest the Earth, and waterest it, thou greatly enrichest it with the River of God, &c. to the end of the Psalm. This Vast Mass of Waters is according to the Hebrews stiled a River of God: it is as 'twere a Great Excellent River flowing down from Heaven: Though I do not exclude the other sense contain'd in it, that 'tis from God, and that 'tis a singular Argument and Token of God's Care and Providence. Cant. 8. 6. is a place

little taken notice of, the Flame of the Lord, i. e. (as we truly translate it) a most Vehement Flame. So the Voice of God, Ezek. 1. 24. & 10. 5. that is, a very loud and terrible Voice. The Breath of God, Job 37. 10. i. e. a Vehement sharp Wind. And it is not unlikely that Isa. 59. 19. is to be under∣stood thus, Ruach Iehovah, (not, as we translate it, the Spirit of the Lord, but) the Wind of the Lord, i. e. a great tempestuous Wind. I gather this to be the meaning from what went before, when the Enemy shall come in like a Floud, then (saith the Prophet) the Almighty Power of God, like some Great and Vehement Wind, shall drive it back, shall put it to flight, as we see great Waters and Floods are oftentimes beat back (as well as violently thrust forward) by mighty Winds. Another place which hath not been observed, is Iob 15. 11. Are the Consolations of God small with thee? which are Eliphaz's words wherewith he re∣proves Iob for undervaluing the Consolatory Ar∣guments which had been offer'd to him by himself and his other Friends: and these Topicks of Com∣fort were not mean and ordinary, but of a very peculiar Nature. Iob's Fault is aggravated from this, that he despised and slighted so Great Com∣forts when they were tender'd to him: and Great they were, (as you read in the 9th and 10th Verses) because they were offer'd by Persons of great Vn∣derstanding, Age, and Experience. And the Anti∣thesis which is here, doth shew this to be the sense of the place; Are these Great Consolations, saith he, Small with thee? Dost thou look for Greater and Stronger Arguments to support and cheer thee than these are? I am of opinion therefore that Tanchumoth El, the Consolations of God, are the

same with Great Consolations. Jon. 3. 3. is a known Text, where it is said, Nine••eh was an Exceed∣ing great City, Hebr. great to God. A Land of Darkness of the Lord, Jer. 2. 31. is as much as a Land of very great and signal Darkness; for Ma∣phel is here compounded with Iah, to express the Superlative Degree of Darkness. So in the words Er••l, Isa. 33. 7. Praevalidus, & Ariel, Leo fortis, 2 Sam. 23. 20. El the Name of God is ad∣ded to inhanse the Signification. So Iacob was Sirnamed Israel, i. e. a Prince of God, which is equivalent with a Great Prince, one that mightily prevail'd, even with God himself. Hither per∣haps may be reduced the Sons of God, Gen. 6. 2. Great Men, of high Stature, the Giants mention'd ver. 4. but call'd here the Sons of God, according to the Idiom of the Hebrews, who set forth the Greatness and Largeness, as also the transcendent Worth and Excellency of Persons and Things by joining the Name of God to them. To this way of speaking, I refer Tardemah Iehovah, 1 Sam. 26. 12. english'd by our Translators, a deep Sleep from the Lord; but according to the Hebrew, it is a Sleep of the Lord, i. e. a Great Sleep, Sopor vehemens, as Arius Montanus renders it, a Profound Sleep, out of which a Person is not easily awaked. There∣fore a deep Sleep, or a very deep Sleep will be suffi∣cient, without adding from or of the Lord. To this also may be referr'd lechem abirim, Psal. 78. 25. the Bread or Food of Angels, i. e. Excellent Food: for what is Excellent, is said to be Angelical as well as Divine. And indeed these are the same here, for Abirim is of the same import with Elohim, and as the Name of God, is used to augment the sense. Whence the Pagan Writers have borrow'd this

manner of Speaking, as when by* 1.274 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Food of the Gods, they, in a Proverbial way, mean very Choice and Exquisite Dainties: and by † 1.275 Deorum coenae, they express a very Sumptuous and Delicate Entertainment. Virgil and other Poets (yea, Cicero sometimes) by the Epithet of Divine, understand that which is Eminent, Remarkable, Excellent. Bordering on which is the use of the word Sacred sometimes, whereby that which is Great is express'd: Sacra anchora is the greater, and consequently the stronger and safer Anchor, the last and only hope of the Ship and Mariners. And some Criticks have thought that Sacra fames is the same with ingens, insatiabilis; for those things which are Great are said to be Sacred, and to be of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Greeks are some∣times magna: So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Morbus sonticus) is a Vehement Disease, of greater Malignity than ordinary, but more signally 'tis applied to the Epilepsy. Plutarch mentions an Old Physician who call'd his Choice Sovereign Medicines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And in Galen there is Iupiter's Trochisk. They give these Names to their Medicaments to shew the Excellency of them; for all Great and Excellent things were by the Antients counted Holy, and sometimes they put the Name of God upon them. So among the later Physicians and Botanists, you may observe that they make use of the Name of ‖ 1.276 God, of* 1.277 Christ, of the† 1.278 Apostles and Saints, to set forth some things which they have a great Esteem of. They mention the most Sacred things to extol and magnify their Simples and their Me∣dical Applications. All this seems to be derived

from the antient Stile of the Hebrews, by whom that which is Greatest in its kind is call'd Di∣vine, and accordingly (as R. D. Kimchi notes in his Comment on 1 Sam. 16.) the Sacred Scripture, when it would magnify a thing, joins with it God's Name.

But it is endless to insist on the Old Testament: and therefore I will confine my self to the New, and briefly shew you that this part of the Bible, though written in Greek, abounds with Hebraisms: (and yet here still I shall have occasion to refer to the Writings of the Old Testament all along.) The Reason why the Evangelists and Apostles writ in Greek, was, because this was the Tongue generally used by all sorts of Nations, but you will find that they accommodated it to the guise of the Hebrew Tongue; that is, they retained many of the He∣brew Idioms, and made use of them in the Greek Language. Thus to be called and to be are the same among the Hebrews, and this latter is fre∣quently in* 1.279 the Old Testament, express'd by the former. Accordingly these are oftentimes ex∣pressive one of another in the New Testament, as in Mat. 5. 9. they shall be called the Children of God: and ver. 19. he shall be called the least in the King∣dom of Heaven. 1 Joh. 3. 1.—that we should be call'd the Sons of God. To be called here and in other places is really to be, and it is so express'd accor∣ding to the Hebrew way of speaking. There is the like signification of the word [arise], as in 2 Sam. 11. 20. if the King's Wrath arise: Esth. 4. 14. Enlargement and Deliverance shall arise to the Iews: Prov. 24. 22. their Calamity shall rise suddenly. In all which places the word [arise] signifies no other

than actual Being or Existing, according to the Hebrew Idiom. And thence it is used so in the New Testament, as in Luke 24. 38. Why do Thoughts arise in your Hearts? i. e. why are they there? Mat. 24. 24. There shall arise false Christs, i. e. there shall actually be at that time such Persons, accor∣ding to my Prediction. So [to be found] is among the Hebrews of the same import with the fore∣mentioned Expressions, and accordingly in the Old Testament one is put for the other, as in 1 Sam. 25. 28. Evil hath not been found in thee: 2 Chron. 19. 3. Good things are found in thee: Isa. 51. 3. Ioy and Gladness shall be found therein: Dan. 5. 12. An Excellent Spirit was found in Daniel. In these and other Texts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 inventus est, are as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fuit. As in the Writings of the Jewish Doctors you may observe that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ens. In imitation of this Hebraism 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used for sum or existo in the New Testament, as in Luke 17. 18. There are not found that returned to give Glory to God save this Stranger. Acts 5. 39.—Lest haply ye be found to fight against God. 1 Cor. 4. 2.—that a Man be found Faithful. Phil. 2. 2. being found in fashion as a Man. Heb. 11. 5. Enoch was not found: which is the same with Enoch was not, as is evident from comparing this place with Gen. 5. 24. to which it refers. That of St. Pe∣ter, 1 Ep. 2. 22. Neither was Guile found in his Mouth, is taken from Isa. 53. 9. Neither was there any Deceit (or Guile) in his Mouth. From whence it appears, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this, as well as the other Texts beforenamed. Which manner of Speech is borrowed from the Hebrews, who use this way of expressing themselves, and from whom some Heathen Authors have derived it, as may be seen in some of their Writings.

Next, we may take notice of that Hebraism in the New Testament, which I observ'd before to be in the Old one, viz. the using of God's Name to augment and inhanse a thing. Of this Nature seems to be that in Acts 7. 20. Moses was fair to God; for so 'tis according to the Greek, but is fitly rendred by our English Translators [exceed∣ing fair:] for the Name of God being here adjoined advanceth the sense, and denotes to us that Moses was transcendently and superlatively Fair, he was a Child of Extraordinary Beauty, he was (as the French Version hath it) divinement beau, divinely beautiful, of most Astonishing and Divine Features. The like Expression, I conceive, is that of the Apostle, when he saith, The Lord shall descend from Heaven with a Shout, with the Voi••e of the Ar••h∣angel, and with the Trumpet of God, 1 Thess. 4. 16. This Trumpet of God may be that kind of Hebraism whereby the Greatness and Wonderfulness of a thing are expressed, by adding the Name of God to it. And accordingly in Mat. 24. (which gives us an account of the Signs of the Day of Judg∣ment) you read that the Son of Man shall send his Angels with a Great sound of a Trumpet, ver. 31. which is the same that the Apostle calls the Trum∣pet of God. Of this sort is 2 Cor. 10. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Exceeding Powerful, as Sir N. Knatchbull rightly translates it: and 2 cor. 11. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I am zealous toward you with a Zeal of God, i. e. I exceedingly affect you, in an extraordinary manner I am Zealous for you. So the Harps of God, Rev. 15. 2. are Excellent Heavenly Musick. And I will offer one Place more (which I think may be referr'd to this Head) Iohn 6. 28, 29. the Works of God, i. e. Some Great and Eminent Works of Religion, which surpass all others. Thus you

see that God's Name is used in the Sacred Stile, as an Intensive Term, and to Aggrandize the thing which is spoken of.

So in Conformity to the Hebrew Phrase in the Old Testament (mention'd before) we read of the Sons or Children of this or that: which signifies, according to the Hebrew Propriety of Speech, that they are Sharers or Partakers of such a thing, or that they are obnoxious and liable to it, or that they have great Inclination and D••sire towards it, or are Conversant in it, or much given and addicted to it, or do in a special manner belong and appertain to it. In one or other of these Senses the following places are to be understood, the Children of the Bride-Cham∣ber, Mat. 9. 15 i. e. those that belong'd to it, and had the favour to be admitted into it; those that were invited to the Marriage, and were interested in the Bridegroom and Bride; the Children of Hell, Mat. 23. 15. i. e. those that are liable to it, and shall partake of its Torments: or it is as much as the Children of the Devil, i. e. those who have given themselves to him by a voluntary addicting them∣selves to Vice: the Children of Wisdom, Luk. 7. 35. those that are conversant in it: the Sons of Peace, Luk. 10. 6. such who addict themselves to Peace, or who shall be sharers in the Blessing of Peace: the Children of this World, Luk. 16. 8. those whose In∣clinations and Desires are chiefly after this World; to whom are opposed, in the same Verse, the Chil∣dren of Light, they who despise this dark World here below, and breath and long after the Light and Glory of another State, of a future Life: the Children of the Resurrection, Luk. 20. 36. those who have a part, a share in the blessed Resurrection to Life everlasting: Children of Disobedience, Eph. 5. 6. Col. 3. 6. those that give themselves up wholl•• to

Disobediencce, the same with Sons of Belial, before∣mentioned: the Sons of Perdition, John 17. 12. 2 Thess. 2. 3. those that are certainly liable to Per∣dition and Destruction: Children of Promise, Rom. 9. 8. Gal. 4. 28. those who shall share in the Pro∣mise: Children of Wrath, Eph. 2. 3. those who are liable to God's Wrath. This is the Hebrew way of speaking: he is call'd the Son of this or that, who hath some special relation to it. That also sa∣vours of the Hebrew Idiom, Are ye able to drink of the Cup that I shall drink of? Mat. 20. 22. & Joh. 18. 11. The Cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? If it be possible, let this Cup pass from me, Mat. 26. 39. And you read of the Cup of the Wine of the fierceness of God's Wrath, Rev. 16. 19. And again, Chap. 14. 10. & Ch. 18. 6. The Cup signifies with the Hebrews any thing good or bad that befals a Man: because those of the same Family or Table drink of the same Cup or Vessel; every one hath his part and share of it, better or worse, as the Drink is. And so the Phrase denotes either the Good or Evil that happens to us, but most commonly the latter. Or perhaps, the occasion of the Phrase was this; the Guests had antiently their certain Quantity and Measure of Drink and Meat appointed them at Feasts, by the Master or Governour of the Feast: from which Custom of distributing a certain Portion, God is said to Give or Distribute his Cup: and the Cup and Drinking are used for the Calamities and Sufferings which he is pleased to allot them. So our Saviour's Words are to be understood; the Cup which he was to drink, and which his Father gave him, was the Sufferings which he was to undergo. The Cup of the Wine of the Fierceness of God's Wrath, was no other than the Plagues and Judgments which were to be inflicted

on Mystical Babylon. This manner of Speaking was taken from the Old Testament, where you read of the Cup of God's Fury, and the Cup of Trembling, Isa. 51. 17. and many such* 1.280 other Expressions there are in the Books of the Prophets. That of the Apostle in 1 Tim. 1. 17. is a pure Hebraism, Now to the King Eternal, or, as 'tis in the Original, to the King of Ages: which is an Expression to set forth Eternity. Accordingly the Psalmist saith, Thy Kingdom is a Kingdom of all Ages, which we rightly translate, an everlasting Kingdom, Psal. 145. 13. In the Lord Iehovah is the Rock, or Strength, of Ages, Isa. 26. 4. which is truly ren∣dred Everlasting Strength. And that in Isa. 9. 6. the Father of the Age, or of Eternity, or the everlast∣ing Father, (as we translate it) is something like it. Bread is the general word in the New Testa∣ment, to signify all Food and Provision for the sustaining of Man's Life, as in that Prayer which our Lord taught his Disciples, Give us this Day our daily Bread, and in Mark 7. 2, 27. Luk. 7. 37. Ch. 9. 3. Ch. 14. 1. 2 Thess. 3. 12. and in other places: which is according to the Idiom of the Hebrews, with whom all Food is call'd lechem, Bread, because this is the most Common and Universal Food, and the most necessary for the Life of Man: and this word with them denotes all the Necessa∣ries and Conveniencies of Humane Life.

According to the Hebrew Stile, a Sword hath a Mouth, or the Edg of the Sword is call'd a Mouth: Luk. 21. 24. They shall fall by the Mouth (we rightly render it the Edg) of the Sword. Heb. 11. 34.—escaped the Edg of the Sword, in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Mouth of the Sword. So you read of a

Two-mouth'd Sword, Heb. 4. 12. for it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek. Which is the Hebrew Phraseology, as you may satisfy your selves from Iudg. 3. 16. Psal. 149. 6. Prov. 5. 4. A Sword is said to have a Mouth because it Devours: So lacham is both to Fight and to Eat.

As I observ'd before that Drinking was applied to Calamity or Suffering, so now I will remark that Eating and Drinking are sometimes meant of Holy Instruction, of Divine Grace, and the most Excellent things of Religion. Eat up the Book, Rev. 10. 9. i. e. Study it diligently, understand the Contents of it. Our Saviour expresses his Holy Doctrines, his Gifts and Graces, the Favour of God, and all Spiritual Comforts, yea, Himself too by Meat and Drink. I have Meat to eat which ye know not of, saith he, Iohn 4. 32. My Meat is to do the Will of him that sent me, ver. 34. He advi∣seth to labour for the Meat which endureth to Ever∣lasting Life, John 6. 27. And in four Verses to∣gether in the same Chapter, he uses this Phrase, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you. Whoso eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath Eternal Life. For my Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed. He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me. Ver. 53, &c. And he promiseth his Apo∣stles, that they shall eat and drink with him at his Table in his Kingdom, Luk. 22. 30. All which is according to the Language of the Antient He∣brews, who by Eating and Drinking express things of a Spiritual and Divine Nature, as in Prov. 24. 13, 14. Chap. 25. 27. Isa. 55. 2. and other Texts. * 1.281 R. Ben. Maimon tells us, That this was the Stile of

the Jewish Doctors and Rabbies: in their Wri∣tings, saith he, Eating is to be understood of Di∣vine Instruction and Wisdom. This is observ'd by Philo, who lets us know that* 1.282 Eating is a Repre∣sentation of the Spiritual Nourishment.

The using of the word First-born or First-begotten in the Writings of the Apostles, is conformable to the acception of it among the Hebrews. The due attending to which will lead us to a right understanding of some Texts which have been generally mistaken by Expositors. I shall consi∣der it here only as it is applied to our Blessed Sa∣viour, which is done no less than four times: first in Col. 1. 15. where he is call'd the First-born of every Creature. Erasmus read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first produc••r of all Creatures: and he had it from † 1.283 Isidore of Pelusium, who evaded the Arians As∣saults by this means. But this is an undue Expe∣dient, because it alters the received Accent of the Word without any warrant, and because in other places where this Word is, and is applied to Christ, this alteration is not admitted by those that make use of it here. Gregory Nazianzen and others, interpret the First-born of every Creature thus, He whom God the Father begot before he created any thing: He that existed before all Crea∣tures. But this seems not to be the sense of the words, because to be begotten before all Creatures, and to be the First-born of them, are two different things. Others think the First-born here is Synoni∣mous with the Beginner or Author, (which falls in with the Interpretation of St. Isidore before men∣tion'd) and accordingly they quote that as a pa∣rallel

Text, Rev. 3. 14. where Christ is call'd the beginning of the Creation of God, i. e. the Cause and Author of all Creatures, say they. But this (though it be very true) is not agreeable with the sense of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is no where found to be taken thus. Nor is Grotius's Gloss to be allowed of, who expounds it thus, Christ is the first in the new Creation: for the Context shews that there is relation to no such thing. But if we consult the antient acception of the Word among the Hebrew Writers of the Old Testament, we shall discover what the genuine meaning of it is in this place. The First-Born is as much as Excellent, Choice, Beloved, as in Ier. 31. 9. Ephraim is my First-born. The Chiefest and most Eminent of Persons and Things have this Name; thus the First-born of Death, Iob 18. 13. is the most signal and mortal Disease, or the cruellest kind of Death. The First-born of the Poor, Isa. 14. 30. is the poorest of all. I will make him my First-born, Psal. 89. 28. i. e. I will make him a Great and Eminent Person, higher than the Kings of the Earth, as it is explain'd in the next words. Answerably to this sort of speaking, Christ is said here to be the First-born of every Crea∣ture, i. e. the Chief, the Prince, the Lord of all Creatures. For we must know that this manner of Expression refers to that Dignity and Pre-emi∣nence which were claim'd by the First-born under the Law. Primogeniture carried with it the Right of Superiority and Government. In allusion to which, our Saviour is call'd the First-born (that is the Lord) of every Creature: or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may better be rendred the whole Creation. He made, he created all things; and therefore is Lord of the whole Creation. Accordingly it immediately fol∣lows, For by him were all things created. This for

gives us to understand, that this Verse is the rea∣son and account of what went before: St. Paul had stiled Christ the First-born of every Creature, and now he gives this satisfactory account of it, because by Him all things were created; because of this he is deservedly stiled the First-born, the Lord and Sovereign of the Creation. You must either conclude that the Great St. Paul did not speak Logically and Argumentatively, or that this is the genuine Interpretation of the place. If the Apostle's Words were to the purpose, (as be sure they were) then this sense which I have of∣fer'd is so too, which is as much as I can desire: And that this is the meaning of the word First-born, is evident from that other Text in this Chapter, ver. 18. where he is call'd the First-born from the Dead, not (as some think) because he is the Au∣thor of the Resurrection; or (as Grotius, with most of the Pontificians) because he was the first that rose to Immortal Life and Glory: or (as others) because he was the First that rose from the Dead, as 'tis said Acts 26. 23. viz. by his own Power: but because he was the Chiefest of all those that rose from the Dead, because he was the Head of them all, as it follows, that in all things he might have the Preeminence, that it might appear that he was Lord of all. This is to be the First-born of the Dead, or of the Number of the Dead; for so it should be ren∣dred, the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying here so much. A third Text might be alledged, viz. Rom. 8. 29. that he might be the First-born among many Brethren, i. e. that he might be the Chief, the Supream of all the Children of God; for he was Predestinated as well as they, he was set a-part as the First-born among Men (who were the Choicest of all) were, who were more immediately destined and devoted

to the Service of God, Ex••d. 1••. 2. And lastly, I will mention Rev. 1. 5. where Christ is call'd the First-begotten of the Dead, which hath the same im∣port with those words in the Epistle to the Ca∣lossians before alledg'd, for it is explain'd to us by what follows in the next Clause [and the Prince of the Kings of the Earth:] to let us see that the word First-born or First-begotten, hath the Signification which I have offer'd, it being the use of the He∣brews to apply it to those Things or Persons that are the Chiefest and most Excellent. In which sense likewise First-fruits are taken in, Iam. 1. 18. where the Saints are call'd the First-fruits of the Creatures of God, i. e. they are the Chief of the Creation, they are the Flower of Mankind, they are more signally and eminently design'd to set forth the Glory of God in the World. So Christ is the First-fruits of them that slept, 1 Cor. 15. 20. he is the Principal of all those that rose from the Dead. This way of Speaking is taken from the Jewish notion of First-fruits, which were the Choicest of all their Fruits and Incomes, and from the Hebrew manner of expressing themselves, that is, calling those things which are Chief and most Eligible First-fruits, Amos 6. 1. Mic. 7. 1.

Moreover, I take that Expression which our Sa∣viour so often useth concerning himself, viz. his stiling himself the Son of Man, to be a way of Speech proper to the Hebrews, and therefore is to be ex∣plain'd by what we meet with in the Old Testa∣ment. A* 1.284 Person well skill'd in Hebrew Criticism tells us, that Ezekiel is very often (about a hun∣dred times) call'd Son of Man, because of the ex∣traordinary Visions and Revelations which he had,

wherewith he was highly honour'd above others: So that Son of Man is the same with an Excellent or Digni••••ed Man. And that this is the frequent Language of the Psalmist, hath been very lately observ'd and amply proved by our* 1.285 Incompa∣rable Paraphrast on this Sacred Book. Besides several other Excellent Discoveries made by him in that Choice Work, (which will gain him an Im∣mortal Honour among the Pious and Wise) he hath particularly set us into a right apprehension of This Expression so often used by the Holy Pen∣man. From several places in this Book (as also from others which he produceth out of the Sacred Writings) he evidenceth that Son of Man is the same with an Eminent Person; and he is the first Writer I have met with that hath establish'd and fully clear'd this Notion. From this Discerning Author we may observe, that in Psal. 49. 2. there is a difference made between bene adam and bene ish, the former signifying there Mean Inferiour Persons, but the latter Men of Considerable Rank and Quality: wherefore our Translators give us the sense very fully in rendring it low and high. Or perhaps adam in this place is the same with ada∣mah Earth, and so the Sons of Man are opposed to the Sons of the Earth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Seventy ren∣der it; terrigenae, according to the Vulgar Latin. In Psal. 4. 2. bene••ish, the Sons of Man, is applied to Princes and Rulers, for of such that place speaks. And I translate it the Sons of Man, not of Men, (as 'tis in our English Bibles) for so the Original hath it: and we ought to take notice of it, for there is a vast difference between the one and the other.

Sons of Men in Scripture are all that are of the Race of Adam, but Son or Sons of Man, are Per∣sons of some Dignity and Rule in the World. But sometimes indeed bene adam, is the same with bene ish, and then they are opposed to enosh or ben enosh, as in Psal. 8. 4. What is Man—and the Son of Man? i. e. (as I conceive) what is the Lower and the Higher Rank of Men, that Thou visitest them, that Thou shewest thy self so Bountiful to them? So Sons of Man, Psal. 58. 1. is meant of Iudges and Great Men, as is evident from the former words of that Verse. And in Psal. 80. 17. Son of Man is the same with the Man of the right Hand, and the Man that is made Strong. Again, in Psal. 146. 3. Princes and the Sons of Man are synonimous, for [in Princes, in the Son of Man] are by way of Apposition in the Hebrew, to acquaint us that they are identified. And further it is to be observed, that this Title of the Son of Man is particularly and by way of Eminency affix'd to the Messias, as in that foremention'd place, Psal. 8. 4. (for we shall find that in Heb. 2. 6. it is referr'd to him by the Apostle in the Secondary and Mystical sense) but more signally and directly in Dan. 7. 13. Be∣hold, one like the Son of Man. On which words Rabbi Saadiah is very peremptory, and saith, This is the Messias our Righteousness. And Solomon Iar∣chi, and other great Rabbies declare, that by the Son of Man is meant the Messias. There is reason therefore to assert, that when Christ so frequently gives himself this Title, he takes it from the Old Testament, where it signifies a Man of Eminency and Rule, and more especially from Daniel, who by this Epithet expresses the Messias, the Prince, the Lord of Heaven and Earth. And to any con∣siderate Man it is evident that our Saviour parti∣cularly

referr'd to that place in Daniel, [Behold, one like the Son of Man came with the Clouds of Hea∣ven] when he pronounced those words, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of Power, and coming in the Clouds of Heaven, Mat. 26. 64. Neither would the High Priest have thought that our Saviour spoke Blasphemy, and thereupon rent his Clothes, if he had not apprehended that he referr'd to those words of Daniel, and conse∣quently owned himself to be the Messias, who hath the Title of the Son of Man given him because of his Excellency, Preeminence, and Authority. And this is yet more clear from our Saviour's words, Ioh. 5. 27. where he assigns the Reason why the Judgment of the World is committed to him by the Father, He hath (saith he) given him Authority to execute Iudgment, because he is the Son of Man, because he is Head and Ruler of the Church, be∣cause all Government and Authority in this lower World are devolv'd upon him, because he hath all Rule and Dominion put into his Hands. This is the true account, as I conceive, of the Expression; this Title was attributed to him to signify his Authority and Exaltation, and not (as is commonly said and believ'd, and as the Learned* 1.286 Grotius de∣fends it) his Meanness, Condescension and Humility: though I will not exclude Other Reasons which may be consistent with this, as that he is call'd the Son of Man, to attest the reality of his Man∣hood, to ascertain us of the Truth of his Suffering in our Humane Nature, to assure us of his Sym∣pathy with us, and that he is touch'd with the feeling of our Infirmities. I will only add this, That whereas it is generally said by Writers, and

even by the Critical* 1.287 〈◊〉〈◊〉 among the rest, that this Epithet is given to our Saviour by Himself only, and not by any other in the New Testament, this is a Mistake, for in Acts 7. 56. he is call'd by St. Stephen the Son of Man, and so he is twice by St. Iohn, Rev. 1. 13. Chap. 14. 14. The Original of which must be fetch'd (as I have shew'd) from the Hebrew Stile in the Old Testament.

And so must that Expression which the Apostle uses 2 Cor. 4. 17. a Weight of Glory. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here answers to the Hebrew cabod, a Weight, and yet is rendred Glory, Gen. 31. 1. and the Tongue is call'd cabod, Glory, Psal. 57. 8. So the Verb cabad signifies both to be weighty, and to be glorious or ho∣nourable, Isa. 66. 5. Prov. 13. 18. And the Adje∣ctive cabed approaches to this sense, as is clear from Gen. 13. 2. Thus it is with the word jakar, gravis fuit: but it is understood in a treble sense, as if there were a threefold Gravity, viz. of Weight, Price and Honour. Accordingly it sig∣nifies, 1. To be heavy, weighty. 2. To be precious, Isa. 43. 4. 3. To be in Honour and Glory, Job. 31. 26. as also to glorify and honour; and therefore the word is rendred by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Version of the 70. Thus you see that after the manner of the Hebrews, Glory or Greatness is express'd by words that de∣note Weight: and thence it is that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is here us'd by the Apostle to denote that Super∣lative Glory which is the attainment of the other World. And 'tis not improbable that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Thess. 2. 6. is to be understood thus, and should not be rendred to be Burdensom, but† 1.288 to be Honoura∣ble, or‖ 1.289 to be in Authority or Dignity: which our

English Translators were sensible of when they rendred it in the Margin to use Authority. This I take to be of Hebrew extraction, and in imita∣tion of the use of the words ••abad and jakar. And hence also in the Seventy's Translation of the Old Testament, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 imports Grandeur or Glory, and is applied in several places to a Royal Train, and to a Mighty Host, 1 Kings 10. 2. 2 Kings 6. 14. Chap. 18. 7. 2 Chron. 9. 1. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Weight or Burden, is equivalent with Honour or Splendor in* 1.290 one of St. Chrysostom's Homilies. I could remark that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gravis, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gloria, differ but in the Accents: and among the Latins honos and onus are not unlike: Vir gravis is used by the Latin Orator for a Person of Authority and Worth. And Graves viri in the old Roman way of Speaking, are Men of Authority and Eminency. And Baro (which comes from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is used by † 1.291 Tully as a Name of Dignity, and is as much as Patricius a Nobleman: though I know some Cri∣ticks interpret the word in another sense. Thence our word Baron, a Lord, a Person of Greatness and Authority. And Grave answers to Baron, whence Palsgrave, Landgrave, Margrave, Burgrave: for Grave among the Germans signifies a Magistrate, a Ruler. And we in England heretofore used the word Grave or Greve in the same sense: thus Port∣greve was the Name of the Chief Magistrate of the City of London till King Iohn's time, who turn'd it into that of Mayor. These things I here men∣tion only to intimate the Affinity that is to be observ'd in Languages, not only the Learned ones (as they are call'd) but others, and to shew you the particular cognation betwixt Gravity and

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Honour or Authority, betwixt Weight and Glory, which it is probable was derived first of all from the Hebrews.

The Writers of the New Testament sometimes make use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the same sense that the Hebrews use the word gnanah, re∣spondere; that is, not to signify a Person's An∣swering or Replying to what another had said, but only to denote his going on with his Speech, his proceeding in what he had said before. Per∣sons are said to Answer, though there be no Que∣stion put to them, though there be no Reply in∣tended, as Iesus answer'd, and said, Mat. 11. 25. Then answer'd Peter, and said, Mat. 17. 4. The Angel answer'd, and said, Mat. 28. 5. One of the El∣ders answer'd, saying, Rev. 7. 13. which is (as ap∣pears from the Context) no more than this, They spake, and said; for this oftentimes is the accep∣tation of that word in the Hebrew Writings, and particularly in the Book of Iob, Chap. 3. ver. 2. Job answer'd, and said, though no body had spoke to him, or asked him any Question. The words therefore import no more than this, Job spake, and said; and so our Translators render it. I might further observe, that the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the New Testament, hath by an Hebraism the force of all the Prepositions, it answering to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lastly, I am inclined to think that what is said of St. Paul in Acts 9. 15. is spoken after the Hebrew manner: for the Hebrews call any thing that is Choice and Delectable* 1.292 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vas desiderii; and the Rabbins accordingly call the Law by this Name▪ viz. a Desirable Vessel, or a Desirable Instrument or Utensil; for Cheli is of a

vast Latitude, and signifies whatever is for the use of Man. Answerably to which St. Paul is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a chosen Vessel or Instrument. It is spoken after the Propriety of the Hebrews, with whom a Thing or Person that is made use of to some Excellent Purpose, is not only stiled a Vessel, but, to denote yet further the Worth of it, is called a Vessel of Desire, which is of the like Signification with a Vessel of Choice; for what is desired is chosen. Thus in a few Instances I have shewed, that the Evan∣gelical Writers do Hebraize; and in many more I might have done the same: For tho the New Te∣stament hath not so many Hebraisms as is imagined by some Criticks, yet it is not to be doubted that Christ and his Apostles used them very frequently. It is evident that a great part of the Phrases of the New Testament are according to the Hebrew Pro∣priety; yea, sometimes they agree more especially with the Rabinical and Talmudick way of Writing, as* 1.293 Ludovicus Capellus, and others, have endea∣voured to demonstrate. Thus the Pillar and Ground of Truth, 1 Tim. 3. 15. is the Title by which the Great Sanhedrim of the Jews was ordinarily stiled▪ saith Dr Lighfoot. Raca, which is used▪ Matth. 5. 22. as a Word of Reproach, is common among the Talmudick Doctors, (for their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is the same with the Syriac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and signifies a vain empty Fellow. Christ follows the Language of the Rabbins and Talmud••sts when he uses the Word Heaven for God, as in Matth. 21. 25. he ask'd the Jews whether Iohn's Baptism was from Heaven, i. e. from God, or of Men. I have sinned against Hea∣ven, i. e. God, saith the Prodigal Son to his Fa∣ther, Luke 15. 18. This was the Stile of the Eastern

People, and of the Jews particularly, as you find in Dan. 4. 23. 1 Macc. 3. 18. And this was the usu∣al Language of their Rabbins, they used Shamajim instead of God. And in other Instances it might be shewed, that the Sense of several Places in the New Testament is manifested and illustrated by the Knowledg of the Hebrew Phrase and Stile. For which Reason it was necessary to say something of this Matter, having undertaken to discourse of the Stile of Scripture. We must remember that there are frequent Hebraisms in these Greek Writings, the Authors themselves being Hebrews, and they likewise making use of the Stile of the Old Testa∣ment, and fetching thence several Expressions which are purely Hebrew. Thus they must needs retain the Hebrew Idiom and way of Speaking: and thus the Old Testament and New agree the better; and the former gives constant Light towards the under∣standing of the latter.

6thly. Though there is a Great Variety of Words and Phrases in the New Testament; and though this Part of the Bible was not written in Attick, but Hebrew Greek, yet this is to be asserted, that there are no Soloecisms in it. I add this here, be∣cause some of old, and others of late, have unad∣visedly suggested the contrary, and have been so hardy and presumptuous, as to aver that the Sacred Scripture, especially the New Testament, abounds with Soloecisms. This is particularly said* 1.294 of St. Paul's Epistles by an Antient Father, whose Un∣happiness it was to speak several things too daringly and presumptuously:

That† 1.295 Cilician Currier, saith he, (for so he calls St. Paul) that sorry

Tradesman, was skill'd only in Hebrew, (which was as it were his Mother-Tongue to him) and therefore hath many Soloecisms and Barbarisms in Greek.

And the same Author, in* 1.296 another Place, speaks to the like purpose, and taxeth this Apostle for want of Grammar and Syntax. Among the Moderns you'l find Erasmus charging not only St. Paul, but the rest of the Apostles with this De∣fect in their Writings. There are many Soloecisms, † 1.297 saith he, in their Stile, by reason of the frequent Hebraisms which are used by them. And those worthy Reformers, Luther and Calvin, were not afraid to talk after this rate. The former, after his bold manner, imputes false Grammar to the Evangelists and Apostles, as you may see in his ‖ 1.298 Writings. And the latter expresly avoucheth, that‖‖ 1.299 the Greek of the New Testament is De∣fective, and particularly he holds that St. Peter writ false Greek, as in 1 Epist. ch. 3. v. 20. where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Dative for a Geni∣tive Case: And he fastens this Grammatical Soloe∣cism on him merely to evade the Doctrine of Purga∣tory, which cannot but greatly scandalize the Pa∣pists when they shall consider that this Great Re∣former is not ashamed to disparage and vilify the Scriptures, that he may thereby evade a Popish Do∣ctrine: yea, this must needs be offensive to all others likewise, who cannot but see that there was not the least Reason for his fancying the Change of one Case for another in this Place; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 exactly an∣swers to, and agrees with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: so that if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had been the Word here, it had indeed been false Greek: but now 'tis impossible for Cal∣vin,

or any Man else, to make it such. Beza fol∣lows his Master, and outdoth him, for he every where finds fault with the Greek of the New Testa∣ment, and holds that the Stile is disturb'd and cor∣rupted; yea, that there are frequent Soloecisms in it: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mark 12. 40. should have been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he saith, and therefore he condemns it for naughty Grammar: Whereas any unpreju∣diced Man may see, that there is only an ordinary Ellipsis in the Words; the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is understood, as it is in several other Texts. But the unsufferable Boldness of this Writer is partly founded on that Perswasion of his, that the Spirit did not dictate Words to the Prophets and Apostles, but only the Matter, which I have shew'd before in another Dis∣course to be an incredible Assertion. Castellio, though of a different Judgment in other things from Calvin and Beza, agrees with them in this, that there are several Ungrammatical Passages in the A∣postles Writings: Upon Rev. 1. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he noteth that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This is a Soloecism, saith he, but such do often occur in St. Paul. Cannot this Au∣thor be content with the Credit and Reputation of having turned the Bible into neat Latin, unless he condemns the Apostles for their false Greek? And where, I pray, is this false Greek? Not in this Place which he mentions, and con••equently it is not reaso∣nable to believe that it is in any other. In this Place any impartial Eye may see that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one Relative for another, which is a common thing among Writers. I could shew him forty Places in the Best Greek Authors, where the like Change is made: And that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is frequently left out in the most Approved Writers among the Grecians, can∣not be denied by any Man that hath had any Ac∣quaintance

with them; yea, 'tis often left out in the New Testament, and no fault is found with the Stile where it is so. Why therefore should we think it a strange thing that it is omitted in this Place? Here is Good Grammar, and no Shadow of Soloecising when this Divine Writer saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. One of our own Annotators hath pick'd up this false Notion concerning the Stile of Scripture, viz. that it is not reconcileable with Grammatical Syntax in some Places: two especially he takes notice of, Eph. 4. 2. Col. 3. 16. In the former he observes that it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek, whereas it should have been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Nominative being put instead of the Accusative. But by this Worthy Annota∣tor's leave, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may, yea and certainly doth refer to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the former Verse; and so it is but inserting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and then the Grammar is salved, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I be∣seech you that you forbear one another. And if you say it should have been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the former Verse, it is easily answered that the Apostle might express himself in the way of a Subjunctive as well as an Infinitive, seeing it could be done by either of them, as this Learned Critick cannot but acknowledg. In the latter Place alledged by this Learned Man, he takes notice that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is misplaced instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a No∣minative for a Dative Case, which is a great Flaw in Grammar. But this is soon taken off by referring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that Verse, (as the Doctor doth) but to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Verse just before; for to these it hath reference, and not to that, and so the Grammatical Concord is very ••ood and sound.

In several other Places (where there have been the like Objections made) you will find the Sense rendred intire by the industrious Pen of that Learned Knight Sir Norton Knatchbull: Though, to speak freely and impartially, he sometimes represents the Stile of the New Testament more perplex'd and di∣sturb'd that I can believe it to be: and though he fancies Trajections in some Places where there are none; yet, to the perpetual Honour of this Wor∣thy Gentleman it must be said, that he hath disco∣vered several Trajections or Transpositions, Parenthe∣ses, Transitions, Ellipses, and Changes of Numbers and Persons, with other Enallages, which were scarcely taken notice of before: he hath rectified some Comma's and Stops, he hath set the Words and Periods right, he hath cleared the Syntax and Grammatical Construction, mended the Sense in several Places, removed the Difficulties, shew'd the Propriety and Emphasis of the Words, discovered the Coherence of the Texts: In short, he hath cleared the New Testament of Soloecisms, and par∣ticularly the Writings of the Great Apostle St. Paul. So that though Tarsus, the Apostle's Birth∣place, was in the same Province with and a Neigh∣bour to Solae, the Country of those that corrupted their Language, (whence came Soloecisms) yet it ap∣pears that there is no such thing in the Apostle's Stile.

But suppose these Texts above named could not have been reconciled to the exact Laws of Grammar, yet one would think the Transcribers might better have been blamed than the Writers themselves: the Greek Copy should have been found fault with rather than the Holy Ghost: the Mistake might have been imputed to the Amanuenses, and not to the Apostles, I must profess to you plainly, that it is

bordering upon Blasphemy, to say that the Holy Spirit, from whom was the Gift of Tongues, di∣ctate Barbarisms and Soloecisms in these Sacred Writings, which were immediately inspired by him. Again, suppose, or rather grant that some Periods of the New Testament are not exactly ad∣justed to Grammar-Rules, yet this will not justify the Language of those Men who charge this Book with Soloecisms and Barbarisms; for they will be unwil∣ling to grant that there are such things as these in Homer and Virgil, and such approved Authors. Or, if they will grant that there are such, then they have no Reason at all to find fault with the like in Holy Scripture. And this is that which I maintain, and which no knowing Person can deny, that the same things which some call Soloecisms and Undue Syntax in the New Testament, are to be found in the most Noted and Celebrated Authors among the Greeks and Latins. Criticks have taken notice of several of these in Homer and Pindar especially among the Greek Poets, and in Herodotus and Thucydides among the best Historians that have writ in that Language, and in Demosthenes among the Noted Orators. These do not always observe Grammatick Laws; they lay them aside sometimes, and speak Irregularly, as* 1.300 one of the Greatest Criticks of this last Age hath acknowledged. Pro∣fane Writers have Soloecistical Phrases, Botches, Fillings up, Repetitions. Lucian long since ob∣served, that Epithets are not always used by Poets, † 1.301 because they are fit and convenient, and sutable to the purpose, but to help out the Matter, to fill up the Gapings, to prop up the Ruines of a Verse.

And both Plutarch and Eustathius (who were mor•• serious Men than the other) have taken notice of this in Good Authors. Sometimes the Poet is at a stand, and his Muse is restive: thus Virgil hath Broken and Half-verses, which the Criticks excuse by saying that he had not time to finish his Book, or that he did it on purpose to stop his Readers in the Career, that they might stay and consider the thing he is speaking of. This Account they give of his Blanks and Chasms. But Homer suffers not his Muse to make a halt, but then (which is as bad) he fills up his Verses with such Expletives as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. and besides these lesser Particles he useth entire Words and Phrases in many Places only to supply his Verse. We have nothing of this sort in the Sacred Writings, nothing that is really su∣perfluous. But there are some Words indeed that are look'd upon as Redundant, and not absolutely Necessary, especially in the Old Testament, which is Po••tical in many places, The Lord rained Brimstone and Fire from the Lord, Gen. 19. 24. where the last Words [from the Lord] seem to be redundant. So it is in 2 Tim. 1. 18. The Lord grant unto him that be may find Mercy of the Lord in that Day. Thus in Psal. 90. 10. The Days of our Years are threescore Years and ten: We may look upon the first Word as an Expletive, for the Divine Poet means this only, that the ordinary Term of our Life extends to se∣venty Years: So that the word [Days] might have been left out. The same Pleonasm you read in 2 Sam. 19. 34. How many Days are the Years of my Life? for so it is according to the Hebrew: and it is the Hebrew way of speaking, and therefore can∣not be blamed. Yea, to speak strictly, there is nothing redundant in the Stile of Scripture. All those Words which seem to be Expletives, are Sig∣nificant,

and sometimes very Emphatical. The Repetitions (which some think to be needless Tauto∣logies) are very useful as well as el••gant. What is more frequent in Homer, the Father of Poets? There you meet with Verses and Half-verses over and over again: and the Commentators on those Places tell us, that his frequent using the same Words is an Argument that his Stile is Natural and Genuine, (as in common Discourse we are wont to say the same things again and again) and that it sheweth the Intenseness and Earnestness of the Speaker, that it argues the Necessity of the Matter as well as the Certainty of it, that it is to concili∣ate Attention, and that sometimes it is a great Or∣nament and Elegancy, besides that it was the Mode of speaking then in use, and accordingly is to be found in all Good Authors, more or less.

Why then should we not satisfy our selves after the same manner, when we find the same things re∣peated in the Bible, especially in the Old Testa∣ment, and more particularly in the Books of Moses, which far exceed Homer in Antiquity? That Rei∣teration of the Words in Gen. 1. 27. God created Man in his own Image, in the Image of God created he him, should not offend us: nor that in Moses's Song in Exod. 15. 16. Till thy People pass over, O Lord, till thy People pass over: nor those many Reduplica∣tions in the Song of Deborah and Barak, I will sing unto the Lord, I will sing unto the Lord God of Israel, Judg. 5. 3. The Mountains melted from before the Lord, from before the Lord God of Israel, ver. 5. The Inha∣bitants of the Villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, un∣til that I Deborah arose, that I arose a Mother in Is∣rael, ver. 7. Awake, awake Deborah, awake, a∣wake, ver. 12. The Kings came and fought; then fought the Kings, ver. 19. The River of Kishon swept

them away, that antient River, the River Kishon, v. 21. At her Feet he bowed, he fell and lay down: at her Feet he bowed, he fell; where he bowed, there he fell down dead, ver. 27. To Sisera a Prey of divers Colours, a Prey of divers Colours of Needle-work, of divers Co∣lours of Needle-work of both sides, ver. 30. This Re∣peating and Reduplicating the Words, is so far from being any Blemish to this Antient Song, that it is to be accounted a great Elegancy, and a singu∣lar Grace to it. This Anadiplosis is deemed a very becoming Figure (and might have been mentioned with those before) in the best Classical Writers: and there is no Reason why it should not be so here. If the repeating the same thing be in them a Sign of the Naturalness of the Stile, and of the Seriousness and Fervour of the Speakers, of the Weightiness of the Subject, and the like, we cannot deny it to be the same in these Antient Writings of the Bible. It is observable, that as in the Sacred History of this Book, so in Homer, the Messenger, whether he be sent from God or Man, relates his Errand verba∣tim, in the same Words and Syllables usually that it was delivered to him; so that he alters it not in the least. In this, as in several other things, that Antient Poet comes near to the Simplicity of the Stile of Scripture. I could remark unto you also, that that excellent Emperor Antoninus hath many things in his Book which are conformable to the Stile of the Holy Writ, and seem to resemble it: His way of Writing is like an Emperor, Short, but Pithy and Sententious. Many things are not ex∣press'd, which must be supplied and understood. He sometimes useth Words and Phrases as he pleaseth, not as Other Writers are wont. He hath unusual ways of expressing himself, and some∣times he coins Words (as it was his Royal Preroga∣tive

to do so with Money.) He hath several abrupt and incoherent Periods; he is generally neglectful and not studied. This is some Resemblance of the Stile of Holy Scripture, where there is a Princely Brevity, wherein more is contain'd than express'd: where are (as I shall shew you anon) either New Words, or those which are usual are applied in a New and unheard of manner. The Stile seems in sun∣dry Places to be inconsistent and independant, and in most Places it is careless, and no ways elaborate. But as no Wife Critick ever defamed the Emperor for his particular Strain of Writing, so neither can any Man of Judgment disparage the Penmen of Ho∣ly Scripture, whom he doth as 'twere imitate. In brief, the Bible hath something in it of all manner of Stiles, and partakes of the Excellencies of all Authors: and where you see any Defect in the strict Rules of Grammar, even there it is not un∣like to Other Writers.

This may satisfy us, amidst the Cavils of some Censurers of Scripture, that it hath in it the same Phrases and Modes of Speaking, and manner of using them, that are in the best Greek and Latin Writings. Let us come then to the Reading of Scripture, as we see Men do to Homer and Virgil. This is a fair Request, any Man will say, and it must needs be granted. Now, you see, that if any thing less Grammatical or Elegant occurs in those Writers, the Course which is taken is this, Lexi∣cons and Dictionaries are consulted, the Masters of Grammar and Rhetorick are advised with, Inter∣preters are search'd into, Other Authors are com∣pared with these, and their Business is to reconcile them, and to make Sense of these Poets, and by all means to make them speak well. And shall we not do thus with the Sacred Writings? Shall we not

indeavour by all those Ways to vindicate the Cre∣dit of them, and to justify the Propriety and Ex∣cellency of their Stile, when we are able to do it by Great Examples from the Best and most Celebrated Writers among the Moral Philosophers, Orators, Poets, Historians? The Worthy Knight before∣mentined hath done his Part here very laudably; he hath salv'd the Grammar of the New Testament in many Places, and hath shewed that its Stile (where it seems to be strange and uncouth) is paral∣lel with very Good and Approved Authors. And lastly, if any find fault with the Holy Writings be∣cause they are immethodical, because neither the Mosaick Law, nor other Parts of the Old Testa∣ment, nor the Christian Doctrine in the New, are reduced to Method and Artificial Order, the like Answer may be given, viz. that this was not the way of Other Writers in those Times. It is evi∣dent that it was not the old way of the Iews; their Books of Religion and Morals were not Orderly disposed, but generally made up of Historical Pas∣sages, and Wise Aphorisms and Sentences. And as for the Gentiles, most of their Learning was not more accurate and reduced. You can descry no∣thing in their Writings of that Method and Order which have since been observed. But my Business here chiefly is not to consider whether the Scrip∣ture be Methodized, but to defend the Propriety of its Language. Or rather, it is not my Business now, because I have sufficiently dispatch'd it, I hope. I have let you see that those are no imparti∣al Judges of Scripture-Stile, who cry out of its Barbarisms; but the Truth is, they betray both their Ignorance and Irreligion at once, in giving such a Judgment of it; their Ignorance, in that they shew themselves unacquainted with the Best Au∣thors,

who are not always wont to bind themselves to the strict Observation of Grammatical Rules. To this purpose the Learned Henry Stephens's Ani∣madversions and Appendix at the End of his Thesau∣rus Gr. L. are worthy of the Perusal of all Curious Persons that would be fully acquainted with the Genius of the Attick Phrase and Idiom; and the reading of these will abundantly satisfy them that the New Testament is like other Greek Writers, and that the most Classick Greek Authors speak in the same strain that this doth. This Accomplish'd Critick shews that there are pure Atticisms some∣times in these Holy Writings, and particularly that an Ellipsis, which is so frequent in them, is a common Atticism in the best Grecians. If those who raise Objections against the Stile of the New Testament would converse with These, they might see that those Passages which seem not so proper or elegant in Scripture, and that whatever looks like Soloecisms, and favours of Rudeness or Defect of Language in these Holy Writings, may be paral∣lelled with what they meet with in the most Ap∣plauded Authors. Their Irreligion likewise is dis∣covered in this, that nothing pleaseth them in the Holy Book; and that what is not thought Improper or Rude in other Writings, is accounted such in These; yea, that what are Soloecisms in a Sacred Writer, are look'd upon as Atticisms and Elegan∣cies in a Profane One. Having hitherto been in pursuance of this, that the Holy Scripture hath many things in it according to the Strain of Other Writers, I am to pass to the next Proposition.

CHAP. VII.

The Scripture-Stile hath some things in it that are not in common with Other Writers, but are proper and peculiar to it self. The LXX's Greek Version and the New Testament, have words that are not ex∣tant in any other Authors. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mark 14. 3. was coin'd by the Evangelist: Its true Signification enquired into. Inward Goodness or Righteousness is express'd by Terms which are unknown to other Writers. Instances of several other Peculiar ways of Speaking. Some Profane Authors differ from the rest as to the use of some particular Words and Phrases. Ecclesiastical Writers have Words pro∣per to themselves. The Difficulty of Scripture pro∣ceeds partly from the Different Acception of Words which we meet with there. Many Instances in the Old and New Testament. The various Significations of the Word Spirit enumerated, and reduc'd to distinct Heads. The Author confines himself to the Hebrew Verbs of the Old Testament, and shews how Diffe∣rent the Senses of the same words are, and endea∣vours to remove the Ambiguity of them in the several Texts which he cites, and to determine the Sense which is Proper to those particular Places. The like he attempts in those Texts where Hebrew Nouns of a different meaning occur.

THE Third Proposition is, That the Scripture-Stile hath some things in it that are not in common with Other Writers, but are Proper and Peculiar to it self. For though it is true some Other Authors have words proper to themselves, which are not found in others, (thus in Pindar,

Plato, Isocrates, Homer, Aristophanes, Hippocrates, &c. there are some particular Words and Phrases pe∣culiar to them alone) yet the Bible hath Words and Expressions which are not to be met with in any of these, nor in any other Writers. The Original Hebrew hath greater choice of Words than any Book extant in that Language; it is the most Copious Vocabulary that is in the World, and all Hebrew Writers of note borrow from this. The Septuagint have words peculiar to themselves, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is proper to them, and was made on purpose to answer to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and the Writers of the New Testament took it from them. They also made the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Cant. 4. 9. to express the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ex. 2. 5. is of their coining, and the Apostle thought fit to use it, Tit. 2. 14. And some have thought the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it signifies Sleep or Slumber, Isa. 29. 10. was made by them, as if it were from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This word is also used by the Apostle, Rom. 11. 8. The New Testament in Greek hath words never heard of before, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Lord's Prayer, a word which was first used by the Evangelists. And St. Luke's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Angels Salutation of the Virgin Mary, Luk. 1. 28. is a new Greek word which the Evangelist himself made,* 1.302 as some have thought: but that is a Mistake, because the Apocryphal Writer had used it before, Eccles. 18. 17. Yet this is not to be denied that the word is no where to be found in any other Greek Author, i. e. any Prophane one, but St. Paul useth it (viz. the Active 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though not the Passive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) in Eph. 1. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

in the Passive Voice have a peculiar Sig∣nification in Mat. 5. 24. Rom. 5. 10. 1 C••r. 11. 7. 2. Cor. 5. 20. which is in no other Writer, saith Grotius upon Mat. 5. 24. That likewise in Mark 14. 3. and Iohn 12. 3. is scarcely used by any Writer whatsoever, and therefore the Gramma∣rians and Criticks know not well how to assign the meaning of it, some deriving 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is the word there used, and joined with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so it denotes that Ointment to have been faithfully prepared and compounded, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (according to this Etymology) is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, true, pure not adul∣terated, approved, it being rightly and faithfully made. This is according to the Syriac Version: and 'tis approved of by* 1.303 St. Ierom and† 1.304 Theo∣phylact. Others think 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put here for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the vulgar Latin having it Spicata, and so it is translated Spikenard by us. Beza and Camera∣rius are of this Opinion, and think the Ointment had this Name, because it was made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 spicis nardi, that is, of the choicest part of Nard. A third fort (among whom Casaubon is Chief) tell us, that it is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, potabilis, à 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so signifies such a Liquid Ointment as might be drank. And lastly, some have thought that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if it were call'd so from a place, viz▪ Opis, a City not far from Babylon, whence the best Nard came.

This is‖ 1.305 Hartungus's Notion, but then the word should have been Opick, not Opistick. Thus the Etymology of the Word hath been disputed, but we are certain of the Thing, the Nard it self, or

rather the Ointment which was made of it, which was very Precious, and in great Esteem of old. It was made of several Ingredients, (as we learn from* 1.306 Pliny, and other Writers) viz. the sweet Cane or Rush, Costum, Amomum, Myrrh, Bal∣sam, and other Simples. When this Precious Compound, this Excellent Aromatic, which was very Costly, and used only by Rich and Wealthy Persons, was made up as it should be, it was then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••ides) sincerely and faith∣fully prepared, it had all its Ingredients, it was of the best sort. This seems to be the most ele∣gible Derivation of the Word: but so far as we know it was of the Evangelist's making, for there is no such Greek Word in any other Authors.

And as the New Testament hath its peculiar words, so you may observe it hath a peculiar way of using some words which yet are common in other Writers. Thus Inward Holiness or Inhe∣rent Righteousness are express'd by such terms as These, (which have no such Signification in any other Writers) Circumcision, Col. 2. 11. Crucifying, Rom. 6. 6. Gal. 6. 14. Mortifying, Rom. 8. 13. Col. 3. 5. Dying, Rom. 6. 2, 8. Col. 3. 3. Resur∣rection, Eph. 2. 6. Eph. 5. 14. Col. 2. 12. Regene∣ration, or being born again, John 3. 3. Tit. 3. 5. 1 Pet. 1. 23. Renovation, Rom. 12. 2. Eph. 4. 23. the New Man, and New Creature, 2. Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 6. 15. Eph. 4. 24. Washing, John 13. 8. 1 Cor. 6. 11. Rev. 7. 14. The way of using and applying these words is proper to the New Testament. There are other peculiar ways of speaking in this part of the Bible, which are altogether unknown to other Writers, as the Engraffed Word, Jam. 1. 21.

Children of Light and of the Day, Luk. 16. 8. Eph. 5. 8. 1 Thess 5. 5. the Sword of the Spirit, Eph. 6. 17. the Savour of Death, 2 Cor. 2. 16. the Body of Sin, Rom, 6. 6. the Body of Death, Rom. 7. 24. the Law of Sin and Death, Rom. 8. 2. a Law in the Members, Rom. 7. 23. Who over met in any other Author with these Expres∣sions, Conscience of an Idol, 1 Cor. 8. 7. the Earnest of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 5. 5. the Vnction of the Spirit, 1 Joh. 2. 20, 27. Circum••ision of the Heart, and of the Letter, Rom. 2. 29. a Iew outwardly, and a Iew inwardly, in the same Verse? Who ever read of the foolishness of God, and the weakness of God, 1 Cor. 1. 25? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a Phrase proper to Scripture: and so are these, to mortify the Members on Earth, Col. 3. 5. to put off the Old Man, and put on the New Man, Eph. 4. 22. to sow to the Flesh, to reap of the Flesh; to sow to the Spirit, to reap of the Spirit, Gal. 5. 8. to walk after the Flesh, Rom. 8. 1, 4. Who ever spoke after the following rate, to eat and drink Damnation to him∣self, 1 Cor. 11. 29. to be justified by Faith, Rom. 3. 28. Gal. 2. 16. to be clothed upon with an House from Heaven, 2 Cor. 5. 2? And what strange and unheard-of Expressions are those, to be baptized or washed with Fire, Mat. 3. 2. to be salted with Fire, Mark 9. 49?

Thus the Sacred Penmen of Scripture differ from all others in their Stile. And yet herein also they agree with them, for even some of those Writers differ from the rest, as to the use of some particular Words and Phrases. Some of them take a word or more in a sense that it is not taken in by any Others. There are words in Homer that are not in Aristophanes; and some in Lycophron, that are not in either of these; and there are some in these three which are not found in any other Writer whatsoever. Plato,

(as 'tis* 1.307 observ'd of him) useth words in a way different from other Authors, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for Simplex, and in other places for Pulcher, and sometimes for Parvus. And as the same word is used by him to denote several things, so he uses different words in the same sense and meaning, as his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and others. Nay, he brings in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as the same Author observes) to express contrary things sometimes. There are some Ec∣clesiastick words (for they may be thus differenc'd from others, because they have a peculiar Inter∣pretation as they are used by Ecclesiastical Writers) as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Synaxis, which among Christian Writers signify either the Sacred Meetings and Assemblies of the Faithful, or the Lord's Supper: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Temple among the same Writers, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath the same Signification sometimes: but they have no such sense in other Authors. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is a Towel or Napkin, is used in some of the Greek Fathers, to denote the express Image or likeness of a Person. And from other Examples it might be made good that the Profane and Ecclesiastick use of a word are far different. There are Thousands of words otherwise taken in the Greek Fathers than in Classick Writers: and you in vain look for the meaning of them in He∣sychius, Phavorinus, Suidas, in Scapula, Constantine, or Stephens. Yea, the words themselves which oc∣cur in Ecclesiastick Writers are not to be found in Profane ones: many of them are omitted in Lexicons, Onomasticks, Etymologicks, and Glos∣saries.

And shall not the Inspired Wri••ers have the same liberty, viz. to use peculiar Words and Phrases

of their own? or to use Words in a singular mea∣ning, and proper to themselves? If a Catachre••is, the Abuse of Words, be reckon'd by the Greek Orators an Embellishment of Speech, certainly we must account it no Disparagement, but rather an Ornament to the Language, when the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures alters the use of some Words. He may make use of what Words he pleaseth: He that bestow'd the Gift of Tongues, knows how to apply them. Hence in these Writings you meet with some New words and Singular ways of Expression, as I have let you see in some In∣stances: and many more I might have added, wherein the peculiar Phraseology of this Sacred Book is observable. The very Words in the Holy Stile are precious. Antiquaries and Criticks spend much time in mere Phrases, but they never em∣ploy it so well as when they are searching into These. There are several Other things might be noted as to the Peculiar Stile and Idiom of the New Testament, but this shall suffice at present. As I have ••hew'd before that the Stile of Scrip∣ture is like that of Other Writers, so you see it is not inconsistent with what I have now asserted, that the Holy Stile is not like that of Others; that is, the Scripture hath Words and Phrases pro∣per to it self, it hath some things extraordinary, and which are unusual with the rest of Authors. But I will insist no longer on this here, because I may have occasion in my next Discourse (viz. concerning the Excellency and Perfection of Scrip∣ture) to suggest several things which will discover the Peculiar Strai•• of the Bible.

The Fourth ••••oposi••••on is, That there are som•• things Obscure and Difficult in the Stile of Scripture. I will give you an account of this in these fol∣lowing

Particulars: 1. Obscurity and Difficulty may arise from the Different Signification of the same words in Scripture. 2. From the Contrariety of the same words as to their Signification. 3. From Other Causes relating to the Matter it self spoken of, and the Time, &c. Under which Heads I intend to prosecute that Design which I formerly was upon, viz. An Enquiry into several Remarkable Texts of the Holy Scripture which contain some Difficulty in them. I shall have occasion here to discover the Grounds of that Difficulty, and to shew how it may be removed. And when the Sentiments of others are not satisfactory, I will make bold to interpose my own Judgment.

First, Sometimes in Scripture there are Words of Different Signification, whence it comes to pass, that it is very hard to understand those places where these words are. And it is impossible to satisfy our selves about the meaning of them in the Texts where we find them, unless we take pains to exa∣mine the particular Congruity of one Sense rather than another to that particular Thing or Person to which it is applied. Yea, sometimes when we meet with such a Doubtful Word, we shall find it reasonable to make use of both the Senses of it, that is, to propound them both, and to leave it free to Persons to make choice of which they please. I will give some Instances of this; as that in Gen. 39. 1. Captain of the Guard, which may as rightly be translated (according to Iosephus, Antiq. l. 2. c. 3.) Chief of the Cooks, for the LXX render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Hebrew Tabbach (the Plural whereof is here used) is a Cook, 1 Sam. 8. 13. Ch. 9. 23, 24. and is so translated. The truth is, the genuine rendring of Tabbach is Mactator, a Slayer, and so is applicable either to a Cook or a

Soldier. The double sense of the Word occasions some doubt about the Translation, but it is of no moment at all: for we are not to be concern'd whether Potiphar was Pharao••'s Head-Cook (which without doubt was an Honourable Place) or the Captain of his Guard, or Army (as the Vulgar La∣tin gives it.) So in Gen. 41. 43. [they cried before him Abrek] the word Abrek may be differently rendred, viz. either according to Aben-Ezra, Aquila, the Vulgar Latin, and our own English Translation [bow the Knee] deriving it from barak, genu flexit: or according to Solomon Iarchi, and the Paraphrases of Onkelos and Ionathan [Father of the King] (for Rek in the Aramaean Tongue is ••ex, and thence perhaps this Latin word:) or according to the Ierusalem Targum [Father of the King, and tender in Years], or according to Symmachus, [tender Father] (from Ab Pater, and Rech tener sen delicatue,) because Ioseph was as to his Pru∣dence a Father, as to his Age a Tender Youth. Thus this word being of a dubious Signification, according to the different Etymologies it hath, may be diversly translated, and every one is at liberty to choose which of these Senses he most approv••s of. I cannot see how the Doubtfulness of such words as this can be wholly taken away, and consequently the Scripture as to such words, must remain Dubious and Obs••ure, that is, as to the particular and close import of them. But 'tis sufficient that we have the general sense of them, as here, though we are ignorant of the right and only Derivation of the word Abr••••h (and after all the foremention'd Surmises, it is most probable (as hath been said before) that 'tis an Egyptian word) yet this we are certain of, that it was a word of Acclamation and Honour that the People

used toward Ioseph: and 'tis not requisite to know any more in order to the understanding of the Place.

It is thus in the New Testament; it is said of Iudas that he went and hanged himself, Mat. 27. 5. So we translate it indeed, and very well, but the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of a more general import, signifying that he was strangl'd or choak'd, which may be done either by a String (which is properly Hanging) or by Excessive Grief, which stifled his Spirits: and accordingly we may render the Word either of these ways, viz. Actively, [he hanged himself] i. e. he ended his Life with a Halter, or Passively, [he was Choaked] namely, by a sudden stopping of his Breath, and Suffocation of his Spi∣rits through Melancholy and Grief. Either of these Senses may be admitted, yea both of them, as I have shew'd in another place. Wherefore the best rendring of the words is, I conceive, this, Judas strangled himself, or was strangled, because this takes in both. It is said of the Pharisees, Mark 7. 3. Except they wash their Hands oft, they eat not: where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is translated [oft] hath different Significations, and according∣ly may be rendred diversly. First, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signi∣fies the Fist or Hand closed, and so here is meant their way of Washing their Hands by thrusting the Fist into the Palm of the Hand. Secondly, The Greek word signifies also the Elbow, and then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as much as up to the Elbow, and denotes another particualar way of Washing among the Conceited Pharisees, by letting the Water drop from their Hands (being held up) to the very El∣bows. Thirdly, The word may be rendred [dili∣gently,] or according to the Syriack [accurately,] and so signifies to us that great Care and Exactness

they used in their Ceremonious Washings. Lastly, Our Translators, according to another acception of the word, and following the Vulgar Latin, ren∣der it oft. Any of these four ways the word may be taken: and the Dubiousness of it should not in the least trouble us, because we understand the grand thing contain'd in the words, viz. That the Jews, but especially the Pharisees, were very super∣stitiously addicted to their Washings, and placed the greatest part of their Religion in that and the like External Observances. I could instance in 2 Tim. 2. 19. The Foundation of God standeth sure, having this Seal, &c. which Text may admit of this Translation also, The Covenant of God stand∣eth sure, having this Inscription; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nifies not only a Foundation, but a Covenant or In∣strument of Contract: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies an In∣scription as well as a Seal. There were two Parts of the Covenant, I will be your God, and ye shall be my People: So here in the following words, The Lord knoweth them that are his: And, Let every one that nameth the Name of Christ depart from Iniquity. See further in Dr. Hammond.

Next, I will mention that of the Apostle, Heb. 12. 1. The Sin which doth so easily beset us. So we translate it, and so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth: but it hath three other Significations, and accor∣ding to them may be differently rendred. S.* 1.308 Chry∣sostom gives the sen••e thus, [the Sin which may easily ••e avoided] for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from whence the word comes, hath† 1.309 such a Signification: and then the meaning is, that not only the great and heavy Sins 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the weight) but lighter and lesser Sins must be declined, must be carefully avoided. There

is another Signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, viz. That Sin which hath fair Arguments and Pre∣tences for it self.* 1.310 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is applied when there are no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, no favourable Circum∣stances, no plausible Reasons and Arguments to commend a thing: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then signifies that which hath Goodly Circumstances and Arguments to recommend it. Such have some Sins especially, as those that are accompanied with much Profit or Pleasure; against these therefore the Apostle exhorts us here to arm our selves: he would have us in a more especial manner to beware of those Vices which are so Tempting. There is yet another rendring of the words according to † 1.311 Theophylact; for he observes, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Periculum, Discrimen: and indeed the Stoicks gene∣rally use the word in this sense. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is ac∣cording to Hesychius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: it signifies Affliction, Necessity, Trouble. And the Fathers sometimes use it thus in their Writings. So that the Apostle adviseth us here to shun those Sins especially which bring us into great Dangers and Difficulties, those that are accompanied even with bodily Calamities and Judgments, as some kinds of Sins generally are. Those Vices that are thus circumstantiated, are to be avoided with sin∣gular Caution. But, I confess, I do not think this to be the meaning here, for the Adverb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 join'd with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, rather shews that the Circumstan∣ces are good. And of the other three Interpre∣tations, I look upon the first to be the best, because it is according to the clearest and most obvious sense of the Greek word; and withal it agrees with the Mind of the Apostle in the whole Verse,

where taking his Metaphor from the Olympick Races, he exhorts the Jewish Converts to run with Patience the Race that was set before them, and in or∣der to that to lay aside every Weight or Incumbrance, as the Racers were wont to do, and the Sin which did so easily beset them, compass them about, hin∣der and retard them in their Christian Course, as Long or Heavy Garments are an hindrance to those that run; for any observing Eye may see that he continues the Metaphor. Thus you see words have Different Senses, and so may be translated diffe∣rently; and hence the true Meaning is difficultly to be reach'd sometimes.

I will mention one Instance more, which is to be found both in the Old and New Testament. There we often read of the Spirit: no word is more usual with the Sacred Writers than this, and it is as true that no word hath more Various Significations; whence sometimes doth arise no small Difficulty in interpreting some of those places where this word occurreth. Suffer me then to give a full and ample Account of the Different Significations of it, that it may not administer occasion of Obscurity in the Stile of Scripture.

First, The word Spirit is applied to God, and particularly to the Third Person in the Undivided Trinity, who is Emphatically call'd the Spirit in the Old Testament, as in Gen. 1. 2. Gen. 6. 3. and in almost iunumerable other places; and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, by way of Eminency in the New Testament, Mat. 3. 16. Iohn 1. 32. Rom. 8. 14, &c.

Secondly, It signifies the Gifts, Graces, Fruits, Effects, and Operations of the Holy Spirit; as 1. Any Signal Qualities or Endowments whatsoever, any Skill or Ability to do things well and laudably.

Thus Bezaliel was filled with the Spirit of God, (Exod. 31. 3, 5.) to work in all manner of Workmanship. And Gifts of any sort are call'd the Spirit in other places. 2. The Saving Graces of the Holy Spirit, as in Iude, ver. 19. having not the Spirit, and in several other places. 3. The Power of the Spirit to accomplish some very great and extraordinary thing: thus Caleb had another Spirit, Num. 14. 24. i. e. he had Power to effect those things which he could not do before. Ioshuah was a Man in whom was the Spirit, Num. 27. 18. Thus the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Lord are said in Scrip∣ture to come upon, to fall upon, to be poured out, to be put upon Persons; that is, they had an unusual and extraordinary Power to do this or that. To be moved, and to be led by the Spirit are in the same Signification, viz. to be enabled to enter∣prize and atchieve some Wonderful Thing. 4. Those Extraordinary and Miraculous Gifts which were conferr'd on the Apostles and other Christians in the Infancy of the Gospel, as Healing all manner of Diseases, Speaking strange Lan∣guages. These are express'd by this Word in 1 Cor. 14. 12. Ye are zealous of Spirits, i. e. Spiri∣tual Gifts, the Extraordinary Vouchsafements of the Spirit, whereby they were able to do things above Humane Power: Hence you read of Speak∣ing in the Spirit, Praying with the Spirit, and Singing with the Spirit, 1 Cor. 14. 14, 15. And in the same Chapter there is mention of the Spirits of the Prophets, ver. 32. i. e. the Gifts of Prophecy which they were indued with, and enabled to ex∣ert in the Publick Congregation. Before Christ's Ascension these Gifts were not bestow'd in a very large and liberal manner, and that is the mean∣ing of Iohn 7. 39. the Holy Ghost was not yet given.

And even after our Saviour's Ascension, the Ephe∣sian Christians had not heard whether there was any Holy Ghost, Acts 19. 2. that is, they knew nothing of these Extraordinary Gifts bestow'd on some in the Church. Wherefore we read there that by the Imposition of St. Paul's Hands the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake with Tongues and prophesied, ver. 6. This latter Clause explains the former, letting us see that by the Holy Ghost, is here meant the Miraculous Endowments of the Spirit, such as speaking with strange Tongues, and Prophesying in an unusual manner. Of these chiefly the Apostle is to be understood in 1 Thess. 5. 19. Quench not the Spirit. 5. Extraordinary Revelations and Discoveries (whether under the Old or New Testament) are express'd by this Word. Thus 'tis said, there is a Spirit in Man, Job 32. 8. which is explain'd in the next Clause by the Inspiration of the Almighty. So David in Spirit, Mat. 22. 43. is David Inspired. I will pour out of my Spirit upon all Flesh, Acts 2. 17. (taken from Ioel 2. 28.) i. e. I will bestow the Gift of Prophecy and Revealing of Mysteries upon them, for of This it is principally understood, as you may learn from the following words, Your Sons and your Daughters shall prophesy; and ver. 18. On my Servants and on my Hand-maids I will pour out of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. So in Rev. 1. 10. I was in the Spirit, is as much as if he had said, I had great Revelations imparted to me.

Thirdly, The Dispensation and Preaching of the Gospel, especially as it is opposed to the Law, and as it contains the more hidden Mysteries of Chri∣stianity in it, is stiled the Spirit. Thus the Evan∣gelical Preachers are call'd Ministers not of the Let∣ter, but Spirit, 2 Cor. 3, 6. i. e. not of the Law, but

of the Gospel, not of mere Externals of Religion, but of the Inward and Hidden Secrets of it.

Fourthly, The Spiritual meaning of what Christ speaketh is call'd by this Name, as in Iohn 6. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth, the Flesh profiteth no∣thing the Words that I speak unto you they are Spi∣rit, and they are Life. As if he had said, you must not understand me in a gross and carnal sense, when I tell you that you must eat my Flesh and drink my Blood, ver. 53, 54. My meaning is not that you should turn Canibals, and feed upon Man's Flesh. No: this Eating and Drinking which I have spoken of to you, are to be interpreted in a Spirit∣ual Sense, and in no other. My Words have an Abstruse and Mystical meaning, I am Spiritually to be Eaten and Drunk, that is, by a Lively Faith only. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, that enliveneth: that which is comprehended in the Spiritual im∣port of my Words, is the thing that is most Active and Powerful in Religion, and in the Lives of Men.

Fifthly, By Spirit is meant the Person that is In∣spired, 1 Iohn 4. 2. Every Spirit that confesseth that Iesus is come in the Flesh, is of God. Nay,

Sixthly, He that pretends to the Spirit, but really is not inspired by the Holy Ghost, is thus called: as in the next Verse, Every Spirit that confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the Flesh, is not of God: and in the first Verse of that Chapter, Believe not every Spirit; but try the Spirits, i. e. Teachers that pretend to the Spirit and Inspiration, who are call'd False Prophets in the same place, and Seducing Spi∣rits, 1 Tim. 4. 1. Therefore discerning of Spirits, 1 Cor. 12. 10. was that Gift in the Church where∣by they knew who were truly Inspired, and who not; who were True, and who False Prophets.

And as the Persons pretending to immediate Dis∣coveries from the Spirit are thus stiled, so the ••eigned Discoveries or Revelations themselves, which they boast of, are called Spirit, 2 Thess. 2. 2.

Seventhly, The word Spirit in Scripture is meant of the Soul of Man, and its different Functions, Operations, Dispositions, Inclinations; and in short, the whole Frame and State of it. 1. I say that Distinct Part of Man which is call'd his Soul, hath the Denomination of Spirit, and that very justly, because it is a Spiritual or Immaterial Being. Into thy Hands I commit my Spirit, saith the Psalmist, Psal. 31. 5. i. e. I trust thee with my Soul. It is call'd the Spirit of a Man, Prov. 18. 14. ch. 20. 27. Eccles. 3. 21. This is the Spirit that shall return to God, Eccles. 12. 7. Wherefore this was the Lan∣guage of our dying Saviour, Into thy Hands I com∣mend my Spirit, Luke 23. 46. and of that expiring Martyr, Acts 7. 59. Lord Iesus, receive my Spirit. The Souls of the Saints are stiled the Spirits of just Men made perfect, Heb. 12. 23. and those of the Wicked, the Spirits in Prison, 1 Pet. 3. 19. And hither is to be referr'd that of St. Iames, ch. 2. 26. the Body without the Spirit (i. e. without the Soul) is dead. 2. The Vital Principle, which is the imme∣diate Operation of the Soul, is termed the Spirit, the Spirit of Life, Gen. 7. 22. especially the more Active and Vigorous Operation of the Soul and Bo∣dy is so called, Iosh. 5. 1. Nor was there Spirit in them. Whence you read of the reviving and coming again of the Spirit, Gen. 45. 27. Judg. 15. 19. and of the Spirits being refreshed, 2 Cor. 7. 13. and giving Spirit, i. e. Life to the Image of the Beast, Rev. 13. 15. 3. The Vnderstanding is often call'd the Spirit, and the Spirit of the Mind; and when you read of Soul and Spirit, this latter generally denoteth the

Intellectual and Rational Part of Man, and the more exalted and refined Operations of it, as it re∣spects Religion, Luke 1. 47. 1 Thess. 5. 23. Heb. 4. 12. 4. That Function of the Rational Soul which is called Conscience, hath this Name. A wounded Spirit who can bear? Prov. 18. 14. The Spirit (i. e. the Third Person in the Sacred Trinity) beareth witness with our Spirit, that is, with our Consciences, Rom. 8. 16. 5. The Will and Affections are com∣monly set forth by this Expression: Thus you read of ruling the Spirit, Prov. 16. 32. that is, subduing and well-ordering Those Faculties of the Mind especially: You read of a New Spirit, Ezek. 11. 19. ch. 18. 31. of a contrite and broken Spirit, Psal. 34. 18. Psal. 51. 17. a right Spirit, Psal. 51. 10. which are principally meant of the Will, the Passi∣ons and Desires of the Soul. And another Spirit, Numb. 14. 24. may be understood in this Sense as well as in that above-mention'd. In the New Te∣stament our Saviour pronounceth those Blessed that are poor in Spirit, Matth. 5. 3. He tells us, that we must worship the Father in Spirit, John 4. 23. St. Paul professeth, that he served God with his Spirit, Rom. 1. 9. and exhorts us all to be servent in Spirit, Rom. 12. 11. In all which Places the word Spirit signifies either the Will, or the Hearty Affections of the Soul, or both of them. 6. In a more general way it signifies the Nature and Temper of a Man: Ye know not of what Spirit ye are, Luke 9. 55. And this Large and General Acception of the Word is very usual in the Holy Stile. 7. More particularly and especially it denotes an Effectual and Operative In∣clination, Power and Ability to some particular Good or Evil: Whence you read of the* 1.312 Spirit of

Knowledg,† 1.313 Vnderstanding,‖ 1.314 Wisdom, of* 1.315 Meek∣ness, of† 1.316 Fear: and on the contrary, of the ‖ 1.317 Spirit of Slumber, of‖‖ 1.318 Whoredoms, of‖‖ 1.319 An∣tichrist, and of a* 1.320 perverse Spirit. 8. The Ratio∣nal and Regenerate Part of Man is emphatically stiled the Spirit, and is opposed to the Flesh, which is the Sensual and Unregenerate Part of Man. The Spirit is willing, but the Flesh is weak, Matth. 26. 41. That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit, John 3. 6. The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit a∣gainst the Flesh, Gal. 5. 7. This is the frequent Acception of the Word in the New Testament. Yea, 9. Not only the Holy and Godly Nature, the Renewed Disposition and Temper, but even that which is Unholy and Ungodly, the Old and Unre∣generate Principle of Man, is also known by this Name. The Spirit, saith St. Iames, that dwelleth in us lusteth to Envy, ch. 4. 5. where by Spirit is meant the Sensual and Carnal Part of Man. And so be∣fore we took notice of the Spirit of Slumber, of Whore∣doms, and the like. Thus much of the word Spi∣rit, as it hath reference to the Soul of Man and its Faculties. Only I will add this, that this Word applied either to the good or evil Operations of the Mind, signifies to us the Reality and Efficacy of them, and represents their great Vehemency; for they proceed from the Spirit of Man, which is vigo∣rous and active. Though this Word likewise may refer to the Original and Source of these Actions, for there is in Men a Double Spirit, a Good and an Evil one, the Spirit of the World, and the Spirit which is of God, 1 Cor. 2. 12. Hence in the Stile of Scrip∣ture

good and evil Actions are frequently attributed to some Spirit; for they are Results either of the Good or Evil one that inhabits in them.

Eighthly, Angels, both good and bad, are signi∣fied by this Word: First, the Good ones, Heb. 1. 7. He maketh his Angels Spirits, which is taken from Psal. 104. 4. Are they not all ministring Spirits? Heb. 1. 14. Secondly, the Evil ones, who in the Old Testament are call'd Evil Spirits, and Lying Spirits; and in the New Testament, Vnclean, Foul, Fami∣liar Spirits, Spirits of Divination. Rejoice not, saith our Saviour, that the Spirits (i. e. the Devils, as ap∣pears from ver. 17.) are subject unto you, Luke 10. 20. The Spirit that worketh in the Children of Disobe∣dience, Eph. 2. 2. is no other than Satan. I questi∣on not but that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Eph. 6. 12. are no other than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Spi∣rits of Wickedness, which are said to be in high or Heavenly Places, because these Wicked Spirits are so hardy as to encounter often with the Good An∣gels; they labour to wrest the Souls of the Faith∣ful out of their Hands, whilst they are conducting them through the Ethereal Regions, to the Mansi∣ons of Glory in the highest Heavens. And if they have the Confidence to grapple with those Blessed Spirits, certainly they will not fail to assault Us weak and sinful Creatures: Wherefore (as the Apo∣stle adjoins in this Place) we must take unto us the whole Armour of God, that we may be able to wrestle against these spiritual Wickednesses, or rather wicked Spirits. So in Rev. 16. 14. Spirits of Devils are as much as Devilish Spirits, or Evil Angels.

Ninthly, The same Word is used to express an Apparition or Seeming Shape of a Body without real Corporeity, as in Luke 24. 37. They supposed they had seen a Spirit. They had a Notion of a Spirit's ap∣pearing,

though as a Spi••it it was impossible to be seen of it self, for being void of Matter and Quan∣tity, it could not be the Object of the Bodily Senses: which true Account of a Real Spirit our Saviour gives them in these Words, A Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones, ver. 39. i. e. it hath nothing Corporeal belonging to its Nature and Essence.

Which brings me to the next, the Tenth Accep∣tion of the Word; and that is this, it signifies a Spiritual Immaterial Substance, wholly devoid of all Matter. John 4. 24. God is a Spirit, i. e. he is a Substance in which there is nothing of Body or Quantity; he is an Intelligent and Thinking Being: which high Privilege and Excellency no Material thing is capable of.

Lastly, A Breath, a Wind, a Blast, are synoni∣mous with Spirit in the Holy Stile, as in Eccles. 11. 5. Thou knowest not what is the way of the Spirit, i. e. of the Wind, as is evident from the former Verse, where the word Ruach is so ••endred. And in Ezek. 37. 9. the four Spirits or Winds are the same: and so the word is used twice more in that Verse. Thus 'tis in the New Testament, in Iohn 3. 8. The Wind bloweth where it listeth: The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is generally translated Spirit in the New Testament, is here translated Wind, and that very rightly, ac∣cording to the Interpretation of several of the An∣tient Fathers: Particularly the Air, the Wind or Breath, which is drawn in and sent forth by the Lungs, hath this Denomination: Thus in Iob 34. 14. Spirit and Breath are the same. And those Words in Iohn 19. 30. He gave up the Ghost, or Spi∣rit, are expressed thus in another Evangelist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he expired, he yielded up his Breath, Luke 23. 46. To this refers 2. Thess. 2. 8. Whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit, i. e. the Breath of his

Mouth: which is the same with Isa. 11. 4. With the Breath of his Mouth shall he stay the Wicked. To conclude, the* 1.321 three Words in the three Learned Languages for Spirit signify Wind or Breath, and that in the first and original Sense of them. This alone is the Proper Signification of the Word: but as for all the other Acceptions of it before-menti∣oned, they are secondary and improrper. The word Spirit is improperly applied to the Person, and to the Gifts or Graces of the Holy Ghost: it is improperly attributed to the Souls of Men and their Faculties, and Operations: it is improperly spoken of Angels or Devils, or of any of those other things ••fore-named, except the last. But these are the Different Acceptions of the Word in the Sacred Writings, according to that Observation which I have made of it at several times; and perhaps there are some Other Denotations of this Word, which I have not taken notice of. I instanced in This (whereas I might have instanced in many more) to let you see how Large and Extensive the Meaning of some Words in Scripture is, and thereby to give you some Account of the Difficulty and Per∣plexity of the Holy Stile in some Places, which yet you see we may render very intelligible and plain by a diligent Enquiry into, and Comparing those Places where these dubious Words occur.

But still to give you a farther Account of the Different Acceptions of Terms, I could sufficiently prosecute this, tho I confin'd my self to the Hebrew Words of the Old Testament. It would most fully ap∣pear that the same words in this Holy Volume signi∣fy Different things. I shall only propound the several Particulars, and leave them to be distinctly applied

upon occasion, by those that have leisure to do it. It is well known that Vau is a Conjunction Copulative, but it is of other Use in several Places, which in∣deed is common to it in part with the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Septuagint Version, and in the New Testament. Sometimes it is Conversive, (as they call it) it changes the Tense: and sometimes it is Interrroga∣tive: At other times it is Adversative, and is equi∣valent to but or although: Not unusually it hath the Force of an Adverb of Time, and is as much as when, then, now. It is also a Comparative Particle, and is the same with so. Oftentimes it is put for the Relative Pronoun asher, which. Sometimes it is Emphatical, (as the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is) and is of the like Signification with even in English. Again, it seems to be Redundant, as when it begins a Chapter or some New Matter, without reference to any thing before. Thus not only some of the Books of Mo∣ses, but those of Ezra and Ionah, begin with a Vau. But it is certain that this Particle is not merely Ex∣pletive here, as the Learned Jews acknowledg. Lastly, Many times in the Hebrew Stile it is not Copulative, but Disjunctive, and it is accordingly rendred or and nor, by our Translators, as in Gen. 26. 11. He that toucheth this Man or his Wife: and in Exod. 21. 15. He that smiteth his Father or his Mo∣ther: and in Exod. 1. 10. and in several other Places of Scripture the Hebrews acknowledge that the Con∣junctive Particle is a Disjunctive; as the Aspect of Conjunction in the Sun is sometimes among Astrono∣mers call'd Opposition. Thus this Vau is of great Latitude, which causes Variety of rendring many Places: but those that are very Observing and Cu∣rious (as it was intended by Providence that we should be in reading the Bible) will soon know how to make a Difference, and to discern the proper

meaning of this Particle. Likewise the Hebrew Pra••positions are of various Signification, and one is put for another very often, which makes the Sense not a little difficult. Who sees not that these Praefixes or Praepositions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are diffe∣rently used, and at one time are applied one way, and another another? And who knows not that sometimes they seem to be unnecessary, and to sig∣nify nothing at all? though even then without doubt they are of some Significancy and Use. But to know this aright is not easy: a great Learn∣ing in the Tongue is requisite to discover it.

The Hebrew Verbs also are very Equivocal, and have very Different meanings. In their divers Conjugations, they have divers Significations, whence it proves a very hard thing sometimes to know which of them is meant. A word in Kal may bear one sense, in Piel another, in Hiphil a Third, &c. But if we apply our selves with that Care and Industry to the searching into the Scriptures which are required of us, we shall either be able to dis∣cern which Particular Sense is meant in the places before us; or where we cannot attain to this, we shall find that our Ignorance is not prejudicial to us, because the Controversy is not about any thing which we ought necessarily to know. The Verb Chalal signifies to begin and to profane, according to its different Conjugations. Of the former Signi∣fication, there are Instances in Gen. 6. 1. Num. 17. 11. and many other places; Of the latter in Num 30. 3. Ezek. 39. 7. and abundance of other Texts: whence there is some dispute about Gen. 4. 26. some rendring the word Huchal Men began, others Men profaned. Both the Chaldee Paraphrasts un∣derstand it in the latter sense, and so do the He∣brew Rabins generally. They take the meaning of

the place to ••e this, Then the Name of God was profaned, then Religion began be corrupted; then they call'd on God's Name so as to dishonour and pollute it, viz. by their Oaths and Blasphe∣mies. R. Soloman Iarchi,* 1.322 Maimonides, and other Jewish Doctors understand it of the rise of Idola∣••ry: they tell us, that Moses gives us an account here of the first beginning of the setting up of New Gods. And from this Text† 1.323 Mr. Selden, who always adheres to the Circumcised Doctors, endeavours to prove that Idolatry was in those days. But it is more reasonable to believe that this was not of so early a Date, and that there was no such Vile Defection at that time in the World. This is the Judgment of the famous ‖ 1.324 Jewish Historian and Antiquary: and most of the Antient and Learned Fathers of the Christian Church give their Suffrage to it; and that with good reason, because if at this time that Gene∣ration had been guilty of this most Abominable Crime, it would certainly have been mention'd, and that plainly: as you see afterwards, that as soon as this Horrid Sin began to be practis'd in the World, the Holy Scriptures record it, and at the same time decry it. But it is not to be que∣stion'd that Impious Cain and his Party corrupted the True Religion and Worship of God, and la∣bour'd to bring in Universal Profaneness. Where∣fore the Family of Holy Seth, and Godly Enoch and his Associates zealously resisted their Attempts, and took a course to suppress the prevailing Cor∣ruption. Accordingly now they began in a pecu∣liar manner to meet together, and to join their

Devotions mor solemnly, and to call upon God. They more especially exercis'd themselves in Prayer, that indispensible act of Divine Worship. They began more signally and openly to be Reli∣gious. Thus Men began to call upon the Name of the Lord, or (as it may be rendred) to call them∣selves by the Name of the Lord, to entitle them∣selves after the Name of Iehovah, as we call our selves C••ristians after Christ's Name. They pro∣fess'd themselves to be the People of God, and Worshippers of the Most High. Thus to call on the Name of the Lord, and to be call'd by his Name, amount to the same, and signify that at that par∣ticular time the Faithful invoked God, and wor∣ship'd and serv'd him in a more solemn manner than before: and they publickly own'd themselves to be the Sons of God, and the Servants of the Great Iehovah. Thus Men began to call on God's Name, and thus Aben Ezra and other Modern Rabbies (who have better consider'd of it) understand this Text in the plain Sense of it. And it is likely it had never been otherwise understood, if the ambiguity of the Verb Chalal had not given occasion; for this in the Conjugation Niphal, signifies to profane, and to be profaned, but in Hiphil and Hophal (as here) to begin: which some took no notice of, and so mistook the Sense.

To proceed, the Hebrew word Pathah signifies to enlarge and perswade, whence there is some dif∣ference in the Translation of Gen. 9. 27. God shall enlarge; others read it, God shall perswade Japheth. But yet if you take either of the Readings with the following Words, the Sense is not varied, the meaning is the same; for the whole Verse contains God's Promise, that Iapheth should dwell in the Tents of Shem; that is, that the Gentiles, who sprang

from Iapheth, should be converted to Judaism, and that both they and the Jews, who came from Shem, should embrace Christianity; and this en∣larging of Iapheth's Borders should be done by Per∣swasion, by the mild and gentle Methods of the Spi∣rit, by the Perswasive Power of the Gospel preach'd to them. Thus I decide the quarrel among Gram∣marians and Criticks about the Hebrew word, by joining both the Senses of it together. And this we shall find to be a good Expedient some other times. The Hebrew word Chush signifies to make haste, and to be ashamed, saith our Learned* 1.325 Pocock; and thence that place in Isa. 28. 16. he that belie∣veth shall not make haste, is otherwise worded in Rom. 9. 33. he that believeth on him shall not be ashamed. If there be this Different acception of the Verb, it is impossible without a Revelation (which we have no reason to expect) to tell which Sense is peculiarly designed by the Prophet, for we have no Light at all from the Context to help us. But seeing the Word is capable in this place of both Significations, let us (as before) unite them together: for it is certain, that he who belie∣veth will neither make haste, nor be ashamed. Kaphatz is claudere, and also transilire, viz. è loco suo: whence you may read the word in Iob 24. 24. either thus, they are shut up, viz. in Destruction, or in the Grave; or, they are taken out of the way. The Subject Mat∣ter will permit both Translations. The Significa∣tion of Rad is both dominari and plangere, plorare: whence there may be a double Interpretation of that place. Gen. 27. 40. when thou shalt have the Do∣minion, or when thou shalt have Mourned: and both Sentences are applicable. Sacal is intelligere, & pro∣sperum,

felicem esse: therefore it is hard to deter∣mine whether the word in Ios. 1. 7, 8. Isa. 52. 13. Ier. 23. 5. be to be rendred in the first or the se∣cond Sense. But neither in this nor the foregoing Text is any Point of Faith concern'd. The mean∣ing of the word Shanah is not only mutare but errare, and accordingly it is no wonder that the word in Eccl. 8. 1. be differently rendred, and may be so in some other places. Dam or damam signifies either to be silent, or to wait and expect; consequently Psal. 62. 1. may be rendred my Soul is silent, or waiteth on God. Mahar is festinare, and dotare or donare; and therefore in Psal. 16. 4. Ma∣haru may be either english'd they hasten or they give Gifts, i. e. they bring Sacrifices and Oblations, viz. to another God. And we may suppose these zealous Idolaters hastned to bring these Gifts, these Sacri∣fices, and then both Senses are reconciled. Palal, according to the different Conjugations it is in, signifies to pray and to judg: thence Psal. 106. 30. is differently translated, viz. Then stood up Phineas and pray'd, according to our Old Transla∣tion of the Psalms, or executed Iudgment, accor∣ding to the later Version. We may join both the Senses, for it is probable this zealous Man join'd Prayer with this eminent act of Justice. Ashar is to walk, and to pronounce blessed, (so discrepant are the meanings of some words;) whence Prov. 4. 14. may be english'd either go not in the way of Evil Men (as we render it) or, bless not in the way of Evil Men, i. e. account not, pronounce not thy self Blessed or Happy whilst thou art in the way of Evil Men. And so Veasher in Prov. 23. 19. may be tran∣slated either dirige or beatifica. Either of these Versions yield us a good notion of the place. So be∣cause of the ambiguity of the word Tizachar, which

may be rendred masculum ••ascetur or memorabitur, that Text Exod, 34. 19. may be differently tran∣slated. The double Signification of Puach is flare, spirare, & illaqueari: so that 'tis doubtful whether this word in Psal. 12. 5. should be rendred pusseth at him, or ensnareth him: but the Sense is not im∣paired by either. Chalam is not only somniavit, but sanus fuit, convaluit: which makes the Original Psal. 126. 1. to be capable of either of these Tran∣slations, we were like to them that dreamed, or we were like to them that are restored to health: both which Versions admit of a very good Sense.

To instance in some words that have more than two Significations; Seeing the word Pharang signi∣fies to be abandon'd and lost, and likewise to be stript naked, and moreover to rebel, as also to be idle, it is not to be wonder'd at that a Clause in Prov. 29. 18. be rendred by our English Translators the People perisheth, by others (as Coeceius) the People is made naked, by some (as Arias Montanus) the People is rebellious, and by others (as Pagnin) the People are, idle. In such variety of Significations, we cannot be Certain which to take sometimes. It is sufficient that we choose that which we find most agreeable to the place. Batzar in Kal is vindemiavit, in Niphil abruptus est, sublatus est; in Piel munivit, & arduum fecit. In these several Significations 'tis taken in Scripture, as it were easy to shew out of the Hebrew Concordances. Bagnar according to its different Conjugations signifies to burn, to feed, to be furious, to be stupid or brutish, to take away or remove; and this cannot but occasion some diffe∣rence in Translations. The Verb Pakad, and the Nouns that are derived from it, are of very du∣bious Signification in Scripture: which must needs cause sometimes a disagreement among Interpre∣ters.

Aman in Kal is nutrivit, educavit; in Niphal, verax fuit, fidelis fuit; in Hipbil, credidit: there are divers Examples of this in the Bible. Shur is ca∣nere, intueri, munera deferre: from which triple Sig∣nification of the Word, I could shew that some Texts are capable of different Versions. Tsalal is obumbrari, opacum reddi, Ezek. 31. 3. mergi, Ex. 15. 10. tinnire, palpitare, 1 Sam. 3. 11. Hab. 3. 16. Sacan is wonderfully diversified as to its Significa∣tions: Sometimes it signifies to help or profit, sometimes to attempt or make trial, sometimes to accustom one's self to a thing: whence there may arise some difference in translating some places; but in none of these is any Grand Point of Religion concern'd. Nasa hath no less than Eight Signi∣fications in the Bible, as ferre, portare: auferre, tollere: elevare, attollere: accipere: honorare: con∣sumere, comburere: condonare, remittere: pronun∣taire, nominare, jurare. And many* 1.326 Others Verbs there are in this Language which have more Sen∣ses than one, and therefore those Texts where they occur, are not so easy as others to under∣stand. There is a great variety of Significations in the Greek Verbs, some whereof (as the Verb † 1.327 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) have strangely discrepant meanings, but they are not to be compared with the Hebrew ones, whether you respect the Multiplicity of them, or the Unlikeness and Inconsistency of the Significa∣tions among themselves. This therefore must be assigned as one reason why the Sense of some Texts is dubious.

As it is with the Hebrew Verbs, so it is with the Nouns; there are many of them that have different

Senses, and those such as have no Agreement or Affinity one with another, which oftentimes occa∣sions Diversity of Readings in those Places where they are found. Not but that the Hebrew Tongue is copious, as is evident from that Variety of Names which is for one thing. There are seven Words for Gold, as St. Ierom long since observed, Zahab, Phez or Paz or Ophaz, Charutz, Kethem, Ophir, Baser, Segor; though some think that Kethem is the more general Name, and the rest are several kinds of Gold. There are six Words to express Giants, as Nephilim, (from falling or falling on) Emim, (because they are Terrible) Gibborim, (from their Strength) Anakim, Zamzummim, Rephaim. There are as many Words to signify a Lion, as * 1.328 Buxtorf reckons them up distinctly, with the Places of Scripture where they occur: Yea, Mer∣cer adds a seventh. A Son in Hebrew is Ben, Nin, Manon, Bar, though indeed this last be rather a Chaldee or Syriac Word. Anger hath these Deno∣minations, Aph, Charon, Zagnaph, Chagnas. Sleep is either Tarmedah, or Shenah, or Tenumah. Three Words there are for the Sun, as Cheres, Shemeth, Chammah; and as many for the Earth, Eretz, Te∣bel, Adamah. A Virgin is called Almah, (or Gnal∣ma••) Naarah, Bethulah. To fear is expressed by three Verbs, viz. Gur, Iare, Pachad. The same Hill is call'd Horeb and Sinai: and Zion and Hermon are two Names of another Hill: but of these after∣wards. Thus the Hebrew Tongue hath many Sy∣nonimous Words.

But that which is more usual and remarkable (and which we are concern'd to observe at present) is that one Name or Word serves for Different.

things, which often renders the Interpretation doubtful. Thus Iob 4. 18. we read thus, his An∣gels he charged with Folly; but it may as well be read, be put Light into his Angels; and so Tremellius and the Gallick Version have it: for [Toholah] (which is the Word here used, and comes from a Hebrew Verb, which sometimes signifies to shine) denotes both Light and Folly. And accordingly Expositors (to whom I refer the Reader) labour to defend ei∣ther of these Senses. But so far as I can discern the Meaning of this Place, the Hebrew Word hath a third Signification, which seems to be peculiarly designed here: For this Noun is derived from Ha∣lal, the primitive and known Signification of which is laudare, gloriari, and so Tohalah is as much as Tehillah, laus, gloriatio. Accordingly I render the foresaid Clause thus, Nec in Angelis suis ponet lau∣dem seu gloriationem: for the Vau in this Place (as in several others, which I have hinted before) is Disjunctive, and is the same with nec. And you see the Words run this way, i. e. in the Negative, He putteth no Trust in his Servants, nor doth he put Praise or Boasting in his Angels; i. e. those Glorious Spirits who now inhabit the Celestial Regions, (for I do not think, as some do, that the Fallen Angels are here spoken of) even these in comparison of God, who is infinitely pure and perfect, are blame∣worthy and guilty. So that this rendring of the Words amounts to the Sense of the English Version: but I do not see any Reason to translate the Hebrew word Folly; for the Verb from whence it comes di∣rects us not to it, and we have Instance of it in Scripture. It is well known that the Noun Dabar signifies both a Thing or Action, and a Word, and for that reason the rendring of it in Scripture is sometimes uncertain. The like may be observed

of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek Testament, which is applica∣ble to Actions as well as Words, in imitation of the use of the word Dabar. But both in the Old and New Testament the Matter spoken of will direct us sufficiently unto the peculiar Acception of the Word. Shephattaim are either the Lots and Portions of a Man's Life, and especially his ill Lot and Mis∣fortune; or the Word signifies those Pots, some say those Ranges which are used about the Fire, and are covered over with Dust and Smoke. Accord∣ingly Psal. 68. 13. may be translated thus, Though ye have lain in those evil Lots, i. e. though you have been in great Distress: or thus, Though ye have lain among the Pots or Ranges, which amounts to the same Sense with the former, and expresseth the Distressed Condition of the Persons spoken of. The word Belial (which is often used) is of a dou∣ble Signification; for some derive it form Boli, non, and Guol, jugum, and then it denotes one without a Yoke, that is, impatient of Discipline, one that casts off all Laws and Restraints. Others deduce it from Beli, non, and Iagnal, profuit; so that it should regularly be Belijagnal, but the middle Letter being struck out, it is Belial (which way of Contraction is not unusual, as we see in the word Hosanna, cor∣ruptly from Hosignanna: so Path is a Contraction of Pathah, frangere; Rab of Rabab, multiplicari; El of Ejal, potentia; Iordan of Ieordan, as some think from Ieor a River, and Dan a City; because this River had its Rise about that Place: and there are almost innumerable Instances of this Abbrevia∣ting of Words, both in the Bible and* 1.329 other He∣brew Authors.) If we thus shorten the word Beli∣al, it is equivalent to Inutilis, homo nequam, nullius

frugls: but both this and the former Derivation of the Word acquaint us, that it is well applied in the Scripture to very Lewd and Profligate Persons; yea, even to the Internal Spirit himself.

Marphe in Prov. 14. 30. may be derived either from Rapha, sanare, or Raphah, lenem esse, and ac∣cordingly is both sanitas and lenitas; and so that Text may be read, a sound Heart, (a Healthful Constitution) or a mild Heart (a placid and sedate Temper) is the Life of the Flesh, is a Procurer of long Life to a Man. Both the Senses are coinci∣dent. Netseach signifies Victory and Eternity, (as the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also doth) and therefore Isa. 25. 8. admits of this double Version, He will swallow up Death in Victory, (he will conquer and bafflle its Force) or in Eternity, i. e. Death shall be absorp'd, destroy'd for ever. The Sense is alike. The Signi∣fication of Bochal is probatio and munitio: thence Eben bochal, Isa. 28. 16. may be rendred a tried Stone, or Stone of Trial, or else a Stone of Fortifica∣tion. Migreshoth may denote either Suburbs (as the word in the singular Number Migrash often doth in Scripture) or Waves: and therefore in Ezek. 27. 28. we cannot certainly tell which Word to render it by, nor is it material whether we do or no. Whether Hamon, Ezek. 7. 11. should be translated a Tumult or a Multitude, is not to be decided; be∣cause if the Word comes from Hamah, tumultuatus est, then the former Version is the genuine one; but if from Haman, multiplicavit, then the latter. Whether Chajil, Ezek. 37. 10. is to be translated an Army (as we english it) or People, cannot be de∣termined, because the Word signifies both in seve∣ral Places of Scripture. Because Zaba denotes both a determinate Time, and military Order, that of Iob 7. 1. may be rendred either thus, Is there not an

appointed time to Man? or, Is there not a Warfare to Man? And so in ch. 14. 14. you may read it, All the Days of my appointed Time, or, all the Days of my Warfare. In all these Places there is no point of Religion endanger'd, if you take the Words in ei∣ther Sense. There must needs be a double Read∣ing in Iosh. 11. 20. because the word Techinnah sig∣nifies Grace or Favour, and likewise Prayer or Sup∣plication: so that we may translate it either that there might be no Favour for them, or that there might be no Supplication for them. Both which Senses may be united thus, that there might be none to pray for Grace and Favour for them. And so both the Tran∣slations meet. There is a great deal of Difference between the Rain filleth the Pools, and the Teacher is fill'd or cover'd with Blessings; and yet Psal. 84. 6. (the latter part of the Verse) may be read either of these ways, because the word Moreh is pluvia and doctor, and Beracoth is both piscin•• and benedictiones. These two have but little Affinity, [he hath given you the former Rain moderately] and [he hath given you a Teacher of Righteousness:] and yet the Hebrew Words in Ioel 2. 23. are capable of being rendred either ways, and accordingly our English Transla∣tors imbrace the former, and the Vulgar Latin the latter Sense. The Reason is, because Moreh is a Teacher and Rain. The word beged is perfidia, Ier. 12. 1. and also vestis in above a hundred Places. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is an Isle, Job 22. 30. a Region or Province, Isa. 20. 6. a Bird or other Animal that frequents Islands, Isa. 13. 22. Cir signifies a Laver, Exod. 20. 18. a Hearth, Zech. 12. 6. a Scaffold or Pulpit, 2 Chron. 6. 13. Chajah is the Soul, Life, a Beast, a Compa∣ny, a Village: wherefore 'tis no wonder that the Word in these Places admits of different Constru∣ctions, Psal. 68. 30. Psal. 74. 19. Isa. 57. 10. but

the Scope of the Texts will conduct a diligent En∣quirer to the proper Denotation of the Word in each Place. Pagnam is a Blow, a Stroke, Judg. 5. 28. a Foot or Footstep, Psal. 85. 14. an Anvil, Isa. 41. 7. and moreover it hath the Force of the Latin vice, or hac vice, this once, 1 Sam. 26. 8.

How vastly different are the Senses of the Word Tsir? viz. Grief, Isa. 13. 8. a Hinge, Prov. 26. 14. an Ambassador or Messenger, Prov. 25. 13. Idols, Isa. 45. 16. So the Word which we translate Frost, Psal. 78. 47. is of a large Import, and signifies not only Frost, but vehement Hail, and therefore in the Margin of our Bibles is rendred great Hail-stones. Avenarius renders it Thunder or Thunder-bolts: R. Chasen understands by it not a Meteor, but an Infect, and reads the Place thus, He destroyed their Sycomore Trees with the Locusts. Tzitz hath five distinct Ren∣drings, a Flower, Isa. 28. 1. a Feather or Quill, or Wing, Jer. 48. 9. a Plate, Exod. 28. 36. a Fringe, Numb. 15. 38. a Lock of Hair, Ezek. 8. 3. The words Bad and Baddim signify Linen or Linen Cloth, Ezek. 9. 3. Branches, Ezek. 19. 14. Bars, Exod. 27. 6. Greatness or Strength, Job 18. 13. Members or Ioints, Job 41. 3. Liars and Lies, Jer. 50. 36. Isa. 44. 25. Iob 11. 3. Here are six diffe∣rent Senses of one Word, and there is not any Affi∣nity or Resemblance between any of them. Basar (to which answers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek) is subject, in the Sacred Writings, to as great a Multiplicity of Meanings, as might easily be proved. And to conclude, the word Iad is of a vast Latitude; I know none that equals it as to its wonderful Variety of Senses. It is to be understood and applied at least twenty several ways in the Old Testament: but yet, though it is sometimes difficult, it is ne∣ver impossible to distinguish the Senses, These

Words and many* 1.330 more are Proofs of what I at first asserted, that there is a great Number of Words in the Scripture of Different Significations, and that the Hebrew Tongue especially abounds with such. For the Hebrews have but few Words, very few in comparison of what there are in other Languages; but they make their small Stock go as far as it can, by making one Word serve for diverse things, so that oftentimes the subject Matter must determine the Signification. I need say no more. Look but into the Margins of the English Bible, and there you may be fully satisfied from the Diversity of rendring the Texts, that many Nouns as well as Verbs have different and unlike Meanings, which we must needs apprehend to be the Cause why some Places are Obscure and Difficult.

CHAP. VIII.

Many Hebrew Nouns whereby the several sorts of Brute Animals are signified, admit of different Interpreta∣tions, which is one Reason why some Places of Scrip∣ture are obscure and difficult. The Great Fish, Ion. 1. 17. which devour'd Jonas, was a Whale, proper∣ly and strictly so called: but perhaps the Belly of this Fish is not to be understood in a strict Sense of the Abdomen or Iower Venter, but of the Wide and Capacious Mouth of that Animal. The proper Names of some Birds and Insects are ambiguous. The Au∣thor's particular Opinion concerning Kirjonim, 2 Kings 6. 25. the Doves Dung that was sold at so dear a rate at the Siege of Samaria. What the Locusts were that John Baptist fed on in the Wilder∣ness. The Names of Flowers, Trees, Plants, men∣tioned in the Bible, are somewhat uncertain. So are the Words for Minerals, Precious Stones, Musical Instruments. Yet this is so far from being a Ble∣mish to the Sacred Writings, that it is a Commenda∣tion of them. The Hebrew Measures (whether of Longitude or Capacity) are another Instance of the Difficulty which arises from our being ignorant of the exact Significations of some Words in the Bible. The Words whereby the Hebrew Weights are express'd are something dubious. And so are those whereby the Jewish Coins are denoted. Likewise there is Vncer∣tainty in the Greek and Roman Coins mentioned in the New Testament.

IN farther Prosecution of this I will observe, that many Hebrew Words which signify Brute Ani∣mals (whether four-footed Beasts and other Crea∣tures

on the Earth, or Fishes, and Birds, and In∣sects) admit of Different Interpretations, and may be applied to Animals of divers kinds. It is ac∣knowledged both by the Antient and Modern Jews themselves, that they have no certain Account of the Proper Names of divers of those Animals which are mentioned in the 11th Chapter of Leviticus, some of which were forbidden, others allowed to be eaten by that People. When they come to speak of some of them particularly, they exceedingly disagree about them, and variously determine what they are. Sus is the known Hebrew Word for a Horse, and yet it is the Word for a Crane in Isa. 38. 14. Reim or Reem, which we translate Vnicorn, Numb. 23. 22. Iob 39. 9. and Psal. 92. 10. and in other Places, is thought by* 1.331 some to be the Mono∣••eros or Indian Ass: but† 1.332 Bochart dislikes it, and with great Industry endeavours to prove it to be another Beast, viz. an Oryx, a kind of wild Goat, with very sharp Horns. It is rendred a wild Bull, Deut. 33. 17. in our Margin, because perhaps the Text speaks of Horns in the Plural, which our Transla∣tors thought could not be attributed to the Vnicorn. But when we read there of the Horns' of an Vnicorn, (for so' 'tis in the Original, though 'tis translated Vnicorns) why may we not say that the Plural is put for the Singular, as is very usual? There is an Vni∣corn properly so call'd, if we may credit‖ 1.333 Antient Writers; and such an one was seen in the last Age, if Faith is to be given to‖‖ 1.334 Modern Writers; An Unicorn, saith a late Traveller, is an African Crea∣ture, only known in the Province of Agaos, in the

Kingdom of Damotes: though perhaps heretofore it wa no Stranger in other Parts. I will not dis∣pute here how the Vnicorn and Rhinoceros differ, or whether they do at all, which Mr. Ray denies, and thinks he hath sufficient Ground for it from Mo∣dern Voyages: but 'tis enough for our under∣standing the foresaid Texts of Scripture, that it is the Name of a sierce strong Animal, famous for its Horn or Horns. If it be the Rhinoceros, its Horn ariseth out of its Trunk, and turns up: if it be the Monoceros or Vnicorn, properly so call'd, the Horn is in the middle of its Forehead, and exalted. St. Ierom sometimes renders it an Vnicorn, and some∣times a Rhinoceros, and we may suppose it to be ei∣ther.

Very strangely different are the Significations which are assigned of that Name, which the Wise Man gives to an Animal that he commends for its going well, calling it Zarzir Motnajim, Prov. 30. 31. which in express Terms in English is girt in or about the Loins; which our Translators render a Grey∣hound, according to R. David, and several other Hebrew Writers, who affirm that this Creature is here meant, because it is slender in the Loins, girt up as 'twere in those Parts. According to the Chaldee Paraphrase and Vulgar Latin, it is a Cock: according to R. Levi, a Leopard, that be∣ing a Beast that is slender and strong in the Loins. R. Aben Ezra, and some others, think it to be a Bee, that brisk and nimble Insect; and some fancy it to be a Starling. But Iunius and Tremellius and Buxtorf, who render it a Horse, seem to me to bid fairest for Truth here. Nay indeed, what fitter Epithet could there be to express this Animal than this Zarzir Motna∣jim, Girt about the Loins? It is a Creature of great

Use and Service in Journeying, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••herefore often∣times girt for that purpose: it is ••generous Beast, and useful in War, and therefore •• girt for riding. Which I take to be the meaning of a Horse tied (for it is in the Singular in the Hebrew) 2 Kings 7. 10. i. e. girt for the Battel, for the•• ext speaks of War-horses. And then, going well (for which it hath particular Commendation here) is the known Property of this Animal for the most part: so that without any straining, we must acknowledg this to the Periphrasis of a Horse, a Girted Animal. Iacmur in Deut. 14. 5. we translate a Fallow-Deer; but according to the LXX, St. Ierom, and Pagnin, it is a Buffle or Wild Oxe: it is a kind of a Goat, say R. Kimchi, and Ionah, and Bochart: it is a Wild Ass, saith Forster. But what particular Species of Beasts it is, perhaps no Man can exactly tell, nor is it at all necessary that he should Our own Tran∣slation, which agrees with that o•• Iunius and Tre∣mellius, seems to be most eligible If Bochart may be credited, Cats (wild ones he means, not those that are tame) are spoken of i•• Scripture: for though 'tis difficult, i•• not impossible, to deter∣mine what sort of Creatures is meant by Zijim and Ijim, Isa. 13. 21. Ch. 34. 24. Jer•• 50. 39. yet he by the former will needs have cati, feles, to be un∣derstood: but truly he might as well have assigned any other Wild Animal. Koach Lev. 11. 30. is translated a Chameleon, according to the Septua∣gint and Latin Version, but 'tis a ••izard according to Pagnin and Bochart.* 1.335 Some think 'tis a Weesel, others a Frog or Toad, some a Snail: and thus they run divisions, when perhaps there's no ground for any of them; for the Name of Animals are

very uncertain, and dubious, and therefore it's great folly to be very solicitous, especially to be peremptory about them. Moses's Rod was turn'd into a Crocodile, saith the Learned Lightfoot, for he holds, that that is the meaning of Nacash in Exod. 4. 3. The Leviathan described in Iob 41. is a Whale, say Interpreters generally, and very truly, I think: but Pagnin holds it to be a Sea-Serpent or Dragon: and Beza, and Bochart, and Deodate, say 'tis a Croco∣dile. And Behemoth is join'd with the Leviathan, because (as one of these Writers thinks) it was its Fellow-fish and Companion in the same place. If the former was the Crocodile of Nile, this is (saith he) the Hippotamus or River-Horse there. But if we peruse the Description given of this Creature, we shall find that it belongs rather, if not only, to a Land-Animal; and therefore I take the part of the Old Interpreters, who by Behemoth understand the Elephant, the greatest that we know of Terre∣strial Beasts. If it be not that Creature, it is not now known what it is.

A Whale is generally believ'd to be that* 1.336 Great Fish which swallow'd up Ionas: but the† 1.337 Author I last named, and Aldrovandus and some others hold that it was a Carcharias or Lamia, a sort of Dog∣fish which hath a vast Gullet, so that a Man may pass through it, and accordingly Men have been often found in the Bellies of this kind of Fish. But as for the Whale, it hath (as all Creatures that have Lungs, and do breathe) a narrow Gullet, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a strait passage is more convenient to let out the Air, and draw it in with greater force and vehe∣mency; and therefore (say they) this could not be the Fish that swallowed Ionas. That this is the

particular Make of this Fish I do not deny, for * 1.338 Scaliger affirms upon his own Inspection and Knowledg that a Whale hath a narrow Throat, scarce half a Foot in compass. Aldrovandus and other Natural Historians attest the straitness of these Parts. But as for the Inference which these Persons draw from such Premises, I cannot admit of it. Nor could these Learned Men have done so, if they had consider'd that Ionas's being swallow'd up by this Fish was an Extraordinary thing, and such as was in the way of a Miracle. It is said, the Lord prepared this Fish to swallow up Jonas, ver. 7. God in an unusual and wonderful manner effected the Deliverance of the Prophet, by appointing this Whale to receive him, and rescue him from the raging Sea. He fitted and prepared him to take him down into the Caverns of his Belly 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he so framed his narrow Throat that he was able to swal∣low him down whole. The Parts were so stretch'd at that time, that a greater than Ionas might have pass'd through. There is no reason then to object the Natural Frame and Make of the Fish. But we may rest in the Septuagint's rendring the word, who expresly call it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Whale; and especially we may be satisfied with our Saviour's Determination, who hath limited the Signification of those words [a great Fish,] and hath expresly told us that Ionas was in the Whale's Belly, Mat. 12. 40. Though the Book of Ionas mentions not a Whale, yet here we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ssured that it was that very Fish which was made the happy means of the Prophet's preserva∣tion. And yet here may be some Uncertainty still, for a Whale perhaps may not be taken strictly in this place, but may only signify one of the Ceta∣ceous

Animals, among which those are reckon'd that have Lungs, as the Dolphin, Seal or Sea-calf, Por∣pus, Pristis or Saw-fish, Tuny. We may hold that some other Fish of the Nature of a Whale, but not of that particular Frame as to its Throat, is here meant, and so the former Objection va∣nisheth.

But I think there is a way to reconcile this, and yet at the same time we may assert, that our Saviour means a Whale properly and strictly so called; that is, as 'tis credibly said to be, a Great Fish with a Little Throat, so little besure that a Man cannot have any passage through it, and con∣sequently that Ionas had not. If I may be allowed to offer my particular Opinion, I conceive that when 'tis said by the Prophet Ionas concerning himself, that he was in the Belly of the Fish, Chap. 1. 17. and when it is said by our Saviour that he was in the Belly of the Whale, Mat. 12. 40. the word [Belly] is not to be understood in a strict Sense. The* 1.339 Hebrew word in the former place is of a Large Extent, and denotes rather the Bowels than the Belly; i. e. it is oftentimes in the Sacred Writ understood of the Inward and Vnseen Parts of any thing, which are call'd the Bowels. The Greek word in the latter place is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is of a larger Signification, and imports any middle, or any inward and deep place, as in Iohn 7. 38. especially some remote hollow place; and so here we are to understand by it some hollow part 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Fish's Body, and consequently it may denote to us not the Lowest Ventricle, which is usually call'd the Belly, but the Mouth, which is a Concave Part of the Body. And this is here most Emphatically ap∣plied

to this particular Fish, because (as we are certainly informed) it hath a Mouth, (by which I mean all that large place on both sides and in the middle between the Lips or outward Mouth and the Passage down the Throat, all which is of a most Wonderful and Prodigious Magnitude) it hath, I say, a Mouth of so vast a Capacity, that it may rather be call'd a Belly than a Mouth, and therefore is not unfitly termed so, although in propriety and strictness of Speaking, it is not the Belly, but the Mouth. We must take notice then, that this is the Language and Idiom of the Sacred Writers: So Beten, venter, signifies not always the Belly properly, but the inward Parts in general, as in 1 Kings 7. 20. and Prov. 22. 18. which latter we translate within thee. Kereb likewise, which is another word for venter, is usually rendred me∣dium, intimum, intestinum: the word is used as * 1.340 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Greeks, and as Vmbilicus among the Latins, for the middle of any thing. That Belly or Bowels are used to signify what is inmost and hidden, is clear from Psal. 40. 8. Thy Law is in the midst of my Bowels, shut up and reposited within my Heart: and so in Iob 15. 35. Ch. 30. 27. The Belly in the Stile of Scripture, and in other Writers, is usually mention'd to express any In∣ward Receptacle or Place to receive and contain a thing. Among Anatomists it hath been made use of in the latitude of the word, to signify not only the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 properly so call'd, but the other Cavities of the Body, the Head and Breast. So in that Comparison which our Saviour made between him∣self and Ionas, you may remember that† 1.341 the Heart of the Earth answers to the Whale's Belly, to let you

see that both these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are the same, and signify some dark and remote Re∣ceptacles, where Things or Persons are laid up for a time. As Ionas was in the Whale's Belly, so Christ was in the Heart of the Earth; to acquaint us that as the word Heart is not understood here strictly and properly, so neither is the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it signifies Belly. The Heart of the Earth was the Grave or Sepulcher where our Saviour lay, though 'twas not strictly speaking the Heart: so by the Whale's Belly is meant the place where Ionas was held and imprison'd, though it was not the Belly in the strictness of Speech. But as the Grave is to the Earth, so is the Mouth to the Body: our Saviour was hidden in the one, Ionas was preserv'd in the other, viz. in the Mouth of the Whale. And the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used in Iob. 7. 38. to denote, not properly the Belly, (though we render it so) but the inward Part of Man. Out of his Belly shall flow Rivers of living Water, alluding to the Cisterns or Vessels of Stone, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, call'd by the Seventy In∣terpreters, Prov. 5. 15. out of which by certain Pipes or Cocks they let out the Water in abun∣dance. And further it might be observ'd, that those words which express these inward and invi∣sible Parts have their Denomination from the hol∣lowness of them, as Kebah, ventriculus, is from Kab or Kabab, cavavit: and so Kobah (of the same Signi∣fication) is from the same Root, and is so named from its Cavity, and that for this reason, because these inward Vessels and Parts are able to hold and contain things, and also are Channels and Passages to convey and transmit them. These are pro∣perly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and are call'd so from their hollow∣ness and capaciousness. Thus in the Matter before us, though we do not restrain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Abdo∣men,

the Belly strictly so named, yet we take it in its proper and genuine Denotation, that is, as it signifies that Vast and Wide Cavity of the Whale which Ionas was taken into; in this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this Capacious Hollowness was the distressed Prophet lodged three Days and three Nights. In this Belly of Hell (for so likewise he calls it, Chap. 2. 2. and by this Phrase we further see that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the word here used by the Septuagint, is not properly taken, but signifies some Dark In∣visible Receptacle) he was both tormented and preserved: and at last, as we read in the Sequel of this History, when the Lord spake unto this Fish, it vomited out Jonah on the dry Land, Chap. 2. 10. which (let me observe to you) further intimates to us the truth of this Notion which I have pre∣sented to you, for Vomiting is an Emission of some∣thing, not out of the Belly, but out of the Mouth or Stomach. If Ionas had been in the Belly or Entrails of the Fish, he had been emitted another way, not by Vomition. Thus I have briefly given my Conceptions of that Text of Scripture, and from the whole it is evident that it speaks of a Whale properly so call'd, (for our Blessed Saviour positively and expresly determines it to be such) and of the Vast Cavity of its Mouth and Iaws, which in respect of their huge extension, may deserve the Name of a Belly, rather than of those Parts. I know that the Almighty God, who made the Creature at first, could afterwards have fra∣med and disposed its Throat, or any other Passa∣ges, as he pleas'd: With the greatest Reverence I acknowledg this. But if we can solve the Works of God and his Providence in a natural way, I think we are obliged to do it, and at the same time we adore the God of Nature. Although it must be

confess'd, that if we respect the Power and Sove∣raignty, the Providence and Will of God, it might be the Belly of this Fish properly so denominated, which was the Place where the Fugitive Prophet was lodged; yet seeing Naturalists have given us this Account of the Whale, that the Passage of its Throat is so strait, that a Man's Body cannot be convey'd through it; and seeing we are not sure that God alter'd the Frame and Disposition of this Part; and seeing likewise that the Word which the Holy Ghost useth is capable of a double Sense, we may be invited on these Considerations to think that it was the Vast Mouth of this Fish which is here meant. And truly the Wonderfulness of the Occurrence is not at all hereby abated; for to pre∣serve Ionas so long in the Whale's Mouth, was as great a Miracle (if we consider all things) as to preserve him in its Lower Belly.

Then as for Fowls, Birds, and Insects, there is a great Ambiguity in the Old Testament, as to some of these. Tsippor is a common Name of all Fowls, as in Psal. 104. 17. and other Places: but some∣times it is more particularly taken for a Sparrow, as in Psal. 102. 7. So in Psal. 84. 3. some certain Species of Birds are signified, because the Swallow is men∣tioned in the same Place. Kore, 1 Sam. 26. 20. which we translate a Partridg, is a Night-raven, ac∣cording to the 70 Interpreters: It is a Woodcock or Snipe, saith* 1.342 One whom I have often quoted. Ajah, Lev. 11. 14. Iob 28: 7. is rendred in the Septua∣gint and Vulgar Version, and in ours, a Vulture: but according to Arias Montanus, it is varia a vis, i. e. a Pie: according to others it is a Crow; and 'tis thought by others to be a Kite: But we need not

be solicitous to know which of these it is, for it is likely we can never attain it; or if we could, it would be of little Advantage to us, for the Sense of these Places of Scripture depends not on our knowing what sort of Animal this or that is. Deror, Psal. 84. 4. is in our English Translation a Swallow, but according to the Greek and Latin it is a Turtle, and so Bochart indeavours to prove. Kippod, which we translate a Bittern, Isa. 14. 23. ch. 34. 11. is ac∣cording to R. Solomon a kind of Owl; but Luther will have it to be an Eagle. Yea, some rank it a∣mong other Species of Animals, for according to the Vulgar Latin and Pagnin it is a Hedg-hog; ac∣cording to R. Kimchi and R. Ioseph, a Snail; accord∣ing to others, a Beaver. Avenarius comes nearest the Truth, who tells us it is the Name of a Fowl unknown to us in these Parts. But this we are cer∣tain of, (and we need not look any further) that it is some Fowl or other Animal that frequents de∣sert and desolate Places, because of these the Text speaks. So when the Psalmist complains that he is like a Pelican in the Wilderness, and like an Owl of the Desart, Psal. 102. 6. we need not be inquisitive whether the former word Kaath be rightly tran∣slated, or whether it should be rendred a Bittern, as 'tis by Ierom and Bochart; nor are we to care whether that latter word Kos certainly signifies that flying Creature which we call an Owl, or whether it be an Houp, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Vpupa, according to Symma∣chus; or a Night-raven, according to the Seventy, and St. Ierom; or a Falcon, according to R. Solomon and Pagnin; or a Pelican, according to some others. I. R. Kimchi was in the right, who saith, 'tis the Name of some unclean Bird not known to us. But this is enough, that it was some Solitary Creature of the feather'd Order that kept in remote Places,

because it is said to be an Inhabitant of the Desart; and so it is used here to set forth the present Soli∣tude and mournful Condition of the Psalmist. Cha∣sidah, which we translate a Stork, Psal. 104. 17. and Ier. 8. 7. is, according to St. Ierom, a Kite: but the same Word in Iob 39. 13, is rendred by us an Ostrich; and so 'tis in the Vulgar Latin; which shews the Ambiguity of the Word. Tachmas, Lev. 11. 16. is translated by us a Night-hawk; by the Targum, the Seventy, St. Ierom, and Arias Mon∣tanus, an Owl; by the Arabick and Avenarius, a Swallow; by Bochart, an Ostrich. The like Disagree∣ment is there in rendring the word Tinshemeth, Lev. 11. 18. which we english, a Swan; but according to Arias Montanus, it is Porphyrio; according to R. Solomon, a Bat; according to Bochart, a Chameleon: Some say 'tis a Bittern; others an Owl; others a Daw. And to let you see the Uncertainty of the Word, in the very same Chapter it is reckon'd among the Creeping things, ver. 30. and is rendre•• a Mole. To add one more, viz. Anaphah, which we render a Heron, Lev. 11. 19. but according to the Seventy it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; according to the Vul∣gar Latin Charadrios, i. e. a Sea-bird, call'd by some Icterus. It is a Kite, say the Talmudists and Tar∣gum. It is a Ring-dove, a Pie, a Lapwing, a lesser sort of Owl, say others. It is a Bird call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Anopaea, (which perhaps comes from Anapha) saith Bochant. It is probable that this and several others of those Fowls (as well as other Animals) menti∣oned in Lev. 11. and Deut. 14. are not exactly ren∣dred; but we cannot tell when they are, or when they are not. And I do not see there can be any help for this in the World, unless you can suppose that some Criticks are infallible. This only we can do; after a diligent and impartial Search into

the different Opinions concerning the Words, we may acquiesce in that which we think to be most reasonable.

Here I will insert something concerning that Pas∣sage in 2 Kings 6. 25. The fourth part of a Cab of Doves Dung was sold for five pieces of Silver; which refers to a known sort of Fowls, but hath been much controverted by Critical Expositors. What is the true Import here of Kirjonim (which we translate Doves Dung) is not easy to determine; for some de∣rive the former part of the Word from Charar, sic∣citas, calor, exustio: and others from Chur, which hath various Significations, as Whiteness, a Hole, or hollow Place, a Paunch, Dung. And the Talmudists read it Dibjonim, because forsooth 'tis a modester Word. Some think it to be Dung, properly so call'd, the Execrement of Pigeons; but then they much differ about the Use of it. Rabbi Ionas, one of the chiefest of the Jewish Doctors, hath this Concelt, that in the time of the Siege they used Doves Dung dried to kindle their Fires: this serv'd the People of Samaria instead of Sticks, which now were not to be had. But this seems to be an extra∣vagant Fancy, because (besides that 'tis questiona∣ble whether this could be made serviceable for Few∣el) the Text speaks of Scarcity and want of Food, not of Firing. The Famine was so great, that not only an Ass's Head, but this Kirjonim (which was some Edible) was sold at an excessive rate. Others say they used Doves Dung, in the time of the Siege, instead of Salt. But this is as groundless as the for∣mer Opinion, for (not to dispute whether the thing be practicable or no) Persons are not solici∣tous in a raging Famine for Salt, but for Meat. Another tells us, that it was to dung their Fields within the City, that they might have a Harvest

at home the ensuing Year, if the Siege should last; and they were not permitted to go abroad. But this is no ways credible, for either they had much Ground within the City for that purpose, or they had but little. The former is wholly improbable, for in frequented Cities (such as Samaria was) their Habitations take up the greatest part of the Place; so that there is but little left for Arable. And if there was but little, it was not worth their Time and Pains to bestow Compost upon it. Moreover, 'tis reasonable to think that those distress'd fa∣mi••h'd Creatures were eager about relieving their present Wants, but were not concern'd to pro∣vide against the ensuing Year. Another of the Jewish Rabbies understands this Kirjonim, of that which was contained in the Crop or Maw of Pige∣ons, the Corn they had pick'd up in the Fields; this (saith he) was taken out when they return'd back, and was eaten for want of better Food. But this Rabbi forgot that when the Famine was so grievous and pressing, it is likely the Pigeons were seized on in their Houses, and not suffer'd to fly abroad. Or supposing this latter, yet we are to remember that the Fields about Samaria were stripp'd of their Corn at that time, and therefore those Animals could not return home with that Prey. Others think the Guts and Entrails of Pige∣ons are meant here by this Word; but why they rather than the Garbage of Other Fowls should be mentioned, is not accountable. Monsieur Bochart, the Great Goliah-Critick, tells us, it signifies none of these, but he gives us an Invention of his own, viz. that this Kirjonim is a sort of Cicer, a Coarse kind of Food, but such as the Jews sometimes did eat. it is the same, he saith, with Kali, in 2 Sam. 17. 28. and this is the Name that the Arabians

give it. But this Learned Author may receive a Confutation from that Text it self; for if this Kali had been any Coarse contemptible Food, 'tis not at all probable that the Persons there mentioned would have made a Present of it to King David. Questionless they brought of the best Provision to him, and this sufficiently appears from the other Gifts which are in the same Place enumerated. This Kali is rendred by the Vulgar Latin Polenta, and by our Translators parched Corn; perhaps parch'd and dried after it had been soak'd in Wa∣ter, and was a kind of an early Essay of Malt. But whatever it was, it is evident that it was some Choice Present, and therefore this last Interpreta∣tion is not to be allowed. But what is, is very hard to tell. I subscribe to this Learned Writer in this, that Grain or Corn is here meant. But it was not any one particular sort of them, nor could it be that Kali before-mentioned. Wherefore, if I may have leave to give in my Conjecture, (after all that hath been said) it is this, that this Kirjonim was the Offals or Refuse of all sorts of Corn and Grain, which was wont to be given to Pigeons at such time of the Year, when they had nothing abroad to feed on. For the Jews tell us, that they anti∣ently kept Pigeons in certain Houses and Places built on purpose for them, (as 'tis with us at this Day) and there relieved them with Food when there was occasion. This Refuse-Grain, this Tail∣Corn, these Sweepings of the Floor, these vile Remains, are here call'd Dung, by way of Con∣tempt. This comports with the Stile of Scripture, which uses the word* 1.343 Dung to denote the Baseness and Vileness of a thing: and here it is join'd with

an Ass's Head, which was the Vilest sort of Food; and therefore both together do fully express the Extremity of the Famine at that time. And also this Vile Dross and Siftings of all kind of Grain might be call'd Dung by them, because these being very gross, yielded abundant Matter for Excre∣ments. This seems to me to be a very plain and obvious Interpretation of the Hebrew Word, but let the Reader be Judg. It is certain it can't be meant of Pigeons Dung, strictly so call'd, for nei∣ther humane Excrements, nor any others, are ca∣pable of being Food. If we meet with any thing to the contrary, as in Isa. 36. 12. 2 Kings 18. 27. it is spoken in an Hyperbolical Strain. But no more of this ungrateful Subject. Perhaps we have lost the true Meaning of Kirjonim. Such Words and Names of things as these, which are of no fre∣quent Use, by reason of their great Antiquity, are forgot, and not known by us. And this is not pe∣culiar to the Hebrew Tongue alone; the very same happens in other Languages, which are not so Antient, as it were easy to demonstrate.

Then as to insects, the Word which we render a Spider, Prov. 30. 28. is Stellio in the Old Latin Version: and the Inquisitive Bochart labours to make it probable, that that is the Creature there meant, viz. an Ewet, a little Spotted Animal like a Lizard. I will mention here the Locusts, Lev. 11. 22. (rank'd with the Beetle and Grashopper) which the Jews were allowed to eat: and I will take occasion thence to speak of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Locusts, which Iohn Baptist fed upon in the Wilderness, Mat. 3. 4. Mark 1. 6. they being the very same sort of Food which are mentioned here in Leviticus among the Species of Creeping Fowls. I know there are other Opinions concerning them. The Ebionites of

old, as* 1.344 Epiphanius relates, held that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was a Mistake for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Word is used Exod. 16. 31. and Numb. 11. 9. But this wild Interpreta∣tion hath no Bottom at all, and therefore hath been universally rejected. Some have thought, as† 1.345 One tells us, that these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were Sea-Fish, either Crabs or Lobsters: and why not Shrimps? But guess how likely 'twas that St. Iohn should meet with Sea-Fish in the Wilderness; besides that these were a dainty sort of Food, and not so befitting this mortified Hermit. Others take these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not to be Sensitive Creatures, but Vegetables, which was the Sentiment of some of the Fathers.‖ 1.346 Theo∣phylact thought them to be a certain kind of Herb, some particular distinct Species of Plants. But * 1.347 others of the Antient Christian Writers took them to be Tops of Shrubs and Trees; and among the Moderns this is held by Theophrastus and Paracel∣sus. † 1.348 One Author is very particular in giving his Judgment of this Word, for he saith it signi∣fies, 1. Little Shoots and Tendrels of Trees. 2. Young Sprouts of Plants. 3. Asparagus. Ba∣ronius and Erasmus understand the Word of the up∣permost Parts or Toppings of young Trees, which they think St. Iohn cropp'd: and our Dr. Ham∣mond favours this Opinion; but‖ 1.349 Sir. N. Knatch∣bull very heartily defends it. But I see no Founda∣tion at all for it, for the Words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have no such Signification in any Author whatsoe∣ver. It is true, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Plural 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (used by Homer) signify the Tops of Mountains: but what is this to the purpose, unless they think

the Baptist had such a Miraculous Stomach as first to remove the Tops of Mountains, and then to eat them? I can't imagine any other occasion of this Opinion than this, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is summum, extre∣mum, whence some fancied that the Word signifi∣ed the Tops or Extremities of Plants. And be∣sides, the Antient Writers (from whom the later received the Notion) thought not of the Locusts, which were the ordinary Food of the Eastern Peo∣ple, (as is evident from the foresaid Place in Levi∣ticus) and were much bigger in those Countries than in others. These are the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Mark; these are the Locusts which the Holy Baptist made his Repast whilst he lived in the Desart: for that those of meaner Rank, and such especially in the Eastern Countries as convers'd in the Fields and Desarts, fed on this sort of Meat, is sufficiently testified by Aristotle, Ae••ian, Solinus, Pliny, and other Natural Histori∣ans, who speak of this kind of Insects: also by Stra∣bo and* 1.350 Diodorus Siculus, who report that some People were call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because they fed generally on this Food; and by the Learned Fa∣ther † 1.351 St. Ierom. But the most satisfactory Author on this Subject is Ludolphus, in his Ethiopick or Abys∣sine History, who proves that Locusts are an agree∣able Food to the People of Africk and the Southern Parts of Asia; and that they are of very great Bulk, and not like those in Europe: and in short, that they were the usual Sustenance of some People in the East. What then can be plainer than this, that St. Iohn fed on these Animals in the Wilder∣ness, it being a sort of Food that the Hebrew Peo∣ple were no Strangers to, and consequently that

this is the true Interpretation of Mat. 3. 4.? But it must be acknowledg'd, that Other Texts are not so easily understood: there is a great Ambiguity in those words whereby Animals are express'd▪ and 'tis somewhat difficult to reach the true meaning of them, as may sufficiently appear from what Monsieur Bochart hath said of those Animals that are spoken of in Scripture: though truly I am of opinion, that that Great Man hath sometimes (if not often) rais'd Doubts about them when there was little or no Ground for it, as 'tis the fault of almost all Great Criticks to render Words and Things dubious when there is no occasion for it.

In the next place, I will observe that the Names of Flowers, Plants and Herbs among the Hebrews are scarcely known to us. Otherwise certainly the Hebrew word which in our English Bibles is rendred a Rose, Cant. 2. 1. Isa. 35. 1. would not have been translated a Flower in the former place, and a Lilly in the latter by the Vulgar Interpreter. And* 1.352 Buxtorf was so sensible of the ambiguous Sense of this word, that he tells us, it is either a Rose or a Lilly. The† 1.353 Plant which God prepared for Ionas, to be a Shade to him, is rendred by some a kind of Vine, by others a Cucumber, by the Seventy Coloquintida, or the Bitter Gourd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (call'd by the Botanists the Apple of Colo∣quintida, and the Gall of the Earth, and the Death of Plants) by the Vulgar Latin an Ivy, by others (as Mercer and Montanus) that Plant which we call Palma Christi, and by our English Translators (ac∣cording to the Arabick) a Gourd. So discrepant are the Judgments of Interpreters about this Mat∣ter.

And the Geneva, Helvetian and Danish Bibles retain the Hebrew word Kikaion, because they knew not what to make of it. Nor are Authors less divided about the Gopher-wood, Gen. 6. 14. of which the Ark was made, for no less than Seven or Eight sorts of Trees are mention'd by them on this occasion. Some say it is Square-Timber, because 'tis rendred by the Greek Inter∣preters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: others think it to be Smooth-Timber, because in the Vulgar Latin it is Ligna levigata. According to the Chaldee Para∣phrasts, and most of the Rabins, it is Cedar: accor∣ding to Munster and the Geneva Translation, it is a Pine-Tree. Iunius thinks it is a middle sort be∣tween this and a Fir. Bochart and Fuller vote it to be a Cypress: and the* 1.354 latter hath this fanciful no∣tion concerning it, that among the Gentiles the Cypress was always held to be a Fatal Tree, and was used at Funerals, because the Ark at the Flood, in which Noah was shut up as in a Sepulcher, was made of this Wood. Some take it for a Fir, and others for a Turpentine-Tree. And Pererius (that he might say something singular, and different from all the rest) fancies it was not the Wood of one sort of Tree, but that it was made of divers Kinds. But the Translators of the English Bible retain the Hebrew word it self, because they were not sa∣tisfied with any of these Significations. Eolah and allah and allon, Ezek. 6. 13. Josh. 24. 26. Isa. 6. 13. according to different Interpreters are rendred not only an Oak, but an Elm, an Alder-Tree, a Tur∣pentine, a Lime, or Teil-Tree, a Pine, a Chesnut. What kind of Trees Algummim or Almuggim, 1 Kings 10. 11. 2 Chron. 2. 8. Chap. 9. 10, 11.

were, is not easy to tell: yea, the Hebrew Do∣ctors think Coral (which we can't properly call a Tree) is meant by them. But* 1.355 Grotius hath warn'd us not to trust to the Rabins, especially the latter ones, in their Interpretations which they give of Herbs and Trees. What particular kind of Wood that is which is call'd Shittim, (of which you read so often in Exodu••) and is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, incorruptible Wood by the LXX, is not agreed among the Learned; some thinking it to be Cedar, others the Pitch-Tree, others Box: but Ierom and Theo∣dotion take it to be the White-Thorn, or a Tree very like it. The truth is, we are certain of no∣thing but this, that it was some very excellent and choice Wood which they found to be very Useful in Building. It is probable that it was denominated from the Place where it grew, and whence it was fetched, (for of Shittim we read in Numb. 25. 1. Iosh. 2. 1. and in other places) but what kind of Tree it was, is uncertain: for which reason both the Vulgar Latin and English Transla∣tors thought fit to retain the Hebrew word it self. For we are in the dark as to these things: and how can it be otherwise, seeing 'tis not to be doubted that they had Trees and Plants in the Eastern Countries which are not in these places? and therefore we know them not. So for Ani∣mals, of which we spake before, there were some proper to those Regions: and because these We∣stern Parts of the World have them not, we are ignorant of them. Wherefore 'tis no wonder that several Names of Sensitive and Vegetative Creatures mention'd in the Old Testament are unintelligible.

Whether the Hebrew Bedolach, Bdellium, Gen. 2. 12. be a Tree or a Stone, or a Gum, or a Pearl, is disputed. Pliny and Diascorides mention Bdellium as Wood or a Tree, and Iunius (upon the place) is of the same Mind. Others, and particularly * 1.356 Iosephus, understand it to be an Aromatick Gum, or the Juice of some Odoriferous Tree. The Jews generally hold it to be a Precious Stone; but some of them think it is a Crystal, others a Jasper, and others of them a Carbuncle, it being† 1.357 so rendred by the Septuagint. Bochart and some other Moderns tell us that Bedolach is not Bdellium or any other Precious Stone, but a Margarite, a Pearl of the Sea, which is usually fetch'd up in that Maritime Part of Arabia which is call'd Havilah in the foremen∣tion'd Text. And to corroborate this Opinion, he further adds, that Manna is said to be (Numb. 11. 7.) of the colour of Bdellium, i. e. white, which is the singular Ornament and Beauty of a Pearl. It might be observ'd here, that the words for Minerals and Precious Stones are very ambiguous. I will mention only one, viz. Nophek, the first Pre∣cious Stone in the second Order of those in the High Priest's Breast-plate: this is rendred by St. Ierom a Carbuncle, by Onkelos an Emerald, by some Interpreters a Topaz, and by others a Ruby. And there is almost the like difference in inter∣preting some of the other Words whereby other Stones are signified. For indeed, it is the Con∣fession of the Hebrew Doctors, as Buxtorf and others tell us, that the Names of Precious Stones in Scripture are unknown to us. There is such a discrepancy, saith a‖ 1.358 Learned Hebrician, about

these among all Interpreters, whether Christians or Jews, that no Man is able to determine any thing certain.

The same may be said of Musical Instruments mention'd in Scripture: which have employ'd many Criticks and Grammarians, but with little Satisfaction. But I have said enough for my pre∣sent purpose, viz. to shew you that the Hebrew Names of divers things are not well understood, which sometimes begets a misunderstanding con∣cerning the things themselves. There are indeed among the Greeks and Latins a great number of words of Different Senses, but the number is far greater in Hebrew, by reason of the paucity of words in this Tongue; for there being many Things, but few Words to express them, it will follow that sundry of them must be of various Significations, and consequently that it is no easy matter to distinguish between them. This may be the reason why the Septuagint have inserted seve∣ral Hebrew words into their Version, namely, be∣cause they could not tell how to express them in Greek, their Signification being so Doubtful. Hence also some Proper Names are translated by these In∣terpreters as Appellatives; which is done also some∣times by the Vulgar Latin, because those Names are seemingly and as to their Sound no other than Appellatives: however, the Dubious meaning of them prompted the Translators to take them as such. Nor are we to think that this Ambiguity is any Blemish or Disparagement to the Bible, and that for this reason, because we find it no where but in those Matters which are Indifferent, and the Knowledg of which is not indispensably required of us. Nay, on the contrary, this Difficulty which we meet with in many Words and Passages in these

Holy Writings, is so far from disparaging them, that it is an undeniable Proof of the Unparallell'd Antiquity of them. We are assured hence, that they have the Priority of all other Books; we may rationally gather that a great part of this Volume at least was composed and written before any other Writings were extant. If this Sacred Book were of a later Date, we should have had few or none of those Difficult Terms that it abounds with now. We could not then have a more Convincing Argument of its being Exceeding Antient, than its being Dark in some places. And therefore instead of complaining of the Obscurity of these Writings, let us reverence and admire its Matchless Anti∣quity, and congratulate our own Happiness, that the Divine Providence hath entrusted us with the First and Oldest Records of Truth in the World.

I will go on then still with my present Under∣taking, and shew in other particulars the Dubious Import of some words in these Sacred Writings, and attempt▪ to clear some of them. I will here speak of the Measures, Weights, and Coins men∣tion'd in Scripture, which are another Instance of the Difficulty which arises from our being ignorant of the exact Significations of some Words in the Sacred Volume. The Hebrew Measures are either of Application or of Capacity, i. e. such Measures as are applied and laid unto things, or such as hold and contain things. To the former sort belongs chiefly the Gubit, the famous Standing Measure of the Hebrews. But this is twofold, either Common or Sacred: the former is the length of the Arm from the Elbow to the end of the middle Finger, according to the Dimensions of Men of the greatest Stature; and it is generally agreed that this is a Foot and a half, or (which is the same) half a

Yard. This was the Measure for ordinary things, as Ogg's Bedstead, which was* 1.359 in length nine Cu∣bits, i. e. thirteen Foot and a half, or four Yards and a half, and in breadth four Cubits, i. e. six Foot, or two Yards: by which it appears, that he was such another Giant as Goliah was,† 1.360 whose height was six Cubits and a Span, i. e. nine Foot and nine Inches, or three Yards and almost a Foot: for we must suppose that his Bedstead was a fourth part or thereabouts longer than his Body. But besides this ordinary Cubit, call'd the Cubit of a Man, Deut. 3. 11. i. e. of a Man's Proportion, from the Elbow to the Fingers end, the Common Cubit, there was the Sacred one, which is as much again, viz. a Yard. By this were measured those things which were Extraordinary and Unusual, or which were Holy and Religious. Some think the length, breadth and height of the Ark is measured by this Cubit, Gen. 6. 15. otherwise they cannot make room for all the Creatures of every Kind that were to be lodged in it. Yea, two of the Antient ‖ 1.361 Fathers think that the Cubit by which the Ark was built, was the Geometrick one, which is six times longer than the Ordinary Cubit, i. e. it contains nine Foot: for they thought that the Ark other∣wise could not hold all the Beasts. But the con∣trary is stifly maintain'd by* 1.362 Others, who reject the Geometrick Cubit, because there is no mention of it in Scripture, and because the Fabrick of the Ark would have been of two vast a proportion if it had been measur'd by this. These Men with the Ordinary Cubit make that Vessel large enough to hold all the different Animals that were order'd

to be preserv'd in it. Buteo more especially hath undertaken this, and perform'd it as well as the thing would bear. He insists that Moses speaks of the Cubit that was most in use in his time, which by consent of Writers contain'd a Foot and a half in length: and accordingly he endeavours to make the whole Business of the Fabrick and Capacity of the Ark for receiving the several Creatures, to be accountable on this Hypothesis of the Common Cubit. When the Mosaick History relates that the Longitude of the Ark was three hundred Cubits, we must understand it, he saith, of four hundred fifty Foot in length: when it describes its Latitude to be fifty Cubits, there are meant seventy five Foot: and when the Altitude is said to be thirty Cubits, we must reckon forty five Foot. This was the Proportion of that Antient Fabrick, of that great Swimming Coffin, for its Figure agrees most with that Shape. But whereas we read that it consisted of three Stories, ver. 16. this Author assigns four, telling us, that the first (which he adds) is not mention'd, because it was a Sink or Sewer to receive all the Filth that came from the Stalls of the Animals: the next to this, was the place where the Terrestrial Ani∣mals were lodg'd: The Third was the Store∣house for Provision let down to the Creatures below through Racks: In the Fourth were the Men and Birds. And these Rooms and Apart∣ments, with their Accommodations, are reduced by him to that number of Cubits which Noah assigns. So that the Cavils of Celsus, and of the Gnosticks before him, against the incapacity of the Ark for so many Beasts, are silenc'd by the Undertaking of this Ingenious Writer, who hath proved that this Structure was able to hold very

well all Speoies of Animals, i. e. of Creeping things, which according to Gesner and Aldrovandus, are not above thirty, and of Four-footed Beasts, which are a hundred and thirty, (for Antilopes begot between a Hart and a Goat, Mules the Product of an Horse and an Ass, Iackals of whom a Wolf is the Sire, a Fox the Dam, and some other such Mungrel Creatures are not to be reckon'd in the Number) and of Fowls of the Air about a hundred and fifty.

As to the Tabernacle and Temple, it is granted that the Dimensions of them are taken by the Holy Cubit, which is as long again as the Com∣mon one. But then, whether the Vtensils and Vessels, and other things belonging to the Tem∣ple are to be measured by the Common or the Sacred Cubit, is often disputed among those who have treated of this Matter. And it must needs be so, because the word Ammah, cubitus, is am∣biguous; for though it never signifies in Scrip∣ture the Geometrical Cubit, which is three Yards, yet it is left uncertain in many places whether the Common or Sacred Cubit be meant.

Measures of Capacity among the Hebrews are ei∣ther of things that are Dry, or of those that are Liquid. Of the first sort are, 1. The Cab, 2 Kings 6. 25. the Least of Dry Measures used by the Jews, about a quarter of a Peck of our English Measure. 2. The Ephah, Lev. 5. 11. of the same Quantity with the Bath, (of which afterwards) only the one is for dry things, the other for wet. It may be call'd the Hebrew Bushel, because it is much about that Quantity; though some will have it to be much more, and others a considerable deal less, viz. half a Bushel and a Pottle. Some say it con∣tains about seven Gallons, others nine. So that we

cannot tell the precise Quantity of this Measure; which neither the Greek Interpreters knew, it is like∣ly, though they were Iews, for they render the word Ephah differently, sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, some∣times 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and at other times 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 3. An Homer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Chomer, Ezek. 45. 14. which is ten Baths or Ephahs, i. e. ten Bushels, say some: but others set it higher, making it fourteen Bushels; and others bring it lower, reducing it to about eight Bushels. Perhaps the English word Coumb or Coume, which now signifies but half as much, denoted a greater Quantity heretofore, and was originally taken from the Hebrew Chomer, but is since corrupted in the Pronunciation. Note that this is the Greatest (however the just and exact Quantity be disputed) of all Dry Measures. 4. An Omer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gnomer, Vulgar Latin Gomor. It is true, some Writers (and of no mean Note) have confounded these two, Homer and Omer, and the Seventy Interpreters did so long before, calling both of them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but they are two Distinct Measures. For we are assured that an Omer is the tenth part of an Ephah, Exod. 16. 36. i. e. the tenth part of a Bushel, or thereabouts; and therefore is call'd by the Jews Gnisharon, decima, a tenth-deal, Numb. 15. 4. whereas the Homer contained ten Ephahs or Baths, i. e. ten Bushels. But yet this is an Equivocal Word, as appears from Lev. 23. 10. Ye shall bring a Sheaf of the first Fruits of your Har∣vest unto the Priest. It is the word Omer which is here translated a Sheaf, (a far different thing from a Measure) and by the* 1.363 Septuagint and Vulgar † 1.364 Latin Version a Maniple or handful, which indeed is a sort of Measure, but greatly disagreeing with the

usual Signification of Omer. But in all other places the Hebrew Name it self is retain'd in the Greek and Latin Versions as well as in Ours; and I have told you what it is generally thought to signify. 5. The Cor, 1 Kings 4. 22. which is made by some a di∣stinct Measure from those before-named: but you will find, that according to the Vulgar Latin, a Cor and an Homer are the same, Ezek. 45. 13, 14.

The Measures for Liquids among the Hebrews were a Log, Lev. 14. 10. which contain'd about half a Pint: however, this is sure that it was the least of Liquid Measures. Next, a Hin, Numb. 15. 4. which was somewhat bigger than a Log: some say it held ten Logs, a Great Gallon I may call it. A Bath, Ezek. 45. 11. was yet bigger, and contain'd six Hins, i. e. about six Gallons: others say, four Gallons and an half. And yet it is said to be of the same Capacity with the Ephah, i. e. a Bushel, and consequently should hold eight Gallons. The Homer was also a Measure for Liquor, as well as for Grain, and it contained ten Baths, as is evi∣dent from Ezek. 45. 14. Ten Baths are an Homer. But because a Bath is more or less, according to the different Determinations of Writers, we cannot assign the exact Quantity of an Homer. A Cor (which I before mentioned as the same with the Chomer, and the greatest of Dry Measures) is also a Measure for Liquids, 1 Kings 5. 11. Ezek. 45. 14. But 'tis no wonder that we have not an exact Knowledg of these Iewish Measures, for even those that are mentioned in Greek and Latin Authors, and very much fall short of the Antiquity of these, are but little known by us.

Next, if we proceed to the Words whereby the Hebrew Weights are expressed in Scripture, which are the Shekel and the Talent, we shall find them

something dubious and uncertain. The Shekel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (like the Cubit) is said to be either Common or Sacred, the Profane Shekel, or that of the Sanctu∣ary. And here there is Dissention among Wri∣ters; but according to the most moderate Ac∣counts, the former is said to be in Weight a quar∣ter of an Ounce, the latter half an Ounce Troy. Others affirm, that there was no Profane Shekel, different from the Sacred one; but that the occasion of the Opinion was the Scripture's mentioning the Shekel of the Sanctuary, Lev. 27. 25. and Numb. 3. 47. which is so call'd, because the Weights which were laid up in the Sanctuary were the Standard of all Weights. The other Weights in use among the People were tried by These, and if they were found lighter, they were condemned. As for the contrary Opinion, it is look'd upon by some (but I cannot subscribe to it) as an Invention of the Rab∣bies. The other Weight is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Exod. 25. 39. 1. Kings. 20. 39. rendred by the Greek and Latin Version (as well as Ours) a Talent; which is either Common or Sacred; the first, according to some of the Rabins, is fifty Pounds; others say, sixty; others, sixty two in weight. The second, accord∣ing to some, is an hundred; according to others, an hundred and twenty; and in others Estimation, an hundred twenty five Pounds Weight, i. e. about as much again as the Common Talent. But it is difficult to tell in which particular Places of Scrip∣ture the Common Talent is meant, and in which the Sacred one. Only this we know, that a Talent was the greatest Weight among the Hebrews. And this we may rest in, as very probable, that there was a Difference of the same Weights among the Jews, as among us there is Troy Weight used by Gold

Goldsiniths and Apothecaries, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by those who deal in grosser things.

Then as to the Coins, these generally followed the Weights, because they weighed their Money for the most part: Hence the Shekel and the Talent were not only Weights but Coins among the He∣brews. The Shekel of the Sanctuary was in strict Value two Shillings four Pence of our Money, but is gene∣rally reckon'd two Shillings six Pence, our Half-Crown: but the Ordinary S••ekel was but half as much, i. e. as to the most strict Value fourteen Pence, but more generally esteem'd to be fifteen. This is to be understood of the Shekel of Silver; but then we must know there was another of Gold, which was of a much higher Value, fifteen Shillings at least. Now because the word Shekel is often men∣tioned without any Addition in Scripture, we may be mistaken as to the right Value of it, because we are uncertain which of the Shekels is to be under∣stood, that of Silver or that of Gold. And some∣times it happens by reason of the Shekels being both a Weight and a Co••n, that the one is mistook for the other. As probably in 2 Sam. 14. 26. where 'tis said that Absalom at every Year's end polled his Head, because the Hair was heavy on him, and he weighed the Hair at two hundred Shekels; which is ge∣nerally understood as if the Hair of his Head, be∣ing cut off every Year, weighed two hundred She∣kels, i. e. fifty Ounces, which is four Pounds and two Ounces, if you reckon by the L••sser Shekel▪ but if you make your Computation by the Greater one, which was double in weight, his Hair weighed eight Pounds and four Ounces. But this cannot be, for though his Hair was heavy, (as the Text testi∣fies) yet it is no ways credible that it was of this

vast Weight. Two hundred Shekels of the lesser Weight are more ponderous than the Fleeces of two ordinary Sheep. You may imagine then what the Weight doubled will be, i. e. if you under∣stand the Place of the Greater Shekels. Wherefore by Shekels here is meant Coin, and not Weight: the Meaning is this, that Absalom's Hair growing ex∣cessively, and being very heavy, he yearly cut it off; and when it was weighed, it was found to be worth two hundred Shekels, that is, according to the Common Shekel, twelve Pounds ten Shillings in our English Money, but much more according to the rate of the Greater Shekel. The Price or Va∣lue of his Hair, not the Weight of it, is here spoken of. So much Money he could have had for the yearly Loppings of his Hair, and so much and more they made of it to whom he gave it, viz. his Servants, who parted with it at a dear rate to the Ladies of Ierusalem, who were ambitious of adorn∣ing their Heads with the Hair of the Beautiful Ab∣salom, with the Locks of the King's Son; especially if what a* 1.365 Learned Man from the Iervsalem-Tal∣mudists suggests hath any Truth in it, viz, that he was a Temporary Nazarite, (as some among the Jews were; yea, 'tis my Opinion that they were all at their Liberty) and let his Hair grow from Year to Year, because of his Vow: for then some of the better disposed Females might in a Religious way buy up these Reliques of Nazaritism, and look upon them as Sacred. If this Interpretation of the Place be not admitted, then one of these two things must be granted, either that his Hair was of that Prodigious and Incredible Weight which we mentioned, (which will hardly be received) or

else that we are mistaken in the true Value of a Shekel in this Place; and if so, we may be mista∣ken in others.

We might likewise consider the Value of a Ta∣lent, which is either the Great or the Lesser: the Value of the former is two hundred thirty three Pounds Sterling; and of the latter one hundred se∣venty five Pounds Sterling, according to some good Authors. But others will have four hundred Pound Sterling to be the true Estimate of the Greater Ta∣lent, and they value the Lesser at half as much. Again, the Scripture speaks of a Talent of Silver, and a Talent of Gold, and these also are differently understood; for some value the former at one hun∣dred eighty seven Pounds ten Shillings; others at three hundred seventy five Pounds: the latter is esteemed to be two thousand two hundred and fif∣ty, by some; and four thousand five hundred by others. In short, (as* 1.366 Budaeus hath observed) Talents are according to the Use and Value of seve∣ral Countries, Babylonian, Syrian, Egyptian; yea, the Greeks, who first used this Value of Money, did vary themselves in their Talents, having some greater, and others lesser, some worth two hun∣dred Pounds, others only one hundred Pounds Sterling with us. From† 1.367 Iulius Pollux we briefly learn what a great Difference there was in Talents;

The Attick Talent, saith he, made six thousand Attick Drachma's; the Babylonian Talent seven thousand; the Aeginaean ten thou∣sand;

the Syrian a thousand and five hundred. What we read in 2 Sam. 12. 30. concerning the King of the Ammonites Crown, that the Weight thereof was a Talent of Gold, is to be understood of a

Talent, as it signifies Coin, not a Weight, for we can't imagine that that King, or David, (on whose Head it was afterwards set, as you read there) could wear a Crown that weighed a Talent. It is spoken therefore of the Value of the Crown: when 'tis said it weighed so much, the meaning is, that it was worth so much in Money, for they weighed their Money in those Days.

If you look into the Roman and Greek Coins men∣tioned in the New Testament, you will find great Uncertainty there. The least piece of Money is a Mite, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mark 12. 42. the seventh part of a piece of Brass Money among the Romans, say some; much less than the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the Hebrews Ge∣rah, Exod. 30. 13. Lev. 7. 25. (which might have been mention'd before.) It is vulgarly reckoned the eighth part of an English Penny, or half a Far∣thing, because it is said, two Mites make a Farthing, Mark 12. 42. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quadrans, is the word which we here render a Farthing, which is not one of our Farthings, but is the fourth part of an As, a small piece of Brass Coin among the Romans, a fourteenth part of a Denarius; others hold it to be the* 1.368 tenth part of it. But still we are not certain what it is, because we are not sure what the Dena∣rius or Roman Penny is, which is the next Coin. This we read was the Days-wages for the Labourers in the Vineyard, Matth. 20. 9. They received every Man a Penny. The Aromatick Ointment of Spike∣nard might have been sold for more than three hundred of these Pence, Mark 14. 5. This was the Penny which was shew'd to Christ, as part of the Tribute∣Money, Matth. 22. 19. But it is not easy to tell the exact Value of it, though we translate it a Pen∣ny;

for the Roman D••narius was greater and less••••; the first was one Shilling Sterling, the second was six Pence or seven Pence, or seven Pence half Pen∣ny in our Coin. Others distinguish thus, there was either the Old Denarius, which was twelve Pence, or the Latter one, which was of the same Value with the Drachm, (of which next) or another be∣tween these, valued at eight Pence. Thus we are partly at a loss what a Mite, (that nummorum ••a∣mulus among the Romans) or what a Farthing, or what a Penny was, that is, what we translate so really was.

Nor is there greater Certainty in the Greek Coins, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Luke 15. 8. the piece of Silver (for so 'tis translated) which the Woman lost, and after∣wards found. This is said by most Writers to be seven, or seven Pence half Penny of our Money, be∣ing the same with a quarter of a Shekel, or with the Roman Denarius. But the true Value of these being doubtful, (as hath been said) this must needs be so too. And consequently the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Matth. 17. 24. rendred by our Translators the Tribute-Money, (because they knew not how else to render it) can∣not very well be defined; for if the just Value of a Single Drachma be not known, how can we tell what a Double one is? But the generally received and most approved Account is, that a Drachm is seven Pence half Penny, and consequently a Didrachm (which is the Word here) is fifteen Pence, i. e. a Common Shekel. This, saith the Learned Lightfoot, was a yearly Tax paid by the Jews towards repairing the Temple; but after the Jews became subject to the Romans, they paid it to the Emperor. And as for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Matth. 26. 15. Acts 19. 19. which we translate Pieces of Silver, it is uncertain whether they are an Hebrew or Greek Coin. Some are of opi∣nion,

that when they are put absolutely, and with∣out Addition, (either in the Old or New Testa∣ment) they signify Shekels, as in the former Place, They covenanted with him for thirty pieces of Silver, i. e. thirty Shekels, which after the rate of the Great Shekel is three Pounds fifteen Shillings in our Money. But the latter Place which speaks of the Value of those Books of curious Arts, which were brought forth and burnt, and saith, the Price of them was found to be fifty thousand pieces of Silver, cannot be understood of this Shekel, it being improbable that they amounted to so great a Sum as six thousand two hundred and fifty Pounds Sterling in our Mo∣ney; for so much is contained in fifty thousand great Shekels or Half-Crowns. But it is more like∣ly that this Place speaks of some Greek Coin of a lower Value, as the Drachma before mentioned. But as for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Matth. 17. 27. which we tran∣slate a piece of Money, (the same which was found in the Fish's Mouth) it was of the same Value with the Hebrew Great Shekel, and contained four Drachms, i. e. two Shillings six Pence in our Money. Where∣fore you may observe that the Stater in the fore∣named Place serv'd to pay the Double Tax, for our Saviour and St. Peter: Take it, saith Christ, and give it to them (i. e. the Collectors) for me and thee; fifteen Pence for me, and fifteen Pence for thee. But then it must be remembred, that there was not only a Silver Stater, but a Golden one, the Value of which was thirteen, some say fifteen, others six∣teen Shillings, others eighteen; for of this as well as of other Coins there were different sorts. Or if we could tell which of these kinds is here meant, yet it will be a hard Task to adjust it to the Value of our English Money. The same may be said of Other Coins, and also of Weights and Measures in use

heretofore among the Hebrews, Greeks and Ro∣mans, some whereof are mention'd in the Holy Writings: There is no little Difference among the * 1.369 Learned Authors, who have purposely treated of them, especially when they indeavour to reduce them to the Modern Coins, Weights and Mea∣sures in use among us. In expressing things of this Nature (not in the Great and Weighty Matters of Religion) the very Words which are used in Scrip∣ture are uncertain and doubtful; which is one rea∣son why some Places are not interpreted with the same Facility that others are.

CHAP. IX.

Two or three Different Names are given to the same Person in different places of Scripture, which may occasion Difficulty sometimes. Exempli••ied in se∣veral Texts, but more especially in Mat. 23. 35. Zacharias Son of Barachias. The Old Testament sometimes gives one Name to a Person, and Pro∣fane Writers another. Sometimes there is not pro∣perly Another Name attributed to the same Person in the Old Testament, but only a Name a little changed. In the New Testament also, the same Persons have Different Names, or somewhat Al∣tered. Again, both in the Old and New Testa∣ment different Persons have sometimes the same Name. Further, sometimes the same Name is given to Persons of both Sexes. Moreover, one Name served for all the successive Kings of a Country, or at least for several of them. Lastly, the same Places which we read of in Scripture have diffe∣rent Appellations, which sometimes causes Obscurity. Or some Names of the same Place differ but a lit∣tle, i. e. as to a Letter or two.

IN the Prosecution of the foregoing Head, viz. the Different acception of words used in Scripture, I might here take notice that two or three Diffe∣rent Names are given to the same Person in diffe∣rent places of Scripture, which hath occasion'd no little difficulty in understanding some Texts. But yet when we consider that this is a very usual thing in the Sacred Writings, the Difficulty must needs vanish. By comparing 2 Sam. 14. 27. with 1 Kings 15. 2. we find that the same Daughter of

Absalom was named Tamar and Maacha. The Per∣son who is call'd Iozachar in 2 Kings 12. 21. is named Zabad in 2 Chron. 24. 26. Azariah and Vzziah are the Names of the same King of Iudah, 2 Kings 15. 1. Isa. 1. 1. 2 Kings 14. 21. compa∣red with 2 Chron. 26. 1. The same King was called Zedekiah and Mattaniah, 2 Kings 24. 17. 1 Chron. 3. 15. Thus Iehoiakim and Iechoniah are the Names of the same King: which occasions that difficulty in Mat. 1. 11. Iosias begat Iechonias; it appearing from 1 Chron. 3. 16. that Iosias begat Iehoiakim. But if it were usual for the Kings and others among the Jews to have a double Name, then it is likely that Iehoiakim had so too, and thus the Difficulty is salved: Iehoiakim was called Iechoniah. It is true, there is another way to re∣concile this, by observing that in Christ's Genealogy (Of which we shall speak afterwards) sometimes a Person is said to beget another who is not properly his Son, but one at a distance from him, his Grand-child, or some of his Lineage farther off; and so the words in St. Matthew may refer to a Iechonias that was afterwards, 1 Chron. 3. 16. But from the places before mention'd, and se∣veral others which I shall produce afterwards, it is evident that some of the Jewish Kings and Other Persons besides them had two Names.

Which may give a Solution of that controver∣ted place, Mat. 23. 35. That upon you may come all the righteous Blood shed upon the Earth, from the Blood of righteous Abel unto the Blood of Zacharias Son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the Temple and the Altar. Our Saviour without doubt here refers to the Old Testament, but we find no ex∣press mention there of Zacharias the Son of Bara∣chias's being slain between the Temple and the Altar.

Therefore some are of the opinion that the word Zacharias is crept into the Text, but should not be there. But this is an ill way of solving the Difficulty, because after this rate we may expunge what word we please out of the Bible, to make good our own Interpretation of the Place. Others think this Zacharias was the last but one of the Twelve Prophets, who is expresly said to be the Son of Barachias, Zech. 1. 1. But, 1. We read not in Scripture or any other History that this Prophet was slain by the Jews, and therefore there is no ground to believe that it was He who is spoken of here. 2. He could not be slain between the Temple and the Altar, for at that time, viz. the Return of the Jews from Babylon, neither the Temple nor Altar were erected. Or 3. Suppose they were, yet the Jews, so soon after their Captivity, were not arrived to that height of Wickedness to put their Prophets to Death. Again, Baronius endea∣vours to prove out of some of the Antients, that this was Iohn the Baptist's Father, whose Name we know was Zacharias, Luke 1. 59. and that he was slain by Herod because he refused to deliver up his Son the Baptist into his hands to be put to Death by him. But first, though this be mention'd by some Writers of old, yet we find them not for∣ward in attesting and confirming this Narrative; because, without doubt, there was no Evidence of it. Besides, as I suggested before, our Saviour seems to refer to something recorded in the Old Testament. Moreover, if Zacharias had been put to Death by Herod, it is highly probable that the Evangelical History would have taken particular no∣tice of it, and have related the Death of the Fa∣ther, as well as of the Son. Lastly, There is not the least hint that this Zacharias was the Son of

Barachias. Next, It is said by Dr. Hammond and others, that Christ speaks here of Zacharias the Son of Baruch, mention'd by* 1.370 Iosephus, who was kill'd a little before the final Overthrow of Ie∣rusalem: For the Words of Christ relate not to any one who had been slain already, but they are a Prophecy concerning the last of all the Martyrs of the Jews, who should be put to Death before the Destruction of the last Temple, and the Disso∣lution of that Nation. Such a Zachary, the Son of Baruch, was kill'd in the middle of the Temple, as the Jewish Historian assures us. But first it is plain that Christ speaks of something that had already happen'd, not of something that was to come. It is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not a future but an aorist, and so denotes what hath been done before, not what shall be done afterwards. Therefore Christ's words are to be understood of one that had been in time past kill'd by the Jews. Secondly, It is unquestionable that Christ speaks of some very Holy Man, whose violent Death is recorded in the Old Testament; for you find this Zacharias joyn'd with Abel, of whom you read in Gen. 4. 8. and for that reason we may in∣fer that this Baruch is not meant here. Thirdly, It is doubtful whether the Blood of this Person whom Iosephus speaks of, may be call'd righteous Blood, as this is here: for it was upon a Civil Ac∣count that that Son of Baruch was put to Death, viz. because he was thought to take part with the Romans, and so he cannot be well parallell'd with Abel.

You see how improbable the foresaid Opinions are: therefore I choose to imbrace that of St. Ie∣rom

and some* 1.371 Learned Men of late, who con∣ceive that this Zacharias is he who is mentioned in 2 Chron. 24. 20. And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the Son of Jehoiada the Priest, who stood above the People, and said unto them, Thus saith the Lord, Why, &c. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the Commandment of the King, in the Court of the House of the Lord. Thus Joash the King remembred not the Kindness which Je∣hoiada his Father had done to him, but slew his Son. This is the Person whom our Saviour speaks of, and the shedding of whose righteous Blood he impu∣teth to the Jews of that Age. Him ye slew, saith he; for though 'tis said, the King slew him, because he commanded him to be slain, yet 'tis said likewise, the People slew him, because they not only conspired against him (as you read) but actually stoned him. And this they did in the Court of the House of the Lord, which is the same with what our Saviour saith, between the Temple and the Altar. And his Blood may justly deserve the Epithet of Righteous, and he may justly be reckon'd with Righteous Abel, because he lost his Life in a Righteous Cause, be∣cause with great Boldness and Zeal he reproved the People for their Sins, but especially for their Idolatry, and foretold them what Misery these would certainly bring upon them. For this zealous Freedom of his they took away his Life. This was a very Eminent Man among the Jews: There are in their Writings remarkable Stories concerning him, not only relating to his Life, but his Death. They kill'd him being both a Priest and a Prophet, and before the Temple, and on the day of Expiation; and from several other Circumstances his Murder

is aggravated in the Talmud. This was Zach••ria•• the Son of Iehoiada, but called here the Son of Bara∣chias, because it was common to have two Names among the Jews. His Father's Name being both Iehoiada and Barachias, he is call'd in the Chroni∣cles the Son of Jehoiada, and by our Saviour, the Son of Barachias. But in this it is likely Christ had reference to the words of Isaiah, Chap. 8. 2. [Zachariah the Son of Jereberechiah] or Barachiah, as the Septuagint and Vulgar Latin give it us. It appears hence, that Barachiah as well as Iehoiad•• was his Father's Name, as our Christian Rabbi makes it clear. Thus our Saviour's words are re∣conciled with those in the Chronicles, by attending to what I before observ'd, viz. That it is usual in Scripture to affix two Names to the same Person: one is given him in one place, and another in the other.

So that in Mark 2. 25, 26. may be understood, Have ye never read what David did when he had need, and was an hungred? how he went into the House of God in the days of Abiathar the High-Priest, and did eat the Shew-bread? If you look into 1 Sam. 21. you will see that it was in the days of Ahimelech the High-Priest: which Ahimelech, it seems, was call'd also Abiathar, otherwise our Saviour would not have used that Name. Which I will yet fur∣ther confirm to you by some other Instances. Ie∣rubbaal and Gideon are the same Man, Iudg. 6. 32. Ch. 7. 1. Achish and Abimelech are one Person, 1 Sam. 21. 11. and the Title of the 34th Psalm. So are Araunah and Ornan, 2 Sam. 24. 1 Chron. 21. Caleb and Carmi are the same, 1 Chron. 2. 18. Ch. 4. 1. So are Ioah and Etham, 1 Chron. 6. 21, 41. Ammi∣nadab and Izhar, 1 Chron. 6. 2, 22. Ioel and Vashni, 1 Sam. 8. 2. 1 Chron. 6. 28. The same is to be

said of Daniel and Chileab, 1 Chron. 3. 1. 2. Sam. 3. 3. Of Ammiel and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2 Sam. 11. 3. 1. Chron. 3. 5. Thus Ie••oiakim & Eliakim, 2 Kings 23. 34. 1 Chron. 3. 15. Ahaziah and Azariah are Names of the same Kings, 1 Chron, 3. 11. and 2 Chron. 22. 6. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Ishboshet•• are the same Son of Saul, 2 Sam. 2. 8. 1 Chron, 8. 33. Mephibosheth and Merib-baal, are the same Son of Ionathan, 2. Sam. 4. 4. 1 Chron. 8. 34. Zimri and Zabdi are one Man, 1 Chron. 2. 6. Jos. 7. 1. Esar-haddon and Asnappar are the same, Ezr. 4. 2, 10. So are Salmanassar and Shalman, 2 Kings 18. 34. Hos. 10. 14. Zerubbabel and Shesh-bazzar are the same Person, Ezra 1. 8. compared with Ezra 5. 14. Iehoahaz and Shallum are the Names of the same King, as appears from com∣paring 2 Kings 23. 30. with Ier. 22. 11. The King of Assyria who is called Sennacherib, 2 Kings 18. 13. is called Sargon, Isa. 20. 1. Yea, we find three or four Names given to one, as Moses's Father-in-Law is call'd Iethro, Exod. 3. 1. Ch. 4. 18. Iothor by the Septuagint, Exod. 3. 1. Raguel by the same Interpreters, Exod. 2. 18. Revel in the same place, according to the Original: Hobab, Numb. 10. 29. And I remember* 1.372 Iosephus saith, his Name was Iethlegé. Of Solomon the same is ob∣servable; besides that Name, he hath three others given him; for we find that he is call'd Iedidiah, 2 Sam. 12. 25. Lemuel, Prov. 31. 1. Coheleth, Eccl. 1. 1. which last is rendred Ecclesiastes and Preacher; and a great deal of dispute there is why Solomon is call'd so, especially in the Feminine Gender: but if we take it to be his Proper Name, then all Que∣stions of that nature are at an end; for neither the Derivation of the word, nor the Termination of

it are to be insisted upon. Nay, some think Agur is a fourth Name given him, Prov. 30. 1. from the Participle agur, collectus, receptus; because he re∣cover'd himself after his Follies, and was receiv'd into God's Favour. And some have thought he is call'd in the same place the Son of Jakeh, i. e. of the Obedient, to express further his Repentance and Reformation.

Here it might be observ'd, that the Old Testament gives one Name to Persons, and Profane Writers another. He that is call'd Nimrod in the former, is named Belus in the latter, it is likely. He that is Assur in Scripture, is Ninus in Gentile History; for* 1.373 he built Nineve, which bears his Name. This was the Chief Seat of the Assyrian Empire, call'd so from this Assur, Son of Shem. That Assyrian King that is call'd Belochus in Profane Story, is Pul in the Sacred one, 2 Kings 15. 19. And in other Instances it might be shew'd that 'tis com∣mon to have two Names, one in the Bible, the other in Heathen Writers. Artaxerxes is the same with Ahasuerus, Esth. 1. 1. according to the LXX's Version, and Iosephus: but whether this be true or no, 'tis certain that other Kings had different Names among Jews and Pagans. In Pagan Authors there is no mention of Salmanassar, Tiglath-Pileser, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar: The Greek and Latin Historians have not the Names of these Assyrian Kings, who are celebrated in Scripture: but it may be they are represented under other Names in those Writers; for the Names of Kings vary ac∣cording to the Language of different Countries: which occasions some disagreement between Pro∣fane and Sacred History.

Further, I add that sometimes in the Old Te∣stament there is not properly another Name given to the same Person, but only a Name a little Chan∣ged, by the Alteration or Addition of some one Letter or more; as that Great Captain who con∣ducted the Israelites into Canaan is call'd Iosua, Iehosua, Numb. 13. 16. Oshea, or Hoshea, Deut. 32. 44. (besides that in the New Testament he is called Iesus, Acts 7. 45. Heb. 4. 9.) Ahimelech, 2 Sam. 8. 17. (who is the same, as I said, with A∣biathar) is called Abimelech, 1 Chron. 18. 10. Ieho∣saphat, 1 Kings 15. 24. is Iosaphat, Matth. 1. 8. Iehoram, 1 Kings 22. 50. is Ioram, Matth. 1. 8. Rehoboam, 1 Chron. 3. 10. is Roboam, Matth. 1. 7. So we read of Achar and Achan, Josh. 7. 18. 1 Chron. 2. 7. Ram and Aram, 1 Chron. 2. 10. Matth. 1. 3. Hamor and Emmor, Gen. 33. 19. Acts 7. 16. Ca∣leb and Chelubai, 1 Chron. 2. 9, 18. Absalom, 2 Sam. 14. is Abishalom, 1 Kings 15. 1. Vzziah (who, as you have heard, was the same with Azariah) is call'd Vzzah, 2 Kings 21. 26. and Ozias, Matth. 1. 8. Iehoiachim, 2 Kings 23. 24. is (with the al∣tering of one Letter only) Iehoiachin, 2 Kings 24. 8. Iechoniah in contempt is named Coniah, Jer. 22. 24. He that is call'd Berodach in 2 Kings 20. 12. is the same with Merodach in Isa. 39. 1. So Nebuchad∣rezzar (with the like literal Alteration) is writ∣ten Nebuchadnezzar.

If you look into the New Testament also, you'l see that the same Persons have Different Names: as he who was nominated for the Apostleship is called Ioseph, Barsabas, and Iustus, Acts 1. 23. And Ioses and Barnabas are Names of the same A∣postle, Acts 4. 36. Yea, all the rest of the Apo∣stles, except Iohn, had more Names than one: But sometimes the Name is only somewhat altered,

but can't be said to be another Name, as Simon and Simeon, 2 Pet. 1. 1. Acts 15. 14. Annas the High Priest is call'd Ananias, Acts 23. 5. and is called so by Iosephus the Jewish Historian. Silvanus and Silas are the same Name, 1 Thess. 1. 1. Acts 15. 22. ch. 16. 19. ch. 17. 4, 15. So are Prisca and Priscilla, Acts 18. 2. Tib. 4. 19. and Epaphras is the same with Epaphroditus, Col. 1. 7. ch. 4. 12. Phil. 2. 25. ch. 4. 18. Shall I take notice likewise that some∣times the Names of the same Persons mentioned in the Old Testament and the New, differ only as to the Greek or some other Termination which is gi∣ven them in the latter? As Hannah, Elkana••'s Wife, and Anna a Prophetess, Luke 2. 36. Miri∣am, Aaron's Sister; and Marie, or* 1.374 Mariam a fre∣quent Name in the New Testament. Elisheba, Aa∣ron's Wife, Exod. 6. 23. and Elizabeth the Wife of Zacharias, and St. Iohn the Baptist's Mother. Ioha∣nan, 1 Chron. 3. 15. and Iohn. These four are New-Testament as well as Old-Testament-Names, but with a small Alteration. And to these may be added Iacob and Iames, which are the same in the Greek. A varying as to some Letter in the begin∣ning or ending of Names is observable also in Kish, 1 Sam. 9. 1. and Cis, Acts 13. 21. Immanuel, Isa. 7. 14. and Emanuel, Matth. 1. 23. Hosea and Osee▪ Rom. 9. 25. Noah and Noe, Luke 17. 26. Korah and Core, Jude 11. Elijah and Elias, Matth. 16. 14. Elisha and Elizéus, Luke 4. 27. Ionah and Ionas, Matth. 1••. 39.

But as we have before observ'd that the same Men have different Names, so it is not altogether unworthy the remarking that different Persons have the same Name in Scripture: for by taking notice of this we shall be invited to attend to their

Particular Characters, and the Different Relations which they have to the Texts where they are men∣tioned, whereby we shall avoid confounding one with the other, when we peruse the Holy Wri∣tings. Iehoram was the Name of two Kings of Israel and Iudah that reign'd at the same time, 2 Kings 1. 17. Iehu was a noted King, and Iehu is a Prophet, 2 Chron. 20. 34. There were two Ne∣hemiahs, he that was Chief of the Jews after the Captivity, Neh. 1. 1. and another, Neh. 3. 16. ch. 7. 5, 7. Mephibosheth is the Name not only of Ionathan's but Saul's Son, 2 Sam. 4. 4. 2 Sam. 21. 8. There is not only Daniel the Prophet, but David's Son by Abigail, 1 Chron. 3. 1. There is Abimelech King of Gerar, Gen. 20. 2. and one of the Israe∣lites Judges, Iudg. 8. 31. and also a High Priest, 1 Chron. 18. 6. There is in the New Testament mention of three Herods; 1. He that was surna∣med the Great, and was the Son of Antipater the Idumaean; he was call'd the Ascalonite, from the particular Country where he was born. He was made King of the Jews in the tenth Year of Au∣gustus's Empire, and reign'd thirty seven Years. In his time our Blessed Saviour was born, Matth. 2. 1. and this was he that barbarously massacred the In∣fants of Bethlehem, Matth. 2. 16. 2. Herod surna∣med Antipas, and call'd the Tetrarch, Matth. 4. 3. he murdered Iohn Baptist, Matth. 14. 10. he set at nought and mocked our Saviour when he was brought before him to be judged, Luke 23. 11. and he scornfully sent him back to Pilate. 3. Herod Agrip∣pa the Son of Aristobulus, and the Nephew of He∣rod the Great; he killed St. Iames, and imprison'd St. Peter, Acts 12. 2, 3. and was at last devoured by Worms, ver. 23. There was also another A∣grippa, who was the Nephew of this Herod, and it

is probable was called Herod, whose Incestuous Wife (for she was his Sister) is mentioned Acts 25. 13, 23. There was an Ananias who was struck dead, Acts 5. 5. There was another of that Name who was a Disciple at Damascus, and was sent to Saul, Acts 9. 10. There was a third that was High Priest, Acts 23. 2. Besides Simeon the Patriarch in the Old Testament, there is in the New one of that Name who was a devout Man of Ierusalem, and prophesied of Christ, Luke 2. 25. There is Simeon called Niger, a Teacher of the Christian Church at Antioch, Acts 13. 1. and Peter also is call'd by that Name, Acts 15. 14. There are six or seven Io∣sephs; he that was one of the Patriarchs; one of those that had married strange Wives, Ezr. 10. 42. a Priest that went up with Zorobabel, Neh. 12. 14. the reputed Husband of Mary, the Virgin Mary: also a Wise Counsellor of Arimathaea, Matth. 27. 57. Ioseph called Barsabas, Acts 1. 23. besides two others that were obscure Persons, Numb. 13. 7. 1 Chron. 25. 2. Simon is a Name of yet a larger Extent, but is found only in the New Testament, where by this Name is call'd the Apostle Peter, Matth. 16. 17. Luke. 4. 38. and in many other Places: another Apostle call'd the Canaanite, Mat. 10. 4. and Zelotes, Luke 6. 15. also one that was a Leper, Matth. 26. 6. call'd a Pharisee in Luke 7. 36. likewise the Father of Iudas Iscariot, John 12. 4. ch. 13. 2. moreover, a Man of Cyrene, the same who bore Christ's Cross, Matth. 27. 32. and is call'd the Father of Alexander and Rufus, Mark 15. 21. Further, the Sorcerer of Samaria, Acts 8. 9. and lastly, a Tanner of Ioppa, in whose House St. Peter lodged a considerable time, Acts 9. 43. There are four or five Iudases or Iudes mention'd in the New Testament. 1. He that was the Good Apo∣stle,

the Brother of Simon Peter. 2. The Traitor call'd Iscariot. 3. One surnamed Barsabas, a Com∣panion of Silas, Acts 15. 27. though some think this to be the Apostle. 4. The Mutineer, Iudas of Galilee, Acts 5. 37. 5. One in whose House St. Paul was, Acts 9. 11. There were three Gaius's, one of Derbe, Acts 20. 4. the other of Macedonia, Acts 19. 29. the other of Corinth, 1 Cor. 1. 14.

Of Women the same may be observed, viz. what different Persons of that Sex have the same Name, as that of Deborah is common to Rebecca's Nurse, Gen. 35. 8. and to the famous Prophetess and She-Judg, Iudg. 4. 4. Abigail is the Name of Nabal's Wife, 1 Sam. 25. 3. and David's Sister, 1 Chron. 2. 16. so that David had a Wife (for Abigail was married to him after the Death of Nabal) and a Sister of the same Name. By the Name of Tamar is called the Wife of Er, Iudah's incestuous Daugh∣ter, Gen. 38. 6. Ruth 4. 12. and inserted into our Saviour's Genealogy, Matth. 1. 3. so is named Ab∣salom's fair Sister, ravish'd by Amnon, 2 Sam. 13. 1. likewise Absalom's fair and only Daughter, 2 Sam. 14. 27. There are more Maries than one in the New Testament, and to distinguish them aright is of very great Use. Besides Mary the Mother of John, whose Surname was Mark, Acts 12. 12. and another Mary, whom St. Paul greets, Rom. 16. 6. there are thought by some to be five more of that Name, viz. the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of our Lord: Mary the Sister of Martha and Lazarus, Luk 10. 39. Joh. 11. 1. Mary Magdalene, Mar. 15. 40. Mary the Mother of Iames and Ioses, Matth. 27. 56. Mar. 15. 40. Mary the Wife (or Daughter) of Cleo∣phas, Ioh. 19. 25. But others reduce these to three, for Cardinal Baronius and our Learned Rabbi Dr. Light∣foot, hold that Mary Magdalene was the same with

Mary the Sister of Lazarus. And the most pro∣found Dr. P••arson avers, that Mary the Mother of Iames and Ioses, and Mary the Wife of Cleophas, are the same: She had the former Denomination from her Sons, and the latter from her Husband Iohn or Cleophas. These three Maries are particu∣larly mention'd in Iohn 19. 25. There stood by the Cross of Iesus his Mother, and his Mother's Sister Ma∣ry the Wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. In the rest of the* 1.375 Evangelists we find at the same place Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother of James and Joses: And again at the Sepulcher, † 1.376 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Where∣fore, saith this Learned Writer, this other Mary, by the Conjunction of these Testimonies, appears to be Mary the Wife of Cleophas, and the Mother of Iames and Ioses: and thence he infers that Iames and Ioses who are said to be Christ's Brethren, were not the Sons of Mary his Mother, but of the other Mary, and are call'd his Brethren, according to the Language of the Jews, because the other Ma∣ry was the Sister of Christ's Mother, she was our Blessed Lord's Aunt on the Mother's side. And so the right understanding of these Places where the Maries are mentioned, may lead us to a true Notion of Christ's Brethren spoken of in the Evangelists, whereby we may know whether they were the Children of Mary the Blessed Virgin by Ioseph, or of the Virgin's Sister, or of some other Mother a∣kin to her, and therefore call'd the Brethren of Christ, because they were his Kindred.

Again, I could observe that sometimes the same Names in Scripture are given to Persons of both Sexes, as among us Francis and Philip, and some other Names are common to both Men and Wo∣men.

Not to mention Gen. 5. 2. he call'd their Name Adam, whence it is evident that Adam was the Name of both our first Parents at the begin∣ning, though afterwards the Woman had another Name given her by her Husband, and he took the Name Adam as proper to himself, Gen. 3. 20. There are other plainer Instances in Gen. 36. 2, 41. and in the same Chapter, ver. 12, 40. and 1 Chron. 1. 36. where you will see that Aholibamah was the Name both of a Man and of a Woman, and so was Timna. I find that Noah is the Name of a Woman, the Daughter of Zelophehad, Numb. 36. 11. but I confess the words differ in the He∣brew, one is Noach, the other Nognah. Iohn and Ioanna, especially the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (Luk. 3. 27.) are in a manner the same Name, but belonging to different Sexes. And further, to let you see how differently the same Names are bestow∣ed, I could observe that Michael is the Name both of a Man, 1 Chron. 7. 3. and of an Angel, Dan. 12. 1.

Moreover, under this Head it might be more material to observe that One Name served for all the Successive Kings of a Country, or at least for several of them. All Historians agree in the Catalogue of the Kings of Persia, viz. Cyrus the First, Cambyses the Second, Darius Hystaspis the Third, Xerxes the Fourth, Artaxerxes Longimanus the Fifth, &c. Yet in the Book of Ezra we read, that These five were successively, viz. Cyrus, Aha∣suerus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Artaxerxes. How is this to be reconciled? Both by saying that the same Persian Kings had different Names, and also that several of them had one Name, which are both very true. One of them was call'd Cambyses and Ahasuerus, another had the Name Darius and Artaxerxes, a third was call'd Xerxes and Darius.

And besides this, they were all call'd by one Gene∣ral Name; that is, Artaxerxes was a common Name of the whole Race of the Persian Kings. Many of the* 1.377 Learnedst Jews were of this Opi∣nion, and it is the more probable, because this hath been usual in other Kingdoms and Countries, as we learn from the Sacred Records. There we find that there was one Common Name for all the Kings of Philistia or Palestine, and that was Abimelech, as is clear from Gen. 20. 2. Ch. 26. 1, 4. Ch. 34. 1. 1 Sam. 21. 11. and also from the Title of the 34th Psalm it appears that this was the Universal Name of the Kings of the Philistines. So Agag was the Common Title of all the Kings of the Amalekites, as may be inferr'd from Numb. 24. 7. 1 Sam. 15. 8. It is probable that Hiram was the Catholick Name of the Kings of Tyre: but that Pharaoh was so of all the Egyptian Kings of old is undeniably clear from Gen. 12. 15. which speaks of a Pharaoh in Abra∣ham's time: from Gen. 39. 1, &c. where we read of another of that Name in Ioseph's days. And in Exodus there is frequent mention of that Pharaoh that enslaved the Israelites and order'd all their Male-Children to be drowned, and of another whose Heart was hardned, and who was drown'd in the Red Sea. There was a Pharaoh in Solomon's time, 1 Kings 3. 1. and in Iosias's, 2 Kings 23. 29. In Isaiah we read of a King of Egypt of this Name, Ch. 19. 11. Ch. 30. 2, 3. So in Ieremiah, Ch. 25. 19. Ch. 44. 30. Ch. 46. 17. and in Ezekiel very often. That this was the constant Title of the Egyptian Kings is attested by Suidas, Eusebius, and Iosephus: yea, if we may believe this† 1.378 last, Pha∣raoh in the Egyptian Tongue signifies a King. Which

seems truly to be confirm'd from that passage in Gen. 41. 44. I am Pharaoh, which is as much as to say, I am King, I am Supreme Ruler, I will not part with this Name, i. e. I will not lose my Royal Dignity and Power. And accordingly he retain'd this Name himself, and gave Ioseph another, as you read in the next Verse. It might well then be the General Name of their Kings, it signifying Royal Authority and Rule. But after the time of Alexander the Great, the Kings of Egypt were gene∣rally called Ptolomees: and after the renouncing of the Greek Emperour they were a long time call'd Caliphs: for the General of the Saracens, whom the Egyptians took for their King, was named Caliph: whence the succeeding Kings were denominated after his Name. To proceed in this Subject, At∣talus was a Standing Title to all the Kings of Per∣gamus, though it is true some of them had a par∣ticular peculiar Name besides; whence that King of Pergamus, who was thought to be the Inventer of Parchment to write upon, is call'd Attalus by Aelian and St. Ierom, but Eumenes by others. An∣tiochus was generally the Name of the Syrian Kings, and Mithridates of those of Pontus. All the Kings or Dynasts of Edessa in Syria had the Name of Abgarus. Herod was the Name common to all the Successors of Herod the first; as we learn from the Gospels and the Acts.* 1.379 Candace gave the Deno∣mination to all the Queens of Ethiopia, or of one part at least of that Country: Arsaces to all the Kings of Parthia, Sylvius to those of the Albans, i. e. the Latin Kings of the Trojan Race. Chagan was antiently the common word to express all the

the Kings of the Hunns. Caesar was the Title for all the Roman Emperours after Iulius Caesar. Cos••oe or Kosroes was the Appellation of the Kings of Persia heretofore, (after that of Artaxerxes) as Sophi of late: and Sultan is the distinguishing Title of the Turkish Empire: and Miramolin or Miramomolin of all the Princes of Mauritania. Thus briefly I have shew'd, that it was usual for all the Kings of a Country to have the same Name, for a very considerable time at least. The obser∣ving of which may be of some use to us in reading the Sacred History, when it refers to any of those Kings whom I first named, and in reading Profane Authors who mention any of the others.

Lastly, I could observe concerning Places in Scripture, the same that I have concerning Per∣sons, viz. that sometimes they have different Names, which we ought carefully to heed in reading this Holy Book. One eminent Mountain in Palestine and the adjacent Parts, hath several Denomina∣tions; it is call'd Zion, Psal. 2. 6. and frequently in other Books of the Old Testament. It is also named Moriah, 2 Chron. 3. 1. the same Mount where Moses saw the Burning Bush not consumed, and where Isaac was offer'd, and where the Tem∣ple afterwards was built. This Name was so cele∣brated, that from this the Land of Canaan is call'd the Land of Moriah, Gen. 22. 2. The same Moun∣tain is named Hermon, as is evident from those express words, Deut. 4. 48. Mount Sion, which is Hermon. It is also call'd Sirion, Deut. 3. 9. which Name was given it by the Sidonians. And in the same place it hath the Name of Shenir, which was given it by the Amorites. This Multiplicity of Names may, I conceive, be grounded on this, that Sion or Hermon (or call it by any of the other

Names) is, properly speaking, a long Ledg of several Hills that go through Palestine and a great part of Arabia. Some add Gilead and Seir, and Lebanon (the famous Alpes of the Holy Land, upon the North and East part of it, noted for its snowy tops, its lofty Cedars and other Trees, and its fra∣grant Herbs and Plants.) Some, I say, add these to the foregoing ones, and rightly determine that they were but one continued Mountain with divers Names: as Mount Taurus (though far greater) is a ridg of Hills that hath several Names accor∣ding to the different Parts of it. Hence Psal. 133. 3. and some other places of Scripture mention some of those Names before spoken of, as if they be∣long'd to different Mountains: and the reason is, because though they are the same Mountain, yet those Names refer to the different parts of the same great ridg of Hills, and so are accounted as it were different Hills: and accordingly the great Mass of Dew which was in part distill'd on Mount Hermon (one division of that great Mountain) did partly also fall on Mount Zion (a neighbouring part of the same Mountain:) which I take to be the true and genuine meaning of those words of the Psalmist, which have exercised the Brains of so many Interpreters, As the Dew of Hermon that descended (as it is according to the Hebrew; or as we translate it, As the Dew of Hermon, and as the Dew that descended) upon the Mountains of Zion: both which Translations are reconcil'd by this Exposition, and the Sense is rendred entire and perfect. The Dew which descended on both these places was the same, for some of it fell on this part of the whole Mountain, and some on that; so that successively Hermon and Zion were partakers of this Blessing. Part of that Fructifying Moisture

which came down upon the one, soon after came down upon the other.

In the Desarts of Arabia, the Mountain whence God gave the Law to Moses is call'd Sinai, Exod. 19. 18. and in other places: yet in Deut. 4. 10. and elsewhere, frequently Horeb is the Name of the same Mountain. Though St. Ierom is of a con∣trary Opinion, and thinks they are two distinct Mountains, or at least two ridges of one Moun∣tain. The like may be said of Mount Nebo, the Arabian Parnassus, which had two Tops, Pisgah and Hor: and by these Names as well as by the other it was call'd, Numb. 20. 23, 25. Ch. 27. 12. Deut. 34. 1. and it was named also Mount Abarim, Deut. 32. 49. Numb. 27. 12. It may not be improbable that Aa∣ron and Moses died on the same Mount, though they are represented under different Names. But it is most apparent that a double or treble Name is given to several other places: thus the Salt-Sea, Gen. 14. 3. Numb. 34. 3. the Sea of the Desart, Deut. 3. 19. and the Sea of the Plain, Deut. 4. 49. signify one and the same place, viz. the Sea of Sodom, which is call'd by others the Dead Sea, the Lake Asphaltites, which was caused by the Destruction of Sodom. The Sea or Lake of Chinnereth, Numb. 34. 11. of Genesareth, Luke 5. 1. of Tiberias, John 21. 1. of Galilee, John 6. 1. are but one Lake. Who doubts that Assyria, Chaldea, and Babylon are some∣times promiscuously used for the same Region, and that Mesopotamia; Charan, Padan-Aram are one Country? So Galilee and Decapolis are the same: so are Sichem and Sychar, Gen. 33. 18. John 4. 5. And the like is to be said of Egypt and Sihor, Isa. 23. 3. Thus Places have more Names than one in the Holy Writings: which we ought care∣fully to attend to, lest we run into Mistakes, as

some have done by this Diversity of Names given to the same Place. And this Difference of Names might be observed in other Instances, which are frequent in Gentile Writers, as Sparta and Lacedae∣mon, Troy and Ilium, Thra••ia and Romania, &c.

And this likewise is to be noted, that some Names of the same Place differ but a little, i. e. as to a Letter or two, and no more, as Haran, Gen. 12. 5. and Charran, Acts 7. 2. are the same: so are Sechem, Shechem, and Sychem, Gen. 33. 18. Josh. 20. 7. Acts 7. 16. The same is to be said of Shi∣loah, Isa. 8. 6. Siloah, Neh. 3. 15. Siloam, John 9. 7. Luk. 13. 4. all three the same: as Kidron, 2 Sam. 15. 23. and Cedron, John 18. 1. are the same Brook. So Zarephath, 1 Kings 17. 9. and Sarepta, Luk. 4. 26. are the same Town: Megiddo, 2 Kings 9. 27. and Megiddon, Zech. 12. 11. the same Valley: Zin, Numb. 13. 21. Deut. 32. 51. and Sin, Exod. 16. 1. Numb. 33. 12. the same Wilderness: (though some have thought these two latter words denote diffe∣rent places.) Concerning some things mention'd in Scripture we should distinguish between them, though they differ not much in Writing and Pro∣nunciation, especially when they are of the same Species, as Sardine, Rev. 4. 3. Sardius, the same precious Stone, Rev. 21. 20. but Sardonix is a Stone different from that, Rev. 21. 20. Though some Names differ a little, yet they signify the same thing, as Sycamine, Luk. 17. 6. and Sycamore, Ch. 19. 4. But these are small things, and in which there is no great danger if there should be any mistake, and therefore I will not entertain you any longer with these, but hasten to more important Matter. But having spoken so largely of this First Head, I will be brief in that which followeth.

CHAP. X.

There are Words in the Hebrew Text which have not only Different but Contrary Significations: which is another cause of some Difficulty in Scripture. This exemplified in several Hebrew Nouns, more espe∣cially Tsagnir, Mic. 5. 2. which signifies both little and great, and accordingly this place is reconciled with Matth. 2. 6. Likewise Hebrew Verbs bear a Contrary Sense, of which sundry Instances are given. More particularly, the true import of the Verb Ba∣rak, Iob 2. 9. is narrowly search'd into, and the Author's particular Sense concerning that Text is propounded and defended. Some Greek words in the New Testament signify Contrary things. And the like Discrepancy is observ'd in some words in other Greek Authors, and in some among the Latins.

I Proceed in the second place to observe, That there are words in the Hebrew Text which have not only Different but Contrary Significations, which cannot but render some parts of the Scrip∣ture difficult. That is, they will be so till we have throughly examin'd the words, and found out the peculiar Signification which they have in the Texts that are before us. Thus Shethum is rendred open, as in Numb. 24. 3. [the Man whose Eyes are open:] and yet this Hebrew word signifies in all other pla∣ces of Scripture (where it is) shutting of the Eyes. Chesed denotes Beneficence, Goodness, Piety, and the height of them, and also Cruelty, Malice, and all Excess of Evil, and whatever is Reproachful and Ignominious in the Life of Man: thence* 1.380 some

render those words Vechesed leummim chattah, Prov. 14. 34. The Piety of Nations is Sin, because whilst they worship Idols they think they serve God; and others understand the place according to our Translation, Sin is the Reproach of any People: which is much to be preferr'd before the other Version, because it exactly answers to the former Clause. The word Cherem is both that which is conse∣crated to God, and that which is Accursed and devoted to the Devil, as I have shew'd in another place. An impure Catamite, a Sodomite is call'd Kadesh, from Kadash, ••acer fuit: and Kedeshah, which is no other than Sanctificata, is taken for a Com∣mon Prostitute. The word Tsagnir is both little and great, and accordingly Mich. 5. 2. may be rendred either Thou Bethlehem Ephratah, thou art little, or art great among the thousands of Judah. The not attending to this, hath occasion'd no small trouble among Expositors, whilst they labour to reconcile this Text with Mat. 2. 6. where it is quoted by the Jewish Doctors and Priests, and Beth∣lehem is said to be not the least. But the Learned Dr. Pocock▪ on the place saith, that he had it from a very Understanding Jew, that the Hebrew word Tsagnir signifies both little and great, and others that have good Skill in that Tongue assert the same. It is to be understood in this place in the latter Sense, and so the words ought to be rendred thus, Thou Bethlehem Ephratah, thou art great among the Thousands (or among the Princes) of Judah; for the Principalities were divided into Chiliads or Thousands, Iudg. 6. 15. 1 Sam. 10. 19. Thus the Prophet Micah and the Evangelist Matthew agree, for great and not the least are here the same. And certainly it is a far better way of reconciling

them, than that which a* 1.381 Late Writer propounds, viz. That whereas we read it Tsagnir, it should be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 progredere, go forth: for (besides that this somewhat marr's the Sense of the place) if we go this way to work, we may alter a great many places in the Old Testament, and in the New too, and substitute one word for another when we please, and so we shall lose a great part of the Bible in a short time: this therefore is not to be allow'd of by any means. There are other Nouns of a Contrary Signification, as Terugnah, which is both a Ioyful Shout, Psal. 33. 3. and a Mournful Cry, Jer. 20. 16. Chesel is not only In∣constancy or Levity, but Constancy or Stedfastness and Confidence. And there is a very great Dis∣crepancy, if not Contrariety in the rendrings of the word Deshen, which is sometimes Ashes and sometimes Fatness. But if we be mindful of the Subject Matter spoken of, we can't miss of the true Sense.

But the Verbs which bear a Contrary Sense, are most remarkable: thus Sakal is lapidare, lapidibus obruere, commonly: also elapidare, lapides amovere, Isa. 62. 10. Chasar is consecrari, Psal. 18. 26. and execrari, Prov. 25. 10. Salah is aestimare, Job 28. 16, 19. and spernere, conculcare, Psal. 119. 118. Shub is reducere, convertere; and avertere, rebellare: both Senses are common in Scripture. Iaphang is to be bright and shining: yet it may seem to be taken in a contrary Signification, in Iob 10. 22. according to Pagnin's Translation, tenebrescit sicut caligo, and the Vulgar Latin favours it. Tamam or tam, hath a contrary Sense, for it signifies to perfect or finish,

as in Dan. 9. 24. to finish the Vision: and also to con∣sume, as in Ezek. 22. 15. I will consume thy Filthiness out of thee. Kadash, in the usual Import of it, is to sanctify, but it is used in a quite opposite Sense in Deut. 22. 9. lest the Fruit of thy Vineyard be de∣filed. So for other Verbs, it is common to find them in Contrary Meanings; as Iarash, to possess or inherit, commonly in Scripture; and to dispossess or disinherit, to expel, reject and impoverish, Gen. 45. 11. and in other Places; both which contrary Senses occur together in Iosh. 23. 5. He shall expel them from before you, and ye shall possess their Land. Expelling and Possessing are the same Hebrew Verb; though in different Conjugations. So Chata in Kal is to sin, but in Piel to expiate or take away Sin. There is no other way to know the proper Ren∣drings of these and other Words before-mention∣ed, but by a diligent attending to the Scope and Design of the Texts where they are. And thus we shall perceive which of the Senses is designed, though sometimes this is done with some Difficul∣ty. I will make choice of a Text to enlarge upon to this purpose. The Instances are very usual in Scripture.

Barak signifies both to bless and to curse, and in some Places it may seem not very easy to tell which of these is intended, as in those Words of Iob's Wife, Iob 2. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Vulgar Latin renders benedic Deo, bless God. Arias Mon∣tanus and Munster follow this Version, and so doth the Learned and Pious Mr. Perkins, and according∣ly he renders the Verse thus, Dost thou still retain thine Integrity? bless God, and die; and makes this to be the Sense of it,

Thou being now sorely afflicted by God, and brought even to Death's Door, begin now at length to cast away thy

Conceitedness of thy own Righteousness, ac∣knowledg God's Hand upon thee for thy Sins, confess those Sins before him, pray for the Par∣don of them, and so end thy Days. This was good Counsel, (saith this Worthy Person) al∣though the applying of it was mix'd with Mis∣take and Folly; and therefore Iob told his Wife, that she spoke like one of the foolish Women.

But the Septuagint seem to take the Words in Another and Contrary Sense, and render [Barek Elohim] by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, speak some Word, or say something against the Lord, (for the Praeposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signify so) which approacheth towards Our Translation, Curse God: As if Iob's Wife had said to her Husband, Thou hast no reason to speak well of God, thou hast been undeservedly tormented by him; thou hast been an upright and righteous Man, and yet none hath met with such Calamities and Plagues as thou hast done; therefore my Advice to thee is, that thou wouldst even curse and blaspheme God himself, and then make an end of thy misera∣ble Life, by laying violent Hands on thy self. In this Sense the word Barak is thought generally to be taken in 1 Kings 21. 13. Naboth did blaspheme God, though even there the Greek Interpreters render it, he blessed God; unless by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is the Word used by them) be meant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which very* 1.382 Good Authors tell us is the Sense of the Word sometimes by an Antiphrasis. Thus as the† 1.383 Apostle saith, with the same Tongue, with the same Mouth, so with the same Word we both bless and curse: for the same Word both in Hebrew and Greek is used sometimes for both. But it is my

Opinion that the Word in the former Place need not be rendred either bless or curse, but that there is a middle Signification of it there. That we may apprehend this the better, we must know what the first and original Sense of the Verb Barak is, which I perceive few have enquired into. It appears from the best Hebrew Grammarians and Lexico∣graphers that I have met with, that this Word pri∣mitively signifies to salute, or greet; in which ab∣stract Sense it is used twice in 2 Kings 4. 29. If thou meet any Man, salute him not: and if any salute thee, answer him not again. The Hebrew Word which we translate salute, is Barak. So in Gen. 47. 7. 10. this Word is used to express Iacob's solemn Saluting of Pharaoh at his coming before him, and at his going out of his Presence: Iacob saluted (we render it blessed) Pharaoh. But because Kneeling was a Posture of Salutation, Barak signifies also to kneel, or to salute one with bowing the Knee. And thence Berek a Knee, and thence some have ima∣gin'd the word Abrek comes, which we read was proclaim'd before Ioseph when he rid forth in State, signifying (as they think) that the People ought to salute him most humbly, and even to bow the Knee to him. This is certain that* 1.384 Barak is a general Word for Saluting (whether at meeting or part∣ing) either by Word or Gesture, and is equiva∣lent with the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And be∣cause at such times they generally used to bow the Knee, it hath that particular Signification; as in 2 Chron. 16. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the LXX. So in Dan. 6. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And in Gen. 24. 11. the Kneeling down of Ca∣mels

to take up their Burden is expressed by it. Yea, the word Barak is sometimes transferr'd from its signification of Civil Respect and Kneeling, and applied unto Religious Worship, as in 2 Chron. 6. 13. Solomon (when he pray'd) kneeled upon his Knees, &c. And in Psal. 95. 6. Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker. The Word is here made use of to denote bending the Knee in Divine Worship, and prostrating themselves before God. So that this word Barak in the Original Denotation of it answers to the word Nashak, which signifies to sa∣lute in a lowly and humble manner, to submit and do Obeisance: and more particularly Kissing is ex∣press'd by it, which was a Token of Homage and Subjection of old, 1 Sam. 10. 1. But from this first and simple Import of the Word another ari∣seth, which is this, viz. to take leave of one, be∣cause Salutations and Greetings at last end in this. Men part and go their way after a short saluting and accosting one another. Thus the Word is taken in 2 Sam. 14. 22. Joab ••ell to the Ground on his Face, and bowed himself, and thanked the King: Hebr. Jeberek, he took his leave of him; he made that Sa∣lutation which was becoming at his going out of his Presence. In which Notion it likewise answers to Nashak, which (besides its former Sense) signifies to take leave of, to bid adieu to one, as in Gen. 31. 28. therefore that Valedictory Salutation of Kissing was call'd Neshikah Parashah, osculum separationis, the Kiss at parting or taking their leave of one ano∣ther. And then there is another derivative Sense of the Word, which flows both from this and the former meaning of it, and that is twofold; for Persons are wont at Saluting and taking Leave, to wish well or ill to one another, and to express these by good or evil Words; whence it is that Barak is

either benè or malè precari, it imports either to bless or to curse. This, as I take it, is the true and ex∣act Account of the Word: and so you see what is the primary and more restrain'd Acception of it, and what is the secondary and more general Sense of it. Now that which I offer is this, that the Word in that Place of Iob is to be understood chiefly in the first and most proper Denotations of it, i. e. as it signifies humbly to salute, to bow down and do Obeisance: or, as it signifies, to take one's leave. According to the former Acception of the Word Iob's Wife speaks thus to him, Do not con∣tinue to retain thine Integrity, or to hold fast thy Per∣fection, (as it is in the Original) Do not justify thy self before God, as if thou wert void of all Guilt, but with humble Reverence bow thy self before the Lord, adore and worship the most High, and sub∣mit thy self to him, and acknowledg thy Mean∣ness and Sinfulness: Do thus, and then thou mayst die with Peace and Comfort. In this only she might incur the Imputation of speaking foolishly, because she (like Iob's Friends afterwards) had wrong Ap∣prehensions of this Good Man, and imagined that he justified himself, and was in his own Thoughts a Sinless Person. Or else this was the Worser Lan∣guage of that Woman, Take now thy leave of God, and die, i. e. seeing thou art in this miserable Con∣dition, smote with fore Boils from the Sole of thy Foot to the Crown of thy Head, (ver. 7.) think not of li∣ving, but rather desire to quit this World, and to be gone: Bid God adieu, take your Farewel of him, and only beg this of him, that you may die as soon as may be. Or, you may suppose this Wo∣man's Language, or Meaning rather, to be much worser yet, even after this sort, Take your last Val•• of Heaven, utterly renounce God, (as well as your

Integrity) shake him off, and have nothing to do with him, since he deals so severely with you; aban∣don him for ever, and hasten out of the World. Though this be not so harsh as downright Cursing of God, yet this was indeed speaking like one of the foolish sottish Women, as he roundly told her, v. 10. The Stile was something too rough to say, Curse God. She would not speak after that rate to her Pious Confort; but she impiously counsels him to take his Leave of God and Religion, and to bid an eternal Farewel to both. In three other Places in this Book the Word is taken in this latter Sense, (for it is most probable that in this particular Book the Word is always used in the same Meaning) as in ch. 1. 5. It may be my Sons have as 'twere taken their leave of (i. e. tacitely renounced) God in their Hearts, in the midst of their Pleasures and Enter∣tainments: it may be they have had an Aversion to God, they have in some measure departed from him: for it is not likely that Iob's Children openly bla∣sphemed, or (strictly speaking) cursed God. So that part of the 11th Verse of this Chapter, and of the 5th of the next, which we translate, he will curse thee to thy Face, seems to be too harsh a Repre∣sentation (even from the Mouth of the Devil) of that Holy Man's Carriage; for though he cursed the Day of his Birth, he never curs'd and blasphe∣med the Almighty, and that to his Face, i. e. open∣ly and audaciously: but he might be said in some Degree to have forsaken and abandoned God, and to have turned himself from him, by indulging too much to Impatience and Murmuring. And not only these Places in Iob, but that in 1 Kings before-men∣tioned, which we translate thus, Naboth blasphemed or cursed God and the King, may be understood in this Sense. He by certain Actions discovered (as

was pretended) that he had forsaken God, and re∣volted from his Duty to the King. But I submit this to the Judgment of the Learned. Thus you see that Words of Different, much more of Contrary Significations, occasion some Difficulty in interpret∣ing the Texts where they are found. There are many* 1.385 Other Hebrew Words in Scripture which signify Contrary things; the Sense sometimes as well as the Letters, must be read backwards.

Nor is the Greek wholly destitute of such Words, as in Tit. 1. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be rendred either slow or quick Bellies, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is both piger and celer. The Cretians, of whom this is spoken, might be said to be Slow Bellies, because they were given to Idleness and Gluttony; or they might be call'd Quick Bellies, because they were Greedy and Fierce Eaters. Other Greek Words (some of which oc∣cur in the New Testament) might be taken notice of, which have both a good and a bad Sense, and so come under this Head: as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (a remarka∣ble Word, beginning with three Alpha's) is valdè∣noxius and innoxius: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Inflammatio and Pi∣tuita, a cold Humour: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bears a good Sense in its Primitive Acception, and is no more than any Likeness or Image: but it also (and that most frequently) signifies such an Image or Representa∣tion to which is given Religious Worship. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, were at first used to signify only Curiosity, but afterwads they were taken in a worse Sense by some Authors, and particularly by St. Luke, Acts 19. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to have more than another; but withal, to have more than one ought to have, to defraud and circumvent: yea, to de∣fraud and injure by Adultery, as St. Chrysostom and Dr. Hammond observe on 1 Thess. 4. 6. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

which is an honest Word, was applied here∣tofore to a bad sort of Women, little better than Concubines; yea, Harlots, as we read in* 1.386 Theodo∣ret and† 1.387 Epiphanius. And so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was abused, as St.‖ 1.388 Ierom complains. The same is commonly said of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was a good Word at first, and signified a King, but afterwards a Tyrant. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was a Professor of Wisdom, and one that ex∣cell'd in any useful Science; but at last it signified a mere Pretender to Art. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a whole∣some Medicine, and a deadly Poison. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 though it is well known it hath an ill Sense, yet * 1.389 sometimes (like the Hebrew† 1.390 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is no more than ubertim expleri. So among the Latins, the same Word sometimes hath a Contrary Mean∣ing: thus Expers is one that hath not Experience or Skill, and one that hath. Religio is taken for down∣right Superstition and Bigotry, as well as the Due Worship of God. Sacer, by an usual Antiphrasis, is made to signify that Person or Thing which is so far from being Holy, that it is most Profane and Desecrate, most Cursed and Detestable, most Per∣nicious and Destructive. So ignis sacer is reckon'd among the most Dangerous sorts of Ulcers by ‖ 1.391 Celsus: it is also the Name of the Erysipelas, call'd by‖‖ 1.392 Pliny Zoster, and was thought to be extremely pernicious and fatal when it encompassed the Part. And the sacer ignis in the Close of Vir∣gil's third Book of Georgicks is interpreted to be the same by some Commentators; by others the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and call'd sacer, because of its Great Malignity. Villanus was once an honest Ru∣stick, (as Budaeus observes) but now is a Name of

Infamy. So Missa, the Mass, was an innocent Word at first, and signified no other than the Ser∣vice of the Church, but afterwards it degenerated into a very bad one, and is appropriated to the Idolatrous Worship of the Church of Rome. But enough of this.

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)* 1.393 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••* 1.394 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, * 1.395 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; † 1.396 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‖ 1.397 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* 1.398 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 * 1.399 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* 1.400 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* 1.401 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.

CHAP. XII.

Answers to Objections against the Arithmetick of Scripture, as Gen. 46. 27. All the Souls of the House of Iacob which came into Egypt were three∣score and ten, compared with Acts 7. 14. where they are said to be threescore and fifteen Souls. Numb. 25. 9. saith, that those that died of the Plague were twenty and four thousand: but we read in 1 Cor. 10. 8. that there fell in one Day three and twenty thousand. David is his Father's eighth Son, 1 Sam. 16. 10. yet he is reckon'd the seventh Son, 1 Chron. 2. 15. Other Numerical Difficulties in 2 Sam. 24. 9. 1 Chron. 21. 15. and in 1 Kings 4. 26. 2 Chron. 9. 25. cleared. A Re∣solution of several Geographical Scruples, as about the Place of Abraham's Nativity, Gen. 11. 28. ch. 24. 10. Joseph was sold to the Ismaelites, Gen. 37. 28. yet in the same Verse, and afterwards (ver. 36.) 'tis said, he was sold to the Midianites. Moses's Wife is call'd an Ethiopian, Numb. 12. 1. though she was of the Land of Midian, Exod. 2. 15, 16. Sh•• that is call'd a Woman of Candan, Matth. 15. 22. is said to be a Syrophoenician, Mark 7. 26. The Chorography of the Scripture is sometimes different (i. e. it seems to be so) from that in Prophane Authors, because several Places mentioned in Holy Writ have not the same Names which they are known by in other Writers. Whether the Queen of Sheba came from Arabia or Ethiopia is uncertain. Ophir is unknown to us: So is Ara∣rat: But Tarshish is so named from Tarsus, a Noted Town on the Mediterranean. How East and West in Ezekiel are to be understood. Different Meanings in Scripture arise from the Relation which certain Words have in Texts to the adjoining Chapters and Verses. Some Instances of this largely prosecuted.

BUT a great Cry there is that the Scripture is defective, or in plain Terms false in its Arith∣metick: and here many Places are muster'd up, as That in Gen. 46. 27. All the Souls of the House of Jacob which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten. And again, Deut. 10. 22. they are said to be three∣score and ten Persons: so many they were, reckoning Iacob and Ioseph into the Number. But how doth this agree with St. Stephen's Account in Acts 7. 14. Joseph s••nt and call'd his Father Jacob to him, and all his Kindred, threescore and fifteen Souls? Here is an Addition of five to the former Number. But the Agreement of these Texts is not difficult, be∣cause we may say that Moses only reckons Iacob's Children and Grand-children, and not his Daugh∣ters in Law, the Wives of Iacob's Sons, which in all are seventy five. Or it may be said that St. Ste∣phen reckons up how great the Number of Iacob's

Family was before he came into Egypt, and so takes in Iacob's Wives and Iudab's Sons, although then dead: Or thus, that he reckons some into the Number who were begot before they came into Egypt, but born after their coming thither. There might be such a Tradition as this among the Jews, and Stephen here makes use of it. Any of these Answers is satisfactory in a Matter of this nature. But by no means must we approve of Grotius's shift, viz. that it was the Fault of the Transcriber; he inserted five more than he should have done.

Again, some ask what Agreement there is be∣tween those two Places, viz. Numb. 25. 9. Those that died in the Plague were twenty and four thousand; and 1 Cor. 10. 8. (which speaks of the same thing) There fell in one Day three and twenty thousand. Here is a Thousand short of the former Account: But if you look into the Context, you'l soon reconcile these two different Numbers, by taking notice that there were two different Judgements or Plagues up∣on the People at that time. The Apostle num∣bers those only that were kill'd with the Plague from Heaven, but Moses reckons those also who were kill'd with the Sword, and hung up by the Levites, ver. 4, 5. Or, I conceive, the Difference between the Numbers may lie in this, that St. Paul speaks only of what was done in one Day: the Em∣phasis may be in those Words; and so here is not excluded the other thousand which fell at another time. Some are dissatisfied because they read in 1 Sam. 16. 10. that David was his Father's eighth Son: and again in 1 Sam. 17. 14. they find that he is call'd the youngest Son of eight: and yet in 1 Chron. 2. 15. he is reckon'd the seventh Son. But the An∣swer is short and plain, namely, that in this latter Place, where there is a particular Enumeration of

I••sse's Sons, one of them is omitted, and it con∣cerns us not to know why. Only we know that s••ch Omissions are not unusual in Scripture.

Another Numerical Difficulty is in 2 Sam. 24. 9. where the Sum of the Number of the People which Ioa•• gave up, is said to be ••ight h••••dred thousa••d, viz. in Israel, and five ••undred thousand in 〈◊〉〈◊〉, in all thirteen hundred thousand fighting Men: but look into the Accompt in 1 Chron. 21. 5. and you will find a vast Difference between it and the for∣mer. But why should this seem strange, ••••••ing there might be ••everal Reasons why these Sums va∣ry? I will mention one. Ioab had not finished his numbring of Israel, but left off, because the Anger of the Lord was kindled ••gainst Israel, and so brought David the Number only which is mention∣ed in Samuel.* 1.402 Iosephus is more particular, and saith, that Ioab left out the Tribe of Benjamin, and the Tribe of Levi, which two he had not at that time reckon'd: for David in the mean time (when this Number was taking) repented of what he did, and call'd back Ioab before he had finish'd the Sum: But the Captains who were ••et about this Work in the remoter Parts, numbred thre•• hundred thousand besides, which being put to the eight hundred thousand in Israel, make up exactly the Number in the Chronicles: and the same may b•• said of Iudab. T••at Place likewise is objected, Solomon had four thousand Stalls for Horses, 2 Chron▪ 9. 25. whereas we are told that he had forty thou∣sand, 1 Kings 4. 26. If we distinguish between Stalls and Stables, the Difficulty ceaseth; and w•• have reason to do so, because there is a Diffe••enc•• in the† 1.403 Hebrew Words used in these Places.

latter signifies distinct Stalls for Horses, where they stood asunder by themselves, one single Horse in a Stall. But the former signifies Stables or Stalls, wherein ten Horses were placed: therefore there is a Iod, which is a Note of the number ten, in∣serted into this Word, to distinguish it from the other. There were half a score Horses in every one of these Stables, and so they amount to forty thousand. Abarbanel and some other Hebrew Do∣ctors determine thus, that there were forty thou∣sand Horses in four thousand Stables. Or if it were the very same Word in the Hebrew, yet it might be differently taken, and signify Stalls in one Place, and Stables in another, and so the Controversy is ended, i. e. every Stable or greater Place for Horses contained in it ten thousand distinct Stalls. We may say there were four thousand Great Stables which contain'd forty thousand Lesser ones. Thus far in answer to those that charge the Scripture with want of Truth as to Numbers.

Others complain that it is erroneous and false in its Geography, that is, as to the Places and Coun∣tries that are mentioned in it. Thus we find that Ur of the Chaldees is call'd the Land of Haran, and consequently of Abraham's Nativity, Gen. 11. 28. And in Gen. 15. 7. God reminded him that he brought him out of Ur of the Chaldees: therefore that was the Country which he first dwelt in. But if we consult Gen. 24. 10. we shall see that Mesopo∣tamia was Abraham's native Country: and in Ios. 24. 2, 3. we read that he dwelt on the other side of the Flood, i. e. of Euphrates, (which is frequently call'd the Flood, by way of Eminency, in Scripture) and this parted Canaan, where Abraham afterwards dwelt, from Mesopotamia in Syria. This is the Ri∣ver which Abraham passed over, Gen. 31. 21. when

he came into Canaan out of his own Country, and from which passing over he had his Name, as is thought by many of the Learned. So that when 'tis said he dwelt on the other side of the Flood, it appears thence that he came out of Mesopotamia, which was divided from Canaan by that Flood. But how are these two consistent, viz. that he was a Chaldean and a Mesopotamian, i. e. a Syrian, when these have reference to two distinct Coun∣tries, Chaldea and Syria? This hath puzzled Jews and Christians: But the Answer which most of them acquiesce in is this, that Mesopotamia (Aram Naharaim, (as 'tis call'd in the foremention'd Place in Genesis, and in Iudg. 3. 8.) Syria fluviorum, be∣cause situated between two Rivers, Euphrates and Tigris, and call'd by the Antient Latins Mediamna, which answers exactly to the Greek Word) is taken in Genesis and other Places in a large Sense, and comprehends Chaldea. So the Arabian Geo∣graphers also refer C••alde•• to Mesopotamia, saith * 1.404 Ludovicus de Dieu. And they might very well do so, for† 1.405 Pliny comprehends all Assyria under Mesopotamia: and in another Place tells us, that the‖ 1.406 whole Country of Mesopotamia belonged to the Assyrians, and in general speaking was part of Babylon. And truly this is no unusual thing to take the Names of Places somtimes in a stricter, sometimes i•• a more lax Sense. Wherefore Meso∣potamia in the general and large way of speaking (and 'tis likely in the Estimation of the Hebrews) took in some other Places which were not within the Rivers of Euphrates and Tigris. This is a true

Answer, and a very good one: But I rather think this to be the plainest Solution of the Difficulty, viz. that Mesopotamia, as distinct from Chaldea, was Abraham's native Soil, and that Vr was a City or Town in that Country, (thus* 1.407 Ammianus rec∣kons it there, and not in Chaldea) and that this very City was the Birth-place of Abraham: and yet this Vr is said to be of the Chaldees, because it was possessed by the Chaldeans at that time. Per∣sons have thought it was a part of Chaldea, and properly belonged to it, because they read it to be of the Chaldees: but this is a Mistake, for the true Import of this Addition to the Word is only this, that this part of Mesopotamia, as well as the rest of it, was under the Jurisdiction and Power of the Chaldeans, and was inhabited by them: as Hebron is call'd the Land of the Hebrews, Gen. 40. 15. be∣cause the Hebrews dwelt there. Besides, I might add, that this Place was defiled with the Idolatry of the Chaldeans, and therefore for that reason also is call'd Vr of the Chaldees. And from what hath ••een said, we may have a right understanding of those Words in Acts 7. 2, &c. The God of Glory ap∣peared unto our Father Abraham▪ when he was in Meso∣potami••, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy Coun∣try:—then came he out of the Land of the Chal∣deans. It is plain that Mesopotamia and the Land of the Chaldeans (in a large Sense) are the same, which is according to what we find in the Old Testament, and particularly in the Places before∣mentioned: Yet Mesopotamia and Chaldea (strictly speaking) were not the same: but the former was under the Power of the Chaldean Kings, and for that reason was rightly call'd the Land of the Chal∣deans.

So that Grotius needed not to have go•••• about to reconcile this Text, by telling us, th••t St. Luke's Memory fail'd him as to the ••xact De••ig∣nation of the Place: which is as much a•• ••o say, that this Inspired Writer was mist••ken, and in •• palpable Error; and that is as much as to say, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was not Inspired; and so he contradicts himself, as well as defames the Holy Writings.

Another Geographical Scruple arises from G••n. 37. 28. where we read that Ioseph was sold to the Is∣maelites; and in the very same Verse, and after∣wards, (ver. 36.) we are told that he was sold to the Midianites. How co••ld he be sold to both? Very well; for these are Names of the same ••eo∣ple of Arabia, either the Desart or Stony, or both, for there is a Dispute about this. Or if there were some Difference between the Ismaelites and Midia∣nites, (as 'tis not unlikely) yet they were near Neighbours, and so passed for the same People▪ thence the Kings of the Ismaelites are call'd Kings of Midian, Judg. 8. 24, 26. Thus in the Gospel the Gadarens, Luke 8. 37. and the Gergasens, Mat. 8. 28. are represented as the same People, because Gadara and Gergesa were neighbouring Towns, their Fields lay close together. Every one grants that the Inhabitants of Arabia had several Names according to the Places and Regions they were seated in: they are call'd Kenites, Numb. 24. 21. and frequently in other places Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Hagarens, (as in Psal. 83. 6.) from Ha∣gar Sarah's Maid-servant, the Mother of Ismael▪ (which Name they have long since ••hang'd into that of Saracens, choosing to be call'd rather by the Name of the Mistress than of the Maid.) And here they are stiled Ismaelites and Midianites, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 former inhabiting in one part of that Country, and

the latt••r in another. Ioseph then may be truly said to be sold both to the Ismaelites and Midia∣nites, because the Company of Merchants who bought him▪ consisted of both, it is probable: they were joint-Traders, and did traffick in com∣mon. Thus we see here is nothing inconsistent.

Some object against the Geography of Scripture, because Zippora, Moses's Wife, is call'd an Ethio∣pian, N••mb. 12. 1. although she was of another Country, namely, the Land of Midian as appears from Exod▪ 2. 15, 16. In answer to which Ios••∣ph••s would perswade us that Moses had two Wives, one an Ethiopian, the other a Midianitess or Ara∣bian: But there is no Foundation at all for this, and therefore some other Answer is to be given. Some are of opinion that Cushith, which is the Word used in the Book of Numbers, should not be translated an Ethiopian, but an Arabian Woman; for Arabia was call'd Cush, because the Seat of Cush, the eldest Son of Ham, was there, saith Sir W. Raleigh. Whence he concludes that Moses's Wife was not an Ethiopian, though a Woman of Cush, but an Arabian. And Bochart asserts the same, and on the same Ground, viz. because Cush was seated in Arabia, not in Et••iopia. But this Opinion hath found but little Reception among those who have further enquired into this Matter, and have found that sometimes the word Cush in the Old Testament must necessarily be understood of Et••iopia. Therefore it is more reasonable to adhere to those Authors who affirm that Cush is an ambiguous Word, and that not only Arabia but Ethiopia is expressed by that Name. Or rather, there is a double Et••iopia; one in Africa, beyond Egypt, under the Torrid Zone; the other in Asia, and particularly in some part of Arabia. And

that there are both these Ethiopia's, is testified by Philostratus, Herodotus, and Pausanias. This lat∣ter, viz. the Asiatick Ethiopia, is meant in the fore∣named Place, where 'tis said, Moses married a Cushite, an Ethiopian Woman: She was not of the African but the Asian Cush or Ethiopia; and so it well agrees with the other Text, where we are told she was a Midianite. Nor is this to be won∣dred at, that Cush is thus differently taken; for it might be proved from several Examples, that one and the same Name is given to two or three Coun∣tries. Thus there is Caesarea in Palestine and in the Lesser Asia: There is Antioch in Syria, in Pisidia, and in Caria: There is Babylon in Chaldea and E∣gypt: There is Thebes in Baeotia, in Egypt, and in Cilicia: There is Heliopolis in Egypt, in Coelosyria, and Cilicia: There is Albania in Greece and Arme∣nia: And so in our neighbouring Countries there is Zeland in Denmark and in the Netherlands. And not only in France, but England, several Places have the same Name. But although this be very satisfactory, yet I am inclined to offer another Re∣solution of the Place, viz. that Midian was di∣vided from Ethiopia only by the Red Sea, a short Passage, and by reason of this Nearness Midian is call'd in Soripture the Land of Cush or Ethiopia; and thence Zippora is call'd a Cushite; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the Seventy Interpreters, an Ethiopi∣an. She is call'd so, I say, because the Midianites dwelt near to the African Ethiopians, and thence sometimes had their Name communicated to them. Midian being a neighbouring Country, was call'd Ethiopia; and those other Parts of Asi•• and Africa that lay about the Red Sea had the like D••nomina∣tion; as at this Day, among Cosmographers, some Places that border on other Countries are

sometimes said to belong to them, and to be Parts of them, and are call'd by their Name. Thus Tyre and Sidon, of old were reckon'd both in Syria and Palestine. And in our modern Geography ••ome Places in the Netherlands and G••rmany are some∣times rank'd among those of France. Some Geo∣graphers place Lorain in Germany, others in France. The Alpes are divided among the Germans, Itali∣ans, French, and so are said to belong to all of them. Piedmont is reckon'd both in France and Italy. So it is in the present Case; the Vic••nity of the Place to some other, causes the Name to be communicated to both. The Midianites and other People, because they bordered on Ethiopia, were call'd Ethiopians: hence Cushan or Ethiopia, and the Land of Midian are join'd together, Hab. 3. 7. Lastly, it is probable that Cush, the eldest Son of Cham, was seated not only in Ethiopia, but in those Parts of Arabia which were bordering upon it: and thence it comes to pass that a Cushite or a Woman of Cush is an Arabian as well as an Ethiopian properly so call'd.

She that is call'd a Woman of Canaan, Mat. 15. 22. is call'd a Syrophoenician, Mark 7. 26. which some imagin•• are inconsistent, and therefore they think the former Word should be Cana, which was a Town in Phoeni••ia, and was known by the Name of the Greater Cana, for there was a Lesser in the lower Galilee, where* 1.408 Christ turn'd Water into Wine. But there is no Necessity of ••hanging the Word, because Canaan and Phoenicia are but different Names for the same Region. Thus in Gen. 16. 35. the Land of Canaan is call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the LXX. and in Exod. 6. 15. a Canaani∣••••••

Woman is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We must know then that the whole Country of Palestine is a part o•• Syria, and Phoenicia is a part of Palestine; and Syro-Phoe∣nicia as well as Phoenicia is the North Part of Ca∣naan. But especially the People of this Country that lived on the Sea-coasts were call'd Phoenicians, and that in a peculiar manner, as is evident from Stra••o, pliny and others. Yea, and those were properly and strictly of old c••ll'd Canaanites that dwelt at Tyre and Sidon, and inhabited near the Sea. The Canaanites dwell by the Sea, Numb. 13. 29. and some quote Isa. 23. 8. where the Tyrians are call'd Canaanim▪ So this Woman who came out of the Coasts of Tyre and Sidon (as is expresly said ver. 21.) is rightly stiled both a Canaanite by St. Matthew, and a Phoenician or Syro-Phoenician by St. Mark; for the word Syrian is added (as Grotius well notes) only to distinguish the Asian Phoenici∣ans from those of some Colonies in Africk. Thus there is no Reason to find fault with the Chorogra∣phy of the Bible.

Here, for the better clearing some Passages in the Holy Writings, and the removing some Cavils which ill-disposed Men are wont to raise, I will further remark that the Chorography of the Scrip∣tures is sometimes different from that in Profane Authors. Several Places mention'd in Holy Writ have not the same Names which they are known by in other Writers, (of which the Learned* 1.409 Mr. Sel∣den hath taken notice) which may sometimes occa∣sion Dispute about certain Places in Scripture. Ba∣hylon is call'd Shinar, Gen. 11. 2. Egypt hath the Name of Ham, Psal. 78. 51. & 105. 23. and Ra∣••ab, Psal. 87. 4. & 89. 10. Of old On and Beth∣shemesh

were the Names of that Place in Egypt, which since is call'd Heliopolis; Gen. 41. 45, 50. Ier. 43. 13. Some gather from Gen. 2. 13. that Nile was at first call'd Gibon. Memphis had the Title of Noph, Isa. 19. 13. Jer. 46. 14. The City of Alexandria (call'd so from Alexander the Great, who built it after it had been laid waste by the Chaldeans, and gave it that Name) was at first call'd No, Jer. 46. 25. Ezek. 30. 15. Nahum 3. 8. The antient Name of Mesopotamia was Padan A∣ram, Gen. 25. 20. ch. 28. 6. Before Cyrus's time the Country which is now call'd Persia was known by no other Titles than Cuth and Elam, Ifa. 11. 11. oh. 22. 6. but afterwards it had that new Denomi∣nation from Paras a Horse, because the Persians were great Riders on Horse-back. Canaan and the Holy Land are Terms in Scripture for that known Country which is stiled Syria and Iudea by the Greek and Roman Writers. Ierusalem was first call'd Salem, then Iebus, then by putting both together* 1.410 Iebusalem; and afterwards, for better sound sake Ierusalem. I might proceed, and ob∣serve this Change of Names in other Regions of the World, yea in our own: Thus Albion was the antient Name of this Isle, then Britain, then Eng∣land. This I mention to remind us that there is a great Alteration of Names as to several Places and Countries. Either by Conquest or otherwise it hath come to pass that the former ones by which they were known are worn off, and new ones are come in their room. Whence it happens some∣times that we have no Help from Profane Histori∣ans to understand many Places mentioned in the Bible; and we are not able to know to what Coun∣tries

and Nations some of those Names refer which we meet with in these Antient Records.

This I will more largely insist upon in some few particular Instances: And first that in 1 Kings 10. 1. doth partly belong to this Place; there is men∣tion of the Queen of Sheba, who is call'd the Queen of the South by our Saviour, Mat. 12. 42. but whe∣ther she came from Arabia or Ethiopia, both which Countries are South of Iudea, is as much contro∣verted, as whether Moses's Wife was an Arabian or an Ethiopian. Monsieur Bochart and some others say she was the former, for there was a Saba or Se∣ba (as* 1.411 Strabo informs us) in that Country. Some tell us it is the Metropolis of Arabia Felix, now call'd Zibet, whence the Zivet-Cat hath its Name. The Inhabitants of this Place were antiently call'd † 1.412 Sabaei by the Latins. But for my part I cannot think that this was the Country whence this Royal Visitant came, and that for this one good Reason, because our Saviour himself hath informed us that ‖ 1.413 She came from the utmost Parts of the Earth, which cannot be said of her if she came from Arabia, for that was near to Iudea.* 1.414 Iosephus saith, he found the antient Name of Meroe in Africa to be Saba, and thence he affirms that she was an Afri∣can, viz. the Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia: and others more particularly vouch her to belong to the upper Ethiopia, i. e. the Kingdom of the Abys∣sines▪ and 'tis certain (as a late Inquisitive‖‖ 1.415 Wri∣ter hath informed us) that the Abassyne People challenge her for theirs. But now if we come to examine things, and to make some•• Proof of this latter Opinion, viz. that the Queen who took a

long Journey to visit King Solomon, and behold his Glory, was an Ethiopian, we are not able to effect any thing, for we cannot trust to the Iewish Histo∣rian, who had little Skill in foreign Matters; and we cannot rely upon Pliny's* 1.416 Saba Aethiopica, or gather any thing certainly thence. And a more Authentick Writer tells us, that there was not on∣ly a† 1.417 Sheba but a Seba: so that that Saba might re∣fer to this latter rather than to the former. We have then no ••ure footing, but all that we are able to say is this, that there was a Nation of this Name in some very distant part of the World in a Sou∣therly Position from Iudea: but we have no Geo∣grapher to acquaint us what particular Region it was, and what the Name of it is at this Day; and consequently we cannot determine the Place whence that Brave Woman came. What the aforesaid‖ 1.418 Jewish Historian observ'd hath great Truth in it, that the Names of Nations have been chang'd by new Comers, who with new Manners brought a Language of a resembling Quality, and alter'd the former Names of Places.

This we find true in another Instance, viz. Ophir, the Place that King Solomon's Navy went to, and form whence they furnish'd him with Plenty of Gold, 1 Kings 9. 26, &c. ch. 10. 11. But in what part of the Earth this Ophir was is hotly dis∣puted. Some say it was in that Region of it which we now call America. They think that the Phoeni∣cians or Tyrians, (for 'tis said that Hiram, the King of Tyre, sent in the Navy his Servants, Shipmen, that had Knowledg of the Sea, with the Servants of Solo∣mon, 1 Kings 9. 27.) they think, I say, that these Tyrians (who were famous for their Skill in Navi∣gation)

fail'd to those remote Parts in Solomon's time, passing through the Mediterranean to this Ophir: which some imagine to have been in the P••••ei••ick Sea in the Southern Part of America, for there is an Island in that Sea▪ which the Spaniards call'd the Isle of Solomon, because they thought that was the Place which Solomon's Ships were sent to for Gold.* 1.419 Arias Montanus, and some others, are perswaded that Ophir is the same with Peru: and indeed there are the same Radical Letters in both, only with a Metathe••is. And from Peru is the dual Pa••vajim, 2 Cliron. 3. 6. as the foresaid Author thinks; which is a very Ingenious and Learned Conjecture, but is entertained but by few, because 'tis thought that Columbus was the first that found out the Western World. But whether that be true or no, it is not probable that they had Skill enough in Solomon's Days to conduct a Navy to the West-Indies. Navigation was not so perfect at that time, that they could find a safe Passage thither. Hercules's Pillars (which are now the Cape of Good Hope) were said to be the Limits of their Maritime Travels. Before the Use of the Compass it was impossible to havigate cross the Ocean; and conse∣quently Solomon's Mariners could not find Peru, which is in America. Besides, some think that the Quality of some of the Commodities, viz. Wood and Ivory, which were brought home in the Ships, argues that they came not from that Western Quar∣ter of the World. Again, 'tis added by some, that if Solomon had sent for Gold to the West-In∣dies, he would have set out his Fleet for that Voyage from some Port of the Mediterranean, and not of the Red Sea, as we read he did, 1 Kings 9. 26.

Others therefore say it was a Country in the East-Indies: Ophir was so call'd from Ophir the Son of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Gen. 10. 29. who, as* 1.420 Ios••phus saith, in∣habited in the East. Wherefore it is likely (saith this Jewish Aritiquary) that Solomon's Fleet sail'd to these Parts, and particularly to the Golden Cher∣son••se, and other Golden Regions there. It is an Island in the East-Indies, saith† 1.421 Bochart, which is named Zeilan. But others of late are inclined to believe that it is that Island or Islands in this Ea∣stern Part of the World, which are call'd the Mo∣lu••••d's; but the Reasons which they alledg have no Cogency in them.‖ 1.422 Kircher is more general, and avers, that Ophir was India; for this is not, he saith, an Hebrew (as hath been thought) but an Egyptick or Coptick Word, and among the Egypti∣ans of old was the Name for India: But we have only his Word for this, and no more. Others hold it to be neither in the East nor West-Indies, but in Africk, which seems to me to be the most probable Perswasion. Ortelius and Purchas are of this Opinion, and they say it is an Island in the Ethiopi••k Sea, and is at this day call'd Sophala: But they might as well have assign'd any other Place and Name in this Country, if they had pleased, for here is no firm Ground to go upon; we have no Chard to direct us. Ophir is a Name not known to any Geographers: no Pagan Writers make mention of it. This happens because several Places have chang'd their Names, they are not the same now that they were heretofore. And how is it possible then that we should arrive to a certain Knowledg of them? And what though we do not? There is no reason why we should be troubled at it,

much less that we should be displeased with the Bi∣ble., Yea, rather we may make use of this to com∣mend the Holy Writings, for this is an undeniable Argument of the unparallell'd Antiquity of them, (as hath been suggested before) and of their Tran∣scendent Worth and Excellency, in that they re∣cord those Names of Places as well as Things which other Writers say nothing at all of.

To these Instances I will add one more, the Mountains of Ararat, Gen. 8. 4. on which the Ark rested. They are not mentioned under this Name by any Heathen Authors; and thence it is difficult to give an Account of them, i. e. to know where they were, and consequently where the Ark land∣ed. The Hills of Armenia the Greater, call'd the Gordiaean Hills, are meant, say Iosephus, St. Ierom, Bochart, Grotius: and before these Berosus held the same. But there is another Opinion maintain'd by Goropius Becanus, Sir W. Raleigh, and Dr. Heylin, viz. that the Ark rested on Mount Taurus, but especially on the Top of Mount Caucasus (which is a Part of it) in the Confines of Tartaria, Persia, and India; which they think they prove from Gen. 11. 2. where we read that they who enter'd into the Valley of Shinar came from the East, i. e. from those Parts of Asia, on the South of Caucasus, which lie East from Shinar. And this is thought to be a sufficient Confutation of the former Opinion, for it is impossible they should come from the Moun∣tains of Armenia, the Gordiaean Mountains, be∣cause those lie not only full North of Shinar, but many Degrees unto the West. This Caucasus was part of the Mountain Taurus, the biggest Moun∣tain in the World; or rather (as hath been said in another Place before) a continual Ridg of Moun∣tains crossing all Asia from East to West, and di∣viding

it as the Equator doth the Globe, into North and South. So that in short, Ararat, which ac∣cording to these Authors is the Scripture-word for Taurus, is no more One Mountain than any one Hill among those that divide Italy from France is call'd the Alpes, or any one of those that part France from Spain is the Pyren••••n▪ But as these, being Continuations of many Hills, keep one Name in divers Countries, so all that long Ledg of Moun∣tains (which Pliny calls by one Name Taurus) are of one general Name, and are call'd the Mountains of Ararat. These are the two different Opinions of the Learned about this Matter; but it is my Per∣swasion that a Man may easily compromise them: For, according to that Description which Sir. W. Raleigh gives us of this great Multiplicity of Hills, the Gordiaean ones may be taken in among those that make up Taurus, for this Learned Knight him∣self acknowledgeth that these Mountains (which go through so many diverse Countries and King∣doms) seem to take their Rise from Arm••nia, or thereabouts. So that it is probable the Gor••iaean Hills, and those of Taurus, are to be reckon'd to∣gether. Thus we may moderate between these Dissenting Writers: but when all is done, it is im∣possible to define exactly what Mountains are meant by those of Ararat. This only is unquestio∣nable that they were in the East; but as to their particular Situation, and whether they answer to the Gordi••ean Hills, or to Caucasus, we are wholly ignorant. And there is no Remedy for it, because Ararat is not a Name that we can find in any other Authors; and we are not certain that any other Denominations in Pagan Writers refer to it. Thus it must needs be, seeing the old Names of several Places are extinct, and others are introduced: so

that on that Account we can't expect to know some of those Places that are mention'd in Scripture. Nor is it necessary that we should, for it is a Mat∣ter of small Moment, and not worth the contend∣ing about.

Some dream of a great Geographical Difficulty in the word Tarshish, so often used in the Old Testa∣ment; but there is no reason for it, because it plainly refers to a known Place, and such as is ex∣presly mention'd by Lucan and other Writers, be∣sides those of the Bible, and that is Tarsus in Cili∣cia. The Sea which washed the Shores of this Cili∣cia, had its Name from this Metropolis of it, viz. Tarsus, and was usually called Tarshish. This is the first and more restrained Acception of the Word in the Old Testament, where we read that Solomon had a Navy of Tarshish, 1 Kings 10. 22. i. e. a Na∣vy that frequented the Mediterranean or African Sea, especially that part of it which was near Ci∣licia, and was so noted for its Merchandizing, Thus when 'tis said that Solomon's Ships went to Tarshish, 2 Chron. 9. 21.* 1.423 Iosephus interprets it that they went to the Mediter••anean Sea, where they traffick'd, and for the Goods they exported brought Gold and Silver, &c. But we are to ob∣serve that it is said there, the King's Ships went to Tarshish with the Servants of Hiram, i. e. as I con∣ceive, they went to those Ports which the Tyrian Navy (with whom they were to go to Ophir) re∣sorted to, and those were in the Mediterranean. And that the Ships of T••rshish belong properly to Tyro, i•• manifest from Isa. 23. 1. otherwise [Howl, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ships of Tarshish] could not be part of the Bur∣den or Doom of that Place, as we find it is So 〈…〉〈…〉

the Kings of Tarshish, Psal. 72. 10. are those Kings properly that were seated upon the Mediterrane∣an, especially that Part which was over against Tarsus, or Cilicia, which it washed. Secondly, the word is taken more largely for the Sea in general: for the African or Mediterranean Sea being the only Noted Sea to the Hebrews. they call'd all other Seas, and the Ocean it self, Tarsis, as the Latins call any Sea Pontus▪ though that word be proper only to one particular Sea. Thus Tarshish is used in Psal. 48. 7. thou breakest the Ships of Tarshish, (i. e. of the Sea) with an East Win••: and in Isa. 2. 12, 16. The, Day of the Lord of Hosts shall be upon all the Ships of Tarshish. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the Seventy, And in several other Places it hath this large Signi∣fication; but not in Ion. 1. 3. (as is said by many Interpreters) for Tarshish here is the City call'd Tarsus, a noted Place in Cilicia. Though Tarshish be a common Word in Scripture to signify the Sea, (as hath been said) yet here we must take it in the most restrained Sense of all, we must understand by it the Town of that Name; and from whence the Sea, but more particularly the Phoenician and Tyrian Sea, had the Denomination of Tarshish. The Reason which I give of this Interpretation is this, because in that Place of Ionah, Tarshish and the Sea are expresly distinguish'd, and that not once. but often▪ as you may satisfy your selves by per∣using ver. 3. and the rest that follow in that Chap∣ter, where you will see that Hajam the Sea, is mentioned nine or ten times in distinction from Tarshish: whence I gather that this latter Word is, not to be translated the Sea, but that it denotes. that known City Tarsus of Cilicia. To this Place the Timerous Prophet had a mind to flee, because it was sufficiently remote, and also because there

was a safe Harbour to put into. There need not then be any Dispute about the word Tarshish, for where-ever it is used in Scripture (except in this Place last mentioned) it signifies either the Sea in general, or more especially the Phoenician or Afri∣can Sea, which the Tyrian Merchants were most used to: but it hath its Name from Tarsus or Tar∣sis, near to which was the most famous Port of all the East Country, from whence they took Ship for Africa and India, and the most remote Parts of the World.

To close up all the Geographical Scruples, I will only adjoin this concerning the mentioning of East and West in the Old Testament, that these are ge∣nerally to be understood according to the Situati∣on of Iudea, more especially Ierusalem, and as the Places spoken of had respect to these; but in the Prophecy of Ezekiel it is for the most part other∣wise, because Ezekiel writ in Babylon; and thence it is that East and West are contrary here to what they are in other Prophets. This I thought fit to add to prevent Cavils against the Sacred Writ.

I might in the next place take notice of the diffe∣rent Meanings which arise from the Relation which certain Words in some Texts have to the neigh∣bouring Verses. Thus it is said, the Poor shall ne∣ver cease out of the Land, Deut. 15. 11. yet it is im∣plied, if not expressed, ver. 4. that there shall be no Poor among them. But the Answer is, that this 4th Verse refers to the releasing and forgiving their Debtors, ver. 2, 3. They must not by their exacting make their Neighbours poor; yea, they must do what lies in their power, that there may be no Poor: but as to the Event, there will be Poor, and always shall be.

Their Strength is to sit still, saith the Prophet, Isa. 30. 7. which [their] if you refer to the Egyp∣tians who are named in that Verse, then the Sense is, Their Strength, their Aid, their Assistance is to no purpose; they had as good sit still as help the Jews. But if you refer their to the Iews, then the Interpretation is this, The Jews had best to sit still in their own Land, and not to require Aid from Egypt, for it shall not prosper. This is the true Sense of the Words, because their Proper Re∣ference is to the Iewish People; which we are sure of, because these are the subject Matter of this Part of the Chapter. The right fixing of the Relation of the Words, especially of the Pronoun their, leads us to the true meaning of the Place. And this is put out of all Controversy by ver. 15. In R••∣••urning and Rest ye shall be saved; in Quietness and Confidence shall be your Strength: which is a plain Comment on the former Words, and shews that we have pitch'd upon the true Reference.

I interpret those Words in Heb. 12. 24. The Blood of Sprinkling, which speaks better things than that of Abel, by observing what they particularly refer to, viz. ver. 4. of the foregoing Chapter, By it he be∣ing dead yet speaketh. I conceive that this Speaking is referr'd to by the Apostle in the other Place; and so by searching into the true Meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he speaks, we shall be able to arrive to the true Sense of the other. This Word hath been va∣riously interpreted; for Grotius seems to think it is meant, that he (i. e. Abel) speaks in the Book of Genesis, which speaks of him. But this is very di∣lute, because the Apostle mentions not here what Book speaks of Abel, but by what he himself speaks, viz. his Faith. Others say his Faith and Righte∣ousness speak, i. e. call to us to imitate and practise

them: but this might have been said of any of the other Worthies mentioned in this Chapter, and therefore is not peculiar to Abel alone. Others take the word in a Passive Sense, and expound it, he is yet spoken of, his eminent Faith and Innocency are to this Day (as in several Generations before) spoken of, celebrated, praised, remembred with Honour. But this (as well as the former) is com∣mon to all the other Holy Patriarchs and Worthy Saints named in this Chapter, and therefore this doth not reach that particular and proper Meaning of the Place. Much less doth that odd Exposition of Sir N. Knatchbull, who reads it thus, For it (i. e. his Faith) he is yet said to be dead; for he will have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be inserted after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and then the meaning is, As Abel suffered at first for his Faith, so he is still to this Day said to have died for his Faith. But besides the needless inserting of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and thereby making very bald Greek, he joins in Construction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereas ac∣cording to the usual way of Trajection (which he so often takes notice of in other Places, though he overlooks it here) it belongs to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so the Words are to run thus, By it he, though he be dead, yet speaks; that is, because of his Faith and Holiness he yet speaks aloud, or cries unto God for Vengeance against his Brother Cain, who inhu∣manly murder'd him; for he barbarously and mali∣ciously took away his Life, because he was a faith∣ful and righteous Person. Thus I interpret the Words, because I discern that the Apostle alludes to Gen. 4. 10. The Voice of thy Brother's Blood crieth unto me from the Ground. Wherefore when he saith, Abel yet speaketh, it is as much as if he had said, his Blood speaketh or crieth. It spake long ago, and it yet speaks, like the Souls under the Al∣tar,

Rev. 6. 10. How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judg and avenge our Blood? Now by this Text I expound that other in Heb. 12. 24. The Blood of Sprinkling that speaketh better things than Abel, for so it is in the Greek. The Apostle having said be∣fore, [Abel yet speaks] i. e. the Voice of his Blood speaketh or crieth to Heaven for Vengeance; he here with particular reference to that Passage as∣sures us, that Christ's Blood speaks better things than Abel, or than the Blood of Abel, which was shed by his Brother: for whereas that spoke and cried for Punishment, this pleads for Mercy and Pardon. Christ's Oblation of himself on the Cross, by the Effusion of his Blood, speaks better things, doth more atone and appease the Wrath of God than the Blood of Abel (who was spitefully murder'd) did incense and provoke it. Thus this is a good way of interpreting Scripture sometimes, by comparing one Text with another, and observing their mutu∣al Relation. Many obscure and less intelligible Pas∣sages are clear'd by this Means.

I will content my self with mentioning one Place more, viz. Mat. 24. 34. This Generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled: Which remarka∣ble Words of our Saviour may seem to have been mistaken by those Interpreters that I have met with, and merely because they have not minded the Reference of the Words. Some have taken this Generation for the Generation then in being in our Saviour's time; and so they apprehend him to speak of something that was soon after to be accom∣plish'd, not unlike some of St. Iohn's Visions which * 1.424 were to come to pass in a short time; and consequent∣ly that those Signs of his Coming, which he had

foretold in that Chapter, were to be every Day expected; and if they were meant of his General and Final Coming, then that the Overthrow of Ie∣rusalem, and of the World, should be about the same time. And that some of the Signs mentioned by Christ are to be understood properly and peculiar∣ly of the Iewish Nation, soems to be clear from that one Passage in ver. 20. Pray that your Flight be not on the Sabbath-day; which intimates that the Iewish People were particularly concern'd, who solemnly observed that Day. By this Generation then they understand the present Generation of the Jews which was at that time: and to confirm this, they observe that this Generation is applied by Christ to the Jews of that Age, Mark 8. 12. The Meaning then of [this Generation shall not pass, &c.] accord∣ing to this Acception of the Word, is this, that whilst the Jews then living were upon the Earth, those things which our Saviour had foretold in that Chapter, yea all those things should be fulfill'd. This were a very good Interpretation of the Words, if the thing it self could be proved, that is, that within so short a time all those Predictions of Christ were accomplish'd. But the contrary is very evident, for the Chapter speaks of the Day of Judgment as well as of the Devastation of Ierusa∣lem: wherefore all the things that our Lord spoke of were not fulfill'd within the Compass of that Generation, and consequently that Period of Time could not be meant when it is said, This Generation shall, &c. Secondly, therefore others who are sensible of the Invalidity of this Interpretation, understand this Generation in a wider and larger Sense, and think that by it is meant the Evangeli∣cal Dispensation, the whole Series of Time from our Saviour's Days to the End of the World, the

final Upshot of all things. And this is a good Ex∣position of the Text, and salves the Sense very well; only there is no Proof that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies the last Age of the World. This Period of Time is call'd by* 1.425 St. Iohn, the last time; by† 1.426 St. Peter, the End of all things; and by‖ 1.427 St. Paul, the Ends of the World; but I do not find that it is any where stiled this Generation; therefore I do not see any good Ground to apply it here in that manner, as some Expositors have done: Wherefore I will of∣fer another Interpretation, which I hope will not be unacceptable to the Learned; though I confess I do not expect it should be presently received, be∣cause it is wholly new and unheard of. But let Impartial Minds judg of it, who will not suffer the mere Novelty of an Exposition to hinder their im∣bracing of it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Ge∣neration of the Heaven and Earth, the Whole Cre∣ation of the World, this vast Mundane Fabrick: So St. Iames uses the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ch. 3. 6. making it the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Rom. 8. 19, 22. And even among Profane Authors 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath sometimes the like Acception, and is rendred Seculum, the World. This shall not pass, i. e. be destroyed, till all these things be fulfilled: as if our Saviour had said, The World shall continue as it hath hitherto done, till all these things which I have foretold, but especi∣ally these concerning my Last Coming, be accom∣plished; but immediately after the fulfilling of them, this Generation of the Heavens and Earth, this Frame of the World shall be set on Fire, shall be consumed. And that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath this Significa∣tion here, i. e. that it imports this System of Hea∣ven and Earth, I gather from the Reference of this

Verse to the immediately ensuing one, Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my Words shall not pass away: where you see 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is explained by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; This Generation of Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my Words (my Predictions con∣cerning future things, which you have just now heard from my Mouth) shall not pass away. Which is as much as if he had said, This great Structure of the World shall perish at last, Heaven and Earth shall be destroyed by a general Conflagration; but new Heavens and a new Earth shall arise in their room, which shall be a Building not made with Hands, not of perishing Materials, but such as shall last eternally. And of this Nature is my Word and Promise, such are all my Predictions, and particular∣ly this of the Signs of my Coming, it shall never be null'd and abolish'd. The applying of the words shall pass to the Heavens and Earth immediately after, shews that Christ means by this Generation the whole World, expressed by Heaven and Earth. You see then how sitly 'tis said here, Heaven and Earth shall pass away, it referring to this Generation's passing away, viz. at the End of the World, the final Close of all things, when there shall be new Heavens and a new Earth, as* 1.428 St. Peter informs us. Our Saviour here signifies the Time when the things he spoke of last (ver. 24, 25.) shall be accomplish∣ed. When this Generation, this present Creation of things shall be dissolved, then and not before all these things shall be fulfilled: Then shall be verified all those things which were said concerning the Dissolution of the World; yea, all the things men∣tioned in this Chapter: For we must know, that even the Predictions concerning the Destruction of

Ierusalem, shall be most signally fulfilled in the fi∣nal Dissolution of Heaven and Earth, because that was designed to be a Type and Representation of this. And as for the word this, which is join'd with Generation, if any cavil at it, I can prove out of* 1.429 abundance of Texts, that it is sometimes of the same Import with the: and so you might read it the Generation, viz. of the Heavens and Earth. But here, as I conceive, it is an Emphatical Word, and refers to the things spoken of before, viz. the Sun, Moon, Stars, Earth and Sea, ver. 29. of this Chapter: and Luke 21. 26. which further confirms the Acception of this Word which I propound, viz. that it is meant of the Works of the Creation. Or perhaps our Saviour did cast his Eyes about, and intentively beheld the Heavens and the Earth, and then pronounced these Words, This Generation, this Fabrick of the World which I now behold, and all the Works in it, shall not be dissolv'd till that very time, when these my Predictions shall be ve∣rified. The fulfilling of my Words, and the Pe∣riod of all things, shall happen at the same time. And lastly, I will not conceal my Conjecture that these Words of Christ refer to what he had said in his Excellent Sermon on the Mount; and if so, then this Interpretation which I have offered, will be thereby exceedingly confirmed. His Words there are these, Verily I say unto you, till Heaven and Earth pass, one Iot or one Tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled, Mat. 5. 18. And his Words here run thus, Verily I say unto you, this Generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled:

Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my Words shall not pass away. By comparing which Texts it plain∣ly appears, that there is the same Air and Aspect in them, the same Stile and Mode of Expression are used, so that we are hereby invited to expound one by the other. First, they begin with the same so∣lemn Preface, Verily I say unto you. Secondly, the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used in both Places in the very same Signification, (for as Grotius observes on Mat. 5. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as much as interire, perire; and so it is here, it signifies to be destroyed, to perish, to be anul••d). Thirdly, that considerable Passage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, till all be fulfilled, is in both Places, and refers to the very ••ame things, viz. the Law, or Words, or Predictions of our Saviour, what he had said, or what had been said of him. And, Fourthly, the Works of the Creation, the Fabrick and System of the World, are spoken of in both Places, though under different Expressions; for in the former they are stiled Heaven and Earth, in the latter the Generation. But that they are of the same Import, and express to us the same thing, is clear from this, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is exactly ap∣plied to both: for though we make some little Dif∣ference in our English Translation, rendring the Greek Word by passing in one Verse, and passing away in the other, yet the Verb it self is the same in the Original, and accordingly should (if we would be accurate) be rendred alike in both Verses. Whence it appears that the Generations passing, and the Heavens and Earth passing, are Synonymous, which is the thing I aim'd at, and which puts a Key into our Hand to open these Words, viz. that this Generation in ver. 34. is the same with Heaven and Earth in ver. 35. and that their passing is the very same. If it be said that this Generation, in

some other Place, is applied to that present Age and People of the Jews, and therefore it must be so understood here; the Consequence must be denied, and that with very good Reason, for (besides what hath been said already) in several Places we find that the same Words and Expressions are not used and applied after the same manner, and to the same purpose. He is a Stranger to the Bible, and parti∣cularly the New Testament, who knows not this. And therefore from the Identity of Words we can∣not necessarily infer that the same thing is intended. But we are to examine the Ambiguity of Expressi∣ons, and to apply them as we see occasion. This we must do here, and if we have Respect to the Context, (as we ought to have) we shall apply this Generation after the aforesaid manner. And indeed the Connection of these two Verses was that which led me first to this Interpretation, for the mention of Heaven and Earth passing, in this latter Verse, suggested to my Thoughts, that it had some Cog∣nation with the like Expressions in the foregoing Verse; which, upon farther Examination, I found to be so indeed. Christ proceeds in ver. 35. to speak of Heaven and Earth passing, because he had in ver. 34. been speaking of the same thing; which gives us Assurance of what I propounded, that this Generation's passing, and Heaven and Earth's passing, are exegetical of each other. This is the Exposition which I give of this Place, and I submit it to the Censure of the Considerate and Judicious. This I only say, that as 'tis a fair Construction, and contains nothing inconsistent in it, so I deem it to be the best Solution whereby we can cleverly avoid the Quarrels of Expositors about the Words, espe∣cially about the Meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which (as several other Places of Scripture) is misunder∣stood,

because the due Reference of the Words is not attended to.

CHAP. XIII.

Chronological Difficulties fully reconciled, as Gen. 15. 13. Thy Seed shall be a Stranger in a Land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred Years. Nay, thirty Years are added to this reckoning in Exod. 12. 40. whereas 'tis confess'd by all, that the Israe∣lites Bondage in Egypt did not last above two hun∣dred and fifteen Years. It is said, Acts 13. 20. After that he gave them Judges about the Space of four hundred and fifty Years, until Samuel the Prophet: Yet, according to the usual Computa∣tion, there were but three hundred and thirty nine Years from the first Iudg till Samuel. God gave unto them Saul by the Space of forty Years, Acts 13. 21. yet no Man thinks that he reigned so long. This salves many Chronological Difficulties, that the Kings of Israel often made their Sons Kings, in their own Reign. Other Doubts in Chronology are cleared by Interregnums, by omitting the Years of Bad Kings, and of the Years of Oppression, Cap∣tivity, and Anarchy. The Difficulties in our Sa∣viour's Genealogy in Mat. 1. & Luke 3. resolved, viz. how it can be said, Ozias begat Joatham. A Scruple about the three Tesseradecads. Another about Jechonias's begetting Salathiel. How Cainan came to be inserted▪ How either of the Genealogies in St. Mark or St. Luke can be said to be Christ's, when they both give an Account of Joseph's Pedigree. How one may be said to be Joseph's, and the other Mary's Genealogy. How Joseph can be the Son of Jacob and of Heli. Several Occasions (besides what have been mention'd before) of the Difficulties in Scripture, viz. it was writ by Different Persons: It refers to Antient Practices now almost unknown or forgot, (where the Author's Conjecture about the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in 2 Tim. 4. 13. is propounded). The Hebrew Text especially hath some things proper to it self, which render it obscure in some Places. It is the way of the Hebrews to express things briefly, con∣cisely, abruptly. Their peculiar Idiom admits not of an exact Translation. Order and Time are not al∣ways observed. The Abstrusity of Scripture in some Places is an Argument of its Worth and Excellency.

I Will now, according to my propounded Me∣thod, speak of those Difficulties which arise from the Duration of Time wherein such and such things were done, or came to pass. The first Chro∣nological Doubt which I shall mention is that in Gen. 15. 13. Thy Seed shall be a Stranger in a Land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred Years. So long the Israe∣lites were to serve the Egyptians, and be afflicted by them: Which is confirmed in ver. 16. In the fourth Generation they shall come hither again, that is, after four hundred Years (mentioned before) the Israelites shall be delivered from their Slavery in Egypt, and shall return to Canaan. But it is well known and confess'd by all Men, that the Israelites were not in Egypt so long a time, and consequent∣ly did not serve them, nor were afflicted by them so many years. It is generally acknowledged that their Bondage in Egypt did not last above two hundred and 15 Years at most: And so the* 1.430 Jewish Historian

himself computes it. Here then seems to be a great Mistake as to Time: But really there is none, but those rather who think the forementioned Words are spoken wholly of the Time of the Israe∣lites Servitude in Egypt are mistaken, which we shall the better apprehend if we take notice of the Text as it is quoted by St. Stephen in Acts. 7. 6. God spake in this wise that his Seed should sojourn in a strange Land, and that they should bring them into Bondage, and intreat them evilly four hundred Years. The four hundred Years, as you may observe, refer not only to the latter but the former part of the Verse, viz. to the sojourning in a strange Land, which may be applied to Canaan as well as Egypt: so that this Term of four hundred Years includes all the Time from Abraham's leaving his own Country till the Departure out of Egypt. In all this space of Time Abraham's Seed were Sojourners and Pilgrims, were evilly intreated, and suffer'd Bondage and Persecuti∣on. But the Difficulty is renewed by what we meet with in Exod. 12. 40. The sojourning of the Children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt (the last emi∣nent Place of their sojourning) was four hundred and thirty Years. Here are thirty Years added to the former Reckoning: how shall we reconcile this? Very well, for this latter Account is precise and exact, but the former was not, which is no unusual thing in Holy Scripture, as well as in other Good Writers. The Years are not always pre∣cisely set down, the odd and lesser Numbers are omitted, and the great round Number only is men∣tioned. Thus in the forenamed Places the round Number of four hundred is put for four hundred and thirty, which latter is the whole time of the sojourning both of Abraham and his Seed in Canaan, and afterwards of their Posterity in Egypt. This

Exact Number is mention'd by the Apostle, whose Words will give us farther Light into this Compu∣tation; The Covenant, saith he, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law (which was four hun∣dred and thirty Years after) cannot disanul. It is cer∣tain that the Covenant he here speaks of, is that Covenant which God made with Abraham, (as the preceding Verses shew) and the Law is that Body of Moral Precepts and Prohibitions which was gi∣ven on Mount Sinai, in the very Year of the Israe∣lites coming out of Egypt. Hence we plainly disco∣ver the beginning and ending of the four hundred and thirty Years: they began when Abraham left his own Country, (for then God entred into Cove∣nant with him) and they ended when the Israelites left Egypt, and thereupon received the Law from Moses on the Mount. Though it be true then that the Israelites Servitude in Egypt was not above two hundred and odd Years, yet the full time of their whole Peregrination was four hundred and thirty, which is to be reckon'd from the Calling of Abra∣ham, and his coming out of Vr, until the Israelites leaving of Egypt under the Conduct of Moses. This is the full and exact Account, and the other before∣mentioned fell short of it, because the odd Num∣bers were omitted, as is frequent among the best Writers. And indeed a great many Difficulties in Chronology are answered by this, that a Great or Round Number is oftentimes used in Scripture for an Odd or Imperfect one, though it be more Exact. Thus it is threatned and foretold in Numb, 14. 33. that the Murmuring Israelites should wander in the Wilderness forty Years: yet if you compare Numb, 33. 3. with Iosh. 4. 19. you will see that some Days, if not Weeks, were wanting to make up the Num∣ber: But because forty Years was a round and com∣pleat

Number; and because in so many Years a few Days were inconsiderable, therefore Moses delivers it in this manner. The like you may observe in Iudg. 11. 26. where you read that the Israelites dwelt in the Land of the Amorites three hundred Years; whereas from the first time that the Israe∣lites began to enter upon the Land of Canaan (when Ioshua was made their Leader) to Iephthah's Reign, there were not above two hundred threescore and seven Years. But becaue the other was a Round Number, and because was nearer to three hundred than to two hundred, it is thus express'd. And other Instances of this sort might be produced, (which I now wave) wherein the lesser and more imperfect Numbers are omitted; especially in ve∣ry Great Sums the small Number is neglected, and comes not under any Account.

There is another difficult Passage in Chronology, and that respects the time of the Judges, Acts 13. 20. After that he gave them Iudges about the space of four hundred and fifty Years, until Samuel the Pro∣phet: yet, according to the usual Computation, it is generally said, that there were but three hundred and thirty nine Years from Othniel the first Judg, till the beginning of Samuel's Government, who was the last: So that hence it appears there are above a hundred Years too much in that Account. Beza and some others lay the Fault on the Amanu∣ensis, telling us, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is written instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, four hundred for three hundred. But this Expedient for taking away the Difficulty is not to be approved of, and I have given the Reason of it before. Some think to help it by insisting on the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Words, which signifies about, or as it were, and so implies a Latitude in the Chrono∣logy. It is true, this shews that the time is not

punctually determined here: but then any Man may see that the vast Difference between four hundred and fifty, and three hundred thirty nine Years, is not decided by this. Grotius on this Place tells us, that the four hundred and fifty Years began from the going out of Egypt, and ended at the time when David expell'd the Jebusites out of Sion; for so long it was before the Jews were settled in that Seat which God designed for them. But this doth not in the least clear the Doubt, for St. Stephen's Words are, After that, i. e. after the seven Nati∣ons were destroyed, and the Land was divided by Lot to the Israelites, as you read in the foregoing Verse. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after these things he gave them Iudges about the space of, &c. Therefore the Calculation cannot commence from the going out of Egypt. * 1.431 Others, though of very great Learning, are yet more extravagant, for they refer these Words to those in ver. 17. of this Chapter, The God of this People of Israel chose our Fathers; which was about the Birth of Isaac, in whose Family the Covenant was to rest. And they proceed to compute thus; from Isaac's Birth to that of Iacob sixty Years; from thence to their going into Egypt one hundred and thirty Years; from thence to their coming out two hundred and ten; from thence to their En∣trance into the Land of Canaan forty; and from thence to the Division of the Land, and settling the Government by Judges, seven Years: in all four hundred and forty seven. But besides that this falls short three Years of the intended Num∣ber, viz. four hundred and fifty, this also is to be said, that it is nothing to the purpose, for the Text we are treating of speaks of the Time of the

Iudges; but these Interpreters run back as far as Isaac's Birth, which was above four hundred Years before there were any Judges.

In the next Place therefore, This and only this can reconcile the Difference, viz. that the Apostle follows the Ordinary and Vulgar Accompt in use among the Jewish People, who made the Number of Years from the coming out of Egypt till the building of the Temple to be about an hundred and twelve more than is express'd in 1 Kings 6. 1. as appears from Iosephus, who makes the Distance between the one and the other to be five hundred and ninety two Years; the which Enlarging of the Accompt arose from their computing the Years of the Oppressions of Israel between the times of the Judges, as distinct from the Years which are allow∣ed to each particular Judg. The Apostle, who intended not Accuracy in Chronology, but spoke as the Vulgar, follows this Computation; and by putting the Sum of both these together, viz. the Years under the Iudges and under the Oppressors, he makes up the just Number of four hundred and fifty Years; particularly thus, he joins with the three hundred and thirty nine Years of the thir∣teen Judges, one hundred and eleven Years in which the Israelites were in Trouble and Servitude under several Enemies; which Years are numbred in the History by themselves, Iudg. 3. 8. & 3. 14. & 4. 3. & 6. 1. & 10. 8. & 13. 1. Now these being added to, or included in three hundred and thirty nine Years of the Judges, make up exactly four hundred and fifty Years.

As to the forty Years Reign of Saul, which is men∣tioned by the Apostle in the next Verse, Acts 13. 21. God gave unto them Saul by the space of forty years, it may seem very hard to reconcile it with

1 Sam. 13. 1. where Saul's Reign seems to be ter∣minated within three Years; some think within two Years. I answer, that Place is misunderstood, Saul reigned one Year, and when he had reigned two Years over Israel, he chose him three thousand Men, &c. Here is not assigned the full Term of Years in which Saul reigned; but all that is meant is this, that at that time when the Thunder in Harvest happened, (of which you read in the preceding Chapter, v. 18. and to which the beginning of this Chapter, refers) Saul had been King one Year, namely, since his first anointing by Samuel, to his second anointing; and that when he had reign'd another Year, or two Years more, he chose him those three thou∣sand Men to be his Guard. This is all that can be gather'd from those Words, and therefore none can infer thence that Saul reigned but three Years in all. But still the greatest part of the Difficulty remains; for though Saul reigned more than three Years, yet it is impossible he should have reigned forty, which is the Space of time that the Apostle here assigneth him: for if he was King so long, it would certainly follow that there were almost five hundred Years from the Departure out of Egypt to the building of Solomon's Temple: neither could Saul be a young Man when he was elected King (as we read he was:) nay, it would follow that Da∣vid was not born at that time when he is said to have vanquish'd Goliah: and other such Conse∣quences might be drawn thence. How then did Saul reign forty Years? I answer, this may truly be said, because with Saul's Government Samuel's also is computed in this Place of the Apostle. How this forty Years is to be divided betwixt them is not a∣greed. * 1.432 Iosephus comes pretty near to the space

of Time mentioned here, asserting that Saul reign∣ed eighteen Years with Samuel, and twenry Years afterwards. An* 1.433 Ingenious Man of late hath so adjusted the time, that he concludes Saul to have reigned ten Years of this forty, and he allows the remaining thirty for the Government of Samuel. Others make up the forty Years between them in another manner. But all is Conjecture, and we know nothing certainly here. This only we may rest in as a very great Probability, that the times both of Samuel and Saul's Government are joined together in these forty years. Samuel was Judg of Israel, and being set over them by God, was their rightful Governour. They had no Authority to depose him, and to choose a King in his room, and therefore Samuel might be look'd upon as their True and Lawful Governour as long as he lived. Yet this time of his Rule is made here a part of Saul's Reign, because he was forced at last to anoint him King, and because he suffered his own Govern∣ment to be swallowed of his. Hence it is that the forty Years assigned to him by St. Paul do include Samuel's Judicature, that is, Samuel and Saul reign∣ed forty Years together.

This also will salve many Chronological Diffe∣rences, that the Kings of Israel did often make their Sons Kings in their own Reign, to settle them in the Kingdom before their Death; and so the time of the Reign is sometimes set down as it respects the Father only, sometimes as it respects the Son, and sometimes as it includes both. Ieho∣ram is said to have reigned eight years in Ierusalem, 2 Kings 8. 17. but by Collection out of the Text it is clear that either seven of those eight Years, or

at least four, are to be reckoned in the Life of his Father Iehosaphat; for Iehoram reign'd as Vice-roy in his Father's time, or he reigned with his Father, and so his Father's Years and his are reckoned too. But when, upon the Death of his Father, he came to reign alone, then 'tis said, Jehoram his Son reign∣ed in his stead, 2 Chron. 21. 1. So Iotham reigned Sixteen Years, 2 Kings 15. 33. yet mention was made before of his twentieth year, ver. 30. which we reconcile thus, Iotham reigned alone sixteen Years only, but with his Father Vzziah (who was a Leper, and therefore unfit for the sole Govern∣ment) four Years before, which makes twenty. Thus we take away that seeming Repugnancy be∣tween 2 Kings 24. 8. Jehoiachin was eighteen Years old when he began to reign, and 2 Chron. 36. 9. He was eight Years old when he began to reign: that is, he was eight Years old when he began to reign with his Father, but he was eighteen when he began to reign by himself. It was common both with the Kings of Iudah and Israel to take their Sons into Partnership with them in the Throne. This is the way of resolving other Places of the like Nature in the Books of Kings and Chronicles. Sometimes the Sons are made Kings with their Fathers, and the Years of their Joint Reign are put together: At other times they are spoken of as ruling sepa∣rately; and hence it comes to pass that the Years vary. We are concern'd then to take notice that in the foresaid Books the Reigns of some Kings are mentioned twice; first as they were Contempora∣ry and Sharers with some others; and then as they ruled alone.

We may sometimes solve the Doubts about the different Account which is given us of the Dura∣tion of some Kings Reigns by Interregnums or Va∣cancy

of Kingly Government for few or more Years, which was not unusual. Thus of King Aha∣ziah, who succeeded Iehoram in the Throne, it is recorded (2 Kings 8. 26.) that he was two and twen∣ty Years old when he began to reign: but in 2 Chron. 22. 2. it is said, he was forty and two Years old when he began to reign. If this latter Account be true, then besides that it is a contradicting of the former, it will follow hence that the Son was two Years older than the Father; for of Iehoram, who was his Father, it is said in 2 Chron. 21. 20. Thirty and two Years old was he when he began to reign, and he reign'd in Jerusalem eight Years: whence it appears that he was forty Years old when he died: but of his Son who succeeded him in the Throne it is said, He was two and forty Years old when he began to reign, 2 Chron. 22. 1. This is thought to be so great a Difficulty, that Malvenda and others cry out, it is not to be solved. But why, I pray? Be∣cause, say they, according to this Relation the Fa∣ther died at forty; and the Son, who immediately succeeded him, was above forty: so then Iehoram begat his Son two Years before himself was born; which to assert, is as ridiculous as the thing is im∣possible. But those who talk after this manner make Difficulties, and then complain there is no possibility of answering them. They affirm that Ahaziah immediately succeeded Iehoram; whereas they find not this asserted in the History. There might be an Interruption of the Royal Govern∣ment, Ahaziah might be kept from the actual Pos∣session of the Throne a long time. So then it is truly said, He was two and twenty Years old when he began to reign, if you reckon from his Father's Death, for then a King's Heir is said to begin his Reign. But if you compute from the time when

he was peaceably settled in the Kingdom, he was two and forty Years old when he began to reign: for by that time he got securely to the Throne, twenty Years were expired: and after this he reigned but one Year, as we read in the same Place. Thus (be∣sides that it might have been said, that Ahaziah reigned with his Father twenty two Years) the Difficulty is answer'd by supposing an Interregnum for several Years, which was very frequent in those Days: and there is Reason Sometimes to grant this Vacancy to have been, although it be not expresly mention'd in the Place; for many things of this kind are omitted in the Sacred History, and are left to be inferr'd from the Reasonableness of the thing it self, and from the Circumstances which attend it.

Again, there are those who avoid some Scruples in Chronology, by holding that the Years of Bad Kings are sometimes omitted, as if they had not reigned at all. So some have interpreted that Place, 1 Sam. 13. 1. which speaks of the two Years Reign of Saul; not but that he reign'd many more, which are not there reckon'd, because of his evil Government. Thus Solomon, they say, reigned many more Years than are set down, for the time of his sinful and idolatrous Reign is suppressed. Lastly, it hath been observed (in order to the ta∣king away those Doubts which arise about the dif∣ferent Assignation of Time in the Old Testament) that the Scripture gives us the Computation of the Times of the Iewish Republick or Kingdom, but altogether omits the Spaces of Servitude, Oppressi∣on, Captivity, and Anarchy, excepting only the time of the Egyptian Bondage, which is rec∣koned by Moses. The Author of Seder Olam, and Other Jewish Writers, and the Learned Brough∣ton,* 1.434,

from them give an Account of some Chro∣nological Disputes by adhering to this Expedient. With whom agrees† 1.435 Dr. Lightfoot, who hath ad∣mirably performed this Task, adding several things of his own Observation, whereby the Differences in Chronology are fully reconciled. The Result then of what we have said is this, that if in some Places of Scripture the Years seem not to be rightly set down, we may recur to the foregoing Resolutions, and satisfy our selves with them, but not condemn the Text as corrupted and falsified; nay, as if it had had Mistakes and Errors in it at the first. This latter is Mr. Hobbs's way, but we may plainly see that he makes it his Business to expose the Scrip∣ture, and to represent it as a Book fraught with many Inconsistencies and Falsities. If he had dealt thus with Virgil or some other Writer of that strain, if he had impeach'd that Poet's Chronolo∣gy in making Aeneas and Dido contemporary, it had been tolerable, yea laudable, for some are of Opinion that Dido was not in being till above a hundred and fifty Years after Aeneas's Death. It was high Poetical Fiction to make that Queen fall in love with the fugitive Trojan so long a time af∣ter he was dead. But in the Sacred Writings there is nothing that looks like such Defect in Synchro∣nism: both Time and Place are truly assigned, though sometimes by reason of the things before mentioned we cannot presently discover the Truth of it, and make it appear how it is.

Lastly, I conclude all with those Genealogical Difficulties in Mat. 1. and Luke 3. I begin with our Saviour's Genealogy, as 'tis drawn up in the first

Chapter of St. Matthew. Here some Heretick Christians of old, (as the Ebionites and Manichees) here some of the Notablest Pagans (as Celsus, Iu∣lian, and Porphyrius) found Matter of Cavil; and some of late have thought that here are such Knots as are impossible to be dissolved. As first, the Genealogy runs thus in ver. 9. Ozias begat Ioa∣tham; whereas 'tis clear from 1 Chron. 3. 11, 12. that Ioash, Amaziah, and Azariah, were between Ozias and Ioatham. The Answer is, that this Genealogist reckons sometimes per saltum: when he saith such a Person begat another, it is not always meant of Father and Son properly, but he is said to beget another from whom that Person or others proceed at a distance. An immediate Generation (such as the Father's is in respect of his Son) is not to be understood in this Place, nor indeed in some others in this Genealogy, where you cannot but observe that sundry Persons are wholly omitted. It is evident therefore that the Design of St. Mat∣thew was not to be strict and accurate in this Pedi∣gree, and to give us a compleat Enumeration of Persons, but only to present us with a general and loose Draught of Christ's Descent. And this should teach us not to be over-curious in scanning the Parts of this Genealogy; for if the Evangelist was not Critical and Exact in composing it, why should we shew our selves so in examining it?

Again, 'tis objected that the Genealogy is said to be divided into three Fourteens, and yet in one of them there are only thirteen Persons to be found. This is solved by some Manuscripts, which insert Iachim into ver. 11. thus, Josias begat Jachim, and Jachim begat Jechoniah: and others interpose Ab∣ner in ver. 13. as thus, Eliakim begat Abner, and Abner begat Azor. But there is no need of flying

to Other Copies in this case; for the plain Resoluti∣on of the Difficulty is this, that in ver. 11, 12. un∣der one Name, viz. Iechonias, two Persons, viz. the Father and the Son are understood: for that Iechonias, mention'd in ver. 11. had two Names, and was called Iehoiakim (as you read in 1 Chron. 3. 15, 16.) who was the Father of that Iechonias mention'd in ver. 12. The first Iechonias was the Son of Iosias, the second was the Father of Sala∣thiel, and the Son of the former Iechonias. Now if the former Iechonias, the Father of the latter, be numbred in the second Tesseradecad; and if the latter Iechonias, the Father of Salathiel, be inserted into the third Tesseradecad; or, which is the same thing, if the Father be meant in ver. 11. and the Son in ver. 12. the Difficulty vanisheth; for here are thrice fourteen Generations, according to this way which I have propounded. And the way is obvi∣ous and easy, and cannot seem strange to any Per∣son who observes the manner of the Lineages in this Genealogy, which are not set down with Ac∣curacy, but something is left to be supplied by us in the several Branches of it, and particularly in this which I last mention'd. But it is further Ob∣jected, how could Iechonias beget Salathiel, (v. 12.) when 'tis said concerning him, Write ye this Man childless, Jer. 22. 30? If Iechonias was childless, Salathiel could not be his Son. But I answer, 1 st. [Childless] may import no other than this, that he should be bare, Solitary, desolate, distressed, as the Greek renders it, and as the next Words may be thought to explain it [a Man that shall not pro∣sper in his Days]. Or, 2dly. the meaning is, that Iechonias's Children should be cut off, and not one of them succeed him in the Throne, as is said like∣wife in the following Words, [No Man of his Seed

shall prosper, sitting upon the Throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. This is here to be child∣less: and so though Iechoniah had a Son, viz. Sala∣thiel, yet this Son was not his Successor in the King∣dom.

Then, as to the Genealogy of Christ from Ioseph upwards, which we have in Luke 3. it is Objected, that Cainan is inserted between Arphaxad and Sala, ver. 36. but is not so in Gen. 11. 12. where these Generations are first recorded. I answer, Cainan is omitted by Moses for Brevity sake, and Arphaxad is said to beget Salah, that is, not immediately, but Cainan intervening. But what was left out in the Hebrew Text the Septuagint supplied, who in their Greek Version expresly mention Cainan: and St. Luke following this Version put Cainan into the Ge∣nealogy. And it was better to do so than to alter it according to the Hebrew Original, because the LXX's Version was in great Repute: and if he had alter'd it, it would have given Offence to the Weak. Besides, this might be by Tradition among the Jews, (as St. Paul's Iannes and Iambres, 2 Tim. 3. 8.) and that gave farther Occasion to him of in∣serting it, though it was not in the Hebrew.

But how can either of these Genealogies (in St. Matthew and St. Luke) be said to be Christ's, when they both give an Account only of the Lineage of Ioseph? To satisfy this Scruple we must know that the Virgin Mary's Genealogy is included in that of Ioseph, and consequently Christ's Descent is here set down because he sprang from the Virgin Mary. Ioseph being a Good Man, and an Observer of the Law, would not marry one that was not of his Tribe or Family; so that Mary's Genealogy is in a manner his, because she was of the same Family and Stock with him: which is partly intimated in the

Close of that Genealogy which is in St. Matthew, ver. 16. Jacob begat Joseph the Husband of Mary; giving us to understand that Mary and Ioseph were of the same Family and Descent, viz. of the Stock and Lineage of David; for according to the Mo∣saick Law and Custom one Tribe and Generation did not mix with another, but they were to match together: wherefore in giving the Pedigree of one, that of the other also is given at the same time. Hence Christ is call'd the Son of David, Mat. 1. 1. and in other Places; not that he was so in respect of an Earthly Father, for he had none, but by rea∣son of his Mother, who was of the House of Da∣vid. So then the Genealogy of Ioseph and Mary is to be reckon'd as the same, and that is the rea∣son why one of them only, viz. Ioseph, is distinct∣ly mentioned.

And yet you may observe a very Great Difference in the Genealogies of St. Matthew and St. Luke; and one may be said to be Ioseph's and the other Mary's Genealogy; that is, those Persons from whom more immediately Ioseph descended, are men∣tion'd by the former Evangelist, and those from whom more directly Mary descended, are menti∣on'd by the latter. St. Matthew's Genealogy gives Ioseph's Pedigree from the House of Solomon, and St. Luke's gives the Blessed Virgin Mary's from the House of Nathan. The one, saith St.* 1.436 Hilary, sets down the Royal Stock of Christ by Solomon; the other shews his Priestly Lineage by Nathan. Grotius speaks more consistently, telling us, that St. Matthew takes notice of the Right Succession in his Genealogy, but St. Luke hath regard to the Right of Consanguinity. The short is, we have

Christ's Genealogy, not only as it respects his Re∣puted Father, but his Own Mother. Matthew be∣ing a Jew, doth, according to the Legal way, de∣duce the Line of Ioseph, the supposed Father of Je∣sus. Luke being a Gentile, follows the Law of Nature, and writeth Mary's Descent, from whom (being his Mother) Christ really came. And yet after all this, and much more which hath plausibly and probably been said by Writers on this Subject, we are certain of this, that both St. Matthew and St. Luke's Genealogy derive Christ's Line from Io∣seph. We find that both of them terminate ex∣presly in Him. Iacob begat Ioseph, saith St. Mat∣thew, ver. 16. and so ends the Descent. St. Luke, who reckons another way, yet makes the lineal Descent of Christ from Ioseph, Iesus being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph, Luke 3. 23. This we must assert, and we can't do otherwise, because the thing is so plain before us, that he that runs may read it in express terms. Moreover, this was ac∣cording to the constant Custom of the Jews, who always deduced the Pedigree from the Father: and we know that Ioseph was our Saviour's reputed Fa∣ther. But then you will say, if both the Genealo∣gies belong to Ioseph, what is the reason that they differ so much? Whence is it that the same Names and Persons are not mentioned in one that are in the other, if they be the same Genealogy? This Query hath been warmly pursued, and divers An∣swers have been return'd to it. But the true one is this, that where there were so many Names and Persons, the Evangelists might pitch on whom they pleased. It being their Design only to draw up a Pedigree in a desultory way, and not to men∣tion all from whom our Saviour descended, it was in their choice to take who they thought fit, either

Persons nearer or further off; they might insist on this or the other Stock as they saw convenient. It is no wonder then that the Names and Number of the Persons in the two Genealogies vary, for St. Matthew and St. Luke proceed in a different way, and derive the Pedigree from distinct Stocks. This is the true reason why there is so great a Dif∣ference in the two Genealogies; why the Persons whence the Lineage is drawn, are not the same in both the Evangelists. Yet it evidently appears from both ways of framing the lineal Descent, that our Lord sprang from the House of David, which was the main thing designed and aimed at in these Genealogies. Now, this is effectually done by propounding of Ioseph's Descent: for seeing no Genealogies were reckon'd among the Jews by the Woman's side; and seeing the Pedigrees of Wo∣men were not wont to be recorded among them, (no more than their Age; whence the only Woman whose Years of her whole Life are recorded in Scripture is Sarah, Gen 23. 1.) it is manifest that when Ioseph's Lineage is set down, that also of his Wife, and consequently of her Son, is set down also: Which is grounded on what I said before viz. that the Jews generally married within their Tribes, that the Inheritances might be preserved in the same Tribe they were in, and not be tran∣slated to another. The Injunction was plain and positive, Numb. 36. 6. To the Family of the Tribe of their Father shall they marry: and though afterwards a Special Reason is given, viz. because the Inheri∣tance should not be alienated, yet the Injunction was General, and concern'd both Rich and Poor; and though there be some Examples of a contrary Practice in the Sacred History, yet we cannot thence argue that the Law was not General. Yea,

the Iewish Masters tell us, that the Woman, after the Contract of Marriage, though she was before by her Family of another Tribe and Lineage, diffe∣rent from her Husband, yet by virtue of that Con∣tract she was adopted into the same Tribe with him to whom she was espoused, and so was ever after legally reckon'd to be of that Tribe: and the Progeny which afterwards was born of this Woman, was accounted to be of the same Tribe. Thus it is plain that when Ioseph's Lineage is de∣scribed by the Evangelists, that also of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of our Lord himself is determin∣ed. We have reason then to assert this Propositi∣on, that the Pedigrees mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Luke, are both of them properly the Genea∣logies of Ioseph: Which I find most Writers on this Theme are loth to acknowledg; yea, they tell us positively, that one is Ioseph's, and the other is the Virgin's Genealogy. But if we will make use of our Eyes, and behold and read the Pedigrees themselves as they are delivered by the Evange∣lists, we must be forced to confess that Ioseph is in the beginning of the Genealogy in St. Luke, and in the end of that other in St. Matthew; only in this the one differs from the other, that the former reckons Ioseph's Lineage upward, and the latter downward. But this is common to them both, that in the Line of Progenitors which they set down, they skip over many Persons; and when this or the other Person was the Son of such an one, 'tis sometimes meant, that at a great Distance he was his Son, or rather his Kinsman, as the Hebrews use the word Son. If we take but this one thing along with us in our perusing of these Pedigrees, it will help us to go through most of the Difficul∣ties we meet with in them: and this you will find

made use of to this purpose by those that have travell'd with great Industry in this Point, and have undertaken to solve the hard Passages in ei∣ther of the Genealogies.

If it be Objected in the last Place, How can Io∣seph be the Son of Iacob in one Genealogy, Mat. 1. 16. and the Son of Heli in the other, Luke 3. 23. it is answer'd by some, that because Ioseph married Mary, Heli's Daughter, therefore he is call'd his Son, i. e. his Son by Marriage of his Daughter. Others say, Heli and Iacob were Brethren, and the former dying without Children, the latter marri∣ed his Widow, as the Law in that case required: So that Iacob was the Natural Father of Ioseph, and Heli was his Father-in-law. This is the Senti∣ment of several of the* 1.437 Antients and† 1.438 Moderns, and we have no Argument to confute it. This was a Tradition among the Jews themselves, as you may see in Grotius on Luke 3. Or if this be not satisfactory, we may quash the Difficulty by what I have formerly propounded, viz. that 'tis usual among the Jews to have two Names. It may be Iacob and Heli are Names of the same Person; and St. Matthew makes use of one, and St. Luke of the other. To conclude, though we were not able to reconcile some Passages in the foresaid Genealogies, yet we have no reason to take occasion thence to question the Truth and Consistency of them, for 'tis ridiculous to think that St. Matthew would ex∣pose this Genealogy, and in the very Entrance of his Gospel, unless he knew it was true, and as to the main unexceptionable. And the very same we may say of St. Luke, who without doubt would

not have offer'd to publick View a Pedigree where∣in the Chiefest of that Nation were concern'd, if he had not been assured that it was impossible to confute it. And suppose we are not able to give an Account of some part of it, yet let that of Gro∣tius be thought of, viz. that the Jews had a way of drawing up Genealogies, which is as to some things unknown to us: they reckoned the Generations in a manner that was different from what is now in use.

So much touching the Difficulties of the Stile of Holy Scripture, and the Occasions of them. No intelligent Person could expect but that it should contain in it some things hard to be understood, if he ever we••ghed the Particulars before specified in this Discourse, and if he consider moreover, that,

1. The Scriptures are a Collection of Different Writers, some of which leave out those Passages which others put in, and upon that account there seems sometimes to be a Discrepancy among them, and one is thought to assert that which another seems to deny.

2. We are ignorant of many Particulars re∣lating to the Names of things, to Rites, Opini∣ons, Customs, Proverbs and peculiar Circum∣stances of those Times of which the Holy Wri∣tings speak: and this is another Reason why seve∣ral things in them are obscure and unintelligible. We read of the Synagogue of the Libertines, Acts 6. 9. but whether it was so call'd because 'twas built by Iews that were made free of Rome, or from a Man or Men of that Name, or from a Country and People of that Denomination, or whether Li∣bertine be corruptly for Labratheni, (because as

* 1.439 Fr. Iunius observes, Labratha was the old Word for a Synagogue or School) no Man can tell: For we must needs be ignorant of the true occasion of Words and Things, if there be no particular Re∣cord concerning them. How were it possible to understand the Psalmist's Complaint, Psal. 119. 83. I am become like a Bottle in the Smoke, if we had not read that Antiently the Eastern People used to hang up the Skins, of which Bottles were made, in the Smoke, to dry and harden them? Besides, if they were long hung up in the Fire or Smoke, they were subject to be parched and shriveled. I am dried up and wither'd like such a Bottle, saith he. We could not reach the Sense of those other Words of his, The Rod of the Wicked shall not rest on the Lot of the Righteous, Psal. 125. 3. which is an Allusion to the dividing of the Lands among the Jews, if we did not know that the Rod or Staff was used in Sortition, the assigning of Land or Ground by Lot. Again, let not the Reader be surprized when I add, that it may be when St. Paul orders the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be brought to him from Troas, 2 Tim. 4. 13. he means the Skins which he was to make use of in his Trade of Tent-making: For he was brought up to a Trade, (as was usual in those Days, and in those Eastern Countries) and parti∣cularly to this, as we read in Acts. 18. 3. And there∣fore when at other times he acquaints us that he labour'd with his Hands, it is not to be question'd that he means his working in this Calling in which he was skill'd, and was bred up to. And this questionless was a considerable Employment, and sufficiently gainful, because there was great use of

Tents and Booths in those open and hot Countries: and they were much bought up by those whose Employment was in the Fields, especially they were useful for Souldiers. Now the great Materials which were used in this Occupation, were Skins or Hides of Beasts dress'd. Accordingly we read that the Covering of the Tabernacle of Testimony was made of Skins, Exod. 35. 23. Yea, Skins are sim∣ply and absolutely put for Tents or Tabernacles in these following Places and others, 2 Sam. 7. 2. 1 Chron. 17. 1. Cant. 1. 5. Hab. 3. 7. Ier. 10. 20. Ierignah is constantly rendred Pellis by the Latin In∣terpreter, because the Tents were made of Skins. And that Tents and Pavilions were made of these, we may sufficiently inform our selves from Pagan History. This we learn from Q. Curtius, who tells us, that* 1.440 such kind of Membranous Tents were used in Alexander the Great's Camp. And† 1.441 Ar∣rianus is very positive in this Matter. These Tents of Skins or Hides were not only among the Greeks but Romans, and both‖ 1.442 Livy and* 1.443 Florus pretend to assign the Date of them.† 1.444 Caesar mentions this sort of Tents, and‖ 1.445 Valerius Maximus tells us, that those Souldiers who behaved themselves amiss, had this as part of their Punishment, nè ten∣torium ex pellibus haberent, they were not suffer'd to lie in these Tents in the Field. Hence in Tully we shall find, that‖‖ 1.446 sub pellibus esse, is to be safely entrenched, and lie secure in their Tents. It is probable that St. Paul sent to Timothy to bring or convey to him these Skins wherewith he made his

Tents, and at that time especially when he was in Bonds at Rome, (the time of his writing this Epi∣stle) and had no other way to gain a Livelihood, than by exercising himself in his Calling. Where∣fore he writes to his beloved Timothy, to send him not only his Cloak and his Books, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, chiefly, especially his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his Skins for Tent-making, which he most of all wanted at that time: for he was unwilling to be burdensom, and to rely wholly on the Charity of the Christian Brethren. These were some choice Skins which he had left behind him at Troas, when he wrought in this his Trade there. And if it be objected that Troas was a great way off, the Answer is, that they might as easily be brought to him as the Books he writ for, if these were of any considerable Number and Bigness. And this Notion is yet more probable, if you con∣sider that St. Paul was in way of Contempt call'd by the Pagans 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Coriarius, because he cut out Hides and Skins in order to the making of Tents. Yea, some of the Christian Writers give him the foresaid Titles, thereby to magnify the Grace of God towards him. He is often stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by* 1.447 Theodoret; and so he is by† 1.448 Chrysostom. Co∣riarius Cilix is the Epithet given by‖ 1.449 Ierom. This makes it not improbable that the fore-mention'd Text hath reference to the Practice of those times, the making of Tents, or the covering of Booths and Pavilions with Skins. These, it is likely, are the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 St. Paul speaks of. As he sends for his Cloak to defend himself from the Cold, so he sends for the Skins (which he left behind him) to

make Tents to shelter and keep others warm. For though it is granted that one Signification of Mem∣brana is Parchment, of which I had occasion to speak before; yet it also signifies the Vppermost Skin or Hide of any Creature, as appears from that of * 1.450 Lucretius;

Membranas mittunt vituli de corpore summo.

And it hath its Denomination from Membrum, saith† 1.451 Priscian, because it covers the Limbs and other external Parts. Nay, you must note that this is the first and most proper Signification of the word Membrana in Tully, Pliny, and other Au∣thors: whereas afterwards in a secondary Sense it came to signify Parchment. These things may render my Interpretation of this Place not impro∣bable. However, I presumed to offer the Criti∣cism on the Word, and let the Learned entertain it as they please. But this is not to be question'd, that the not attending to the Usages and Practices of old in the Countries to which some things spoken of in Scripture belong, is one Reason why we miss of the right Sense of some Places.

3. The Hebrew Text (which is the greater part of the Bible) hath some things proper to it self, which render it perplex'd and obscure in some Places, for in Hebrew there are no Moods in the Verbs but the Indicative and Insinitive: no Tenses but the Past and Future, Participles being made use of to express the Present Time, which oftentimes renders the Meaning obscure and intricate. In∣stead of an Interrogative Point the Hebrews make

use of their Interrogative He; otherwise there are no Notes or Marks of Interrogation, which is ano∣ther Cause (as might be shew'd) of misunderstand∣ing the Text sometimes. There are frequent Pa∣rentheses in the Hebrew Bible, and if they be not diligently observed, they mar the Sense, as to in∣stance but in one Place at present, Isa. 9. 3, &c. The 3d, 4th and 5th Verses are a Parenthesis; you must join the 6th Verse to the 2d, and then you will see how the word for in the 6th Verse comes in, not otherwise. But there are no Marks or Characters whereby we may know when there is such a Parenthesis, which cannot but trouble the Sense very much, and confound the Meaning of the Place, unless it be with extraordinary Care taken notice of. And I might add, that the Pauses and Periods in the Hebrew Copies are not so distinct as might be wished. The greater ought our Care and Diligence to be in perusing and studying this Holy Book.

4. It is the way of the Hebrews (and indeed of all the Eastern Writers) to express things in a brief and concise manner, which renders the Place sometimes dark and confused. In the second Psalm several Persons are introduced speaking, but it is not in the least intimated that there is this Change of Persons, but all is express'd in a short and pro∣miscuous way. The whole Psalm is a Dialogue, wherein the Church speaks, ver. 1, 2. then the Ene∣mies of the Church, v. 3. the Church again, V. 4, 5. then God, ver. 6. then Christ the Son of God, ver. 7, 8, 9. And lastly the Psalmist ends with his own Exhortation. All which Parts, if we do not take notice of, (though they are not distinguish'd for Brevity sake) the true Import and Scope of

the Psalm are lost. It is common to recite Words which are said by Persons, and yet to bring them in abruptly, and not to signify that they are said or spoken by them. As in Psal. 22. 8. He trusted in the Lord, i. e. they said so: but this is not here ex∣press'd. Thus in Isa. 33. 14. Who among us, &c. i. e. the Sinners in Zion, mentioned in that Verse, said those Words. In v. 18. where is the Scribe? &c. to make the Sense perfect you must insert, thou shalt say. So in Isa. 49. 24. these Words [say the Enemies] must be inserted. In Ier. 6. 4. these or such like Words are left out [the Enemy shall say]. The like is observable in Ier. 22. 28. ch. 31. 20. In Hos. 5. 15. the word [saying] is necessarily im∣plied, for the first Verse of the next Chapter con∣tains the Words which were to be said. Some∣times this is supplied by the Translation, though it be not in the Hebrew, as in 2 Sam. 2. Isa. 64. 11. But in Obadiah, ver. 1. before Arise ye the word saying is to be supposed. In 1 Cor 15. 45. but is left out: otherwise you can't understand the Apostle. And many other Words are omitted in the Old and New Testament, and ought to be sup∣plied by the diligent Reader, who on that account is obliged to be very Attentive when he reads these Sacred Writigs, for their short and contracted way of speaking makes them the less intelligible; whereas when Matters are amplified by Words, they become more clear and plain.

5. There is in the Hebrew Language a certain Peculiar Idiom or Force of Signification, which when it comes to be translated into another Tongue, is wholly lost; at least a great part of its Vigour and Elegancy is taken away; and at the same time it is not so well understood, because it is

a Strange Idiom, and no ways agreeable to our manner of expressing our selves.

6. Order and Time are not always observ'd in these Holy Writings, which too often begets Mistakes. Upon these several Accounts, and others, there must needs be some Obscurity and Difficulty in the Stile of Holy Writ. But you may observe that this happens, through the All-wise Providence of God, in those Places where the Great and Momentous things of Religion are not concern'd, where the Grand Truths of the Law and the Gospel are not in the least endanger'd. And when in other Parts of the Bible we meet with Hard and Dark Passages, we ought to be so far from blaming and disparaging this Divine Book, because of these, that we should rather reckon them an Ornament to it. The Dubiousness of Scripture in some things is part of its Excellen∣cy. It is a great Commendation of this Sacred Volume, that it is not destitute of Abs••rusities and Difficulties; that we are not wholly tied up and confined in our Interpretation of it; that there is a Freedom of Disquisition allowed us; that in se∣veral Places every Man is at his Liberty to imbrace what Sense he pleaseth of the Words, so it be ac∣cording to the Analogy of Faith, and the Tenour of the other Parts of this Inspired Book. This gives us an opportunity of exciting our Care, of exerting our Industry, of improving our Know∣ledg, of enlarging our Faculties by continual Re∣searches and Examinations. Thus the Obscurity of some Parts of Scripture is of great and ex∣cellent Use. But then where-ever the Indispensi∣ble and Necessary Points of Faith and Manners are treated of in these Writings, their Stile is

sufficiently clear and plain, and the Matter which is express'd by it is easy to be understood. In brief, the Scripture is plain where it should be so. But if in some other Places there be Contro∣versy and Perplexity, if some Texts seem to op∣pose and clash with one another, let us remember this, that the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and therefore there can be no real Opposi∣tions or Repugnancies in them, because Truth can∣not contradict it self. By impartial Study and Enquiry let us dive into the Meaning of these An∣tient Writings, and by the Helps which I have tendred in the foregoing Discourse, endeavour to reconcile those Places which seem to differ: but let us never be so daring as to accuse the Scrip∣tures, which were endited by God himself, of Contradiction.

FINIS.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  A d••rash inquirere.
• † 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• ‖ 1.3

  Antiqu. l. 1. c. 2.
• * 1.4

  Gal. 4. 2••.
• † 1.5

  Chap. 13. v. 21. ch. 14. 22. ch. 16. 15. ch. 17. 6.
• * 1.6

  Heb. 4. 9.
• ‖ 1.7

  Ver. 1.
• * 1.8

  Chap. 7, 8, 9.
• * 1.9

  Praefat. in Cantic.
• † 1.10

  Antiqu. l. 10. c. 6.
• * 1.11

  Hieronym. Prol. in Ezek.
• † 1.12

  Isa. 8. 8.
• ‖ 1.13

  1▪ Macc. 1. 54.
• * 1.14

  Matth. 24. 15.
• † 1.15

  Matth. 13. 35. John 15. 25, &c.
• ‖ 1.16

  Dr. Iac••son, Vol. 2. Book 7. Sect. 2.
• * 1.17

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.18

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, conferre, comparare. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Clce••o and other R••etoricians a Parable is called Collatio, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 differen••ium inter se Colloca••io.
• * 1.19

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.20

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.21

  In Pro••••m.
• † 1.22

  De ••na••. Deor. cap. slt.
• ‖ 1.23

  Strom. 5.
• * 1.24

  Pier. Hieroglyph. Aegypt.
• † 1.25

  Clem▪ Alexand. Strom. l. 5.
• * 1.26

  Plaut. in Casinâ.
• ‖ 1.27

  De Nupt. Honor.
• † 1.28

  Virgil. Eclog. 8.
• * 1.29

  Psal. 19. 5.
• * 1.30

  Quast. Rom.
• † 1.31

  Coll••q. Mens.
• * 1.32

  Mashal.
• † 1.33

  Mark I. 22.
• ‖ 1.34

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• * 1.35

  In Matth. 11. 16.
• * 1.36

  Dr. Iackson, Vol. 2. Book 7. Sect. I.
• † 1.37

  Sect. 2.
• * 1.38

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.39

  Dr. ••u••net. Archaeolog. P••••••osoph. 1. 2. c. 7, 8, 9.
• * 1.40

  1 Tim. 2. 14.
• † 1.41

  2 Cor. 11. 3.
• ‖ 1.42

  Rom. 5. 19.
• * 1.43

  I Cor. 15. 22.
• * 1.44

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cyril. con••. Julian. lib. 3.
• † 1.45

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.46

  De Phys. Aud. 1. 8.
• * 1.47

  Origen. cont. Cels.
• * 1.48

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A••hanas. in Matth. 12. 31.
• * 1.49

  Dr. Iackson on the Creed.
• * 1.50

  Qui haeret in literâ, haeret in cortice.
• † 1.51

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.52

  Comment. in D••calog.
• * 1.53

  Prooem. in Hos.
• † 1.54

  Mor. Nev. l. 2. c. 46.
• * 1.55

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Phi∣lopon. in Hexaem.
• * 1.56

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.57

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Qu••st 52. in Genef.
• * 1.58

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ In John. 10. 34.
• † 1.59

  Dialog. 1. de Trinit.
• * 1.60

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Quaest. 50. in Gen.
• † 1.61

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.62

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Greg. Nyss. Epist. de Pythoni〈…〉〈…〉.
• † 1.63

  Theodoret. in loc.
• * 1.64

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In loc.
• * 1.65

  Tit. 1. 12.
• * 1.66

  Luke 22. 69. Col. 3. 1. Heb. 1. 3. & 8. 1.
• * 1.67

  Origen. cont. Cels. l. 6. & Philocal. l. 1, & 4.
• * 1.68

  De Benefic. l. 3.
• † 1.69

  In Galb••,
• ‖ 1.70

  In Cicerone, Martial. & aliis.
• * 1.71

  Job 29. 24. Psal. 4. 6. & 44. 3. & 89. 15. & 90. 8. Prov. 16. 15.
• † 1.72

  Psal. 31. 16. & 67. 1. & 119. 135. Dan. 9. 17.
• ‖ 1.73

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.74

  Lucerna impiorum peccatum.
• † 1.75

  Joseph. Antiq.
• * 1.76

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.77

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• ‖ 1.78

  Odyss. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.79

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hesych.
• * 1.80

  Sa••. 12.
• † 1.81

  Lib. 2.
• ‖ 1.82

  Lib. 4. de Vitâ Constantini.
• * 1.83

  Etymolog. Ling. Lat.
• † 1.84

  Asin. Act. 3. Scen. 3.
• ‖ 1.85

  Cap. 7••.
• * 1.86

  Corpus est quasi vas animi, aut aliquod receptaculum. Cic. Tusc. Qu. l. 1.
• † 1.87

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.88

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Pet. 3. 7.
• * 1.89

  2 Cor. 5. 1, 4.
• † 1.90

  2 Pet. 1. 13, 14.
• ‖ 1.91

  Joh. 1. 14.
• * 1.92

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, lib. 3.
• † 1.93

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.94

  Eccles. 7. 6.
• † 1.95

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Iliad. ••▪
• * 1.96

  Ma••. 23. 37.
• † 1.97

  Hercul. Fur.
• * 1.98

  Johan. Pricaeus.
• † 1.99

  Mr. Bogan in his Homerus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Mr. Gataker in Antonin. Dr. Duport Gnomolog. Homeric.
• * 1.100

  Matth. 7. 14.
• * 1.101

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• † 1.102

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Dissertat. 23.
• ‖ 1.103

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• * 1.104

  Laert. in Anaxag.
• † 1.105

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Stob.
• ‖ 1.106

  Ex hac vita itâ discedo tanquam ex hospitio, non tanquam ex domo: commorandi enim diversorium natura nobis, non habitandi dedit. Cic. de Senect.
• * 1.107

  Erigamus in Coelum oculos tanquam in Patriam, in quam nobis aliquando redeundum est.
• † 1.108

  Peregrinatio est vita; multùm cùm deambulaveris, domum redeundum est. De Remed. Fort.
• * 1.109

  Psal. 39. 12. Psal. 119. 19.
• † 1.110

  Psal. 119. 54.
• ‖ 1.111

  1 Pet. 1. 17.
• * 1.112

  Heb. 2. 10.
• † 1.113

  2 Tim. 2. 3.
• ‖ 1.114

  Phil. 2 25. Philem. 2.
• * 1.115

  1 Tim. 1. 18.
• † 1.116

  Chap. 6. 12.
• ‖ 1.117

  2 Tim. 4. 7.
• ‖‖ 1.118

  Rom. 6. 13.
• a 1.119

  Jam. 4. 7.
• † 1.120

  2 Tim. 2. 4.
• ‖ 1.121

  2 Tim. 2. 3.
• * 1.122

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Antonin. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.123

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lib. 3. cap. 24.
• ‖ 1.124

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Max. Tyr. Dissert. 3.
• * 1.125

  Vivere, militare est. Epist. 96.
• * 1.126

  Psal, 51. 12.
• † 1.127

  1 Pet. 3. 19.
• * 1.128

  2 Pet. 2. 19.
• † 1.129

  Jam. 1. 25.
• ‖ 1.130

  2 Cor. 3. 17.
• * 1.131

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Zenone.
• † 1.132

  Cap. 20.
• ‖ 1.133

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lib. 4. c. 1.
• * 1.134

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• † 1.135

  Stobae. Serm. 22.
• ‖ 1.136

  Extrema est servitus cum animae hu∣manae vitiis deditae, rationis propriae possessione ceciderunt. De Consolat. l. 5. c. 11.
• * 1.137

  Nemo liber est qui corpori servit. Epist. 82.
• † 1.138

  Vides quàm malam & noxiam servitutem servi∣turus▪ sit, quem Voluptates & Dolores, incertissimae dominae impotentissimaeque alternis possidebunt. De vit. beat. cap. 5.
• * 1.139

  Psal. 14. 1.
• † 1.140

  Psal. 49. 13.
• ‖ 1.141

  Prov. 14. 9.
• * 1.142

  Luke 12. 20.
• † 1.143

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dissert. 15.
• ‖ 1.144

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hierocl.
• ‖‖ 1.145

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Zenone.
• a 1.146

  Dissert. 28.
• * 1.147

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hujusmodi quaedam in mentem mihi veniunt ut eloquar. In Gorgiâ.
• † 1.148

  Comment. in Epictet. lib. 3. c. 1.
• ‖ 1.149

  In verbo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.150

  Cic.••. Ver. Terent, in Adelph.
• * 1.151

  Mat. 12. 40. & 16. 21. & 17. 23. Mar. 9. 31. Luk. 9. 22.
• * 1.152

  De Somniis.
• † 1.153

  Dissert. 4.
• ‖ 1.154

  Plutar••h. contra Epicur.
• * 1.155

  De Cyri Institut. l. 8.
• † 1.156

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.157

  Cant 5. 1.
• * 1.158

  Ver. 16.
• † 1.159

  Deut. 5. 10. Neh. 1. 5. Psal. 122. 6. Psal. 145. 20. Prov. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 17. D••••. 9. 4.
• * 1.160

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Clem. Alex.
• * 1.161

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plut.
• † 1.162

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hierocl.
• ‖ 1.163

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Arrian. in Epictet.
• * 1.164

  Talm. Vaji••. ••ab.
• * 1.165

  Acts 7. 60.
• † 1.166

  1 Thess. 4. 14.
• ‖ 1.167

  1 Cor. 15. 6, 18.
• * 1.168

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hom. Il. 14.
• † 1.169

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 11. 7.
• ‖ 1.170

  Tusc. 2. & Philip. 1.
• * 1.171

  Glassius, Joach. Camerarius, Westhemerus, &c.
• * 1.172

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 12. 1. Luke 4. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 26. 64. Ma••. 10. 5.
• * 1.173

  Lucret. l. 4.
• † 1.174

  Virgil. Aen. 3.
• ‖ 1.175

  In Rufin.
• * 1.176

  Se•• video herilem filium minorem huc venire. Ter. in Eunuch.
• * 1.177

  Chap. ••. ver. 1••.
• * 1.178

  Mark 5. 39.
• † 1.179

  Luke 14. 12.
• * 1.180

  Nad Gen. 4. 12. from Nud vagari, errare.
• * 1.181

  Lib. 1. cap. 7.
• ‖‖ 1.182

  Mr. Simon Crit. Hist. Book 1.
• * 1.183

  Lib. 13. c. 11.
• † 1.184

  Lib. 2.
• ‖ 1.185

  De Chart••.
• * 1.186

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Terpsichore.
• † 1.187

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.188

  Antiq. Jud. l. 12. c. 2.
• * 1.189

  Nar. Hist, l. 13. c. 11.
• * 1.190

  Diodor. Sic. l. 11. Juvenal. Sat. 10.
• * 1.191

  Dr. Power.
• † 1.192

  Mr. Ray's Wisdom of God in the Creation, p. 100.
• * 1.193

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ Excl. His••••. 1. c. 3.
• * 1.194

  Lyra, Tremellius.
• † 1.195

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De Monarch. l. 1.
• ‖ 1.196

  Heins. Exercit. Sacr.
• ‖‖ 1.197

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 8.
• ‖ 1.198

  Paraeus in Comment. in Epist. ad Roman. & Corinth.
• * 1.199

  Hajah, suit.
• * 1.200

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Comment. in Acts 23. 5.
• * 1.201

  Lutz.
• * 1.202

  Horat. Serm. 1.
• * 1.203

  Cunaeus, Jac. Capellus, Beroaldus, &c.
• * 1.204

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.205

  Septuaginta duo.
• * 1.206

  In Fast.
• * 1.207

  Aetas mala. Plaut.
• * 1.208

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Aristot. Eth.
• † 1.209

  Horat. de Art. Poet.
• ‖ 1.210

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Diog, 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ 1. 6.
• * 1.211

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Pl••t.
• † 1.212

  Lord Bacon's Essays.
• * 1.213

  Rhetor. 1. 20.
• † 1.214

  Dr. Smith his P. of Old Age.
• * 1.215

  Tsippor aviculam significat, nec de majoribus avibus dicitur. Mercer.
• † 1.216

  Tsippor, avis quae in deliciis est. Bochart. Hieroz: Par. 2. c. 22.
• * 1.217

  1 Sam. 19. 35.
• † 1.218

  Albes••i•• caput sicut flores amyg••••li. In loc.
• * 1.219

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.220

  Capparis.
• * 1.221

  Mun••ter, Vatablus, Drusius, Grotlus.
• * 1.222

  J. Smith, M. D.
• * 1.223

  Marcell. de Test.
• † 1.224

  Alexand. ab Alex. l. 1. c. 20. Sueton. in Octavio.
• ‖ 1.225

  In Baeotic.
• * 1.226

  Cujus rei calceamentum nisi Evangelii? De Cons. Evang. l. 2. c. 30.
• * 1.227

  In Pelopid▪
• * 1.228

  1 John 5. 4.
• † 1.229

  1 Thess. 5. 8.
• * 1.230

  11. Ψ.
• † 1.231

  Jul. Poll. Onomastic. l. 3. c. 30.
• * 1.232

  Acts 24. 16.
• * 1.233

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hom. 4. in 2 Tim.
• * 1.234

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cap. 35.
• † 1.235

  Athletae segregantur ad strictiorem disciplinam ut robori aedificando vacent: continentur à luxuriâ, cibis lautioribus, à potu jucundiore. Exhort. ad Martyr.
• * 1.236

  Coguntur, cruciantur, fatigantur: quanto plùs in exercita∣tionibus laboraverint, tanto plus de victoriâ sperant. Tertull. Exhort. ad Martyr.
• * 1.237

  Phil. 3. 12, &c.
• † 1.238

  Heb. 12. 1.
• * 1.239

  Aen. lib. 5.
• † 1.240

  Var. Hist. l. 4. c. 1••.
• * 1.241

  Eliac. lib. 2.
• † 1.242

  Onomastic.
• * 1.243

  Cic. Tus••. Quaesl.
• * 1.244

  V••riar. lib. 11. c. 35.
• * 1.245

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Antonin.
• † 1.246

  Di••••er••at. 35.
• ‖ 1.247

  Cap. 35.
• * 1.248

  In Anachar••.
• † 1.249

  In Scorpio.
• ‖ 1.250

  Annal. lib. 12.
• * 1.251

  E∣pist. 89.
• † 1.252

  Pausanias, Athenaeus, Plutarch, J. Pollux, Lu∣cian, Philostratus, Aelian, Pindar, Virgil, Statius, Ovid, Lucan, Horac••.
• ‖ 1.253

  Dionys. Areop. Tertullian, Chrysostom, Greg. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Ambro••e, Basil, Theodore••, Isidor▪ Pelu••.
• * 1.254

  Cavendum est n•• figura••am locu••ionem ad l••••eram a••••••p••••s. De Doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 5.
• * 1.255

  De verit. fid. l. 2.
• † 1.256

  In laudem Praeposter•••• Veneris.
• ‖ 1.257

  In Virgilii Priapaea.
• * 1.258

  Sermo horrebat incultus. Epist. 18. ad Eus••och.
• † 1.259

  Con∣fess. lib. 3. cap. 5.
• * 1.260

  Hom. 36. in Gen.
• † 1.261

  De doctr. Christ. l. ult. c. 6.
• * 1.262

  Scottanus, Delrius, Drusius, &c.
• † 1.263

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• ‖ 1.264

  Sanhedrim: & Sota.
• * 1.265

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tolle ab oculis tuis trabem. Talmud.
• * 1.266

  Hor. Hebr. in S. Matth. And the Harmony of the New Testa∣ment, on Acts 14.
• * 1.267

  In vitâ Apollonii.
• † 1.268

  In Onomastico.
• * 1.269

  Nomenclat. cap. 15.
• † 1.270

  In Elec.
• * 1.271

  Cum rebus exoticis vocabula etiam peregrina importan∣tur. Heb. Lex.
• * 1.272

  Drusius in Proverb. Hebraic. Class. 2.
• * 1.273

  Sir N. Knatchbull A mot at. on 2 Cor. 10.
• * 1.274

  Suet. in Nerone.
• † 1.275

  Hor. 2 Serm. Sat. 6.
• ‖ 1.276

  Allelujah.
• * 1.277

  Oculus, manus, palma, lachryma Christi.
• † 1.278

  Unguentum Apostolorum,
• * 1.279

  Isa. 60. 14, 18. Ch. 61. 3. Ch. 62. 12. Zech. 8. 3.
• * 1.280

  Jer. 25. 15▪ 26▪ Ch. 51. 7. Lam. 4. 21. Ezek. 23. 33. Hab. 2. 16.
• * 1.281

  In More Nevochim.
• * 1.282

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.283

  Lib. 3. Epist. 31.
• * 1.284

  Mr. Weemes's Exposition of the Iudicial Law.
• * 1.285

  Dr. S. Patrick (now a Reverend Bishop) in his Paraphrase on the Psalms, and particularly in his Preface.
• * 1.286

  Annotat. in S. Matth. 8. 20.
• * 1.287

  Christus nunquam hoc modo nisi à seipso appellatur. Annot. in Mat. 8. 20.
• † 1.288

  Honorabiles esse. Syr.
• ‖ 1.289

  In authoritate, in dignitate esse. Calvin, Erasmus.
• * 1.290

  Hom. 32. Tom. 5.
• † 1.291

  Ad Attic. lib. 5.
• * 1.292

  Nahum 2. 9.
• * 1.293

  In Spicilegio.
• * 1.294

  Paulus, qui Soloecismos facit in loquendo. Hieronym. in Psal. 81.
• † 1.295

  Coriarius Cilix. in Epist ad Ephes.
• * 1.296

  In Epist. ad Algasiam.
• † 1.297

  Annotat. in Act. 10.
• ‖ 1.298

  Tom. 3. p. 78.
• ‖‖ 1.299

  Institut. cap. 7. Sect. 12.
• * 1.300

  Heinsius in Prolegom, in Exercitat. Sacr.
• † 1.301

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dialog.
• * 1.302

  Beza & Caninius in locum.
• * 1.303

  In 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 26.
• † 1.304

  In M••re. 14.
• ‖ 1.305

  Critie. Dec. 2. ••. 6.
• * 1.306

  Na••. Hist. l. 1••. ••. 2.
• * 1.307

  Diog, La••rt. in Platone.
• * 1.308

  Hom. 28. in Epist. ad Hebr.
• † 1.309

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, devita, Ti••. 3. 9.
• * 1.310

  In Hesychio.
• † 1.311

  In Locum.
• * 1.312

  Isa. 11. 2.
• † 1.313

  Isa. 11. 2.
• ‖ 1.314

  Eph. 1. 17.
• * 1.315

  Gal. 6. 1.
• † 1.316

  2 Tim. 1. 7.
• ‖ 1.317

  Rom. 11. 8.
• ‖‖ 1.318

  Hos. 5. 4.
• ‖‖ 1.319

  1 John 4. 3.
• * 1.320

  Isa. 19. 14.
• * 1.321

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Spiritus.
• * 1.322

  Lib. d•• Cultu S••ellar.
• † 1.323

  De Di•• Syr. Proleg.
• ‖ 1.324

  Antiqu. ••••1. c. 4.
• * 1.325

  Not. Miscell. in Port. Mos.
• * 1.326

  See at the End of the Book.
• † 1.327

  It hath 4 Significations, urere, discere, dividere, convivic excipere.
• * 1.328

  Lexicon. ex Talmud. in Sanhedrim.
• * 1.329

  See Buxtorf de Abbreviat. Hebraic.
• * 1.330

  See at the end of the Book.
• * 1.331

  Vatablus, Munster, Drusius.
• † 1.332

  De Animal. sacr. l. 1.
• ‖ 1.333

  Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 20. l. 18. c. 21. Solin. cap. 43, & 65. Strabo. Geogr. lib. 15. Aelian. Hist. Animal. l. 6. c. 20.
• ‖‖ 1.334

  Sc••∣liger. Exercit. 205.
• * 1.335

  Et nova velocem cingula laedat Eq••••••. Ovid de Remed.
• * 1.336

  Dag gadol. Jon. 1. 17.
• † 1.337

  Mr. Bochart, De Cero Jonae.
• * 1.338

  Contra Cardan. de balaenis.
• * 1.339

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in visceribus.
• * 1.340

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hom. Od. ••
• † 1.341

  Ma••. 12. 40.
• * 1.342

  Bochart. de Anim. Sacr.
• * 1.343

  2 Kings 9. 37. Psal. 83. 10. Jer. 8. 2.
• * 1.344

  Contr. Haeref. l. 1.
• † 1.345

  Druthmarus in loc.
• ‖ 1.346

  In Matth. cap. 3.
• * 1.347

  Clemens Alex. Chrysostom. Nicephorus, Hist. l. 1. c. 14. Isidor. l. 1. Epist. 5.
• † 1.348

  Hieron. Montius de Tutela sa∣lubritatis.
• ‖ 1.349

  Annotat. in. Matth. 3. 4.
• * 1.350

  Lib. 4. c. 3.
• † 1.351

  Advers. Jovinian.
• * 1.352

  Lexic. Hebraic.
• † 1.353

  Jon. 4. 6.
• * 1.354

  Miscell. l. 4. c. 5.
• * 1.355

  Annotat. in Exod. 3. 23.
• * 1.356

  Antiqu. l. 3. c. 1.
• † 1.357

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.358

  Paul. Fagius in Exod. 28. 20.
• * 1.359

  Deut. 3. 11.
• † 1.360

  1 Sam. 17. 4.
• ‖ 1.361

  Origen. Hom. 2. in Gen. Augustin. de Civ. Del, l. 15. c. 27.
• * 1.362

  But••o de Arc•• Noc. Kircher Arc. No••.
• * 1.363

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• † 1.364

  Manipuli spicarum.
• * 1.365

  Dr. Lightfoot Hor. Hebraic.
• * 1.366

  De Asse.
• † 1.367

  Lib. 9. c. 1••.
• * 1.368

  Denarius, à denis aeris.
• * 1.369

  Georgius Agricola, Budaeus, Alciat, Por••ius, Glareanus, Fuschius, Waserus, Brerewood, Dr. Cumberland.
• * 1.370

  De bel. Jud. l. 4. c. 18.
• * 1.371

  Grotius, Dr. Lightfoot.
• * 1.372

  Antiqu. l. 2. c. 5.
• * 1.373

  Gen. 10. 11,
• * 1.374

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Matth. 1. 20. ch. 1••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Luke 1. 27. and sev••∣ral other times in the same Evangelist.
• * 1.375

  Matth. 27. 56. Mark 15. 40.
• † 1.376

  Matth. 27. 61.
• * 1.377

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Solomon, Aben Ezra, &c.
• † 1.378

  Antiqu. l. 8. c. 6.
• * 1.379

  Communi nomine Candacae appellatae sunt. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 29.
• * 1.380

  R. Levi, Mercerus, Cocceius.
• * 1.381

  Sir Norton Knatchbull's Annotations on St. Matthew.
• * 1.382

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Suidas. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hesych.
• † 1.383

  Jam. 3. 9.
• * 1.384

  Significat vel genu vel sermonem flectere ad aliquem. allo∣qui cum geniculatione. Forster. Heb. Dict.
• * 1.385

  See in the End of the Book.
• * 1.386

  In Epist. ad Philem. v. 2.
• † 1.387

  Haeres. 78.
• ‖ 1.388

  Epist. 22. ad Eustoch.
• * 1.389

  John 2. 10.
• † 1.390

  Gen. 43. 34.
• ‖ 1.391

  Lib. 5.
• ‖‖ 1.392

  Lib. 26. c. 11.
• * 1.393

  Dionys. Halicarn.
• * 1.394

  Dr. Brown's Vulgar Errors.
• * 1.395

  Tiberium non fortunae, non solitudines protegebant quin pectoris tormenta suas{que} ipse poenas fateretur. Annal. c. ••▪
• † 1.396

  Sueton. in Nerone, cap. 34.
• ‖ 1.397

  Thuanu••.
• * 1.398

  Antiqu. l. 1. c. 3.
• * 1.399

  Sir Norton K••atchbull on Mat. 27. 9.
• * 1.400

  Luke 12. 49.
• * 1.401

  Commentar. in Pentat••uch.
• * 1.402

  A••tiqu. l. 7. c. 10.
• † 1.403

  Ur••••••h: Urajoth.
• * 1.404

  Not. in Act.
• † 1.405

  Mesopotamia tota Assyriorum f••it, &c. Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 6.
• ‖ 1.406

  Reliqua pars Mesopotamiae Assyriaeque ••••bylonia appellata est.
• * 1.407

  Lib. 25.
• * 1.408

  John 2. 1.
• * 1.409

  De D••s Syr. Proleg. c. 1.
• * 1.410

  Joseph. Antiqu. 1. 1.
• * 1.411

  Lib. 16.
• † 1.412

  Virgil. Georg. 1, & 2.
• ‖ 1.413

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 12. 42.
• * 1.414

  Antiqu. 1. 2. c. 5.
• ‖‖ 1.415

  Ludolph. Hist. Ethiop.
• * 1.416

  Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 29.
• † 1.417

  Psal. 72. 10.
• ‖ 1.418

  Antiqu. l. 1. c. 6.
• * 1.419

  In Phaleg.
• * 1.420

  Antiqu. l. 8. c. 2.
• † 1.421

  In Phaleg.
• ‖ 1.422

  China illustrata.
• * 1.423

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Antiqu. l. 8. c. 2.
• * 1.424

  Rev. 1. 1.
• * 1.425

  1 John 2. 18.
• † 1.426

  1 Pet. 4. 7.
• ‖ 1.427

  1 Cor. 10. 11.
• * 1.428

  2 Epist. ch. 3. v. 13.
• * 1.429

  Mat. 26. 13. this Gospel: Acts 5. 20. this Life: and other Places. So that, Mat. 7. 22. 1 John 3. 12. and these, 1 Cor. 12. 2. 2. Tim. 1. 12. are prefixed, where there is no reference to any thing going before.
• * 1.430

  Antiqu. I. 2. c. 6.
• * 1.431

  Usher, Knatchbull.
• * 1.432

  Antiq. Jud. l. 6. c. 15.
• * 1.433

  Mr. Abraham Cowley in his Davideis.
• * 1.434

  Concent of Scripture.
• † 1.435

  The C••ronicle of the Times of the Old Testament.
• * 1.436

  Comment. in S. Matth.
• * 1.437

  Jul. African. Greg. Nazianz. Auguslin, Jerom, Eusebius, Ambrose.
• † 1.438

  Baronius, Jansenius, &c.
• * 1.439

  Academ. cap. 2.
• * 1.440

  Soepe pellibus tabernaculi allevatis, ut conspiceres hostium ignes. Hist. lib. 7.
• † 1.441

  Tentoria militum erant ex pellibus, &c. De gest. Alex. M. l. 1.
• ‖ 1.442

  Decad. 1. lib. 5.
• * 1.443

  Lib. 1. cap 12.
• † 1.444

  De Bello Gall. l. 3. c. 4.
• ‖ 1.445

  Lib. 8. cap. 2.
• ‖‖ 1.446

  4 Acad.
• * 1.447

  Therapeut.
• † 1.448

  Hom. 5. ••n 2 Tim.
• ‖ 1.449

  Comment. in Epist. ••d Eplies.
• * 1.450

  Lib. 4.
• † 1.451

  Voss. Etymolog.